Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

mdx's Achievements



  1. I know its early days but are the media glossing over her Israeli / Mossad connections? I dont watch the mainstream news at all these days
  2. Agree re ufo folklore getting more mainstream attention and a more neutral coverage But you get my drift as to how the mainsteam media can basically use their propaganda machine to publish information "debunking" anything that does not follow an agenda from the deep state/private corp or undermines certain individuals like the Pizzagate matter . Latest example facemasks ; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53108405
  3. Theres many credible UFO sightings, odd NASA footage, the whole Disclosure Project testimonies and multiple corroborative UFO sighting accounts (Phoenix Lights and the UFO landing at a school in Ruwa, Zimbabwe Africa decades ago). Bear in mind the media has used its power to flood the public with information first that attempts to discredit these accounts. A good example of this is the issue regarding crop circles here in the UK back in the 90s. The media focused on hoaxes which were behind certain crop circles but they never highlighted that there were many others where the crops were bent in such a way that were not snapped (basically the hoax ones were done in damaging way to crops by use of blunt instruments whereas the suppsed true ones were not) Below is a famous crop circle that was a response to the Arecibo message sent out by NASA and Carl Sagan years earlier. In it details the alien senders location and info re its galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message https://labofevolution.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-crop-circle-that-answered-the-arecibo-message/ Again the media simply repeat things until the public take it as the truth even if it is a pack of lies/unsubstantiated. They claim that the crop circle was a hoax like all overs
  4. Here my take: Gary McKinnon - Credible. Well documented story. Unfortunately he didn't really see much except acknowledgement of non-terrestrial officers. Weird edited out NASA images. Nothing to make ones jaw drop Tony Rodrigues - Can't tell if he's telling the truth or bullshitting. Something about his eyes and communication as per my prev post Laura Eisenhower - Only seen her videos briefly but know about the alleged contact her grandfather Pres Dwight Eisenhower had with ETs whilst in office. Seems like a nice lady but hasn't as far as I know had anyone from the secret programs come out in the public and divulge the nitty gritty info through her. William Tomkins - Don't know who this is Karl Mollinson - Comes across v dubious but that's just my opinion that many others share Lazar - Prob the only one that has detailed account that has stayed true to word for 20yrs. Come out with highly credible and jaw dropping information. Imo strongest source by far. I might add David Wilcock to that list. I was into his coverage ten years ago. Lost interest when he started talking about stargates and Montauk project but have since learned of other sources that have mentioned these secret programmes. Have yet to revisit his research recently though At the moment I have been getting into the research of Harold Kautz Vella who talks about Black Goo and it being the reason behind many programmes including wars, satanic rituals. He comes at things more from a scientific perspective. Obviously this science is outside the normal realm of mainstream science and involves higher dimensional physics. Him and Steven Greer I feel offer a more methodical, scientific breakdown of the UFO issue. I have recently found channels seem to contradict one another and there is much ambiguity in there information that is explained somewhat by them saying the truth is heavily dependant on what is in alignment with the individual's own beliefs so can vary from one person to another .
  5. Apparently many top Nazis were allowed to escape there and establish a base Military bases underground DUMBS These are amongst the most interesting theories floating around for obvious reasons it will be v difficult to verify any of these claims
  6. Maybe a separate thread for an intellectual discussion without "comedy" or posts that are emotionally ranty then this one as more a news feed like it is
  7. A lot of people that make it big in showbusiness have to adopt a character on screen that is more endearing and relatable so that the general public supports them. The reality is is that they live in a v affluent areas and deliberately distance themselves from working class (immigrant and white) communities. Also their children will walk into jobs and opportunities that are created for them. This applies to public figures that are originally from fairly humble backgrounds. On a deeper level it prob has to do with power/greed and human nature plus becoming surrounded by people that in turn influence how one behaves. My issue is that these celebrities portray themselves as voices of the public but in their private lives are completely different! You just have to know where in London to go and who to talk to and you will get where I am coming from.
  8. Such a simple statement, so true yet most people miss it. I've noticed that even on here people end up down the rabbit hole and look at different conflicting agendas which confuse them to overcomplicate the matter in question. Follow the money (and where relevant science) and you get to the truth Media require eyeballs on product = more views, ratings, likes etc = greater ad revenue. There are different tactics employed including exaggeration, jumping on the bandwagon political hot-points., sensationalism etc Also the creation of personalities that are recognisable for their particular style of presenting information (shouty, showboaty, outspoken etc) that in turn familiarise the public with that media outlet/programme - Piers Morgan is a good example of this. His manner in which he interviews people is to corner them into without letting them speak. Where the questions are longer then the answers are for me a sign of a bad interviewer and someone that uses the platform to promote themselves rather then what the interviewee has to say
  9. This thread is 80+ pages now. Can someone just clarify what is the meaning of this thread now. Is it meant to be a play by play of all BLM news related stories? Or a discussion of the original case/ongoing prosecutions. It's just becoming series of links rather than a discussion between members on a certain topic. I think for individuals coming across the thread for the first time it would be useful for their to be some brief description of what this thread is about and where it is heading so they do not have to trawl through 80+ pages of posts that are predominantly links to other places on the web
  10. It's also worth mentioning that the media structure is reinforced by the individuals (journalists, presenters) doing what they need to do (follow the direction from exec producers who in turn follow agenda from above) to progress their careers and make a living
  11. I'm not sold either actually. Without to come across overly accusatory I find it like has researched subject matters before hand and combines these findings with his own personal twist
  12. This will be interesting. SBC is q vocal on social media - feels that silicon valley need to clamp down on conspiracies, alternative viewpoints. Goes in hard against Zuckerberg. He is smart enough to know that his Ali G persona is really a disguised piss take on one level against Blacks and to a lesser extent other ethnic groups . The cover is that he is really piss taking people imitating Black culture . whilst he may not be directly attacking Black culture the ali G character doesn't do much to promote it. I am surprised there has been no coverage of this lately - although it is funny im not going to lie
  13. However, the one good thing is that it exposes how certain famous people have made millions from creating content that specifically targeted certain groups in society laughing at their expense. You might see more figures (Keith Lemon) come out the wood work and regret their past works
  14. Has Tony R actually presented any hard evidence in terms of reports, photos, locations of bases, predicted anything of significance that has come true? I am still unsure about him tbh. Its basically a case of take his word for it or not. When its dealing with sources like that you tend to have to analyse how they come across (body language, communication etc). Having watched parts of that video the way he communicates is that he has a habit of starting a sentence and never finishing it : the sentence is interrupted with another sentence which is interrupted with another sentence and so on with the multitude of sentences containing collectively all the information to his story - its q an annoying unpleasing way to listen once you noticed it see 17.00 for an example
  15. Tbh as someone who has met David Walliams I am actually pleased with this. Actors are great at acting remember
  • Create New...