Renowned Whistleblower Lt. Colonel Tim Ferner (Ret) Issues a Call to Bring Back ‘Human Decency’ & ‘Ethical Journalism’ to Ron Paul Institute

REF: Petition seeking The Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (RPI) retract the publications of Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett for false, misleading and/or erroneous information.  Additionally, petitioning the RPI for a public statement disassociating itself as a future venue for false, misleading and/or erroneous information concerning the crisis in Syria.

The Middle East continues to be a very violent, unpredictable and dangerous region of the world. A variety of internal groups are vying to exercise their control over the population and influence the actions, opinions and direction of legitimately elected governments throughout the region. This is especially true in Syria where a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups are engaged in violent conflict over the future of the nation. Because there are so many diverse groups operating within Syria, accurate information concerning what is actually taking place is very difficult to obtain. Much of the information being reported in the media is biased and does not represent what is taking place.

During my 27 year military career, I spent a significant portion of it in the Middle East. During the first Gulf War I was exchange officer flying with the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). The most important thing I learned while living in the Middle East was Arab nationals place great trust in the mass media. This was true across most age groups regardless of their education. Consequently, it’s extremely important that information being reported be as accurate and unbiased as possible. My concern is that an inaccurate information being reported by biased journalists might lead to the deaths of innocent civilians in Syria. Even worse, inaccurate reporting by unethical journalists drawing United States military even further into Syria.

The Ron Paul Institute (RPI) typically provides a comprehensive and unbiased analysis of issues and threats to American liberties both home and abroad. Recent work done by Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, two reporters associated with RPI, makes me question the accuracy and objectivity of information disseminated by RPI. My specific concerns are as follows:

Bias - there is no objectivity in their reporting. Everybody has a side, given the number of groups involved in Syria, a more diverse range of perspectives concerning the conflict should be provided.

Affiliation and Funding - Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett work with the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Communist party of Canada . They also receive a portion of their funding from the same groups. Additionally, a portion of the funding comes directly from the Syrian government.

Assault on Human Decency – Beeley and Bartlett have made a series of derogatory statements concerning international doctors volunteering in Syria and at refugee camps. They have called them terrorists.

Online Terrorism - Beeley and Bartlett have made a series of profanity ridden attacks online directed at innocent people and their families who failed to agree with the reporting. Some have even reported death threat.

Advocating Against Freedom of Speech - Beeley and Bartlett have gone to the government of the United Kingdom seeking to have journalist persecuted, prosecuted and jailed under anti-terrorism laws.

I am concerned that the actions of these two individuals in disseminating erroneous, damaging and dangerous information, specifically the information directed at Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), is unnecessarily putting lives at risk. Their actions also threaten other individuals on the ground such as the journalist reporting on what’s really taking place in Syria.  I am soliciting your assistance in starting a petition asking the Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity (RPI) to retract the publications of Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett for false, misleading and/or erroneous information.  Additionally, the petition will ask the RPI to issue a public statement disassociating itself as a future venue for the false, misleading and/or erroneous work of Beeley and Bartlett concerning the crisis in Syria. Your assistance in promoting this at Newsbud would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions or comments, I am available to discuss this with you at your convenience.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

Dr. Timothy G. Ferner- Lt. Colonel (Ret)

Notes & Sources

Screen Shot Documentation

Newsbud Investigative Report: Syria Under Siege

Russia Today and the post-truth virus

Controversial Freelance Journalist to Deliver Lectures on Syria in Hamilton

Eva Bartlett’s Claims About Syrian Children

Eva Bartlett-Communist Party of Canada

Syrian children’s trauma is a laughing matter—if you are Vanessa Beeley

Red Youth:  Beeley gives an account of what she saw in Aleppo, Syria

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. mick fletcher says:

    Sir
    It’s been a very sad and disturbing week for me wrt these revelations about Venessa Beeley who I had always considered to be an independent voice although having watched Sibel’s program it now makes sense. I had made some inquiries about the possibility of traveling to Syria myself and had been told abruptly that it was impossible…so given that state of affairs how is it that Beeley can travel there regularly? Neither she or Patrick Henningsen have ever mentioned that the Syrian government had part-funded them and clearly that makes a huge difference to their objectivity and also makes my own personal credibility suspect when I use Beeley as a source. Patrick Henningson guests regularly on UK Column which I also follow daily so maybe you could contact them too and get a response? Not telling you what to do btw …just asking.
    thanks for your time

    • Dear Mick: We sent them requests for interviews and comments on inquiries- they have refused to respond. From our sources in Syria: They have an agreement/arrangement with the government there. Even with that, we would have no problem if they would put a disclaimer on all their reporting that states/indicates that. But they are not doing that, instead they claim that they are independent and unbiased (and self-funded). Of course we are not in the business of stopping anyone who engages in fraud and lies like this on the net (and social media). However, when mid-size and reputable platforms such as ‘RPI’ features and promotes them without such disclaimer (Please refer to their website mission statement) it becomes important to hold them accountable. Maybe they didn’t know? It is possible that they had no idea. Now, with Newsbud investigative report out and public, and many e-mails sent to RPI asking them to issue public disclaimer/retraction: it is their responsibility to clarify this to their audience. That is called journalistic ethics and decency. How can we expose and confront dirty MSM on their bias-lies, and then, with double standards, give a pass to those ‘alternatives’ that are guilty of the exact same sins? It does not matter who’s side or bias they stand by: They need to be transparent and go on record. Please collectively contact RPI/Ron Paul and bring this to their attention.

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Geoh, —
        Yes. I wouldn’t want to be a part ComCapitalist party either. They feed on each other onto death. If Anarchists’ party would have me, I wouldn’t. Their standards are low.
        Best,

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hey Sibel,
        — “It is possible that [RPI} had no idea…it is their responsibility to clarify.. is called journalistic ethics and decency..confront dirty MSM on their bias-lies..give a pass to those ‘alternatives’” guilty of the exact same sins.. need to be transparent and go on record.”
        This is “real talk” you promised with this site. Thank you.
        As you suggest, don’t be tied to beliefs while forgetting to investigate. Confirmation bias is a killer.
        Best,

        • You are right, Steven. The only person I have communicated with and provided info to: Daniel McAdams, but he seemed too vested … to look into it. If you have followed our Picks (aggregated news) you’d know I usually provide articles/videos/editorials from RPI. I like the site: excellent alternative coverage. As for this duo: I wouldn’t have any problem as long as they would provide a disclaimer stating the duo’s status (their one-sided state sponsored reporting)- That way the viewers can decide. They have many excellent sources including Patrick Cockburn. Providing the view from Assad’s side is important (and needed; considering Western MSM’s one-sided coverage), but it needs to be done via solid/credible sources and with a disclaimer. No different than BBC. BBC is UK gov owned. Of course they are going to provide one-sided biased coverage. But at least with BBC everyone knows they are ‘UK gov owned.’ My biggest point: we should not engage in all the negative practices we rightfully blamed the MSM of engaging in. Unfortunately, there’s so much polarization, division, team-mentality, within the alt media, and many end up committing the same, if not worse, fallacies that MSM does.

          Thank you.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hey Sibel,
            ” Unfortunately, there’s so much polarization, division, team-mentality, within the alt media, and many end up committing the same, if not worse, fallacies..” — So true. “..biggest point: we should not engage in all the negative practices we rightfully blamed the MSM..” Excellent.

            Breaking from group mind may be profoundly difficult. Let alone breaking free from one’s own (imprisoned) view, especially when one’s view is ‘validated’ (echo, soc-media). How to break free with real talk? Jingoistic and emotional framing (e.g., “communist”, “anarchist”, “capitalist”) captures rather than releases mind. It is possible to dismiss such ideological group-think and return to facts. Authors gathered here appear mostly committed to the latter. i.e., fact-based reporting– thus my wholehearted support. With opportunity, I like to call to task the former, i.e. jingoism, or ideological bias.

            Many reporters attempt to provide factual information and hide (or overtly state) their biases while reporting. Patrick Cockburn is indeed one seemingly committed to honesty. Seymore Hersh might be another example. Our challenge is not to become a believer, ala Hofsteader, but to continue to contest the information and its sources. As much as I may honor different views and query epistemic basis. blatant misrepresentation ala Hersh is another thing entirely. Best,

  2. http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/the-ngos-pushing-a-new-syria-war-with-guest-vanessa-beeley ,
    http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/why-everything-you-hear-about-aleppo-is-wrong
    Mick : Thanks for your editorial and yes at one point in one of the interviews if Vannesa Beeley she does refer to Imperialist Plan and sounds like a Communist , she is also pro Palestine and that is a required to survive in this area of Syria .
    I found information and interview to be enlightening and also confirms previous information on Newsbud last fall by Bulgarian Reporter on how Bulgarian weapons were being smuggled into Aleppo by CIA through Turkey, and Tajikistan by the NATO , Saudi Proxies of the US DOS Clinton operatives .
    I can understand why a Mercenary Spook would take offense at such information becoming public about their employers but see no reason for RPI or Newsbud to censor said content based on your arguments . The fact that this Spook foe Civil Defense organization started with the KLA a another Clinton Initiative, Soros sponsored Communist front in Kosovo is more troubling to me than these reporters alleged ties to communist party .
    Perhaps you should also post your appeal on The New American page https://www.thenewamerican.com/ I am also a supporter of the John Birch Society publications and believe you may find a better forum for your post there .

  3. I have watched the whole report and accept its conclusions, I would however point out that some of the sources provided on this page are almost worthless (UK channel 4 ‘Eva Bartlett’s Claims About Syrian Children’ & ‘Russia Today and the post-truth virus’). This kind of mainstream junk is what Newsbud is the antidote to. Seeing these sources does nothing to support the case against B & B (unlike plenty of the other evidence provided).

  4. Michael Naaden says:

    Sad.

  5. Thomas Veigel Dr. says:

    Conspirancy theorist, this will known CIA propaganda word, is often used in the shownotes. Just to be a whistleblower does‘nt give automatic credability to this article. As Dr. writes: Mainstream bunk is not far away.
    Communist organisations nor always lie as well as RT.

  6. Mintaka says:

    OK, finally (reluctantly, but glad I did) had a look at this page and the following sentence is very disturbing:
    “Even worse, inaccurate reporting by unethical journalists drawing United States military even further into Syria.”.
    What? Are you serious Mr Ferner?
    I mean, just remember, we’re talking specifically about two alt media reporters here, not the MSM.
    As if the US/NATO/Zionist war-machine doesn’t WANT to get drawn deeper into the conflict, they would like nothing more than just that.
    It certainly won’t be because of a lack of “Human Decency’ & ‘Ethical Journalism”.
    “Human Decency” isn’t even in the vocabulary of these war-mongers and their terrorist proxies.

    There are other claims on the page that are misleading and only serve to muddy the waters.
    The purpose of the conflict, who started it, who perpetuates it is crystal-clear.
    It isn’t “where a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups are engaged in violent conflict over the future of the nation”.
    That’s exactly what the controlled MSM wants you to believe.

    This really has me thinking again about this whole “Human Decency’ & ‘Ethical Journalism” saga on this website.
    That one sentence confirms my suspicion that the whole thing reeks of a psyop to silence and divide the true alt community. Not to mention the excuse that will be used for “drawing United States military even further into Syria.”
    If this website supports this kind of content, then I’ll have to re-consider my subscription and support after all.
    Having serious doubts now.

    Something has happened here, and I don’t like it.

    • Tim Ferner says:

      Why yes, I am serious about the United States getting pulled deeper into the conflict in Syria. I don’t want to see any more American lives lost over there! The rank and file military member have no interest in being deployed to the Middle East now or anytime in the future. Most military members have been deployed there at least once in the past 18 months for a 90-180 day rotation. It gets old being deployed away from their family and loved ones. Having lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 ½ years and spent almost another 6 years deployed throughout the region I know exactly what its like!
      “War-mongers” ??? You obviously don’t know much about the military. Going to war is not fun! 99% of the military members I know don’t want to go into an environment where they might be killed or maimed. The proposition of taking another humans life is not something military members take lightly. Pulling a trigger or dropping in a war zone is not something most rationale humans want to do…it’s a hell of a lot more difficult and more thought goes into it then what you see in the movies or on TV. “Muddy water” in a place like Syria is exactly what pulls a county like the US into the fray. BTW…there is no “US/NATO/Zionist-war machine”. Having been with NATO for 8 years I can attest to it being a dysfunctional organization incapable of making a decision letalone an informed decision. It has plenty of military assets but lacks the capability to deploy them. Member nations wont go to a war zone and place the burden on the US to go…they will deploy to certain areas depending on the per diem rate. Zionist war machine??? Really???
      It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they use the terms “US/NATO/Zionist-war machine”, “war-mongers”and “Psyop” . Very odd verbiage indeed. Its awesome people have opinions…even better when they are informed.

      • Thank you, Sir.

        I have several friends (many of them the members of our NS Whistleblowers Coalition) who went through war traumatization twice: Once in the war zone in Vietnam (And I am saying this as an avid antiwar activist), and then again, one more time, when they came back home to have ignorant people spit at their faces and calling them awful names. They were equally victims- victims of decisions made by those above. What I am trying, I have been trying, to say: in wars, taking a side, and calling all other sides, be it the 6+ Million refugees, or the Kurds, or the vlunteer doctors, ‘terrorists’ is WRONG. Putting out false infornation and enticing more violence, further escalation, is WRONG.

        What I am most appalled with here, in this case, how polarized people have become to whitewash these actions and culprits behind these actions.

        • spiro skouras says:

          Thanks Sibel and Tim,
          Sibel, you make some very good points about polarization and whitewashing, as there has been a lot of whitewashing going on. Nevertheless, I think Newsbud’s position on U.S. foreign policy and war in general is very clear.

      • Tim,

        Whilst I recognize you and most of the rest of the military rank and file don’t wish to be deployed in the Middle East, your leaders don’t give even the slightest thought to your opinion on the matter.

        Uncle $cam’s death machine is going to engage Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Iraq again (if they are too close to Iran), your (and all other honorable soldiers) reticence will make no difference whatsoever, unless the soldiers still serving refuse to obey orders, they will be instructed to violate International law and common decency.

        The water in Syria is ”muddy” primarily because of the USA (I strongly recommend watching some Kurt Nimmo material to catch up).

        The US military is not a force for good in the world; it is the blunt instrument of depraved psychopaths who care for nothing but their own fortunes. Their soldiers mean less to them than the white phosphorus and depleted uranium that is poured over foreign civilians.

        Since the Monroe doctrine, the US military has been mostly been used to protect oligarchic commercial interests (please see the work of William Blum or Smedley Butler), Notwithstanding the ‘World Wars’ (which originated out of Wall Street and the City of London).

        http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

        The wrecked US economy is guaranteed to keep providing more meat for the grinder as the military becomes the only available employment in the growing areas of poverty.

        NATO maybe dysfunctional, but it managed to keep Gladio hidden from the public for over 40 years.

        If you don’t understand the phrase ‘Zionist-war machine’, you must have been asleep since 911. I would recommend asking Sibel to catch you up on the basics.

  7. “Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett work with the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Communist party of Canada .”

    What, you would prefer them to work with the Capitalist Party? This is oddly reminiscent of cold war paranoia — and coming from an actual player in that despicable mostly-Nazi propaganda, I find it unsettling.

    • Tim Ferner says:

      On what planet is defending Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Nazi propaganda”?

      • I had to bury my father more than once. In fact 4 times. On three occasions when he was serving in war zones (Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq War, Kurdistan-Iran) as a doctor we (my family with me under 12, and two sisters under 7) were notified that he was presumed ‘dead'(Twice his barracks were grounded, once he was kidnapped). As someone who knows what these doctors do, and what it means for their lives being endangered, I will fight against anyone who puts out false claims such as this one, anyone who puts out and disseminates false accusations/reports and issues/entices terrorism against these doctors. It is simply disgusting. We have already denounced Corbett Report for promoting and disseminating such basleess and malicious (insane) tabloid junk, and Newsbud will never accept any member who stands for this line of insanity.

      • We pinpointed one of those planets ‘Planet Corbett.’ All people have to do: visit that corbettreport.com website post on ‘Syria Under Siege’ and read 500+ comments posted by less than 10 associates of Mr. Corbett. The logic (or the lack of), the insanity, displaced is simply mindboggling. On the other hand, I can’t comprehend how a legitimate and decent site RPI headed by a Veteran Military Doctor and one of very few ‘real/true’ representatives ended up disseminating this crazy planet’s inhabitants’ disinfo waging a Jihad against all Syrian refugees and volunteer doctors (and all journalists who provide coverage of them). Simply insane.

  8. First, for clarification as to who I am. I sometimes serve as Admin here, and usually prefer to just work in the background, but with the vicious attacks going on against Sibel and Newsbud I cannot in good conscience just sit back and do nothing. I’m Matthew Edmonds, and of course I’m Sibel’s husband. My response here is not to any one particular comment, but to everyone in the Newsbud community, and even beyond if anyone wants to take it and share it.

    I have been stewing in the background with my blood boiling for days now, ever since Corbett’s vicious, malicious and unwarranted attack on Sibel. You’re going to immediately say “of course he’s going to defend her, he’s her husband”. And while that is of course true, it does not change the validity of what I’m about to say. Sibel doesn’t really need my defense, she’s more than capable of defending herself, as she’s shown over the years, so this is for me & Newsbud.

    First, let’s get Beeley and Bartlett out of the way, because even though they are the perceived reason for Corbett’s attack, they are minor players here and will shortly disappear from view.

    Sibel of course knew of them and had received requests to interview them, and she even responded that she would like to do that. Then, as she should, she proceeded to do due diligence ahead of any interview. During that process she started looking at their record of tweets and ran across tweets in which they accused doctors of working with terrorists. This raised red flags, which is an understatement. Why? You can watch the video and listen to Sibel and read her comments, which explain better than I can, but I will condense it here for you anyway – because it is very important that you understand Sibel’s perspective.

    Most of you know that Sibel lived part of her youth in Iran. What you may not know is that during this period Saddam’s bombs rained down on Tehran, with Sibel spending time with her family in underground bomb shelters, listening to the bombs exploding above her, perhaps wondering if the next one would penetrate the shelter. During this time Sibel’s father, a doctor(surgeon), was sent to the frontlines, multiple times, to treat the wounded in Iran’s forces. During one of those periods he was taken, kidnapped if you prefer, by some Kurdish forces, terrorists in the government’s eyes, and asked to treat their wounded, which he did. He was out of communication during this time and the government, not knowing what had happened to him, notified the family that perhaps he was dead. Fortunately, he wasn’t, but it’s something that no one could ever forget. And the greater point, he performed as a doctor for both sides, not caring about ideology or nationality or ethnicity, just did his work as a doctor – and this, this lesson, has stayed with Sibel for her entire life. So perhaps you begin to understand the red flags that were raised when Sibel read those tweets. When she read accusations of doctors and “terrorists”. But Corbett, with no life experience to draw on that could begin to help him really understand the danger and horror of what Beeley and Bartlett were and are doing, sat in front of his computer and pontificated – he didn’t get it, and from the comments I see here and at Corbett Report, others don’t get it either.

    Sibel and other researchers continued and she did hours and hours of interviews, coming up with what she chose to present in her report. What she presented is true, whether or not you like the way she presented it, whether or not you want to believe it, whether or not you allow Corbett to manipulate your thinking. I guess you either get it or you don’t.

    And now to Corbett, who is the real reason I’m here writing this. I’ve known James for years – since the early days when Sibel gave him financial support by putting his work –“The Eyeopener Report” – on Boiling Frogs Post and paying him for it, vouching for his character, his work. Sharing her knowledge with him, knowledge that he could not have gotten anywhere else. Giving him interviews, expanding his knowledge, his resources – think “Gladio” if you will. I posted his work, shared emails when there were technical issues or just any day to day communication that needed to be done – processed payments to him, had what I thought was a good relationship and respected his work.

    So of course, when the Beeley/Bartlett issue came up, and before he posted his attack, I sent him an email asking him whether he had vetted them, because the James I thought I knew would have done his due diligence, would have discovered what Sibel discovered, and would not have touched them with a 10-foot pole! He didn’t respond to my email – after all these years he didn’t even show me the courtesy of a reply. Sibel emailed him – he didn’t reply to her either.

    James could have handled this much differently, he could have communicated with Sibel privately, as they have done many times over the years. He could have joined her for a discussion/debate on either his site, Corbett Report, or her site, Newsbud, as they’ve done many times over the years. He could have joined Sibel in a roundtable discussion with others, as they’ve done many times over the years. But, no, he did none of those – he just came out with his unwarranted, disrespectful, vicious, misleading attack. And make no mistake, it was and is a direct attack on Sibel. Beeley/Bartlett is only a pretext he used. I could point to example after example in his attack – but you’ve seen it, and you either get it or you don’t. But why? That’s a question I keep asking myself, with no clear answer. Why did he do it? Did I just misjudge him all these years, is this who he’s always been? I don’t want to think I’m that poor a judge of character, and I don’t actually think I am. So, something else is going on. Something different, or perhaps someone, is driving him now. Regardless, he is no longer the James I respected, no longer the James whose work I respected. And that saddens me.

    • Robert Diggins says:

      Thanks for sharing your insights, Matthew. That’s what hit me the most, as well. Something’s missing. Something’s amiss. I am even worried that he’s being physically threatened, to which nobody can really say how they themselves would react, unless they’ve been tested in this respect.

      Then I thought about the fact that he’s always been distanced from the stories he narrates, and th at he may not ever have been tested, maybe since being bullied in school or something like that.

      But, I also thought about his expanding family and the new home he provided not too long ago. We all have that instinct, we parents, to protect and provide for our children. It goes beyond the self. And it may have gone beyond even the ethics and principles that he had, before being faces with a particular scary or opportune situation. It’s not difficult to imagine that a combinato on of threat and pachinko jackpot could have altered James’ outward action and appearance, while “abhoring” the dirty work that he chose to do, after consideration of his and his family’s safety and financial security.

      When an observer of this situation is trying to figure out which “it” to “get”, it is so important to examine the situation in the context of the two main characters’ (James’ and Sibel’s) experiences. Many of us have already learned about Sibel’s very serious testing. From actual lie detectors, home raids, computer examinations (yours too, Matthew), court battles at great financial cost against a rigged system, testimonies under oath and penalty of perjury that exposed serious criminals and corruption in the system (search Krikorian Case Sibel testimony on YT), being gagged by top officials in the federal gov and then finding ways to break those orders, writing a non-fiction memoir under threat from a corrupt FBI administration not to publish a single word, and as you know more than anyone outside of Sibel, and as you have also endured and been a man among men not to run and protect your own interests, the list goes on and on and on. And through it all, her character and yours, keep shining as a beacon, and have continued to create solutions, such as Newsbud.

      For those who are confused about what to get, is it really that difficult to compare a battle tested couple and true patriot and leader in the character of Sibel, versus a distanced YouTuber who insulted truthers for 5 + years after 9/11, then got a new philosophy, then exploited the knowledge and analysis of the actual warriors on the battlefield, then, after working hard at it and being lifted out of the 9-5 rat race, again has a new awakening?

      Please, everyone, put this into historical context! Consider that Sibel has exposed other alt media figures in the past and faced the same kind of cognitive dissonance and distrust in the past, only to be vindicated each and every time. Consider the extreme changes of course and philosophy in James’ past. Consider which of the two is more maluable and which has paid a great price, or any price at all.

      This is a moment where you can show the very least amount of gratitude by taking the substance of Sibel’s claims seriously and not turning against someone who has bled for all of us, because you are possibly more comfortable with someone you may perceive as smart because of his study of English, and safer on the side of someone who distances themselves from a controversy, meanwhile disgracing the person he exploited for his pe5sonal gain. Think about the hyper-individualistic philosophy he picked up along the way, and which he used to attempt to destroy any and all tools, except for the self-concerned.

      It’s not difficult. It might take time and everyone moves at their own speed. But it’s really not difficult at all.

      I am concerned for James’ safety, and for his humanity. And, I’m very proud of Sibel and Mathew, and the Newsbud team and community. We can work it out and nothing will stop this train bringing ethical journalism to the public. We need to be informed to be vigilant. Open our eyes to just who has the better track record for informing us, with integrity, vulnerability, and a heavy price paid.

      Thanks to the Edmonds family and the Newsbud team and community.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Mathew, and everyone,

      As Emerson said, “Consistency makes for boring people.” We are all hypocritical, none thoroughly consistent. It is cool when one admits inconsistency with compunction rather than hiding the disparity.

      The stated goal of Newsbud is to objectivity and real talk. There is only so much time to investigate and reflect. Lacking opportunity to further investigate one might say, “but he seemed too vested … to look into it.” The honesty here with “seems” is appreciated, however, the implied framing remains with the reader. We often naturally follow (at best) heuristics to arrive at conclusions. One uses judgment tempered by experience to arrive at best guess. In many everyday situations fast thinking is perfectly suited and provides fruit. With these complicated subject matter, fast thinking invites bias and mischaracterization.

      In Corbett’s diatribe, there are some worthy considerations. However, I choose not to address substantive issues of B&B. I don’t presently care to devote the time, but trust it will come out in the wash. One of James comments had immediate resonance. He said, “I just don’t know what to say about this situation.” Then I thought, “No!” Remembering this meme: “Organize liberals, you get a circular firing squad.” I’m sad it’s come to this and hope there is a bridge someplace. Thank you for being forthright Mathew in your post, however, the ad hominem on Corbett is not persuasive. Also, I find these comments offensive, “you allow Corbett to manipulate your thinking. I guess you either get it or you don’t,” and” Corbett with no life experience.” You assume a reader doesn’t have a mind of her own? It is Corbett, who controls and, “perhaps someone, is driving him now”? Such rhetorical flair distracts from your more reasoned commentary.

      You say, “What she presented is true,” “whether or not you like.” This is for the observer (reader) to conclude, “truth” is not about liking. You seem to be speaking down to the reader. As Roberto Maturana said, there is only “truth”. That is, there is only “truth” for a subject. Topics of war, deceit, and sabotage are profoundly emotionally provocative. In my view, the topic still deserves Gadamerian ethos, “Thus for a written conversation basically the same fundamental condition obtains for an oral exchange. Both partners must have the goodwill to try to understand one another.” When an offering of such goodwill is not returned lowing oneself to flame aggressively only solidifies the polarization. There is no problem stating things as perceived or intuited, but better if it is clearly identified as inference and opinion. But, it is a problematic calling it Truth and conflating it with evidence. Truth is a self-culture-perspective, a mental map, constantly being reformulated through one’s horizon of experience. But, the representation is not the territory, and you can bet the territory is stranger than fiction — not exactly what imagined. Yes, this is an abstract epistemological consideration, but it is crucial in understanding human behavior, opinion and decision making. Often one will get an idea, ruminate, extend, and extrapolate that idea with mood attitude groupthink or whatnot attempting a best guess. No fault no blame. This is natural. What emerges is a subjective perspective validating previous conceptions and may possibly disconfirm others. There no “objective” unbiased perspectives just as there are no facts without values. None of us can escape having values with our facts.

      In this public context there are significant challenges: reduce emotional reasoning, don’t overgeneralize, stereotype, label, or presume, state one’s biases openly, use logic rather than rhetoric or persuasion (appeal to emotion). And, there are many other journalistic standards worthy of consideration. But, to expect of anyone to be able to implement such praxis consistently is unrealistic. Especially annoying are labels when cast as aspersions. They also stop the mind from critical thinking, e.g, “communist”, “anarchist”, “libertarian”, “shill”. However fast and useful a generalization, they obfuscate details worthy of designation. A personal attack is particularly offensive and counterproductive.

      James derisively speaks to problems with Newsbud while focusing primarily on Sibel’s Twitter missteps. Newsbud’s rebuttal is equally derogatory tone just not as tedious. James condescending and sarcastic tone is obnoxious. Likewise, Sprio’s rebuttal with ugliest images of James as he did of Sibel. Sibel’s, cussing and insults on Twitter are not her best presentation. It is a sad and disturbing end to a productive collaboration. Just let me say, of course, I’ve never participated in flaming.
      The most persuasive element in Spiro’s rebuttal is how James did not contact any of those interviewed by Newsbud. James has some persuasive points too related to “triple fact checked”, and, a missing apology when a mistaken impression was corrected. Nevertheless, good for you all at Newsbud for reaching out. It is very disappointing that James didn’t respond to entreaty. This is clearly one of those WTF moments.

      Just a brief comment about B&B’s perspective and antics. Subterfuge by fomenting discord is a common tactic. To “intensify the degree of animosity between the BPP [Black Panther Party] and the Blackstone Rangers,” the FBI sent a fraudulent letter and successfully undermined collaboration. Sides became enamored with distorted views creating divisions where none existed. For this reason, I take the whole disturbing disagreement between B&B, Corbett, and Newsbud, with a grain of salt while waiting for further revelations. I would not put it past certain actors to mystify B&B after assessing their passion and persuadable. As you probably know, when educated people bite a ‘truth’ bone, no matter how false, they hold more tightly than those not so enamored with education. As Shinzen Young says, when one argues with another’s view, the persons are not disagreeing the views are disagreeing. The views need the disagreement to exist and demarcate themselves. Their survival demands disagreement. The persons are being held by their views possibly without realizing they have been captured and imprisoned by the view not recognizing the loss of a free and open mind.

      Recently I left a comment here about Tim’s his use of rhetoric, i.e., guilt by association, overgeneralization, and appeal to emotion. It disappeared. I wrote admin requesting a statement on rules that determined its deletion. I wrote how I had second thoughts after the post and realized that there was no way to amend a post. Disappointedly, I never received a response. I don’t know that this effort too may likewise be dispensed to the ethers.

      I lost a confidence in Corbett because of his intransigence on climate change. I recently renewed my membership here and let that with James laps some time ago. Ending here with this quote, “It required jolts, such as accidentally coming across a back issue of Monthly Review Sweezy’s gushing obituary for Stalin, for me to realize that people can be so smart and so decent and yet so wrong.” — Norman Finkelstein

  9. I am concerned that ‘inaccurate information reported by biased journalists might lead to the deaths of innocent civilians in Syria,’ doesn’t take into account the ‘Accurate information’ reported by biased journalists of the already dead innocent civilians in Syria.
    Including said journalists reports of MI6 WhiteHelmets®.con staged gas attacks at Ghouta, Khan Sheik Houn and now Douma.
    Not to mention the utterly barbaric outrage at Rashidin .
    Thanks to USAMO and the proxy war.
    I did know for certain the reporters under review were not yankee imperialists, or warmongers., and was certain they were not wall street capitalist. I presumed them not ‘communist’ per sae., but human and humanist in their passionate advocacy for the abused souls of Syria. Knowing they are communist alters my reading of their work just as my reading of yours is altered knowing you flew with RSAF – who; by other reporting both biased and arguably unbiased, are presently bombing the fuck out of the innocent peoples of YEMEN..
    Then, there are the innocent civilians murdered by the western backed SAUDI terrorist proxies in USAMO’s PNAC/YINON regime change war.
    I realised their stance was not ‘BEEB CNN [im]balanced, but then, nor is mine.
    Although I struggle for it…
    In fact I think I would very likely piss you off.

    • Robert Diggins says:

      Hi remo,

      I used to think, once upon a long time ago, that Amy Goodman’s intentions were good. The facts that we’re exposed about Goodman and DNow, at Newsbud, as well as some specific lies that we’re snuck in, like a needle in a haystack, I realized that controlled opposition is sometimes very difficult to identify, and it can be very hidden, just what, when, and how damaging the needles will be.

      We also experienced this, many times, with certain characters in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

      Why would anyone choose to gamble with known liars, with exposed funders. because there have been instances of reportage which have been understood as “helpful”? We should be wise to this, by now.

      When has Sibel BFP, or Newsbud given you pause, to question their motivations? Why does consistent, forthright, attack-drawing, controversial exposes, interviews with risk-taking whistleblowers, sticking to what is known and can be backed up, dot-connecting to funder-driven “bias” of other MSM and “alt” media figures, and, in this case, the exposure of physical threats and coercion of other journalists, by the duo in question, give you a perspective that the means justify the ends?

      Why gamble with this, when the lesson has already been learned so many times?

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding your perspective on these two. Please inform.

      Thanks,
      Rx

      • Robert Diggins says:

        Ends justify the means, I meant

        • Robert Diggins says:

          Maybe you remember the times at BFP, when I tried coining the phrase: “The End of Means”?

          It was supposed to suggest the realization that the Ends ARE the Means, and vice versa. What NB is attempting, by exposing the B’s, is just that. Integrity in a publicly, member-funded media org is just that.

          Again, the group’s which were infiltrated by COINTELPRO weren’t stupid. Certain, self-interest individuals were used, wittingly or unwittingly, to sew division, divide and conquer.

          I now include the B’s and Corbett to be such individuals. Ultimately, their means are self-interest. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen Corbett lie by omission, omission of the most substantial claims, when he “fact checked” NB’S expose.

          • Suggesting that James Corbett is ‘controlled opposition’ or that he is ‘operating only out of self interest’ based on the evidence presented on NB, is a hard sell to anyone who is less tribal than you seem to be Robert.

            I don’t believe in this black and white world you are inhabiting. i.e. Everything in NB’s video was 100% accurate & everything in Corbett’s was 100% inaccurate.

            I hope Newsbud can reflect that some of his points were correct. Sometimes we can all do better.

            A single video does not make a ‘campaign’. He made his video, left twitter and moved on with his life and work.

            By virtue of it’s incredible team, Newsbud is the best news source. It is not perfect, I’m sure no-one on the team would say it is.

          • Robert Diggins says:

            dr,

            I was basing my view of Corbett on HIS video, which he called a “fact check” and proceeded to omit all of the substantial claims in NB’S expose.

            In fact, I have said that James made some valid points. But, they were all superficial aspects of the situation.

            Why do I need to be “Tribal”, to see and then comment, repeatedly (since it is never addressed by the Corbett defenders), this very easy to understand aspect of his “fact check”? I can slow it down for you:

            Coooorrrbbbeeettt ooooommmmiiiitttteeeeeddd ttthhheeee bbbbeeeeeeeeeffffff!

            This is a well known hit-piece, straw man, attempting debunking by concentrating on superficial and omitting substantial, red flag for, oh no, here it comes, controlled opposition.

            Use your brain! After a 9 year, financially beneficial, relationships with an on the ground, battle-tested whistleblower, Corbett turns on a dime, and does a hit piece on Sibel. Something is missing, as was alluded to by Sibel at the end of NB’s response to Corbett’s hit piece.

            FYI, during this “fact-check”, he never once mentioned any of the testimony that was given, in NB’s expose. ThIs was the SSSUUUUUBBBSSTTAANNCCEE (THE BBBEEEEEEFFFF). Are you unable to realize what happened?

            Do you really think, considering his omissions and his hit-pieces, his decision to, in fact, cut all ties with Sibel and NB, after his long career being paid by them and benefiting from exposure, giant exposes, and DVD sales, etc., he would cut all ties becasuse of her style issues on Twitter? Are you dense? (I figure, WTH, you just accused me of writing out of “tribalism”, so I’m going to challenge you, regarding your own inability or unwillingness to address the points I slowed down for you, above.

            If you cannot, then sit under a tree and think for a bit. Maybe an apple will fall.

          • Robert Diggins says:

            dr,

            RE: SELF INTEREST

            Are you aware of Corbett’s change in philosophy, some 5+ years after 9/11? He woke up to a hyper-individualistic ideology. He has been a frequent promoter of this self-interested bent. In fact, he also tries to diminish any other tools a society might have and mischaracterized writers like Spooner, to get his news-kiddie followers to use terms like ‘statist’ as an insult, in the way the MSM uses ‘conspiracy theorist’.

          • Robert Diggins says:

            dr,

            BTW, it wasn’t just “one video”. Corbett also promoted some tweets attacking NB/Sibel. He also liked the B’s tweet that promoted reporting journalists as terrorists. (What an anarchist, eh?)

            “…and then deleted his Twitter”

            Do you believe in coincidences, in such circumstances, without exception? Or only when your feeling a little “anarcho-tribal”?

          • *Disclaimer, I still have the utmost respect for Sibel and everyone on the Newsbud team. She has been a hero to me since I learned about her. Being a hero doesn’t mean that everything someone does is perfect or that we should ever suspend critical thinking when evaluating information. Newsbud remains the first place I send someone looking for real news.

            Robert,
            To quote someone who’s opinion I know you respect:
            “I bet you’d agree that condescending remarks are more likely to generate more condescending remarks”

            I’ll do my best to not to do that. I don’t need you to slow it down for me, I just need you to write clear sentences to support your positions.

            To answer your question, am I unable to see what has happened, then yes I guess I am unable to see what you see, but here are a few ‘apples that fell’

            Hit piece is an interesting phrase to use to describe Corbett’s video, as this is the same words chosen by Newsbud’s Witness Paul Larudee to describe the original Newsbud video that started this saga.

            Sibel said in the video that she had many hours of conversation with Paul Larudee (who’s work she respects), in which he was candid about B & B’s lack of qualifications, experience, analyst skills, lack of in-depth knowledge of the middle East, Syria & geopolitics, lack of quality fact checking in their work. This part wasn’t supported by any emails, tweets, or recordings (despite a video playing in the background of him talking – which some would argue was deceptive).

            I’m not doubting that he said these things to Sibel, I don’t believe for a moment that she is a liar, but context is important, the context of how these things were told to Sibel would illuminate his intention. Much like the context of the infamous Beeley tweets that was omitted by Newsbud and highlighted by Corbett. This was not at all superficial as it gets to the heart of what we are talking about i.e. journalistic integrity. For a super fact checked piece, the Newsbud video did contain a disappointing number of errors (like the fact that the tweets in question were not deleted as claimed by Newsbud). Corbett demonstrated clearly that when the context of the tweets was restored, the meaning changed drastically from that portrayed by Newsbud.

            Sibel also said (again without a supporting email, tweet, or recording etc) that he had been smeared by both (B & B). Paul Larudee had this to say on the subject:

            “Sibel Edmonds’ goal is to spread poison, division and dysfunction. I warned Eva and Vanessa that she was planning a hit piece and apparently I have been included. I haven’t read or seen anything she has produced, and I don’t intend to. It’s a policy I recommend to everyone. I have always supported Eva and Vanessa 100% and I see no reason to stop doing so. They are heroes. I’m sorry I ever met Sibel Edmonds, however briefly. That’s all I have to say on the subject, but you are welcome to quote me. I intend to ignore her”.

            Perhaps not the best choice of witness to call against B & B. Sibel pointed out that Max Blumenthal & Rania Khalek have been targeted by B & B, interestingly, Sibel’s witness Barbara McKenzie also targeted them in this article:

            https://barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/the-rebranding-of-the-anti-syria-left/

            She makes a compelling argument in this article, certainly open to debate. But again maybe not the best witness to call against B & B, when charged with the same offense.

            This reminds me of the swearing charge. The only thing to say about this is glass houses. If you are going to make a big deal of colourful language, you need to practice what you preach.

            Robert, you can make the case that one video and liking a tweet or two is a ‘campaign’ (I not sure you will convince anyone else), but you will really struggle to identify ‘hit pieces’. As I said he made his video (which I believe he did reluctantly out of a belief that we are all on the same side) and then moved on with his life.

            Am I aware of his change in philosophy around the time 2006ish? Yes, I guess so as he has spoken of it a few times. He is a self confessed anarchist of some kind. What of it?

            Anarchism doesn’t equal self interest. Maybe look it up…

            Am I an anarchist? No, I’m not committed to any ideology, just a truth seeker, like many in the community. You come across to this stranger as tribal because of your loyalty to Sibel, this is not a bad thing, but maybe not the recipe for objectiveness. You found BFP long before me, for that I applaud you.

            Am I upset by B’s tweet that promoted reporting journalists(like George Monbiot) as promoting terrorism. No, not the least bit upset, but it would be pointless as it seems most of the terrorism in the UK is orchestrated by the British deep state.

            If all the promoters of the white helmets in the western media had to spend any time at all with the Zinki head-choppers in Idlib, they would stop promoting them in a second. The smarter ones (like Monbiot) know they are promoting regime change via terrorism when they lie about moderate rebels in Syria. He might well be an intelligence asset.

            If by some miracle, he was prosecuted under the terrorism legislation, it could well be one of the first times it wasn’t misused by that powers that be.

            As for Corbett leaving twitter, what coincidence are you referring to?

            His explanation makes perfect sense to me, twitter constantly creates conflict, it may well be where this whole storm in a teacup started (Sibel participating in flame wars on twitter).

            If you have any evidence to justify your smears of controlled opposition or bribe taking, please present it in a concise way, otherwise you just come across as a keyboard warrior talking trash.

            Playing devil’s advocate here, I would imagine he didn’t address the BBBEEEEEEFFFF as you put it, because he didn’t take issue with any of the witness statements. The point of his video was to point out errors.

            I’m not writing any of this in defence of B & B’s mistakes. There clearly were some. May he who has committed no sin cast the first stone.

            It is my current belief that this has grown out of the core accusation that some doctors in the rebel-held areas are terrorists, and this in turn relating back to Sibel’s father’s experiences. I think in this instance emotion took the driving seat. He sounded like he was an amazing person, I know he will be incredibly proud of what Sibel has done with her life. RIP.

    • Tim Ferner says:

      Remo;
      You really want President Trump to commit more American troops to a conflict in Syria on questionable intelligences and sources? Do you really think Doctors without Borders is a Terrorist Group? Do you really think individuals with a differing viewpoint should be labelled terrorist or be threatened with violence?

      Yes, I was one of about 340,000 other Americans who was deployed to the Middle East for the first Gulf War. Nobody volunteers to go to Saudi Arabia. I was ordered to go by the Air Force and went despite my own personal feelings. No sane individual voluntarily flies with the RSAF. I intentionally minimized my flight time while I was there because they were not the most gifted aviators. My time in Saudi changed my political views. I am an isolationist. I think America has enough problems at home and should not be wasting its time, money, resources and people overseas. You seem to know a lot about the Saudi/Yemen conflict…Kudos to you. I don’t view Saudi Arabia as an ally to the US. I have ZERO interest in the Saudi/Yemen conflict. My only interest is in the US military not getting involved there.

      Given you interest in Ghouta, Kan Shiek, Douma, Rashidin, what are you personally doing to make things better? I mean, other than dropping the F-bomb on sites like this what are you doing? Maybe volunteer some of your time and go over there and help people? It’s easy to be outraged here…but why should we send Yankee imperialist or warmongers there when you could put boots on the ground and be a passionate advocate for the abused souls of Syria first hand? I hate to burst your bubble…but you’re not very balanced (In your views).

  10. Who pays the piper, calls the tune is Binary measurement.
    What other measures do we use qualifying content in the information flow.
    Cross-reference. Multiple source. Effect.
    Intuition.
    How do we recognise nuance in the world of the spectacle where the algorithm adjusts to its own ‘recognition’ in the fluid dynamic.
    How do we balance, apriori, Bias?
    Our own?
    Lets watch. The Russian Fed have just outed the WhiteHelmets®.con as BritProp atrocity troupe. Lets see how the algorithm plays this one to empire advantage. If mighty balances are at sway beyond BEEBCNN reach.

    BB also stands for Baby Bathwater.
    And BigBrother.

    • Robert Diggins says:

      Bread and Butter?

      We also use the relative contex and circumstances, as well as the relative intensity of actions. “Cutting all ties”, after 9 years of giant exposes and use of words like “integrity” and “courage”, concerning what he suddenly considers a loose end? WTF happened? It wasn’t STYLE! It had to be $omething $ubstancial!

  11. Tim.
    To your points of my character I can only agree. Altho, once, in uniform and in a live situation, I did hand my loaded weapon BACK for lack of training, so being reckless is arguably not among them.
    I only take exception to the idea that I in any way have or could be interpreted to have ‘wanted American troops’ any where NEAR Syria. Please, STAY HOME ! Further; reports of MSF having French Intelligence among them utilising their presence in conflict zones, witting or unwitting, is no surprise and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. French Intelligence bombing the rainbow warrior in AucklandNZ, classes them to me as terrorists. Just as those materially assisting the takfiri mercenaries in Syria and the Royal saudi fascists in Yemen are also, terrorists. So it all depends on your point of view.
    The threat of violence is always abhorrent and I in no way ever, endorse it. Even if sometimes I wish it upon others. Privately.
    As in ‘cursing’ most recently last night watching the trump lynch-mob ‘get played’ by the MI6 Britprop WhiteHelmets®.con atrocity troupe.
    Lastly, and with respect i can assure you, you had no part in bursting my bubble.
    That happened on page 125, Day 17, the transcript of the trial of David IRVING and Debora LIPSTADT, in the words of Justice GRAY .
    But most particularly,
    in the DUST of 911.

  12. Tim Ferner says:

    Sorry mate, nobody can take the comments from a Holocaust denier seriously. There is nothing left to debate. Probably best for you to remain in Aotearoa and continue to paint.

  13. I don’t deny the holocaust . What the fuck are you talking about.

  14. Tim Ferner says:

    Mr Morris;
    Why would you assume its appropriate to continually use expletives in your postings? You have no idea whom is reading this site and your posting. Men, women and children from a variety of cultures read this site, you are assuming a level of familiarity with those people that does not exist. It is a common courtesy and sign of respect to refrain from swearing in front of people whom you do not know. Obviously, there are exceptions but this clearly is not the place nor the case. As a former New Zealand police officer, you are no doubt aware that certain words are calculated to offend those who heard them because of their indecent, lewd or disgusting connotation…the word you continue to throw around so freely is one such word. If you want to engage in meaningful debate stop using language that is designed to offend the contemporary standards of propriety in this community. How would you feel if some foul mouthed guttersnipe continually dropped the f-bomb in front of your 2 daughters?

  15. Oh. A diversion. The crusader for human decency, journalistic standards, ethics and accuracy ; without substantiation accuses another of the most heinous of ‘contemporary’ thought crimes . Holocaust denial ; and when tasked in robust language to justify that accusation, swings out very personally in moral judgment and turpitude, but without even remotely addressing the accusation ?!
    ‘Contemporary standards of propriety’ don’t cut it Tim.
    I don’t deny the holocaust . What the #### are you talking about ?

  16. Moderator. If you blocked my response to the above, please physically replace the one swear word with [REDACTED] in brackets. thanks. rm.

  17. Tim Ferner says:

    Mr Morris;

    You wrote:

    “Lastly, and with respect i can assure you, you had no part in bursting my bubble.
    That happened on page 125, Day 17, the transcript of the trial of David IRVING and Debora LIPSTADT, in the words of Justice GRAY “.

    In the 333-page judgement, Mr Irving was described as a Holocaust denier, falsifier of history, and a racist and an anti-Semite. Page 125, day 17 deals with reconstruction of crematorium in the context of them being fake…Justice Gray makes no comments. I stand by my original assessment.

    “Vulgarity is like a fine wine: it should only be uncorked on a special occasion, and then only shared with the right group of people.” Best of luck to you Mr Morris.

  18. My mistake. I presumed you would read on to his stunning conclusion, Top of page 126.
    Justice GRAY : “Whether he wishes to, is it going to help us really at all? I know that there was at one time a belief that there had been gas chambers at Dachau. I know it is now accepted, I think by all sides, that there never were any. Do i need say any more than that?”
    Thus “popping a bubble” I had lived in since stepping into a gas chamber in Dachau in 1976.
    A ‘bubble’ I had accepted unchallenged until it was ‘popped’ uncontested in the Courts of Law by Justice GRAY telling me ‘there never were any.’
    Which, like 911 FREEFALL, altered my entire world view.
    Opening the doors of perception.
    Challenging the orthodoxy
    Was my point.
    It did NOT and does NOT, make me a holocaust denier to accept Justice GRAY on this singular point,
    because the ENTIRE evidence field of the WAR is that there WAS holocaust !

    Do you understand the distinction ?

    • Robert Diggins says:

      Hi remo,

      Somewhat off topic, but I want to suggest another huge bubble/paradigm that has been popped. Many have noticed. Many more soon will, as academia is already scrambling to re-write theories that don’t need dark matter or dark energy. This is a big one and not a bang. Electric force is a billion trillion quadrillion times more powerful than gravity, which itself is an electric force. It does move intergalactic distances in currents named after a Norwegian scientist who figured out the Northern lights were plasma and coming from the Sun. In other words, relativity is nonsense.

      This took a couple years for me to be totally flipped and to understand the MO of the entrenched paradigm. We seem to have a lot of relativity cosmology pop stars recently. And it’s always mathematicians who are “leading the way”, at least as a proxy, with all the natural sciences ending up in silos. One very important factor, for me, was the non-esoteric and multi-disciplinary group of scientists at The Thunderbolts Project channel on YT. They made correct predictions about our recent probes to comets, while the mainstream scratched their heads, in a huge way. It also, importantly, isn’t a personality cult, like the channels that only focus on Tesla, etc.

      This group, along with the channel where I get my morning weather (solar) reports and a lot of news about the changes and failed attempts to find dark matter in academia, Suspicious Observers.

      Both YT channels I highly recommend, even if one just wants a challenge to debunk. The playlists are very useful to utilize, especially the tbolts Space News one and the SO’s Where Are We, as well as the rest of both channel’s playlists. I consider these channels like the Newsbud & Sibel et al of physics and cosmology.

      This should take some time to consider. For some more than others. I don’t recommend just jumping on the EU bandwagon. But, once you have flipped, it’s the whole Plato’s Cave thing, AGAIN. It seems that we’ve been lied to, wittingly and unwittingly, about physics too. And that’s hard to take, with icons like Einstein, Feynman, and the recently passed Hawking, among others, who have such excellent reputations. And the tbolts group isn’t calling them names.

      Another clue, pertaining to the integrity of the group, is that they openly admit things they don’t know, such as the age of the universe. Although the will say the Big Bang is rubbish. As are black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and “space-time”, which they point out are math bandaids with no connection to reality.

      My apologies for getting off topic, but I find this so important, especially in terms of cognitive dissonance and herd mentality. And I think that being able to really look at an alternative with integrity is so much in line with what’s going on at newsbud. Real discussions.

      Thanks in advance for your consideration. Here’s a sample. I’d love it if you could help come up with another play on words, like the magic bolt theory (wtc 7) for this topic or any that you find appealing and impactful, if you decide to investigate these channels I’m recommending. That goes for everyone, of course, but remo is particularly creative, imo.

      Watch “Quantum Craziness | Space News” on YouTube
      https://youtu.be/e3uiR-BIF0A

  19. Robert. Cheers for the up.
    I’m going to need a day or so in the paradigm shift on this one
    fascinating !
    🙂

Speak Your Mind