25 thoughts on “GLOBEBUSTERS #16”

  1. The computer I’m using at the moment won’t play this video.

    If any Flat Earther thinks Bob honestly and seriously addresses Simon’s question at 44:44 (thanks Ab), please post Bob’s argument here, so that we who enjoy “exposing media fakery one psyop at a time” can once again debunk the Flat Earth farce.

    Otherwise, we can safely assume Bob addresses Simon’s question in the way that is customary on Flat Earth: with tap dancing, goalpost moving, doubletalk, and lies.

    1. Bob doesn’t know the answer. Why should he? All he can do is speculate. Why hold him to account? As an aside, and not to derail, the female guest sure sounds similar to Judy Wood. Bob and her do seem to understand radio and microwave technology quite convincingly.

      1. Of course Bob doesn’t know the answer. How could he when there is no answer on Flat Earth?

        Flat Earth dwellers can, at best, flee this question (with a little help from the special effects department to conceal their hasty exit) and, at worst, dig their hole deeper by opening their mouths and making ridiculous noises.

        You said Bob “addresses Simon’s question”, so you obviously consider this relevant. Okay then, what do you think are the merits and flaws of Bob’s commentary?

      2. the similarity between judy Wood’s voice and former military satellite technician Robyn is really puzzling !

        suspect the most talented agents are re-employed, but it seems a bit curious to re-use Judy Wood for only one or two interviews as a radio technician. on the other hand both the subject and character traits between Robin and Wood sure have overlaps. Robyn Wood ?

        the first 30minutes of tech talk between “ex-military” Bob and Robyn sound goofy and voluntarily confusional. not sure such a thing as an “ex-military truther” even can be considered a reliable source in the first place.

        1. I think she was seen on a Hot Potato podcast. I don’t think they’re the same person at all, just similar. I did think her info made sense.

          1. yes, i don’t believe in Robyn Wood either, but the military/psyop-central do have the ability to create “live” avatars (Snowden, Breivik, etc.) so video isn’t proof in itself.

            the most intriguing part of the interview/show i found to be the discussion about maps and how they are misleading. this fact would explain a lot of the discrepancies with air travel etc. if our maps are wrong but fit perfectly on a globe,,, kind of makes the actual shape more questionnable too.

          2. Ab wrote:

            “I did think her info made sense”. (period)

            Ab also wrote:

            “Bob and her seem to understand radio and microwave technology quite convincingly.” (period)

            Interesting. Ab has formed opinions – and shares them with his readers. But wouldn’t it be even more interesting to hear exactly WHY he has formed these opinions? Is this just a bland cheerleader site?

            Ab also wrote:

            “Clueseau has done nothing to further our understanding of whatever we are on.”

            Obviously, Ab thinks he has done something to further our understanding on what we are on.

          3. Yes this is my cheerleader site. I reserve the right to not explain my intuition. You don’t have a problem with that do you Simon?

          4. @UNreal

            I keep seeing claims towards “live-avatars” on this site.
            could you perhaps go into detail of what this entails?

            As a Norwegian guy in the effects business i see the various glitches in the Breivik court case like everyone else (and norwegian papers claiming hes been in isolation ever since, with very limited human contact)

            But he is not computer generated (as in 3d model) that much is obvious.
            maybe the “live avatars” as you say are composites (multiple images/video overlaid ontop of each other), that seems like the more sensible conclusion.

            This ofcourse requires film of actual people to get this footage, and someone actually playing him, or at least his head/body seperately ( a photoreal computer head with no basis on real film is still not achivable with any technology known to me, and i do this for a living).

            Is this what you mean by “live avatars”?

            just want to clear this up once and for all so no one gets confused 🙂

            Back on topic.

            Don’t know what to think of this interview, part of me thinks it sounds sincere, but i have no backround in this technology so i could honestly not tell, and just defering to authority is how we got into this mess to begin with.

            I hope at least it leads to questions that make us smarter, no matter the outcome.

            -Zal

          5. @Zalian
            my phrasing might be a bit odd, i was mostly referring to CGI video being used to create fictitious characters these days. the two cases i find compelling are Edward Snowden and Mark Potok, as discussed in the excellent thread at Cluesforum entitled “The Age of Simulation”

            in the case of Breivik you are likely right that Breivik is a real person/actor, but parts of his trial had many signs of CGI video manipulation.

          6. Ok seems we are talking about the same thing.

            I just make a clear distinction between what i call computer generated (3d models/matte paintings) and composites.

            what UNreal calls CGI is actually what falls under the “compositor” profession.

            look into programs like “nuke (yes lol its called that), fusion, shake and after effects” (nuke and shake are what most hollywood movies are made in), to learn what compositors do, Basically digital collages.

            This is important distinction though, because this implies there are actual actors with those faces somewhere.

            In the case of Brevik and others, it would be fasinating to find the person walking around with that face (provided he hasnt grown a huge beard or something to look different) but im sure it would get written off as a doppleganger anyway.

            This is pretty damn hard to prove, unless you can find the actual studio that did it.

            Might be a case for further research, i would bet AP or Reuters or whatever has a go-to studio for these things.

            -Zal

  2. Clueseau , you are here since the 2nd of october
    and all i’ve seen so far are ad hominims and an overall
    disrespect to others on here who happen to take a different view
    it’s also VERY strange you never mentioned all the anti flat earth bile in your introduction …

    Like many others, my fakery/hoax background starts with 911. That’s the first media

    incident I questioned. The events of 911 were a “false flag” at first, then years later it

    turns out even the planes were fake. My introduction to conspiracy theory media was

    with Art Bell then Alex Jones, though they don’t get into fakery much. Fakeology was

    the natural next step. Discovering the moon landing was fake sealed the deal. There is

    an important role for fakeology in keeping the news media at least partially honest in

    these days of change. So I’ve been keeping up on this topic in my spare time from

    work slinging many flavors of ice cream.

    Clueseau October 2, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    raison d’etre ?

    1. His introduction covers all the bases and seems as generic as it seems fake. I can only imagine most intros are fake. Clueseau has done nothing to further our understanding of whatever we are on. Maybe he call in on at a prearranged time for a conference call while on break at Dairy Queen (must be slow this time of year?)

    2. “I reserve the right to not explain my intuition.” -Ab

      I am also unable to explain my own intuition on how this flat earth thing is a DBA campaign. I am not alone, several people are having communication issues as well. This appears to be the issue: a communication gap. It is happening right here at fakeology.com. We are unable to communicate with each other about the existence/non-esixtence of the total DBA campaign on flat earth.

      My own intuition is strong on this one, real strong, more sure than I have ever been, that the whole flat earth thing is a DBA campaign, most likely by NASA as they seem to have the most to hide. But I am clearly unable to communicate it. Others are unable to communicate their info as well. Our communication gap is as big as the Grand Canyon. We gotta yell at each other real loud to be heard.

      1. @Khammad

        I am also unable to explain my own intuition on how this flat earth thing is a DBA campaign. I am not alone, several people are having communication issues as well. This appears to be the issue: a communication gap. It is happening right here at fakeology.com…. We are unable to communicate with each other about the existence/non-esixtence of the total DBA campaign on flat earth.

        If it is a DBA capaign? First you cann’t prove it and who is really behind it, one doesn’t no. If it is a DBA campaign, what do you want us to do? I have heard about the flat earth theorie more as 10 years ago, but did not look after it. Ab in his innnocence put an interview up and that started the ball rolling. People started to look after the “ball model”and some realized themselves: this “ball model” has some severe flaws. When one is pro and the other one is contra “ball”model”sceptism this will create automatically a tension and will create a gap. It drives to far for blaming Ab for this communicationgap.
        The ones who promotes the “ball theorie” are in fact, when it comes to the point, the greatest PR people for NASA, because that is exactly what NASA promotes with their ISS bullshit.
        So Khammad if this whole thing is a DBA campaign from NASA what do you expect from us?

        1. “So Khammad if this whole thing is a DBA campaign from NASA what do you expect from us?” -Curious

          To protect your self psychologically from the NLP that is in each and every video, it’s probably best to simply stop watching flat earth videos.

          1. @Khammad

            To protect your self psychologically from the NLP that is in each and every video, it’s probably best to simply stop watching flat earth videos.

            Very nice answer. But it does not solve the problem which is created: the “ball earth model” as created by NASA/Cambridge.
            Gravity VS Centrifugal force, who wins?
            NASA’s says Gravity. “Real Science” says Centrifugal. Water cannot stick to a 1000mph spinning ball.
            The problem is not only the “ball model” , but the explanations which they have given to us at school. So to speak the whole thing around it.We are and have been very nicely brainwashed. That whole explanation has some severe shortcomings. There is no denying about it.

      2. @Khammad

        I am also unable to explain my own intuition on how this flat earth thing is a DBA campaign. I am not alone, several people are having communication issues as well. This appears to be the issue: a communication gap. It is happening right here at fakeology.com…. We are unable to communicate with each other about the existence/non-esixtence of the total DBA campaign on flat earth.

        A communication gap, partly caused by yourself and S. Shack. May I remind you that for whatever reasons you decided to attack JLB in August, in not such a nice way. The way JLB answered was stunning and he challenged you and S. Shack. Add to it that when I am not mistaken S. Shack came up with the DBA idea. Anyway taken this whole thing together this caused the communicationgap, then through this behaviour the several points of vieuw hardened and a gap was created which caused also the communicatonproblems. When one is going to the far left side and the other to right a hughe problem is created. As usual fundamentalists cannot communicate with each other. Maybe my take is wrong but this is my point of vieuw.

        1. John Le Bon uses NLP (neurolinguistic programming) on his listeners and I can prove it. The video or audio is forthcoming. I don’t think a regular person would do that. It takes a specialist.

  3. Ab wrote:
    “Yes this is my cheerleader site. I reserve the right to not explain my intuition. You don’t have a problem with that do you Simon?”

    As a matter of fact, I do – and I will tell you why – quite frankly and straight out of my heart – since I sincerely care about your site which I profoundly respected for a long time. My intuition told me that this site was the real deal – as far as solid / no-nonsense intuitive thinking is concerned. From the word go – and for many months – you promoted my own site (Cluesforum) and our wider research efforts very nicely indeed – and did some sterling job diffusing the September Clues information ( to the point where folks started wondering whether our sites were associated in some way). I thoroughly enjoyed being interviewed by you on the Fakeologist podcast – and highly valued your relaxed and personable approach to the whole thing. I remain convinced that you are the nicest guy imaginable – yet can only deplore the way you have been sucked into the FE psyop – a ploy so evidently devised by NASA’s damage-control division in response to our recent ‘demolition’ of the entire space industry. If you just can’t see this – too bad : there is, of course, nothing I can do about your intuitions – nor do I pretend / nor would allow myself to sway them in any way: this is your site – and I have mine. We certainly can keep it that way, harmoniously – and without any sort of ‘strife’ / or ill feelings between us whatsoever.

    I will now only hope that you will, at least, refrain from sticking a “shill-tag” on anyone opposing / calling out the FE farce – such as your member Clueseau (which I hasten to say is NOT me – nor do I have any clue as to his/her identity), Kham or myself. I hope this isn’t asking too much. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

wp-puzzle.com logo