Duelling Dichotomy

Great show between two arch rivals. I enjoy Jeff C.  more after listening to this (I have a soft spot for any of the very few Canadians speaking up), and of course I am big fan of the eloquent John Lebon.

I almost want to suggest a weekly show between these two; a truther Siskel and Ebert.

Watch “‘Great, Late, Old Mate Debate’ | Jeffrey vs JLB (22-Jan-2016)” on YouTube

Aftershow with a cursing JLB

Aussie TV

Be the 1st to vote.

12 thoughts on “Duelling Dichotomy”

  1. What happened to the general consensus around here that Jeff C is an unstable-on-purpose person?

    And why did we think this in the first place? Because of the words coming out of his mouth, “Real people died in that plane crash”. Remember? Then he went away for a while because he was totally called out.

    Then Jeff C came back and after a couple of months we accept him as legitimate? Is there a collective amnesia going on here?

    As there is no new information to suggest Jeff C as legitimate, why should we change our mind from before? Am I missing something?

    I believe the exchange between Jeff C and JLB is scripted and meant to be propoganda because the words they are saying supports the mainstream alternative news, not independent news.

    1. K,
      Nothing happened. Jeff is as noisy as ever. He is as wrong as ever. He is entertaining to many. He demands attention. He gets more than you or I – so I look. JLB is eloquent and Jeff is no match for John’s intellect. It’s like watching a cat and a mouse (or snake and lizard). I posted it because I love audio and I especially agree with JLB’s views. John does not appear to me at all to be a shill, propaganda, or psyOps. He is a thinking man and is doing a great job explaining his position. I don’t mind you criticizing him here, but have not been convinced at all by your arguments against him.

      I’d appreciate if you’d refrain from speaking as the “fakeologist view”. Fakeologist doesn’t have an official view of anything. I study fakery. You study fakery. I agree with no one 100% here or anywhere. In future, please reference past views as your views or your interpretation of the general view here. Your appeal to authority is scaring other commentators and lurkers here into silence, which is the opposite of what I would like to see here.

      Your extensive participation and enthusiasm for this site has somehow morphed into an unhealthy control or gate keeping. I’ve allowed it to continue and run its course until now but I’ve had a few too many complaints from users I respect to let it go on. Please be mindful in your future criticism of others. Thanks!

      1. Here is the actual interview:

        I can’t believe I agree with JLB, but I guess it was bound to happen. He is correct, IMHO, when he states that people need to investigate these subjects. I also agree that people need to actually research and understand the history behind some of these media stories. That’s about all I agree with. The rest of the show seemed scripted to me, but who knows? Also, Shills most likely exist. Its logical! A great offensive is a team with a great defense. WHY CAN’T PEOPLE SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THESE VIDEO’S! Can you not see it AB?

        In my opinion, KHAM and TOM are onto something. JLB and Jeff’s show seems scripted to me as well. There is a huge psychology event going on here. Please wake up! Seriously, look at these videos’ from those of us who question JLB and Jeff. Please step back and take a look.



        I’m disappointed in your comment to Kham. From what I just read, I got the impression that you are attacking Kham for questioning JLB. Now keep in mind that JLB attacked Kham in his after-hour show that you posted on your site. Your response to Kham makes me think that you are bias towards both Kham and Tom. JLB went from scare-tactics of vaccines, attacking Videre, and then he never mentions it again. Then he creates this whole Flat Earth movement. He kept saying how much he supported the flat earth theory, then he switched sides. How does this now create issues among the community? Jesus AB!

        I see nothing wrong with changing your opinions, but he had a strong side he was on in all of those subjects. Rallying his troops and then he drops it and changes sides. *shakes head*

        SIDE NOTE: You stated that JLB is a better speaker than Jeff. HA HA HA HA . . I find myself reaching for my coffee when JLB talks.

        Oh and what are your thoughts on Chemtrails?

    2. Mmm, quirky stuff…

      We have a three hour youtube audio where, among other things, John Le Bon tries to convince Jeff C, the apparently exposed agent of misdirection , that ”paid shills” don’t exist, at all… ‘on youtube’… or something.

      Ab posts that he enjoys Jeff C. more ”after listening to this audio”. Mmm…yes Ab, maybe you hit the nail on the head ?

      Was this one of the purposes of it? To make Jeff look good ? The ‘eloquent’ JLB is letting his ‘old mate’ Jeffrey right off the hook, isn’t he?
      Far from calling-out Jeff as possibly a deliberate disinformationist, John actually goes for the theory that ”paid shills” don’t even exist. Ha!

      This makes Jeff look good as he can talk the sense, that ‘shills do exist’ and in doing so appear less ”shilly’ himself, perhsaps? Hey, he’s the one calling them real.

      John’s repeated term ‘paid shills’ is not one I would use ( why necessarily, the presumption of slave money payment? ), but as was discussed briefly last week on a JLB post, I think it’s naive to think that there are not agents of disinformation ‘on youtube’. It’s obvious that it’s part of the scenery in these areas of research and at risk of incurring a ‘speak for yourself’ penalty, I would think that most seasoned researchers here would agree with me.

      Is John Le Bon being naive on this point or is he doing it on purpose?

  2. Ab,

    You are correct in that there have been many complaints about me, mostly from flat earth types. That is interesting in itself.

    I shall refrain from challenging your belief system as I see it upsets you and this is your website. Apologies.

    1. Refrain from speaking as the fakeologist authority. Challenge all you want but be sure to speak from Kham’s view and not mine. Apology accepted.

  3. I think we’re all big boys and girls now and can make up our own minds who we want to play with on the schoolyard. I’m fed up with the shill-hunts – I much prefer to focus on the fakery and make up my own mind how to do my research and what or whom to believe. Still waiting for the big dino-exposé, JLB. It’ll be bags more fun than shill-exposing.

    1. Shill suspicion is part of psyops. I like fakery, but I also like the big picture, and that includes analyzing the players. When a player spends day and night producing material, it’s fair to ask if it’s his job. If it is, he can then be judged in a different light.

      1. You’re right Ab. The source is important. It’s easy, however, to get paranoid and end up thinking everyone is a “shill” a ie liar. My policy is to listen to what interests me, trust my gut-feeling, do some fact-checking, mull things over, take the dog for a walk, sleep on it – and then integrate the new information wholly or partly or dismiss it, reserving the right to change my mind when and if I feel it to be necessary.

Leave a Reply