Sunday, 31 August 2014

Cameron Locks out "British Jihadists"

This article is a follow-up to this one which I posted yesterday:
Following the raising of the terrorist threat level to "severe", the Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that his government is considering further action to tackle the supposed threat from Islamic terrorists. A part of this is a drastic plan to prevent "British jihadists" who have been away fighting in Syria and Iraq returning home to the UK. See: Cameron's proposal will be met with much approval from many people in the country because of the fear of terrorist attacks; how many of them will pause to ask some necessary questions. What exactly is the definition of a "British jihadist"? Somebody who has been convicted in a fair trial of being a terrorist? No, a "British jihadist" is somebody the government says is one- or even might be one; this means virtually every single British citizen. Another suggestion is the increased use of TPIM's- Terror Prevention and Investigation Measures, which means people who have never been convicted of any offence can be placed under house arrest, be forced to wear an electronic tag and be forbidden to go anywhere without a police minder; see here for more information: These changes would endanger the civil rights of all people; there is no way in the world that Cameron would get away with implementing them unless he claimed it was to protect us from danger. As I explain in the background article at the top, any real; "jihadists" out there belong to an organization created and run by Western intelligence. It is vital we, the people, do not fall for this very transparent and predictable farce. And beware! If you go abroad you might not be allowed to come home.

Saturday, 30 August 2014

UK Terror Threat Raised

The Prime Minister David Cameron and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, have announced that the official UK government terror threat level has been upgraded from "substantial" to "severe", see:
Male cow excrement- thus could this article be summarized. This is pure propaganda, a publicity stunt intended to keep us on our toes. Whichever psychological think tank the government are using right now has probably detected a dropping level of fear in the public consciousness and so this sham is intended to be a booster injection. The threat supposedly comes from ISIS, an armed radical Muslim movement that appeared out of thin air in eastern Syria a few months ago; this organization includes a large number of people who are British born and/or are currently resident in the UK. ISIS has taken over a large part of Syria and Iraq and they have been terrorizing Christians, local pagan religions and those of moderate Muslim persuasions wherever they go. They drive around in brand new Toyota trucks; where did they get them from? Most shocking of all, somebody nominated as an ISIS militiaman, thought to be from Britain, murdered the captured war correspondent James Foley. He beheaded Foley by hand and posted the video of the act online. There is some question over the truth behind that story, including allegations that the execution was faked, see: As for the "jihadi" who allegedly carried out this gruesome killing, the news reports that "intelligence agencies are searching for him"; my advice in their quest is to check their own personnel department. Yes, ISIS is very much created, armed and funded by various major covert government intelligence groups like the CIA, MI5 and Mossad. This is hardly even breaking news; those organizations have been behind terrorism for decades. This has been the case all through the Cold War and into the War on Terror. Even Osama bin Laden, the man who didn't do 9/11, was run by a Western intelligence operation codenamed "the database", in Arabic this translates as al Qaeda. So please laugh in the faces of Cameron and May and their scaremongering nonsense. As Tony Farrell said before he was sacked from South Yorkshire Police, the principle terror threat in this country is from government false flag attacks.

Friday, 29 August 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones in Phenomena Magazine

I have written a report on the UFO Truth Magazine Conference 2014 that has been published in the latest issue, number 64, of Phenomena magazine, see:
Phenomena is a free downloadable ezine on paranormal, UFO's and associated matters. It is edited by Stephen Mera and my friend and fellow researcher Brian Allan, see: and:

Thursday, 28 August 2014

An Offer from Channel 4... Again!

I've had another offer from a mainstream television producer to appear in an upcoming programme. This is the latest in a series of such offers; see the background links at the bottom for more details. Obviously the word hasn't got round yet that this nut is not for cracking. 
Maverick TV ( sent me an email:

Dear Ben

I hope you are well and don’t mind me contacting you, I found your Youtube channel and thought I would get in touch to see if you can assist me. We are working on an exciting new TV series for Channel 4 about weight loss and we are particularly interested in hearing from those that are extremely opinionated and have strong views on current affairs in the UK. Our series aims to improve fitness and encourage healthy eating. We are looking for determined, competitive individuals who consider themselves overweight and are strong minded when it comes to battling the bulge.

The series will explore motivational theories behind successful weight loss and we’re expecting lots of success stories during our filming. The show will be presented by Dr Christian Jessen (Embarrassing Bodies) and will provide a great insight into the world of weight loss. Please let me know if you have any questions at all - I’m happy to chat about the show further.

We are asking people who are interested in finding out more to e-mail with a bit of information about themselves and a photo.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail.



Here is my reply:

Dear Maverick TV.

Thank you for getting in contact and asking me to assist in your TV show. I’d be happy to participate in this upcoming production under certain conditions:

1. Would it possible for me to examine Maverick TV’s proposal documents to the commissioning editor of Channel 4?

2. Could you please tell me the title of the proposed programme, or if one hasn’t been decided upon, what working title are you using?

3. Please could you inform me why it is necessary to cast individuals who are “extremely opinionated and have strong views on current affairs in the UK”? What is the connection between that and your aim to “improve fitness and encourage healthy eating”?

4. Would you be willing to enter into negotiations leading to me being given some editorial control over the programme?

These conditions are due to my misgivings over getting involved, because of what I consider to be the extremely poor quality of TV shows that have been aired on Channel 4, and indeed other stations on television, during the last few years. I should inform you right away that I do not consider myself overweight and have no intention of attempting to lose a single ounce. I am young and healthy. I am reasonably fit and I served as a hospital porter for many years in one of the country’s top primary care trust teaching hospitals. I can walk long distances and climb steep hills easily. I consider myself very masculine and desirable. I’m not a fan of Embarrassing Bodies and hope sincerely that your current pre-production is not in any way similar to that programme. If it were I would decline your offer without hesitation.

Thank you for your time.

Ben Emlyn-Jones

And here is the exclusive: a reply from a TV company!:

Dear Ben,

Thank you very much for your e-mail. I would be more than happy to answer all questions for you. Please see my answers below, in red.

I look forward to hearing from you.


1. Would it possible for me to examine Maverick TV’s proposal documents to the commissioning editor of Channel 4?

Unfortunately none of our contributors will get a chance to view any proposal documents; however they will be given as much information about the show as we possibly can.

2. Could you please tell me the title of the proposed programme, or if one hasn’t been decided upon, what working title are you using?

The title of the show is Fatonomics.

3. Please could inform me why it is necessary to cast individuals who are “extremely opinionated and have strong views on current affairs in the UK”? What is the connection between that and your aim to “improve fitness and encourage healthy eating”?

The idea of the show is based on a motivational theory behind successful weight loss. This involves a competition between two people with opposing views on certain subjects in order to give them an additional motivation to win.

4. Would you be willing to enter into negotiations leading to me being given some editorial control over the programme?

Unfortunately this wouldn’t be an option.

I am astounded that they even wrote back to me; this is the first time ever I've heard of anybody who responds the way I did receiving any further correspondence. Even though this particular programme is not about the paranormal/conspiracy/UFO subjects it still looks like it's going to be a pile of conformist morale-destroying, psychological and cultural-manipulating crap. If I'm wrong I'll apologize, but I doubt I will be. Maverick TV decided to contact me because they think I'm bound to feel insecure and inferior about my corpulent physique, although they're extraordinarily careful to avoid stating it directly. They presume that I must be desperate to change it so I can become one more gym-clone; you know, the kind of guy we're all under legal obligation to want to be. I wouldn't actually feel any more insulted if they'd just been blunter and said: "Ben, we're looking for fat bastards like you..."  Obviously Fatonomics will be going ahead without my contribution.

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Salmond vs Darling- Part 2

A few weeks ago Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland leader of the Scottish National Party and chief of the Yes campaign, went head-to-head in a debate with Alistair Darling, former Labour cabinet minister, Tony Blair's Chancellor of the Exchequer and head of the Better Together tendency urging a No vote on Scottish independence. See here for my review of that event: It was inevitable that this was not the end of the matter and the two men would have to face each other again. This second debate has taken place at a crucial time because the postal polls open tomorrow and on that day some Scots might begin choosing how to answer the simple question: Should Scotland be an independent country? It took place last night, see here for the BBCi recording: (This link will only be live for a limited period of time. If a more permanent one becomes available, I'll edit this article and insert it.) In his opening statement Mr Salmond spoke of the history of the Scottish independence movement, how in 1979 they'd failed gain a parliament, something most countries take for granted, and this led to almost two decades of Tory rule, the Poll Tax and deindustrialization. After another chance in 1997 they finally got the Scottish Parliament and this did an enormous amount of good, but it didn't stop the Bedroom Tax, see:, the possible loss of the Ferguson shipyard or the basing of Trident WMD on the shores of the Firth of Clyde, all decisions that came from Westminster. Now the Scots have an opportunity to change all that; they should complete the journey to home rule in three weeks time and vote Yes. Mr Darling said in his opening statement that the entire concept of Scottish independence is based on a pipe dream by Alex Salmond; he has no "Plan B" is anything fails to work out, no proper monetary policy, a rickety economic policy and he asks us to just trust him. All Darling wants is to build a fairer and more prosperous society while Salmond wants an independent state no matter what the risks of the costs. Darling makes it clear that a No victory will not mean no change; more powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. But there is still no clear answer on what currency Scotland will use. What will this mean for jobs? For debt? For savings? For pensions? Once again Darling used the slogan "There's no turning back."

The next part of the debate was based on BBC's Question Time programme, in which the studio audience get to pose the questions to the panel. The first one was about the economy and the question was: "Would we be financially safe in an independent Scotland. (A lady called Lily Donaldson has been in touch with me; she has written an article on what the referendum means for Scottish people financially, see: Darling answered by once more bringing up the question of Salmond's currency ideas. Scotland currently uses the Pound Sterling which is issued to the United Kingdom via the Bank of England, but it belongs to the UK only. Strangely enough Darling decided to mention his handling of the financial crash of 2008 and lamented the fate of Iceland for taking a different course. This indulgence into self-congratulation was a mistake on his part, as well as a lie. Iceland is one of the few nations on Earth in economic recovery thanks to Johanna Sigurthadottir's decision to raise her middle finger to the IMF and jail the bankers. The lack of applause at the end of this speech, even by the No contingent selected for the audience, echoed loudly. There was some concern over North Sea oil because Darling says that it's something of a confidence bubble with less than half the probable revenue forecasted by an independent expert than the oil industry boasts. However Salmond disputed this forecast and quoted a separate independent prospector. Darling restated his favourite point about the enormous practical and moral difficulties of Salmond's notion of a shared pound, like the Bank of England being in a foreign country and so could not set interest rates etc. Salmond opposes joining the Euro... or says he does... He's opposed to a completely new currency, even though many other Yes campers support that idea. Darling says then that the only other option is for Scotland to use the pound as a foreign imposed unit of exchanged without any free national jurisdiction, like how Panama uses the US Dollar; this would be a disaster. Darling also warned of the risk of the public service deficit an independent Scotland would have to take on. How would the UK's national debt be shared out? How would the national product? How would pension funds? A shared currency in which both nations benefit equally only works as part of a political and economic union. Salmond accused Darling of being undemocratic and that Scotland doesn't need permission to use the pound; the Sterling is an international tradable currency. Darling even admitted that in as many words. It would also relieve Scotland of its unjust burden of the national debt, a debt built up by Darling's policies as Chancellor. Interestingly Darling delivered another falsehood when he said: "the UK Government controls the Bank of England"- I think it's the other way round.

The topic then moved on to health. Salmond stepped out from behind his podium and addressed the audience questioner by name, a method he used several time that evening. He declared his intention to keep health services in public hands and properly funded, with complete Scottish government control, both in policy and financial terms. Darling agreed with him that this should happen, even without devolution; but he reiterated that only a healthy economy with Scotland as part of the UK would have the resources necessary. One of the most sensible and inspiring moments of the debate took place when a woman in the audience accused Darling of being a hypocrite because of the Blair government's enthusiasm for NHS privatization; she's absolutely right because I've has to witness the process from the inside, see: "I hope you feel Aneurin Bevan sitting on your shoulder!" she said, and received a well-deserved round of applause. Salmond didn't miss that chink in his armour and followed up. Darling was then left with the unenviable task of defending the indefensible: the UK government's track record on the NHS, a burden that a Yes vote would free Scotland from. Salmond asked pointedly: "By 2020, how many Scottish children will fall into poverty because of government welfare cuts?" Also he questioned Westminster's Job Programme, that he sees as nothing more than an imperialistic slave labour scheme. Here he is referring to what is known by that magnificent new Orwellianism austerity. As with the NHS, Darling could do nothing except flail about in the dark; Salmond knows all his weak spots.
Eventually the subject moved on to Trident, something which I myself have covered extensively, see: Since the 1960's Britain's maritime nuclear deterrent has been based at Gareloch on the Firth of Clyde, specifically at the Coulport weapon storage area and the Faslane submarine base (these locations are not marked on all maps). This is seen by Scottish nationalists as effectively a human shield for Westminster; it's one of the SNP's core policies to close down the Trident complex. The UK government would then have to relocate it to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, if it wished to maintain independent nuclear armaments at all. If it does it will cost fifteen to twenty billion pounds just for initial establishment. A No supporter in the audience made the point that Trident involves over eight thousand Scottish jobs; however the removal of Trident from the Firth of Clyde would free up the oil industry to be more active in that area, which could make up the shortfall. Scotland plans to join NATO after independence and Darling said that this would be impossible for a nation opposed to nuclear weapons. Yet this was another lie; most of the countries in NATO are not nuclear armed. Salmond would make Faslane headquarters of the Scottish defence forces, this would include a fleet naval surface combatants, something which the Royal Navy in Scotland doesn't have. There was a vox populi segment during the break in proceedings in which one of the people interviewed was a crofter from Shetland. However, is Shetland even part of Scotland? Stuart Hill doesn't think so, see: Both Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond agreed that whatever the outcome of the vote, there should be no recriminations or divisions in the aftermath and the country should continue to move together as one, independent or not.
This second debate between the leaders of the Yes and No was totally different to the first. The tables were completely turned, Salmond had Darling for breakfast; and almost three quarters of viewers thought so too, see: The No chief was incoherent and repetitive and the audience became contemptuous and bored with him. Salmond though was passionate, positive and warm. The opinion polls have narrowed to the point where they two sides are almost overlapping, and the undecideds are being steadily mopped up. The TV trial last night could well push the Yes contingency into the lead in this crucial last few weeks before the referendum, see:, Since I began writing about this subject I've found myself becoming more and more ambivalent and confused over it. My head and my heart have steadily diverged over this issue and today they are preaching very different messages. As I've said in the background article above, I fear very much that Scottish independence is nothing more than a swindle to trick the rebellious UK into becoming part of the EU superstate, a stepping-stone to totalitarian global government. On an intellectual level, and I'm saying this as a Welshman, I recommend that Scotland remains a part of the one of the principle bastions currently resisting that agenda, the sentiment of British unity, and I urge the people of Scotland to vote No. Nevertheless I am not a flag-waving British unionist and I never have been. I hear my Celtic soul calling to me and I can't ignore it. Two thousand years of history cannot easily be put aside for something as trivial as a "good reason". I think if the Yes camp wins in the upcoming referendum I will be delighted, contrary to my own rational advice. Along with a sense of sentimental vindication will be excitement and curiosity at the prospect of something extraordinary happening in politics. A Yes victory would have a lot of novelty value in a world where change is regarded with the utmost dread and everything is geared towards maintaining the mundane and mediocre. The upheaval it generates could bring so much genuine progress, even negating my concerns over the EU agenda. I have a feeling I may change my mind even further in the days and weeks ahead. So my advice to the people of Scotland on the 18th of September is to vote No... I mean Yes... I mean No... I mean Yes... 

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Gilmerton Cove

Something very unusual can be found in a stereotypical and unexceptional street at the suburb of Gilmerton in Edinburgh, Scotland. Beneath the floors of number 16 Drum Street, opposite a bingo hall, is the hidden entrance to Gilmerton Cove, an underworld of artificial caverns which are shrouded in mystery, see: The entrance leads to a series of passageways and chambers that were hand-carved many centuries ago, at least; their ceilings are about ten feet deep. They have been used as storerooms, a brothel, an illicit whisky distillery and many other purposes over the years, like the caves in Nottingham, see links below. Nobody knows who constructed them except rumours that they're the work of a man called George Paterson who ran a smithy there in the early 18th century. However the Cove is too large and elaborate to be the work of a single individual. Also there are stories that they are far older than Paterson's time. They may have been built as a refuge during the "Killing Time", a brutal civil war sparked off by the rebellion of the Covenanters, a group of people belonging to Protestant nonconformist churches, against King Charles II. They had to go into hiding or face being imprisoned and killed. Was Gilmerton Cove a place in which an underground, literally, Covenanter cell founded a safe-house? This took place over a hundred years before the life of George Paterson which would put the date of construction for the Cove back to at least the early 17th century. Maybe it's even older than that; engravings and graffiti on the chiselled walls of the Cove contain Masonic and esoteric symbolism, and it was indeed rumoured to have been used by Freemasons and the Hellfire Club more recently, see links below. Could it actually be a much more ancient sanctuary for secret societies like the Freemasons and Knights Templar? In 2002 archaeologists excavated a new section of the Cove in which they discovered a bricked up tunnel. The local authorities would not grant permission for this blockage to be removed because it lay directly beneath the road and they were afraid heavy vehicles driving above could cause the tunnel to collapse... or at least that's their story. However the initial direction of the tunnel can be ascertained and it points south. About five miles south of Gilmerton lies Rosslyn Chapel, one of the most enigmatic and fascinating buildings on Earth; it is one of the locations nominated as the resting place of the Holy Grail. Does this mean that that there is a subterranean link between Gilmerton Cove and Rosslyn Chapel? Only further study will tell. There are certainly underground chambers beneath the Chapel and many explorers have tried to chart them... some never came out again. One thing which makes Gilmerton Cove unique is that incorporated into its architecture are carvings that serve as furniture. These resemble benches and tables, indicating that the chambers were originally intended to be dwelling places for people; however a few of the adaptations serve no obvious purpose, like a four to five pint hemispherical depression on one of the benches known as the "punchbowl". This might have been a baptismal font or intended for use in some rituals if the Freemasons and Knights Templar were there. Gilmerton Cove is just one of a number of similar locations such and Petra and Derinkuyu in Turkey, and Nottingham in England, where for some reason people decided to build very complex and extensive underground spaces, sometimes as large as the city above them, often leaving no records as to who built them or when they built them; or why. New ones are being discovered all the time, and it's quite likely that what has so far been unearthed is a mere fraction of the complete covert underworld, unimaginable secrets that may lie just a short distance beneath your feet.

Thursday, 14 August 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones on Revolution Radio with Kerry Cassidy

As part of the Friday night live radio broadcasts at The Bases Project Conference 2014, Kerry Cassidy interviewed a few of us for her own show, including me, see here for a film of the event:
I discussed ET Disclosure, mind control and my own background with her.
See here for Kerry's interview on the Irate Women Show with Sarah Goodley and myself:

Wednesday, 13 August 2014

Ben Emlyn-Jones at High Wycombe Paranormal Meet-Up

I will be speaking at the High Wycombe Paranormal Meet-Up group on Wednesday the 27th of August. The event starts around 7.30 PM and the venue is the Bricklayers Arms, High Street, Downley, High Wycombe, HP13 5XJ. Just £2 entry. See here for more details; you'll need to log into a Facebook account: My lecture is entitled Helen Duncan and the Witchcraft Trial- 70 Years On. In 1944 the psychic medium Helen Duncan was put on trial under the two hundred year old Witchcraft Act of 1735 because she was accused of defrauding the public by staging a fake seance. Was she really a fake medium? Or was something more complicated and furtive going on, something related to espionage and wartime security?

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Robin Williams Dies

Robin Williams
July 21st 1951- August 11th 2014

The famous actor and comedian Robin Williams has died at the age of sixty-three. Yesterday the emergency services were called to his house in Tiburon, California USA and found him unconscious. He could not be resuscitated and was pronounced dead at the scene, probably from suicide. He was known to have been battling depression and had a drink and drug problem. He became famous on TV as an egg-cracking and wise-cracking alien in Mork and Mindy and in the movies he played Popeye in the 1980 film of that name. However it wasn't until the late 1980's that he became role-cast into the form I most admired him for, that of the archetypal trickster rebel. Beginning with Good Morning Vietnam he played a whole series of eccentric and funny free-spirited characters who find themselves in a setting in which conformity, discipline and sombreness prevail; this results in friction between these characters and the authorities which fuels the story. Other examples are Dead Poets Society and Patch Adams. These films are very emotive as well as comical; tragedy was something else Williams excelled at, such as in Bicentennial Man. Not that he lacked versatility; in Insomnia he played a very credible and detestable villain. He was also equally talented as a stand-up comic, but less famous for it, see:

What made Robin Williams one of my heroes was the way he championed nonconformism. He made me feel that being an oddball was fine and that I didn't have to change; even though everybody around me was telling me I had to, and was even putting pressure on me to do so, up to and including the use of violent force. He was a role model for me my entire life, especially when I was a child and felt I didn't fit in with my peers. His absolute masterpiece was The Fisher King in which its incitement to breach conformity is breathtaking; here's my favourite scene from it: Those who knew him say that he often found it hard to switch off when he was acting and he sometimes remained in character during his free time, causing riotous scenes in public places and social gatherings. He found it hard to be serious; many of his best comedy moments are ad-libbed by him and were not originally scripted into his films. But life as a nonconformist is never easy. Many great funny men hide deep anguish behind their jokes and like Kenneth Williams and Tony Hancock, Williams fought a long hard battle against depression. He also fell into the trap of addiction, like many in Hollywood, including his co-star in Patch Adams, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman. When his best friend and fellow actor Christopher Reeve died, it dealt him a devastating blow from which he never completely recovered. One of his best films was What Dreams May Come, based on the Richard Matherson novel about the prospect of life after death. I've always found it deeply poignant, but never more so than today; however it gives me hope, see: I'll miss you badly, Robin. RIP.

Thursday, 7 August 2014

Bigfoot seen in Kent

Royal Tunbridge Wells is a quaint historical town in Kent which is reputed to be the epitome of middle England. Its very name conjures up images of well-moved lawns and pruned hedges, double garages with Ford Mondeos, golf courses, the Rotary Club and Women's Institute, church hall events, commuters standing on trains and housewives who write in to the BBC to complain. The last thing you'd expect to see in Tunbridge Wells was what a rambler in the local woods allegedly came across in October 2012. He was strolling on the Common, a forested park near the town centre, when he was approached by a humanoid creature covered in fur with red eyes that the witness called "demonic". It was much larger than a man, about eight feet tall. He fled the scene, understandably, when the being made a loud roaring sound at him. This is only the most recent account of very similar entities seen in the same area and in many other places in Kent. Reports date back at least seventy years, and the most recent news story on the subject caused another resident to come forward with a tale he had heard about an encounter with it on the Common during World War II. In this case it was a couple sitting on a bench when the beast accosted them from behind; again they ran off. Nobody believed their story and thought they were making it up. The description is identical: "a tall, hairy ape-like creature with eyes that were 'burning', had a reddish colour". Paranormal investigator Neil Arnold has collected even more reports from Dartford, Maidstone, Hythe and Chatham, see: This folklore might have inspired the Kentish author Clive King to write his famous children's book about a modern day caveman: Stig of the Dump, see:

This phenomenon has become known as the "Kentish Apeman" and it remains a mystery. Some residents suspect that it's somebody dressed up in a furry suit playing a prank, but so far nobody has confessed or been exposed. It would also have to be a multi-generational enterprise to explain the encounters covering seventy years or more; you'd think the novelty would have worn off by now. As regular readers will know, I have a lot of interest in the appearances of creatures known as "Bigfoot" or "the Yeti", large upright-standing primates living in the wild. They are so far undiscovered by man, but we sometimes encounter them when our paths cross unexpectedly.
Having examined the evidence I'm fairly certain beasts like this exist somewhere on our planet, but not everywhere. The reason a large land animal might go undetected by man would be because it lives in a separate habitat to us. This is where new species tend to be discovered, high up in the mountains, in the centre of the great forests or deserts, or deep in the oceans; regions of the Earth where very few humans live. Suburban Kent is not one of these places. Yes, there are areas of ancient woodland in Kent which would take a few hours to walk across. Possibly there are unknown species of fly or beetle living in them, even a big cat or two, but not a primate larger than a man. The kind of wilderness where an ecosystem could covertly support a Bigfoot-like animal are the forested and mountainous regions of western North America, Siberia or the Himalayas. Great Britain is the seventh largest island in the world with an area of 88,000 square miles. Squeezed onto that landmass are over 61 million people; that makes its mean population density 693 human beings per square mile. Locally that can vary considerably, between the mountains of Scotland and central London for example, but that's the average for the whole of Britain. The United States on the other hand is far bigger in area, 3,700,000 square miles, but with its population of 318 million that gives it a density far lower, just 88 people per square mile; and the USA has some regions covering thousands of square miles in which the human population is virtually zero. Conversely Kent's population density is 1,200 per square mile, twice the national average. I'm verging with the notion that a researcher once told me, that a Bigfoot colony could remain hidden in darkest Scotland, but it's simply not possible in Kent. So what did those people see? The newspapers claim that Neil Arnold says that the Tunbridge Wells apparition is a paranormal figure, but not a flash-and-blood monster. He supposedly says the archetype exists in legend, the "wild men of the woods". Could it actually be something more akin to a ghost; I'm reminded of the famous case of the "Beast of Bolam Lake" which began as a monster hunt, but ended up discovering something else, equally strange but very different indeed, see: I saw something similar myself in Oxford once, see: Could these phenomena be intrusions of entities from a parallel universe or manifestations of our spirit? It's perfectly possible that the apemen of the remote continental forests are biological creatures, but if the ones in built up areas cannot be, and they're not blokes in suits, then what else are they?

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Scottish Independence Debate

There has been a live TV debate on the September the 18th Scottish Independence referendum between Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party; and the head of the Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling. See: and:
At the time of writing a recording is available online here.

Salmond's position is that Scotland is essentially an occupied country; there are no Scottish MP's at all in Westminster so that all decisions taken for Scotland are taken outside the country by non-Scots. He mentions the Bedroom Tax and the erstwhile Poll Tax of the early 1990's, the issue that brought the SNP to prominence in the first place. Scotland currently subsidizes the UK economy in terms of income tax by an internal deficit of eight billion pounds, yet its students have to pay tuition fees. One of the biggest WMD bases in the world, the Trident facility at Faslane, can be found a few miles from Glasgow and that so many people in Scotland are in poverty, on average many points below people in England. Scotland needs to be a just society, but it can't be when "there are more pandas in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MP's in Scotland!... This is an opportunity we must seize!" Darling, who was a minister in Tony Blair's government, hit back by saying that Scotland should have the "best of both worlds" part of the UK's strong economy, with a devolved parliament to handle much of its own affairs and more jobs and security. He fears the dangers of the change that would come with independence. "It's not an issue of patriotism; you can be a good Scot in a United Kingdom; and once the decision is made, you can never go back!" At times the discussion became very heated, especially when Darling pressed Salmond on his plans for the Scottish currency which he has been very cagy about. Salmond is still determined to introduce his idea for a "Sterling zone", but that comes with enormous practical and moral difficulties, like the Bank of England being in a foreign country and so could not set interest rates etc, see links below. "It's not England's pound!" Salmond sniped back at Darling claiming that he was being a hypocrite because he used to support the idea; also he brought up Darling's record of when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer during the bailout. Salmond simply kept repeating over and over again how he wants to keep the pound and that's it. He opposes joining the Euro... or says he does... He's opposed to a completely new currency, even though many other Yes campers support that idea. Darling says then that the only other option is for Scotland to use the pound as a foreign imposed unit of exchanged, like how Panama uses the US Dollar; this would be a disaster. The audience whistled and booed as Salmond dithered. Darling also warned of the risk of the public service deficit an independent Scotland would have to take on. How would UK national debt be shared out? How would national product? How would pension funds? Salmond said that the end of "austerity", that wonderful new Orwellianism, would make up for that.

Salmond made the point that the No campaign was very negative and centred on fear and doubt. He saw his own position as hopeful and forward-looking. But his cross examination became absurd; he brought up jokes made by members of the No contingent, like Scotland having to drive on the right side of the road or even Scotland being more vulnerable to attacks from outer space! What's interesting is that both men agreed on the importance of clinging onto the European Union for dear life, but that the referendum might change the status of Scotland within the EU, a key point of this whole matter I think. Questioners from the audience kept berating Salmond for his ramshackle currency plan, but Salmond didn't change his very coy attitude; this is extremely suspicious and there's little doubt that he was put on the spot badly by whatever motive... or on whoever's command... he has that makes him stick stubbornly by his plan for a Sterling zone or bust. Maybe the idea is to string people along on a confidence bubble just until they all vote Yes; and then during the eighteen month handover period when it all goes to pot he'll just shrug and say: "Sorry, I was wrong, it's not going to work. I didn't want this, but we have no choice but to take the Euro," see links below. If this is the tactic then I don't think it's working; Darling was definitely stronger in the debate, and the opinion polls following the programme show a decisive boost for the No tendency, mostly at the expense of the undecided, see: (Nevertheless the longer term trend in the polls is that the Yeses have been gaining steadily this year, most of the undecided have so far moved to the Yes side). Salmond performed so badly that I wondered at one point whether he was trying to throw it. Even a member of the audience chided him on his conduct. Of course this can't be possible, if not then what on Earth was he playing at? I've a feeling he knows more than we do at this point; maybe he's had secret orders handed to him at the recent Bilderberg Group meeting in Copenhagen that he's obviously keeping to himself. Perhaps it's all reverse psychology of some kind; I'm not sure. I maintain that I hope the Scots will vote No on September the 18th (Maybe on Shetland they'll boycott the vote altogether as Stuart Hill advises, see: I'm not a flag-waving British unionist and my reasons are very different from those espoused last night be Alistair Darling. There's even a part of me that wants to see a Yes victory, when my heart is talking instead of my head; perhaps for deep sentimental feelings of my past as a Welsh nationalist that I can't quite shake off, but also out of sheer curiosity. It would certainly make politics far more interesting. I just think the referendum is a plot to fragment the United Kingdom so that it can be more easily absorbed into Europe. Scotland has fought for its freedom against Illuminati-occupied empires since the time of the Romans, but today the world is a different place. The principle bulldozer for the advancement of this empire lies to the east in Brussels and, with one of history's greatest ironies, nationalism and euroscepticism in the United Kingdom is holding it at bay. I don't want to see Scotland part of any empire, but right now the last thing they want is to jump out of the UK frying pan into the EU fire.

Tuesday, 5 August 2014

Richplanet Live in London

I've been to see Richard D Hall's live Richplanet show, part of his current national tour which has taken him from Stirling in Scotland to Margate in Kent, to its traditional grand finale in Weston-super-Mare, see:
I've known Richard D Hall for a long time and we've collaborated several times, see links at the bottom. He's recently suffered with health problems and also attempts to censor his work for being "offensive!", see: This hasn't stopped him and his TV show is back on the air. He's also travelling a lot doing live shows in the last year or two. I saw his show a few months ago in Alvechurch near Birmingham; but this occasion was the first time I'd seen one in London. It was a hot and sticky afternoon as I made my way through the streets to the venue, a large and modern hotel in Kilburn. I arrived early in case Richard and his team needed any help setting up. It was good to meet up with Richard and all the others again. Later on when the rest of the audience arrived I was reunited with many more friends. One of the pleasures of attending live events in the social side; catching up with people and talking with them right there and then.

Richard's show lasted all evening with refreshment breaks and a question and answer session at the end. His shows tend to cover current affairs and interim reports; they're frequently updated, even during the tour period itself sometimes. In this lecture he spoke a lot about Madeleine McCann, a young child who was very famously abducted. He's also produced a four-hour documentary about the incident a DVD copy of which I bought from the merchandise stall: Buried by the Mainstream Media- the True Story of Madeleine McCann, see:; the film is now available online too: Interestingly, the Skeptics always claim what people like Richard do is a "money making scam!" However we make hardly a spare penny from anything we do and Richard has even relinquished copyright on this production so people are free to distribute it as they se fit; he just asks for a voluntary donation. This is because so many people are interested in the subject of Madeleine McCann and Richard hopes he can sow some very widespread general misgivings by exposing what a sham the official story of it is. By comparison the Skeptic movement is big business and they hold very upmarket events at the plushest venues, see: Madeleine McCann was three years old at the time she disappeared from a holiday apartment at an Algarve resort in Portugal. According to her parents they left her sleeping in a bedroom with her brother and sister while they went to a restaurant for a meal just a short walk away. They nipped back to the apartment regularly to check on the children and on one of these checks they found that somebody had broken into the apartment and abducted Madeleine. There was a huge international media storm and campaigns to "find Maddy now!" which raised millions of pounds. I thought this odd at the time; why was Madeleine McCann's case getting so much publicity when, sadly, children disappearing like this is not unusual; in fact similar events happen literally every day. Richard thinks Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents and their friends disposed of the body, and are covering up her death. The evidence comes from searches of the scene by sniffer dogs which picked up the smell of blood and dead bodies there. Also the McCanns' stories are full of contradictions and very imprecise information. The McCanns' "charity" is connected to some extremely untrustworthy people including high diplomatic officials, media spin doctors from Tony Blair's government, fifth column psychological mind-controllers and also supposed private investigators with links to fraud, espionage and organized crime. Even the Pope offered his moral support! The question is, did the parents murder Madeleine or did she die of natural causes? If it's the latter then why didn't they just say so? They were on holiday with a group of about seven friends, with children of their own, "the Tapas Seven" as they've been christened, and it looks as though they're involved too. Did one of the friends kill Madeleine? If so why are the parents collaborating with them? If the parents are the culprits then why are these friends collaborating with the McCanns? The entire group of people surrounding the McCanns even tried to frame somebody for kidnapping Madeleine; it's totally "Bob Lazar" as Richard himself would say. Why has Madeleine McCann's supposed kidnapping been made such a cause celebre involving such high profile people, front-page headlines and official institutions? Richard's documentary is a vital ingredient in any unfettered study of what happened to this poor little girl when she was supposed to be enjoying her holiday, but there are no certain answers yet. Richard speculates that it might have something to do with organized child abuse and MI5 involvement in it, like at Kincora Boys Home. Possibly, we know MI5 were involved, see:
Richard, like myself, has an interest in exposing media propaganda. He has come to the same conclusions about the TV programme On Benefits and Proud that I have, see: What's more he has discovered that the participants were deliberately misled and tricked into taking part. Richard was contacted by Plum Pictures who are making a "documentary" on the alien abduction phenomenon. I myself have been contacted by the mainstream media in a similar way, see: and: Richard's reply was very similar to mine. Richard phoned them up whereas I just wrote to them; they never replied to me because they knew they could not. Plum Pictures are covering Miles Johnston's Bases Project events and were there at Bases at the Barge a couple of months ago. I told them unequivocally I don't wish to be involved in their production in any way, see here from 23.50: Richard has developed a very low opinion of Miles Johnston and his work. I don't agree at all and I think Richard is being unfair to Miles; Miles has done a lot of good work in raising awareness and distributing information. The AMMACH and Bases witnesses are always eager volunteers to be interviewed. Afterwards most of them remain pleased to have been involved. Many of these witnesses are close friends of mine and they feel they've achieved something and made a difference to the world by being on the sofa. In terms of their personal wellbeing they've commented to me that they find it healing and inspiring. This is not to say that Miles hasn't made a lot of mistakes; he's given a platform to some very incredulous characters indeed over the years, but all in all I think he's genuine and has done a lot of good. That being said, Richard is correct to criticize Miles for signing up with Plum Pictures, and I do so myself in my recent interview with Miles, see: It's an extremely ill-advised move, especially in light of recent experience, and when the programme is broadcast I think this will become very obvious. Richard is opposed to fracking and like Ian R Crane he understands that all the stated benefits of it from the pro-fracking lobby are a lie. There is nothing close to the amount of gas the government claims there is underneath our land; except Richard's figures are even more extreme than Ian's. Richard calculates that the actual gas reserves are well below one percent of estimates. Richard also spoke about the secret space programme and is interested in the testimony of the witness Edgar Fouche, an Area 51 insider who is speaking about his work on the illusive gravity-controlled TR3B aircraft and spacecraft, see: He thinks we should be suspicious of any whistleblowers promoted in the media, like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and he's right. Why are people like Dr Judy Wood never on the BBC or Sky News? Good question. All in all this was an excellent presentation and I thank Richard for it and everybody else involved. I had to leave soon after the end of the event so was not able to attend the legendary party that usually follows Richplanet events. I slept on the coach home to Oxford and arrived back at about 1.30 AM, tired but happy. I'm glad I went along.

Monday, 4 August 2014

World War I Centenary

It was at 10 PM on August the 4th 1914 that Britain formally declared war on Germany. What was to follow in the succeeding four years, three months and seven days was the most destructive conflict in the history of the world, at least in purely military terms. By the time it was all over more than sixteen million soldiers had been killed and millions more maimed, both physically and mentally. The entire world was exhausted and traumatized by what became known as the Great War... before World War II broke out in 1939. The Great War changed the world like none other before it or since; to this day the names of places like Ypres, Mons, the Somme and Verdun raise instinctive feelings of tragedy and loss. Before this the idea of being anti-war was considered a disgusting perversion, a moral weakness, an act of treason or even some kind of mental illness. Afterwards everybody at least sympathized with that position. It also raised the point that the argument against war was no longer merely an ethical one; it was a purely practical question. We had become simply too good at killing each other for war to ever achieve anything productive. The Great War involved the use of new kinds of destructive military technology such as the aircraft, the tank, the machine gun, the submarine and what we today call weapons of mass destruction. When these weapons had been invented, all within a decade or two earlier, they had been described as the method to end all wars because their deployment would be invincibly catastrophic to both sides; this was the exact same justification for the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. The Great War called into question a lot of concepts that had up till then been essential, such as fighting in wars made you a brave hero, that patriotism was the most divine emotion, and even whether God was good. To join the armed forces before that time was considered to be very noble and manly. Soldiers were synonymous with the warriors of fiction and mythology, chivalrous and virtuous men who wielded swords against the forces of darkness. But after World War I many people instead remembered the lines of robotic smartly-uniformed troops marching diligently in formation towards their demise in the jaws of the mechanical meat-grinder of steel, explosives and chemicals, and compared it more to a line of farm animals entering a slaughterhouse. Where was the heroism? The honour? The decent cause of fighting for good against evil? It was what the philosopher Julius Evola called "the war of the ants". The supposed evil was the British media portrayal of Germany, with comic strips featuring demonic caricatures of the German leader Kaiser Wilhelm, who ironically was a cousin of King George V of England. The war started quickly, within a few weeks during the "July Crisis", but the event which triggered British involvement was Germany's invasion of Belgium. The press reported that when the Kaiser's troops entered the city of Liege they took all the young babies from their mothers' arms and impaled them on spikes. These spikes they then carried as they paraded triumphantly around the streets. This story was a complete fabrication, but by the time this was realized it was too late; it had done its job. The troops were motivated with a bloodlust for Germans. It's not unlike the "baby incubator story" in Kuwait which led to the "highway of death" in 1990, see:

The question of why the Great War started is extremely nebulous. The facts have been submerged by a century of black propaganda, from all sides. If you ask most people on the streets they will probably tell you that it was caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but as the comedian Robert Newman hilariously puts it, "nobody is that popular!", see here at 10.38: As with most major wars, its origins lie in the squabbles between the more junior echelons of the elite bloodlines who are all fighting for the best spot on the New World Order starting grid. Their rulers in the high Illuminati are content to allow their princelings a long leash when it comes to internal bickering, so long as neither side forgets who's really in charge and to what agenda their ultimate loyalty lies. The dominant financial and industrial class made an absolute fortune off the war, as they always do. Both sides in the war were funded by the Bank of England through its agents in France, Russia and the Central Powers. What is now called the "military industrial complex" set up huge munitions factories and production lines for vehicles, rifles and uniforms etc; these were mostly run by women because the men were all busy getting blown up by the very same weapons their wives, mothers and daughters were building. At a higher level war is necessary for psychological and cultural purposes. As George Orwell said in 1984, "wars are not intended to be won or lost, but to be continuous". Constantly recurring wars, and the threat of war in between them, is for some reason a quintessential factor in our relationship with our rulers. Without war they could not rule us; it's that simple. Report from Iron Mountain is another important document because it discusses the possibility of abandoning war and concludes that it would be a mistake to do so without some kind of "replacement". See here at 1.13.02: War is also very powerful on a spiritual level, in terms of the occult. It is seen by many in the upper ranks of the elite as a black magick ritual, a mass human sacrifice and the poisoning of the Earth's environment as well as the human spirit. However all of this pernicious and contemptuous horror is dependent on one thing: human ignorance and compliance. Without them the entire structure of violence and tyranny will fall apart like a house of cards. Therefore it's vitally important to inform the people around you of this information as much as you can, and also encourage them to take action on that knowledge. The Great War now happened a hundred years ago, lets make sure that by the time two hundred years have passed there hasn't been another; the same goes for three hundred, four hundred and a thousand.
See here for a related article:

Saturday, 2 August 2014

Chris Spivey Arrest- Who's Next?

The well-known conspiracy researcher Chris Spivey was arrested last Wednesday in the early hours of the morning. His daughter and one-year-old grandchild were in his house at the time and this violent state intrusion disturbed them enormously. The supposed reason for his arrest was suspicion of "harassment"; luckily he was released soon afterwards. The source of this suspicion was probably a small article in The Sun which described Chris as a "crackpot web troll" who was "waging a warped hate campaign". As far as I can see, this "harassment" consisted of a series of articles on his website like this one: What Chris has done is analyse the Lee Rigby murder logically, without the blinkers of media propaganda or the fervour of the Military Religion. He's a severe and plain-speaking man with very little sense of diplomacy, but there's nothing wrong with that; it's just his style. In this series of articles we see that Chris has done some excellent and painstaking research to uncover the suspicious inconsistencies and anomalies in the official story of how Lee Rigby died. Here's a more recent posting where he explains how the CCTV record of the murder makes no sense and evidence has been withheld, see: Is this "harassment"?

No it's not; it is a man expressing an opinion on the internet. According to The Sun article a member of Lee Rigby's family called what Spivey does "vile nonsense!" Well I consider this to be vile nonsense: So would the police please go and raid Mr Netanyahu's house at two o'clock tomorrow morning? Chris Spivey's arrest is just the latest in a series of attacks against people who question the Lee Rigby murder. Last year Richard D Hall had his Richplanet TV series dropped from the Showcase Channel 191, see: This was because a viewer wrote in about an interview Richard did with Nick Kollerstrom in which they expressed doubt over the official story of Lee Rigby's killing. The viewer found the show "offensive!" What's happening here is a growing precedent. It could continue; other people could be arrested or persecuted in other ways. This includes me because I agree with a lot of Chris Spivey's views on Lee Rigby, see: Some people have told me what I wrote was "offensive!" In fact I've lost friends over it, even within the Truth movement. All the usual restraints of rationality and due process are thrust aside when it comes to Lee Rigby. This could spread to other subjects too like 9/11, 7/7, child abuse and many other matters. It's a war on common sense and freedom of speech... and we are the enemy. 

Friday, 1 August 2014

MI5 cover up Kincora

The Kincora Scandal is one of the biggest and most horrible tip-of-the-iceberg situations in the world. In the 1970's it was revealed that there was a "sex racket" going on at the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast, a sheltered accommodation centre for teenaged orphans. The investigations suggested that "prominent people" in the establishment of Northern Ireland were involved, but in the end only a few members of the home's staff were prosecuted including the manager William McGrath, who was also a member of esoteric Masonic organizations like the Orange Order and "Tara". Brian Gemmell, a former intelligence officer who served in Northern Ireland at the time, has made the admirable decision to speak out about how the UK Government suppressed a proper investigation of the scandal. In 1975 he wrote his own report on what had he learnt was going on in the home, but a senior MI5 officer ordered him to cease the investigation. Gemmell's boss was angry and rude as he commanded him to break contact with his agent on the inside and never speak of Kincora Boys Home again, see: Gemmell's testimony is corroborated by Colin Wallace, another intelligence operative who was also blocked by the hierarchy from investigating Kincora; again we hear from him how "people of the 'highest profile'" were a part of this network, see: The fact that such information has reached the mainstream news is symptomatic of a collapsing cover-up. It follows so many of these other recent nails in the coffin I discuss in the background links below. Could one of the world's "bigger than big" secrets be about to fall? I hope so. Not only for the sake of the children involved, but for us all. When the full scale of what organized child abuse really is... and who is involved in it... you will see people weeping in the streets. But it has to happen! Let the day roll on!