January 11th in Uncategorized by .

Paparazzi

Recently I’ve been targeted by a Judy Wood acolyte named Mark Conlon.  He’s a good example of why that crowd gives me the creeps.   This is how the stalking began: Out of the blue my YouTube channel started getting spammed by this “Conspiracy Cuber” character.  On this video’s comment section …

Recently I’ve been targeted by a Judy Wood acolyte named Mark Conlon.  He’s a good example of why that crowd gives me the creeps.   This is how the stalking began:

Out of the blue my YouTube channel started getting spammed by this “Conspiracy Cuber” character.  On this video’s comment section you can read the conversation.  After having to deal with Judy Wood’s fawners for more than a decade I admit I have zero patience with them.  In this case my childishness came out as soon as it became clear whose colors he was wearing and what his goal appeared to be.  He was trying his damndest to prove me wrong about a comment I made to Jim Fetzer where I said that a video with even two frames without movement is proof of tripod use.  He then posted a video that proved me wrong, he with a handheld camera on the same ferry that Hezarkhani was alleged to have captured his video from, captured footage with two frames that showed no movement.  The difference being that Hezarkhani’s video shows several frames with ZERO movement and more than a dozen frames with practically no movement not to mention the fact that Hezarkhani was not trying to capture two still frames (like Conspiracy Cuber was,) and Hezarkhani was zoomed in tight on flight 175 as it hit the WTC, whereas Conspiracy Cuber was shooting empty space.  Nonetheless he was right and I was wrong, and I had to admit that no, two still-frames do not prove tripod use.

During the conversation with “Conspiracy Cuber” Mark Conlon showed up and thanked Conspiracy Cuber for keeping a record of the conversation, so clearly this was a team effort.  Mark and I then conversed for a while, which ended with Mark inviting me to do a show with him to defend my position.  My response was to say that I would be happy to do a show if we could do screen sharing like Jim Fetzer and I did, but Mark declined.  Shortly after that Mark deleted all of his comments, which is a strange thing for a genuine truth-seeker to do, but not so strange for someone to do whose goal is to discredit truthers he disagrees with.

I am reduced to this tit-for-tat with Mark because he blocks comments on his page, complaining about too much spam, something we all have to deal with.  If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. My goal is to expose the truth, whether or not it agrees with what I already believe, so spam or not I want to know where I am mistaken.  But that’s just me.

Apparently Mark’s raison d’etre is to expose “falsehoods” within the truth movement where people like Ace Baker, Simon Shack and others (including me) have been spreading what he considers “false” arguments about “video fakery.”  He lumps me in with other truthers that I too have criticized for cherry-picking information and assisting with the cover-up, but from a different angle than I have.  This is important to him evidently because he is convinced the video record of 9/11 depicted a real event, whereas I am certain they are faked based on the evidence in the impact holes, evidence Mark has not, or will not “analyze.”  Now I know Judy’s flock does not buy that a real plane was used, oh no, they believe a hologram or some other super-secret projection technology was to blame, but ask yourself who benefits from that conclusion?  Why the media do, of course.   The media are to be protected at all costs; that is the bottom line behind discrediting no-planers, but just because someone claims to be a no-planer doesn’t make them a truth seeker.    After all, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it but unlike Judy, I am not a leader of this movement by any means.  I am just a humble researcher who crossed a line by questioning Hezarkhani.

But that was just the beginning.  A couple days ago Mark included me on a list of people he names as frauds, which isn’t anything new (I’ve been called worse by better,) but he also listed Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grabel, RIP on his list, which is a pretty low blow considering they’re not with us and can’t defend themselves.  But you know what they say; you can tell you’re over the target when you start taking flak.

So with all this newfound attention I decided to spend some precious bandwidth and time to see what Mark’s beef is all about, but I didn’t expect this!  It’s like a mini-shrine to Judy Wood’s pseudo-science with a good dose of hating-on-De’ak mixed in to keep the faithful outraged.   I’m impressed!  There was far more about l’il ol’ me than I was ready for, so much so that I couldn’t take it all in all at once (we pay dearly for limited Internet access.)  I don’t much worry about the Feds or about some angry (yet non-existent) 9/11 family member kicking in my door at 4:00 am, but I wouldn’t put it past Judy Wood’s clique one bit.  These people give cults a bad name, but this Conlon guy has a serious hard-on for me.    I can only imagine this is because like most of Judy’s fan club he is incensed by my video “What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?” where I don’t refer to Judy as a “doctor,” and I refer to her followers as “minions,” which in Mark’s case is pretty accurate considering he’s been following me around like a DEW-eyed paparazzi taking screen captures of my every word, and then covering up his tracks , intent on catching me doing my fraud stuff.  I can’t tell if he’s for real of if he’s just Andrew Johnson’s sock puppet, they all look the same to me, but since Judy and Andrew won’t respond (Andrew’s still sore about my “Judy Woodtard” comment from years ago) maybe Mark the Minion will message his masters for me.

Mark went on to post here that I at least have the honesty to admit error, something other truthers don’t do.  In response I posted a few questions for him about some of the clues that lead me to my conclusions.   By “questions for him” I mean “questions for Judy.”  Really, these questions are directed at anyone, truther or truster.   I knew he wouldn’t address these clues because Judy’s followers NEVER DO, but they aren’t alone; most truthers avoid the evidence at the scene of the crime like the plague, which speaks volumes about their hypotheses.  Hint: if your hypothesis doesn’t fit all the evidence then it’s time to go back to the drawing board – if your goal is to discover the truth that is.

I digress.  That’s a long way to go to get to the point of this petty little post.

In my link above I asked Mark why he never addresses the MEAT of my hypotheses, namely the evidence that completely eliminates Judy’s argument.  Mark’s response was to justify his treatment of me, and to support it he listed a couple examples of his posts where my errors were pointed out.  In his defense he doesn’t resort to the sarcasm I resort to, but then he hasn’t had to put up with the cult like I have.

What he did do was to provide all the “yeah-buts” Judy’s followers usually provide, but as expected he completely ignored the evidence (they always do!)  I realize of course that my disrespectful attitude doesn’t help, but a guy’s got to have some fun once in a while, doesn’t he?  But to show my heart is in the right place (dedicated to the truth) I’ll respond to Mark’s yeah-buts despite their being made moot by the evidence that he’s avoiding.   I do this because I tire of having to retype this shit over and over again; I want something I can link to, or cut and paste for the next round of DEW-ey eyed truthers to cross my path.  I hope Mark and his Scribes are paying attention.

Mark Wrote:

 

“Also a question which I can never get a straight answer to with most “video fakery” promotors is, how did they control every video in NYC of the event without at least one or two slipping through the net showing a missile or no-plane hitting the South Tower? How did they control witnesses who did see a plane and hear a plane? What was they seeing if they did see the image of a plane in the sky with their own eyes and also how did videographers actually follow through the sky the object if nothing was there? This cannot be just put down to implanted media reporting after the fact. I have spoken to Jim Huibregtse who seen and heard the first plane? Is Mr. Huibregtse a liar? “

 

 

Mark,

 

The way I would have done it if I were a psychotic billionaire, and the way it appears to have been done, would be to deploy a team of propagandists to film the event and edit-in their own flavor of fakery.  From the reports I’ve read, the FBI had heavily infiltrated the crowds, warning folks of incoming planes, spreading fear and god knows what else, to set the stage as it were.

 

In the event someone insisted they saw a missile, or captured footage of it, who would they report it to?  The media that was broadcasting cartoon planes?  The military that launched the missiles?  The government that was about to declare war on the world?  Or would they turn to the NYPD that planted the plane parts and spread lies about fires so intense the concrete melted, or to the FDNY that was setting fire to cars, wearing stage makeup and telling tall tales about molten steel?

 

After the first strike, before the TV Show of the second strike, there were reports of no planes, small planes, missiles and big planes.  Were they all lying?  In the heat of the moment, if someone saw a missile out of the corner of his eye, what would he have seen other than a blur?  As explained by Gerard Holmgren, RIP here, anyone who insisted they saw something other than a plane had a TV shoved in their face, and anyone who wasn’t sure what they saw would defer to the television.

 

With all the differing accounts and with the notorious unreliability of eye witnesses, until they showed the video of the plane flying behind the tower followed by an explosion, no one knew what happened.  If a second strike had never occurred, in order to find out what did hit the tower (if anything) an investigator would need to examine the damage evidence at the scene and ask, “What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?”  Why do you avoid that evidence?  Is it because it exposes all of the videos of 175 as faked in one fell swoop?

 

There are videos of planes flying, such as the “white plane,” so of course planes were in the air.  Wouldn’t you have had a few flyovers to confuse the adrenaline-charged crowd?  The target was not the towers; the target was “we the people.”  Huibregtse may have seen a flyover, or he may have convinced himself he saw a plane when it was just a fast moving missile, or he may be lying, but whatever he saw, if he claims he saw a jet melt like butter into the tower as shown on the Naudet footage he is obviously mistaken, as can clearly be seen in the impact damage that you still refuse to address, presumably because it makes all your arguments irrelevant.

 

Also, all the witnesses, all the dodgy videos, and all the photographic “analysis” in the world don’t change the damage evidence, evidence that indicates something else happened, evidence that you and the rest of Judy’s followers avoid.

 

 

Mark Wrote:

 

“I am aware of your videos you have made regarding the “plane shaped hole”. The reason I have not pointed-out any errors is because I am still researching this area at the moment. I have put-out a video regarding the 1st plane impact fire-ball explosion study and behaviour, but this is only a small part of the research. I feel some “falsehoods” about that explosion fire-ball were promulgated by Simon Shack, regarding a 6 second delay and secondary explosion to create the plane shaped hole, which from the new research I have done is incorrect, and is another distraction and misdirection ploy by Simon to lead people away from what really caused the hole. https://www.bitchute.com/video/eCVlmYFKv4O9/

Layer masks, Mark, layer masks.  The hole was already cut by the time the fireball erupted through it, as can be seen in the way the “flame gash” bursts through an undamaged wall.  Layer masks.  They took a layer of video of the undamaged tower, and used it to cover up the real tower being impacted by the missiles.  After the hole was cut, they set off the shock and awe fireball, which erupted through the hole as they faded away the layer mask to expose the “live” shot of the shock and awe explosion.  This explains why the Television plane had to fully penetrate the wall before exploding, because they had to wait until the missiles cut the hole in the real tower, before they removed the layers of the plane and undamaged tower.  Layer masks.

 

Edit, 1/12/17:  Also, because the plane wasn’t real it needed to be buried into the tower before the eruption of the real fireball.  Not doing so would have resulted in the plane layer overlapping the fireball layer, exposing the fraud.  So the plane entered all the way to the tip of the horizontal stabilizer before the fireball erupted.

Mark wrote:

 

“Like you, I have researched the “Gelatin” art students, although we may differ greatly on their role if any they played or didn’t play. I will discuss more in my future blog article covering all the research I have done into the plane shaped holes and “Gelatin” and other new evidence which may shed light on this story and why it was released by the mainstream media.

Geletin didn’t plant the bombs, as discussed with Jim here, and even if they did plant bombs, it was with the blessings of the Port Authority of NY and NJ.  Explosives alone didn’t cut the holes in the towers, as can be seen in the damage evidence you won’t address.

“To answer your main question, the reason I haven’t written about “errors” in your other videos is because at this point in time I am still researching this whole area of the plane holes and what may or may not have made the plane holes. It would be unfair of me to put something out unfinished or not fully researched. “

 

I see, but it is okay to label a couple dead people who can’t defend themselves, and me whose research you haven’t verified yet, as frauds?

 

“If at the end of this research I felt your theory or evidence was correct or relevant, then be sure I would reflect that also. Just to clarify, it was not you who was being discussed in my future article.  What I can say is, and will be noted is the behaviour in this matter of the both stories put-out by Shack and Baker of how they believe the hole was made. I am still looking into the Pentagon and Shanksville events and I will publish new evidence on “Flight 93” in the new year. As you already know, I do have issues with some of your other theories around the Hezarkhani video, but that’s for another day.

Listen to you!  You don’t know enough about the evidence to comment about the WTC, the Pentagon or Shanksville, but you know enough about the truth to be able to identify a fraud when you see one?  Hypocrite much, Mark?

Now it’s your turn to correct the record by admitting you don’t know enough about the subject matter to comment, and that you are in no place to criticize anyone about anything.  I’m not holding my breath.

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 Comments

Leave a Reply





yankee451.info Hi! You can put anything here, be sure not exceed the limit.