Did NASA Use Nazi War Criminals To Fake The Apollo Moon Landings? 20 Amazing Facts

Written by Cigpapers

Photos, Captions and Videos by Watt Tyler

NASA Apollo Moon Landing - Did they make it or did they fake it?

NASA Apollo Moon Landing – did they make it or did they fake it?

On the 20th July 1969 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) claimed to have landed the first men on the Moon (Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin) with their Apollo 11 mission. NASA claimed to have made another five manned Moon landings ( Apollo Missions 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) with Apollo 17 being the final mission landing on 7th December 1972. NASA still claims a total of 12 American astronauts walked on the Moon. All the alleged Moon landings used the Saturn V rocket system. The total cost of the Apollo missions is estimated at £203 billion in 2013 US dollars.

NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and became operational on October 1, 1958.

NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and became operational on 1st October  1958.

NASA gives the distance from the centre of Earth to the centre of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. It is accepted by the majority of People that the Apollo Moon landings were genuine, however the Cuban School National Curriculum and a growing number of sceptics claim the Apollo missions were faked. Even though this blog in no way alleges that Nazi war criminals faked the Moon landings we did find these 20 amazing facts:

1. Wernher von Braun:

Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German rocket engineer and space architect. He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany during World War II and, subsequently, in the United States. He is credited as being the “Father of Rocket Science”. In his 20s and early 30s, von Braun was the central figure in the Nazis’ rocket development program, responsible for the design and realization of the V-1 and V-2 combat rockets during World War II.

One of von Braun's V-2 Nazi rockets from World War Two.

One of von Braun’s V-2 Nazi rockets from World War Two. Firing these on a civilian population was a war crime.

Werner von Braun’s SS number was 185,068 and his Nazi Party membership number was 5,738,692, he ended the war as a SS Major. After the war, he and some select members of his rocket team were taken to the United States as part of the then-secret Operation Paperclip.

Wernher Von Braun in 1941.

Wernher von Braun in 1941. If it hadn’t been for Operation Paperclip von Braun and his team would almost certainly have faced war crime charges at Nuremberg for their role in the V-1 and V-2 rocket attacks on England during World War Two.

Operation Paperclip involved the USA taking a large number of German scientists, technicians and other staff to the USA after the war. The USA also appropriated about 300,000 German scientific patents.

Werner von Braun with American President John F Kennedy.

Werner von Braun with American President John F Kennedy.

 Former Nazi “Peenemunde” V-1 assistant Kurt H. Debus – who went on to become the first director of the Kennedy Space Center – helped develop the Saturn V rockets (designed in part after their V-1 Nazi rockets)

img445

Kurt H Debus became the first Director Of John F Kennedy Space Centre.

Werner Von Braun with the Saturn V rocket carrying the Apollo 11 Lunar Mission in 1969.

Werner von Braun in Florida with the Saturn V rocket carrying the Apollo 11 Lunar Mission in 1969.

2. Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon) Film:

In 1929 a German filmmaker called Fritz Lang released a silent film called Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon). The film’s technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry. Assisting Oberth on the film project was one of his brightest students, teenager Wernher von Braun.

The totally unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar is the same in the film and the Apollo Missions.

The totally unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar is the same in the film Die Frau im Mond  and the Apollo Missions.

A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be scooped up through Operation Paperclip and brought to America to work on the Apollo Missions, whose choreography just happened to very closely match that of the fake Moon launch Oberth and von Braun had crafted forty years earlier.

Another still from the 1929 film.

Another still from the 1929 film.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that a 1929 silent German film had the same rocket technology as 1960s/70s American Moon landings.

The grand opening of the massive hangar doors and the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad are the same in the 1929 film and the Apollo Missions.

The grand opening of the massive hangar doors and the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocket ship from the hangar to the launch pad are the same in the 1929 film and the Apollo Missions.

Both the film (Die Frau im Mond) and the Apollo Missions also both had the famous countdowns and the cheering, patriotic crowds.

Cheering crowds during teh countdown in the 1929 film.

Cheering crowds during the countdown in the 1929 film.

Screenclip  from the silent film "Die Frau im Mond".

Screenclip from the silent film “Die Frau im Mond”.

The 1929 silent film  Die Frau im Mond had a storyline that was a cross between Apollo Mission 11 (first alleged man on the Moon) and Apollo Mission 13 (aborted Moon landing after an oxygen tank allegedly exploded).

Not Jim Lovell on Apollo Mission 13 but actually the 1929 film "Die Frau im Mond".

Not Jim Lovell on Apollo Mission 13 but actually the 1929 film “Die Frau im Mond”.

The 1929 silent film  Die Frau im Mond and the 1960s/1970s Apollo Missions both had the same team of technical advisers.

3. America Versus Russia In The Space Race:

After World War Two America and Russia entered in to an arms race and a space race. Until the Apollo Moon landings Russia had beaten the Americans in every “first” in the space race:

            May 15, 1957 – The Soviet Union tests the R-7 Semyorka, the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile.

         October 4, 1957 – The Soviets launch Sputnik 1, Earth’s first manmade satellite.

         November 3, 1957 – A dog named Laika becomes the first animal to enter Earth orbit aboard the Soviet Sputnik 2.

         January 2, 1959 – The Soviet Luna 1 becomes the first manmade object to leave Earth’s orbit.

         September 13, 1959 – After an intentional crash landing, the Soviet Luna 2 becomes the first manmade object on the Moon.

         October 6, 1959 – The Soviet Luna 3 provides mankind with its first look at the far side of the Moon.

         August 20, 1960 – Belka and Strelka, aboard the Soviet Sputnik 5, are the first animals to safely return from Earth orbit.

         October 14, 1960 – The Soviet Marsnik 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Mars, blasts off.

         February 12, 1961 – The Soviet Venera 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Venus, blasts off.

         April 12, 1961 – Yuri Gagarin, riding aboard the Soviet Vostok 1, becomes the first man in Earth orbit.

         May 19, 1961 – The Soviet Venera 1 performs the first ever fly by of another planet (Venus).

         August 6, 1961 – Gherman Titov, aboard the Soviet Vostok 2, becomes the first man to spend over a day in space and the first to sleep in Earth orbit.

         August 11 & 12, 1962 – The Soviet Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 are launched, the first simultaneous manned space flights (though they do not rendezvous).

         October 12, 1964 – The Soviet Voskhod 1, carrying the world’s first multi-man crew, is launched.

         March 18, 1965 – Aleksei Leonov, riding aboard the Soviet Voskhod 2, performs the first space-walk.

         February 3, 1966 – The Soviet Luna 9 becomes the first probe to make a controlled, ‘soft’ landing on the Moon.

         March 1, 1966 – The Soviet Venera 3, launched November 16, 1965, becomes the first probe to impact another planet (Venus).

         April 3, 1966 – The Soviet Luna 10 becomes the first manmade lunar satellite.

        October 30, 1967 – The Soviet Cosmos 186 and Cosmos 188 become the first unmanned spacecraft to rendezvous and dock in Earth orbit. The United States will not duplicate this maneuver for nearly four decades.

        January 16, 1969 – The Soviet Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 become the first manned spacecraft to dock in Earth orbit and the first to exchange crews.

        November 17, 1970 – The Soviet Lunokhod 1, the first robotic rover to land on and explore an extraterrestrial body, lands on the Moon. Twenty-seven years later, the United States lands it’s very first robotic rover on Mars.

        December 15, 1970 – The Soviet Venera 7 becomes the first probe to make a soft landing on another planet (Venus).

        April 19, 1971 – The Soviet Salyut 1 becomes the world’s first orbiting space station.

        August 22, 1972 – The Soviet Mars 2 becomes the first probe to reach the surface of Mars.

On April 14, 1961, two days after Gagarin’s historic flight, a panicked President Kennedy reportedly inquired of NASA what goal in space America might be able to attain before the Soviets. According to legend, President Kennedy was told that America’s best hope to beat the Russians was with a manned Moon landing. At Rice University on September 12th, 1962 President Kennedy made the following speech setting the goal of the Moon landings by the end of the 1960s:

4. NASA Has Lost All Data, Blueprints And Records From The Apollo Missions:

Following Freedom Of Information requests in America NASA admitted it had lost all their original video footage of the Apollo Missions. Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the spacesuits and lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

NASA have lost all records of the Apollo Missions - that's 700 cartons altogether.

NASA have lost all records of the Apollo Missions – that’s 700 cartons altogether.

5. The Apollo A7L Space Suits Used In The Apollo Missions:

The Space Suits used in the Apollo Missions were the A7L design.International Latex Corporation, which was best known as the manufacturer of Playtex bras and girdles, was awarded the contract. Hamilton Standard was awarded the contract to design and build the life-support packs known as PLSS units. All designs and blueprints for the A7L space suits have been lost.

NASA's officially released photograph of the Apollo Missions Space Suit.

NASA’s officially released photograph of the Apollo Missions Space Suit A7L.

Conditions on the Moon are very different to Earth as there is no atmosphere. The temperature in sunlight is estimated by NASA to be 107 degrees Celsius (225 degrees Fahrenheit) and in the shade is minus 153 degrees Celsius (minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit). There is also a constant bombardment of meteoroids.“Meteoroids,” NASA states, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.” There is also the problem of massive space radiation on the Moon as there is no atmosphere like on Earth to protect it.

NASA diagram of the shield it believes will be required to protect astronauts in future Moon landings from radiation and meteoroids. They didn't bother with this in the 1960s.

NASA diagram of the shield it believes will be required to protect astronauts in future Moon landings from radiation and meteoroids. NASA didn’t bother with this in the 1960s and 1970s.

NASA has now stated that maintaining 100% clean-room conditions on space exploration vehicles while performing EVAs on planetary bodies is essential as even the smallest amount of dust could cripple any space ship. Their solution for future Moon landings is the “rear-entry spacesuit” which is attached to the outside of a lunar module and is climbed in to before detaching from the lunar module. The procedure is reversed to get back in the lunar module.

NASA diagram of the rear-entry spacesuit it has designed for future Moon landings.

NASA diagram of the rear-entry spacesuit it has designed for future Moon landings. In the 1960s and 1970s NASA didn’t worry about details like clean-room conditions.

The A7L must have been a remarkable spacesuit, it was radiation proof, able to withstand 50,000 MPH meteoroids and able to switch between 107 degrees Celsius (225 degrees Fahrenheit) and minus 153 degrees Celsius (minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit) in an instant. The A7L also had a full life-support system, oxygen and human waste management. Unfortunately we can not inspect, or even recreate, these spacesuits as NASA claims it has lost all the designs and blueprints. NASA claims the spacesuits themselves were left on the Moon to save weight on the return journey.

6. The Van Allen Radiation Belts:

The Van Allen radiation belts are two regions of radiation that encircle the Earth. They are named in honor of James Van Allen, the scientist who led the team that launched the first successful satellite that could detect radioactive particles in space. This was Explorer 1, which launched in 1958 and led to the discovery of the radiation belts. There is a large outer belt that follows the magnetic field lines essentially from the north to south poles around the planet. This belt begins around 8,400 to 36,000 miles above the surface of the Earth. The inner belt does not extend as far north and south. It runs, on average, from 60 miles about the Earth’s surface to about 6,000 miles. The two belts expand and shrink. Sometimes the outer belt nearly disappears. Sometimes it swells so much that the two belts appear to merge to form one big radiation belt.In 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation

pic006

Due to the Van Allen radiation belts no manned space craft has ever travelled more than 400 miles above the Earth’s surface, apart from the Apollo missions. On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” The Russians have calculated that to protect their cosmonauts from radiation a 4 foot (120cm) thick lead casing would be needed.

7. Shadows On Moon Photographs:

According to NASA the Apollo Moon missions carried no lighting equipment, and the only light source for Apollo photographs and videos was the sun. Despite this there seems to be at least two light sources on a number of Apollo photographs due to there being shadows cast in two directions.Here is an example of these two light source photographs:

pic004

In other photographs it appears the light source is much closer than the Sun would be:

pic004

8. The Lunar Explorer Modules:

The Lunar Explorer Modules (LEM) were the part of the Apollo missions that detached from the Command Service Modules (CSM)and descended to the Moon’s surface. The LEMs were all designed and built by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation of New York. Even though no designs or blueprints still exist for LEMs or CSMs here is a NASA diagram of a LEM:

pic005

The LEMs had an exterior measurement of about 12 foot by 12 foot (360cmX360cm) according to NASA, with a crew compartment of about 6 foot by 6 foot by 6 foot (180cmX180cmX180cm). Due to lower gravity on the Moon it had an effective weight of about 3 tons on the Lunar surface. For the descent stage, there is the reverse-thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make a soft landing on the Moon. And then for the ascent stage a powerful rocket propels the top half of the LEM into lunar orbit. The LEM would then dock with the CSM that NASA state was orbiting the Moon at about 4,000 MPH.

Photograph of a LEM on the Lunar surface released by NASA.

Photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Lunar surface released by NASA.

NASA claimed there was no room for seats in the LEMs, but never indicated where the astronauts slept during their time on the Moon’s surface.

Close up of photograph serial number AS11-40-5922 released by NASA.

Close up of photograph serial number AS11-40-5922 released by NASA.

9. The Lunar Roving Vehicle:

The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) or Lunar Rover was a battery-powered four-wheeled rover used on the Moon in the last three missions of the American Apollo Missions ( 15,16 and 17) during 1971 and 1972. It was popularly known as the Moon Buggy.It was a fragile looking, open-space vehicle about 10 feet long with large mesh wheels, antenna appendages, tool caddies and cameras. Powered by two 36-volt batteries, it had four one-fourth hp drive motors, one for each wheel.The LRV was transported to the Moon on the Lunar Explorer Modules (LEMs) and, once unpacked on the surface, could carry one or two astronauts, their equipment, and lunar samples. According to NASA the three LRVs remain on the Moon.

LRV from Apollo 15 mission allegedly photographed on the Moon in 1971.

LRV from Apollo 15 mission allegedly photographed on the Moon in 1971. Notice there are boot prints but no tyre tracks – did the LRV float in to this position? NASA photo serial number As15-88-11901

The first cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing was for $19,000,000 ( about $150,000,000 in 2013 US Dollars) and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971. Cost overruns, however, led to a final cost of $38,000,000, ( about $300,000,000 in 2013 US Dollars)which was about the same as NASA’s original estimate. When questioned how the LRVs could fit in the LEMs NASA claimed that they folded in to the size of a suitcase.

Apart from the mystery tyre tracks NASA must use some big suitcases.

The LRV could only be being unpacked in this photograph as NASA didn’t re-pack any LRVs as they were all allegedly left on the Moon. Apart from the mystery tyre tracks NASA must use some big suitcases.

NASA are planning a manned trip to the Moon in the 2020s or 2030s. They have released photographs of their prototype Lunar Rovers which will be radiation and meteoroid proof.

NASA prototype Lunar Rover for future manned moon trips. Not as cool as the 1970s version but much safer from radiation and meteoroids.

NASA prototype Lunar Rover for future manned Moon trips. Not as cool as the 1960s/1970s version but much safer from radiation and meteoroids.

Here is a video of the Lunar Rover on the alleged Apollo 16 mission:

Here is another good Lunar Rover video:

10.The Lunar Explorer Module Landing Sites:

The Lunar Explorer Modules (LEM) were the part of the Apollo missions that detached from the Command Service Modules (CSM)and descended to the Moon’s surface. Due to lower gravity on the Moon it had an effective weight of about 3 tons on the Lunar surface. For the descent stage, there is the reverse-thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make a soft landing on the Moon.

NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon's surface. As can be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse thrust rockets which were allegedly used.

NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon’s surface. As can be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse-thrust rockets which were allegedly used.

The reverse-thrust rocket system would have created a crater under the LEM landing site, and would probably have turned the dust in to a glass-like substance. In the photograph below you can’t see so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down.

Another NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon's surface. It can again be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse-thrust rockets which were allegedly used.

Another NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon’s surface. It can again be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse-thrust rockets which were allegedly used.

11. Evidence Of Studio Lighting On Apollo Mission Photographs:

NASA has repeatedly stated that there was no artificial lighting used on the Apollo Moon landings and the only light source for videos and photographs is the Sun. However a careful study of numerous Apollo photographs would seem to indicate the use of studio lighting suggesting the “landings” were filmed and photographed in a film studio.

In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background

In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background

In this Apollo 12 photograph there appears to be the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light.

In this Apollo 12 photograph there appears to be the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light.

This Apollo 12 photograph (AS12-49-7278) shows two lens flares from overhead lighting.

This Apollo 12 photograph (AS12-49-7278) shows two lens flares from overhead lighting.

The angles of the shadows in this Apollo 14 photograph (AS14-68-9486) indicate a light source just to the left of the photograph. This can't be the Sun and can only be an artificial light.

The angles of the shadows in this Apollo 14 photograph (AS14-68-9486) indicate a light source just to the left of the photograph. This can’t be the Sun and can only be an artificial light.

12. The Fake Moon Rocks:

On their return from the alleged Apollo 11 Moon landing Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins toured together giving “Moon rocks” to grateful countries around the World. Altogether NASA gave over 100 countries “Moon rocks”

A "moon rock" that turned out to be petrified wood when tested by scientists. How radioactive would a real rock from the Moon be?

A “Moon rock” that turned out to be petrified wood when tested by scientists. How radioactive would a real rock from the Moon be?

Whenever they have been tested these alleged “Moon rocks” have turned out to be fakes. Here is an article from the British mainstream media about a fake “Moon rock” :

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

One other point is that surely a genuine rock brought from the surface of the Moon would have been highly radioactive, and far too dangerous for public display.

13.Laser Reflectors Left On The Moon:

One piece of evidence NASA repeatedly quote is that they left laser reflectors on the Moon which are still there. NASA claim that they can prove the laser reflectors are on the Moon because they can bounce lasers off them to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

Laser reflector that NASA claims it left on the Moon.

Laser reflector that NASA claims it left on the Moon.

 According to NASA the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged reflectors proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963, possibly as early as 1962 or even 1961.

You might have used one of the laser room measurers that most hardware / DIY shops carry nowadays. They manage to measure the size of rooms by bouncing a laser off opposite walls without any laser reflector.

14.Onboard Computer System:

NASA claim that the onboard computer for the Apollo Missions had a memory capacity of about 72 kilobytes – that is less powerful than most modern digital watches. NASA have never clarified whether this computer was on the Command Service Module (orbiting the Moon at 4,000 miles per hour) or either part of the two-part Lunar Exploration Module. Therefore either the CSM or the LEM had no onboard computer.

1960s computers were total crap.

1960s computers were total crap. Maybe that’s why NASA only shared one between the CSM and LEM.

The most complicated aspect of the Apollo missions was the landing of the lunar modules, which made the software program controlling that part of the mission the most difficult to design. Amazingly though, that aspect of the software design was not assigned until after most of the other programmes were 2/3 complete – and it was assigned to a twenty-two-year-old gent named Don Isles who had just recently started his very first job. According to Moon Machines, “the programme without which it would be impossible to land on the Moon … had been written almost as an afterthought by a junior engineer.”

15. Mission Control In Houston Texas:

All the Apollo  missions were allegedly controlled by Mission Control at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas.

Mission Control in Huston, Texas looked very impressive. However it was totally fake.

Mission Control in Houston, Texas looked very impressive. However it was totally fake.

Mission Control looked like the cutting edge of 1960s technology at the time. However it has now been revealed that the staff were simply store clerks hired to pretend to be NASA scientists. A 2005 documentary entitled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, showed that Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas “was not as high-tech as it looked.” In reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman tells us, “the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide.” Jack Garman was allegedly the member of the Apollo 11 ground-crew who cleared the Eagle to land despite the fact that multiple alarms were going off.

16. NASA Claims Photos Proved The Moon Landings Happened:

  NASA launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on June 18th 2009 to photograph and map the Moon to find safe landing sites for Moon landings. NASA claims to have taken photographs of the Apollo 11 landing site and the bottom half of the LEM which didn’t return. Here are the photos that allegedly prove the Apollo missions to the Moon took place.

I can't see anything from 500 meters up - maybe if we got closer.

I can’t see anything from 500 metres up – maybe if we got closer.

 As you can see from 500 metres above the Moon there is no visible sign of the bottom half of the LEM from the Apollo 11 mission.

NASA claim that these photos from 200 metres up clearly show the Apollo 11 landing site and the bottom half of the LEM.

NASA claim that these photos from 200 metres up clearly show the Apollo 11 landing site and the bottom half of the LEM.

17. Lack Of Stars:

One argument for the Apollo Moon landings being hoaxed is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the Moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.

img370

 Did NASA realise it impossible to map out the exact locations of all the stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out? Intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).

Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.

Here is a video of Patrick Moore asking the Apollo 11 astronauts whether they could see stars from the Moon:

18. Faked Moon Walks:

 Over the years there have been some serious questions raised about the film of Astronauts allegedly walking on the Moon. NASA claims the original Apollo footage has been lost but copies of it recorded by TV stations at the time are still available. One of the main criticisms is that with one sixth gravity the Astronauts don’t seem to be able to jump very high and when speeded up their jumps seem very Earthly. Also if you look how the dust is thrown up it also seems very similar to Earth which it obviously shouldn’t be.

Here is one video out of many showing these flaws in the footage:

19. Stanley Kubrick And Front Screen Projection:

Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 – March 7, 1999) was a jewish American film director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer and editor who did much of his work in the United Kingdom. Stanley Kubrick is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential directors of all time. His films are noted for their unique cinematography, attention to detail in the service of realism, and the evocative use of music.

Stanley Kubrick in 1971.

Stanley Kubrick in 1971.

What is Front Screen Projection?

Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it.Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection.The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he would appear to be “inside” the projection.

How "Front Screen Projection" works.

How “Front Screen Projection” works.

In Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick uses “Front Screen Projection” in several scenes.

Scene from Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) using the "Front Screen Projection" technique.

Scene from Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) using the “Front Screen Projection” technique.

The same scene with a line showing the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.

The same scene with a line showing the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.

In the example above of “Front Screen Projection” the part under the line is a stage set and the part above is a screen. Looking at the Apollo Mission photos below the same technique seems to have been used.

A still photograph from the Apollo 17 Mission.

A still photograph from the Apollo 17 Mission.

The same photo from Apollo 17 with a line showing the back of the set.

The same photo from Apollo 17 with a line showing where the back of the set looks to be.

Another photo from Apollo Mission 17.

Another photo from Apollo Mission 17.

The same photo from Apollo Mission 17 with a line indicating where the set ends and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen begins.

The same photo from Apollo Mission 17 with a line indicating where the set seems to end and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen begins.

 Here is an extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White BA:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

20. Return Trips To The Moon:

In 2005 NASA started their  Constellation Programme (abbreviated CxP) to put men back on the Moon. They originally planned to get a man on the Moon by 2028 ( over three times longer than in the 1960s ) but soon pushed that date back to 2035.

img422

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” The Russians have calculated that to protect their cosmonauts from radiation a 4 foot (120cm) thick lead casing would be needed.

In 2010 the Constellation Programme was put on the back-burner, due to insurmountable technical problems, after around $50 billion had been spent on it. NASA could have obviously used the 1960s Apollo designs if they hadn’t all been lost.

If NASA Did Fake The Moon Landings: Why? Where? How? Who?

Why?  If NASA did fake the Moon landings the obvious reason is that after John F Kennedy stated that America would put a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s America couldn’t really back down. They would probably not have realised before about 1963 that it was impossible, and by then they had gone through 10s of billions of Dollars of taxpayers money. The loss of prestige, both at home and abroad, could have even brought down the American military/industrial complex and the American elite.

Where? If NASA did fake the Moon landings then the fake footage could have been shot at many locations, and probably more than one. NASA had its own recreations of the Moon surface and such places as Area 51, Lauren Canyon in Hollywood or even the set of Space Odyssey: 2001 could all have easily been used.

How? Faking the Moon landings would have been a lot easier than actually making the Moon landings. Everything the public saw on Earth would have been real apart from the Astronauts would have left the Saturn V rocket secretly before take off. The empty Saturn V rocket would have blasted off empty and fallen back to Earth, while NASA reported that the CSM and LEM were on their way to the Moon. After that all NASA had to do was bounce the fake transmissions off the Moon back to Earth. For the return “splashdown” they could have simply dropped the CSM from a helicopter or transport plane.

Who? The favourite suggestion for who directed the Apollo footage, if it was fake, is obviously Stanley Kubrick who made several references to the Apollo Missions in his other films. Another intriguing possibility is that director Roman Polanski was either involved or knew too much and a lot of his troubles, including the murder of Sharon Tate, are linked to the Apollo Missions.

BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006

pic005

In 2006 the BBC hosted a climate-change seminar to decide on its reporting of alleged climate-change. The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret who attended this seminar. The publicly funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list of people who attended under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

This surreal story is only partly about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden – it’s Director of News who stepped down in 2012.

The case also highlights once again the BBC’s corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal “opt-out” clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations for impartiality under its Royal Charter.

And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an “unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency”.

pic005

A ‘brainstorm’ that became historic

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was founded by three organisation. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust – a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved in campaigning on climate change – devised the first in a series of seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a “brainstorm”, in the IBT’s own words, “focusing on climate change and its impact on development”. The BBC sent 30 senior staff, and 30 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent – a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and at one time funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and various pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC’s head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him “to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialists (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world”.

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

 The following year ( 2007) a BBC Trust report  on impartiality cited the 2006 seminar and said it had settled the argument once and for all  (as far as the BBC was concerned) on climate change.

pic005

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the “brainstorm” a historic significance.

An independent blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed largely of activists (as confirmed by Harrabin) and the BBC Trust’s insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could justify a historic policy change.

Fresh light was shed on Harrabin’s CMEP in 2010, in the second batch of Climategate emails. An email from Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research at UEA,complained about a BBC Radio 4 item broadcast in February 2002. The broadcast featured global-warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott and Sir John Houghton, who was a Met Office chief and the editor of the first three IPCC reports on climate change. Houghton came off worst, and an infuriated Hulme wrote:

Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar’s attendees to the BBC in 2007 and was denied the information, leading to a second round of information tribunal hearings in November 2012. The cross-examination of the BBC’s Helen Boaden in a court room was reported here.

The BBC is regarded as a public authority by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it can withhold information held “for the purposes of journalism”.

In an earlier and separate FOI case against the BBC, Supreme Court Judge Neuberger argued the opt-out should be interpreted narrowly – otherwise the BBC could withhold information about “cleaning the board room floor” using the journalism get-out clause – an obvious absurdity.

In the Newbery case, the BBC maintained that archival material on the seminar could not be found, but also it should not be found: as a back-up argument it argued that the seminar was held under the Chatham House Rule – an agreement of etiquette, rather than a law, to prevent quotes being attributed to particular speakers at a meeting – information that Newbery had never asked for.

In November 2012 the tribunal ruled against Newbery and for the BBC.

pic005

Case closed? Think again

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed the list of attendees.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin’s description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely “some of the best scientific experts”, whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC’s famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of this document, he tells us – but with the attendee list stripped out.

How much of the Public's license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

How much of the Public’s license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

The dramatic appearance of the list raises many questions. Did the BBC know the information was publicly available? If so, why were corporation lawyers spending thousands of pounds to keep a public document “secret”? (FOI requests for public information typically state, quite simply, “this information is public”.)

Questions abound  online about the ability of the BBC Trust to maintain its duty to transparency. The BBC’s legal strategy entails the indiscriminate application of its FOI derogation “for the purposes of journalism” – this effectively rewrites the 2000 Act, and redefines the BBC as a private body. The trust is surely aware of this; it has a small mountain of correspondence on the subject. But it has yet to enquire, let alone pronounce on whether this is healthy – or legal.

All the names on the revealed seminar list

Here’s the list – according to the FOI Act reply.

January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Tim Jackson, Surrey University
John Ashton, Director E3G
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Fran Unsworth,Head of Newsgathering
Pete Clifton, Head of News Interactive
Liz Cleaver, Controller Learning
Keith Scholey, Head of Specialist Factual
Sarah Brandist, Head of Development, Drama Commissioning
Michael Hastings, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility
Lorna Walsh, BBC TV
Roger Harrabin, Today Programme

The Ruling Stones: The Jewish Ethnic Activism of Richard Stone

Written By Tobias Langdon

Who is England’s patron saint? If you think it’s St George, you’re behind the times. In fact, it’s the martyr St Stephen. But not the Stephen stoned to death in Palestine 2,000 years ago. No, the Stephen stabbed to death by Whites at a bus-stop in London in 1993. He was a young Black male, but that didn’t make his death unusual or worthy of special attention.

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

It wasn’t until 2012, after huge expense by the London Metropolitan police and the abolition of the centuries-old principle of double jeopardy, that two White men were found guilty of the murder and given long jail sentences. Cries of joy greeted the conviction in all sections of the media, particularly at The Guardian and BBC. But further suspects are still free and Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murder victim, wants to see more millions spent on pursuing and convicting them.

Doreen has become a familiar and highly respected figure in the UK. She has recently been elevated to the House of Lords, where she will sit as Baroness Lawrence and continue to promote the martyr cult. She was prominent at the twentieth-year commemoration of her son’s murder, which was attended by the leaders of all three main political parties. And you may have seen her helping to carry the flag at the 2012 London Olympics. It was a further honour in recognition of her long campaign for justice, equality and tolerance in the UK.

The image of an aspiring young Black architect slaughtered by thuggish White racists continues to be reinforced through every medium of news, art and commentary. Doreen has often appeared in the media to criticize Britain for failing to live up to the high standards she demands of it as a British Jamaican. And the government listens. Here she is in the closing days of 2012 with fellow activist Dr Richard Stone, who will be the main focus of this essay:

Advertisement



Coalition responds to Doreen Lawrence over race equality

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have moved to head off an embarrassing row with race equality campaigners after the Guardian highlighted an uncompromising attack on the coalition [between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats] by the mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence. It has emerged that 24 hours after Doreen Lawrence castigated ministers, accusing them of backtracking on the government’s commitment to equalities, the prime minister and deputy prime minister penned a joint reply from Downing Street aiming to reassure her and to bolster the government’s credentials.

The timing of the letter is significant, as Lawrence and Richard Stone, an adviser to the Macpherson inquiry into Stephen’s death, had written to Cameron and Clegg – and Ed Miliband [leader of the Labour Party] – a month earlier outlining concerns about government equality policies. Lawrence said her letter had been ignored, adding that improvements in equalities prompted by the Macpherson inquiry were being imperilled and race no longer appeared to be on the agenda. …

In their reply to Lawrence, Cameron and Clegg write: “We recognise how important it is to ensure the legacy of Stephen’s murder and Lord Macpherson’s report will never be lost.” … Lawrence was not available for comment, but Stone, co-signatory to her letter, said he had hoped for a more positive response. “We sent our letter a month ago. It is good to have a reply from the prime minister and deputy prime minister. But it is written very carefully. There is nothing concrete here.” (Coalition responds to Doreen Lawrence over race equality, The Guardian, 23rd December 2012)

So who is Richard Stone, the man playing such a prominent role in calling the government to account? Thanks to the media’s untiring work, Stephen and Doreen Lawrence are now familiar to millions of ordinary Britons, but very few of them would recognize the name or features of Richard Stone. This is a pity, because he is an interesting man. Here is the biography at his personal website:

Dr Richard Stone

Dr Richard Stone

Dr Richard Stone is a medical doctor who also has extensive experience working against social exclusion, homelessness, and in the grant-making charitable sector. He is a leading expert in social cohesion, anti-racism, and Islamophopia, and is a regular speaker around Europe at conferences on these topics. Richard was a panel member of the 1997/99 Home Office inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He served as a Cabinet Advisor to the Mayor of London, President of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, and spent 5 years on the Runnymede “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia”, from 2000 to 2004 as chair. He has also been a trustee and vice-Chair of the Runnymede Trust [an “anti-racist” organization founded by Jews] and a Council and Board member of Liberty [the British equivalent of the ACLU]. His work bringing together British Jews and Muslims includes being a founding trustee of the Maimonides Foundation in 1985, and of Alif-Aleph UK in 2003 [alif and aleph are the initial letters of the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets] … In 2010 he was awarded an OBE [Order of the British Empire] for “public and voluntary” service. (See Biography at Dr Stone’s website)

Identity on the Agenda

Despite his presidency of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, Dr Stone claims to self-identify as a member of the White British majority:

Enough of this anger-creating suppression of the hopes and opportunities of people from black backgrounds. My message to white (mainly) men (like me), who have the power to discriminate is this: just stop doing it. (Where are the black police officers?, Dr Richard Stone, The Guardian, 4th January, 2012)

In Britain, the vast majority of power is wielded by middle-aged, middle-class white men – like Dr Stone. (An Independent Commentary to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (2009), Dr Richard Stone, pg. 17)

I don’t know whether Dr Stone also self-identifies as self-righteous, but that is a label some might be inclined to give him. They might even add that he is self-important and arrogant too. Dr Stone seems to enjoy issuing orders and demands on behalf of ethnic and religious minorities. For further examples, let’s examine his behaviour at the Macpherson Inquiry. This was the official inquiry set up by the New Labour government into the police failures surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence. What role did he have there? It’s described at the website of the organization ROTA (Race On The Agenda), where Dr Stone is a patron with the British-Nigerian Lord Victor Adebowale, CBE (Commander of the British Empire). Here is part of Dr Stone’s biography:

Dr Stone was a panel member of the “Stephen Lawrence Inquiry” into racism in policing (1997/99) as Adviser to the judge Sir William Macpherson. He was also on the panel of the 2003/04 NHS “David Bennett Inquiry” into the death of a Black [sic] patient during restraint in the white-staffed [sic] medium secure psychiatry unit in Norwich. (See the biography at ROTA’s website)

Despite their advisory capacity and lack of specialized legal training, Stone and the other panel members, like the dedicated self-publicist John Sentamu, a British-Ugandan bishop, would often take the role of prosecuting counsel during the inquiry:

Bishop John Sentamu dives for publicity

Bishop John Sentamu dives for publicity

In a criminal court the accused is not there so that he can be compelled to confess his crimes; still less so that he can confess his sins; much less again so that he can disclose the sins of his subordinates. English law expelled those abhorrent ideas long ago. But confession was the spirit of much of the Macpherson proceedings, partly due to the effect of the “truth and reconciliation” proceedings in post-apartheid South Africa. This was especially clear in the interruption by one of Sir William’s three advisers, Dr Richard Stone, of [the Metropolitan Police Commissioner] Sir Paul Condon’s evidence in Part II of the inquiry. ‘It seems to me, Sir Paul,’ he said, ‘that the door is open. It is like when Winnie Mandela was challenged in the Truth Commission in South Africa by Desmond Tutu to acknowledge that she had done wrong …’ Sir Paul might well have been taken aback by his being put in the same category as a convicted kidnapper, and his relationship to racist attitudes and conduct in the Metropolitan Police in the same category as Winnie Mandela’s relationship to the Mandela United Football Club and the murderers of Stompie Seipei. Dr Stone continued: ‘She just did it and suddenly a whole burden of weight, of sort of challenge and friction melted away … I say to you now, just say, “Yes, I acknowledge institutional racism in the police” … Could you do that today?’ (Please see here, pg. 15)

That quotation is taken from a very interesting study of the Macpherson Inquiry called Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics (2000) by Norman Dennis, George Erdos and Ahmed Al-Shahi, who are English, Hungarian and Kurdish, respectively. They all also appear to be left-wing or liberal in the traditional sense. I can recommend their study highly to anyone who wants an alternative perspective on the Macpherson Inquiry – “alternative,” that is, to the perspective offered by all respectable opinion in the UK. Recall that, in the Guardian extract above, the prime minister and his deputy referred respectfully to the “legacy” of “Lord Macpherson’s report,” as though it were some highly valuable contribution to British public life.

Uproar from the Gallery

In fact, the inquiry overseen by Lord Macpherson seems to have been a cross between a Stalinist show-trial and a hearing by the Spanish Inquisition, with a garnish of kangaroo-court and a sprinkling of lynch-mob. Here is Dr Stone again, sniffing hard for heresy:

‘You have heard me say …’, Sir Paul said in the course of being interrogated. But he was interrupted by Dr Richard Stone. ‘You have told us ten times you are not in denial … I say to you now, just say, “Yes, I acknowledge institutional racism in the police …”’

‘It was an approach that pleased the public gallery’, writes Cathcart [former deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday and author of The Case of Stephen Lawrence (1999)], ‘and the pressure on the Commissioner was intense. Sir William chipped in: “You have been given the challenge, or the question, Sir Paul. What is your answer?”’

His answer was that it would be very easy to please the panel. It would be easy to please the people in the public gallery — ‘this audience’, as he called them. It would be easy, also, to gain the favour of ‘superficial media coverage’. But he would not do what would please any of them, because it would be ‘dishonest’. Over the uproar from the gallery, Sir William called for quiet and moved the discussion into other areas.

Sir Paul’s stand attracted critical headlines. But whose judgement, freed from the enthusiasm of a righteous crowd, would conclude that Sir Paul’s opinion, reasoning, and sense of reality and responsibility were inferior to those expressed in the ‘uproar from the gallery’ or … to the semi-religious appeal of Dr Stone? (Op. cit., ch. 3, “The Crowd in Hannibal House,” pg. 28)

Why was there uproar from the public gallery? Because it was full of anti-racism activists from groups like the Nation of Islam, who applauded witnesses whom they liked, such as Doreen Lawrence, and jeered witnesses whom they did not like, such as the police:

During the police evidence, and particularly when [the radical barrister Michael] Mansfield was in action, laughter and groans would greet answers from police officers. This would not normally be allowed in a court of law. In order to protect Inspector Groves from the gallery crowd (and, though he perhaps did not think of it in this way, from the crowd influences that could be affecting the performances of all the witnesses, all the barristers and the judgement of all the assessors) counsel for the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service], Jeremy Gompertz QC [Queen’s Counsel], rose to complain about ‘constant interruption and background noise’ from the gallery.

Though he said that his warning was ‘crystal clear’, Sir William’s intervention could scarcely be described as full-hearted. If the laughing did not stop, he said, he would clear the gallery. He reminded Mansfield that he was not addressing a jury. Inspector Groves did not need to be ‘pilloried’ — (slight pause) — ‘unnecessarily’. The pillory in its literal sense is essentially an instrument of control by a crowd. What had being figuratively ‘pilloried’, necessarily or not, to do with ascertaining the facts of the case? (Ibid., pg. 25)

Reality Shmeality

But there was no need to ascertain the facts of the case, because they were known well in advance: both the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the failure to jail the murder-gang were the result of “an endemic and universal English racism which has severe consequences generally in the lives of members of ethnic minorities” (ch. 2, “The Methods of Inquiry used by Macpherson,” pg. 12). The role of Doreen Lawrence at the inquiry was to describe the racism of British society; the role of the police was to admit their complicity in it. The role of Judge Macpherson, Dr Richard Stone, Bishop Sentamu et al was to assist the former against the latter. The methods they employed might, in another context, be taken as deliberately satirical or absurdist: “To question whether the murder of Stephen Lawrence was a purely racist crime was, in itself, adduced as evidence of racism” (Summary, pg. xix).

Distance was no obstacle to the inquiry’s hunt for the evil and injustice perpetrated by Whites: inter alia, the inquiry drew on the Rodney King case in Los Angeles, thousands of miles away, though the relevance there might seem “indirect,” at best (ch. 4, “Mr and Mrs Lawrence’s Treatment at the Hospital as Evidence of Police Racism,” pg. 34). Any negative interpretation of police behaviour by a Minority Ethnic had to be accepted; any attempt to deny police racism was further proof of police racism.

But the sceptical authors of Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics conclude that:

The Macpherson report has had a detrimental impact on policing and crime, particularly in London. Police morale has been undermined. Certain procedures which impact disproportionately on ethnic groups, like stop and search, have been scaled down. The crime rate has risen. Nevertheless, the Macpherson report has been received with almost uncritical approval by pundits, politicians and academics. It is still routinely described as having ‘proved’ that the police and British society are racist. (Summary, pg. xx)

Elsewhere, the authors point out that the rise in the crime rate, “the first in six years, was largely due to increases in two police areas, London and the West Midlands, the areas with the highest concentrations of ethnic minorities. In London the increase was nine per cent, in the West Midlands 16 per cent” (ch. 3, “The Crowd in Hannibal House,” pg. 29). In other words, there have been more murders of young Black males as a result of the Macpherson Inquiry, not fewer. There have also been more murders of individuals from other, less important groups. And more rapes and other crimes of violence. Nor has the report helped the cause of equality: the police now devote more resources and attention to cases in which they can prove their devotion to fighting White racism.

Unpunished Murder

Compare the racist murder of Richard Everitt in London in 1994, a year after the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. This was not a highly unusual crime, because it involved violence by a gang of Minority Ethnics against a White. Only one member of the fifteen-strong Bengali-British gang was jailed and he is now free again. In the Stephen Lawrence case, the Metropolitan Police have promised “to go on looking ‘forever’ for evidence that would convict the murderers” (Preface, pg. xv). They have made no such promise about Richard Everitt. Nor have “resources in money and specialist support” been made “available on a scale more often seen in anti-terrorist investigations than a civil murder,” as they were for Stephen Lawrence (Ibid., pg xiv).

Many other non-Whites are still at liberty after the brutal murders of British Whites: Charlene Downes and Gavin Hopley are merely two examples. But those murders have not received the prolonged attention of the media, nor provoked harsh criticism of the police and served as damning indictments of British society. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is quite different in all respects. Of the many people responsible for elevating Stephen Lawrence to his role as England’s new patron saint, no-one has worked harder or more effectively than Doreen Lawrence and her good friend Dr Richard Stone. I don’t question Doreen Lawrence’s motives, though I do question her intelligence, common sense and ability to see the harmful effects of her campaign on the Black community, among others.

Thorny Issues

I do, however, question the motives of Dr Richard Stone. It may be cynical of me, but I have detected little benevolence or philanthropy in Dr Stone when I have seen or heard him appear in the media. He strikes me, in fact, as cold, manipulative and even sinister. He also strikes me as lacking in honesty. In his self-aggrandizing Independent Commentary to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (2009), he lamented the way in which:

[during] the past decade, the issue of ‘institutional racism’ seemed to slip down the agenda. Maybe some of those in leadership positions sighed with relief that this thorny issue did not have to be dealt with. It could perhaps be left for the next Commissioner, the next Chief Constable, or the next government Minister. But every year, with damaging regularity, racism seems to explode back on to the police agenda. This causes damage to police and community relations, but also to the reputation of the very leaders who had hoped the issue had gone away. (Op. cit., pg. 7)

But who has worked harder than Dr Stone to make racism a “thorny” issue? Who has been more eager to help racism “explode” regularly on the police agenda? And who has been more willing to issue self-righteous pronunciations on the topic? Here is another extract from his Independent Commentary:

Racism is not in the heads of BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] people, just as Islamophobia and anti-semitism are not in the heads of Muslims or Jews. There is not much that BME people can do to change the racism exhibited by white people, any more than Muslims can do much to change the Islamophobia of non-Muslims, or Jews the anti-antisemitism [sic] of non-Jews. The people who have to change are those outside who hold prejudices and stereotypes in their heads which lead them “unwittingly” or to be frank, ‘wittingly’ to disadvantage people from these communities. (Op. cit., pg. 17 – all anomalies of punctuation are in the original)

To be frank, such an important topic deserved better proof-reading. It is also ludicrous to claim that all beliefs held by “BME people” about the motives and behaviour of Whites must automatically be correct. In making this claim, Dr Stone is not assisting the cause of objective analysis and impartial justice. He is, however, assisting the cause of BME grievance, paranoia and self-pity.

Saints and Demons

But why is he doing this? What are his motives for encouraging antagonism between BME people and White society? Why does he wish to demonize ordinary Whites and elevate BME people to infallible sainthood? I would suggest that he is, unwittingly or otherwise, following an ethnocentric agenda and seeking to advance the interests of his own ethno/religious group. When Dr Stone self-identifies as a “middle-aged, middle-class White man,” I think he is being dishonest or disingenuous. In reality, he belongs to the Jewish elite, not to the White middle-class. He is the son of the Labour peer Lord Stone and a nephew of the Conservative peer Lord Ashdown.

I don’t believe that Dr Richard Stone truly regrets the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Given the chance to travel back in time, would he try to prevent it? I don’t think he would. The Lawrence murder has been far too useful as an ideological weapon against ordinary Whites. Dr Richard Stone, son of a Labour peer, nephew of a Conservative peer, has been working on behalf not of Minority Ethnics but of the hostile elite – the Ruling Stones of the UK who want to dispossess the historic majority and secure their own power and profit in perpetuity. Lord Glasman broke ranks from that elite and pointed out its treachery and lies on immigration. He was heavily criticized and forced into silence.

By contrast, Dr Stone continues to spout his self-righteous, self-serving gas about “an endemic and universal English racism which has severe consequences generally in the lives of members of ethnic minorities.” He is, in fact, one of Britain’s most dedicated and hard-working hate-mongers:

One of the easiest ways to unite people is to mobilise their hatred for others. It is infinitely more difficult to unite them on the basis of constructive proposals. This unity of having an enemy in common gives rise to various kinds of sociological formation. In the short-term there is the specialised and transitory hatred of ‘the lynch mob’. There is the longer-term unity of hating communists, or hating capitalists, or hating Protestants, or hating Catholics, or hating blacks, or ‘hating whitey’. (Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics, 2000, pg. 21)

“Hating whitey” is what Dr Stone specializes in. He is a card-carrying member of the UK’s hostile elite, bent on completely gutting the people and culture of traditional of the UK. His tireless work on behalf of Stephen Lawrence has not benefited Blacks or other minorities, but then it has never been intended to. Instead, it has been intended to incite hatred, grievance and discord. Why can’t Minority Ethnics get no satisfaction? Because the Ruling Stones don’t want them to. Using mass immigration and multi-racialism as weapons of mass destruction, they want to destroy the historic nation of Britain and enjoy power and profit here in perpetuity.

Britain’s message for the United States and all other Western nations is simple: Nomine mutato, de te fabula narratur – “With a change of name, the tale is told of you.” The same hostile, hate-filled elite are at work everywhere in the West, lying, cheating, betraying and using mass immigration to divide and destroy those who stand in their way.

The New SS: UK Lawyers, Judges And Social Workers Colluding To Steal Children

by thecolemanexperience

The New SSThe Law SocietyDerbyshire CouncilCourtsChild SnatcherJail Social WorkersBookerJohn Hemming MPSnatched Children

Time and time again we hear tell of children being snatched from loving parents by despicable social workers, desperate to meet targets and make bonuses, and thrown into the corrupt and secretive world of the UK’s family courts systems.

One of the few MP’s brave enough and caring enough to highlight these cases is Birmingham MP, John Hemming, who recently broke parliamentary convention by naming and shaming Derbeyshire Council who colluded with lawyers and the courts to snatch two young children on misleading evidence.

The Express reports on the story:

” TWO YOUNG children were taken from their distraught mother and placed for adoption because her own legal aid lawyers “colluded” with social workers, according to an MP’s extraordinary allegation in Parliament”

” In a highly unusual accusation, John Hemming said lawyers for Jacque Courtnage colluded with Derbyshire County Council to prevent her analysing a document he believes would have cleared her of abuse allegations.
She and her husband have lost their two sons, now aged six and eight, for ever after a court ruled on the balance of probabilities they were responsible for harming their youngest when he was a baby.

They have never been arrested nor charged with any criminal offence due to lack of evidence.

Their heartbreaking story emerged in a Commons debate two months ago when Mr Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to name the mother and to make accusations against her lawyers and Derbyshire County Council.

He says the parents are the victims of a miscarriage of justice in the secret family court system.

The Lib Dem MP believes lawyers representing families on legal aid have a conflict of interest if they also do work for local authorities.

Mrs Courtnage, a 45-year-old accountant and her husband John, 47, an engineer, only discovered the potentially significant evidence nine months after a judge ruled their children should be taken from them.

They found it among their son’s medical records, which they secured after making a request to his hospital under the Data Protection Act as part of their own probe to discover the “truth”.

The evidence was an alternative diagnosis from a leading hospital consultant saying their son’s head injury had been caused by a fissure, a birth defect that weakened the skull bone.

Until then, Mr Hemming said, they had only been aware of the fracture diagnosis put forward by other experts and used by the council in its arguments before the court.

The children are now with an adoptive family and banned from any contact with their real parents.

Mrs Courtnage, who is not allowed to talk to the media about her case, told Mr Hemming: “Our children are our very existence and without them with us and being unable to touch them is like a living hell. Just talking about our boys reduces us to tears.

“The saying of a living bereavement is very apt and one we live daily. We have no grave to mourn at.”

“We are angry at what has been done to us but words cannot begin to describe the contempt we have for what this has done to our darling sons.”

The couple’s “living hell” started in 2008 when Mrs Courtnage became concerned by a swelling on her baby boy’s head. She took him to the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham where medics debated the X-ray results.
While two consultants made separate diagnoses of a fissure, others argued a fracture, a conclusion eventually accepted as the official version.

The diagnoses, together with evidence suggesting leg injuries to the child, were sent to Derbyshire County Council which then gave them to Mrs Courtnage’s lawyer.

However, Mr Hemming said the fissure argument was never highlighted to Mrs Courtnage and she did not see it among the 500 other documents in the large court bundles.

He told the Commons in September: “I have for some time been worried about what I was told by a social worker some years ago, which is that at times the legal aid-funded solicitors for parents conspire with local authority staff in order to ensure that the parents lose.

“One example where that appears to have happened is that of Jacque  and John Courtnage, whose two sons were taken into care because one had a lump on his head.

The doctors were not sure whether it was because of a fracture or a fissure.”

” The child was neurologically sound, which implies a fissure, but the parents did not see the evidence that it could have been a fissure until after the court had decided in 2010 that it was a fracture, and the question was never considered in any court judgment.

“A court order on October 30, 2008, had said that all evidence should be provided to the parents. That did not happen.
“The hospital provided Derbyshire County Council with the information in December 2008 but this did not get to the parents until after the finding of fact hearing of 2010, when they made a subject access request.
“The question is whether the council colluded with the parents’ solicitors.”

The MP said in the debate that he and Mrs Courtnage had asked the solicitors about the issue. He said a solicitor had denied the allegation but refused to give a “detailed response”.
He said in the Commons that, to him, meant the lawyers “colluded with Derbyshire County Council to keep this evidence from the parents”.

Mrs Courtnage tried to raise the fissure diagnosis before an appeal judge in September 2011.
However, due to an administrative mistake by court officials, the case was heard in her absence and the potentially vital pieces of paper were never presented to the judge.

She has recently decided to try to reopen the appeal under civil procedure rules.

A spokesman for Derbyshire County Council said: “We would strenuously reject any suggestion of collusion.
“The judge had before him all the child’s medical records including all those received from the Queen’s Medical Centre and the issue as to whether the child had a fissure or a fracture was fully brought before the court.

“The court had evidence from experts including a consultant paediatric radiologist and consultant neuroradiologist.
These experts were appointed independently by the solicitor acting on behalf of the child.

The child also had the benefit of a children’s guardian appointed by the court to represent his best interests.
“We are confident that the actions we took were the right ones and that the decision taken by the court was the right one.”

It’s about bloody time the disgusting scandal of Britain’s stolen children was fully investigated by the police.

If children are being snatched illegally, the social workers, lawyers and judges who were complicit in these cases should all be sacked and put on trial.

They may well end up on the receiving end of filthy Britain’s justice system themselves.

They bloody well deserve it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442241/Legal-aid-lawyer-secret-court-and-social-workers-colluded-to-adopt-boys

Globalists Cost British Families £16,998 In 2012

Written by Cigpapers

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

People are always complaining about the Globalist/multiculturalist Government – but what difference would a truly Nationalist Government make? Well apart from no mass immigration, and other positive effects, let’s look at what a Nationalist Government wouldn’t waste taxpayers money on. I have calculated on a UK population of 60 million – I know it is bigger, but as the rest are illegal they won’t be paying anything anyway. So what did they waste taxpayers money on in 2012?

DONNAY

What Did The Globalist/multiculturalist Government Waste Cost A British Family Of Four In 2012?

1. European Union Membership:

In 2012 our membership of the European Union cost £118billion in fees and other financial costs associated with membership.

That is about £1,970 plus interest per person every year.

Cost for a family of four: About £7,880  plus interest

The Nationalist Alternative : Leave the European Union – the only possible advantage is the trade agreements which are legally protected if we leave anyway.

Time for Britain to break free?

Time for Britain to break free?

2. The Tax Credit Swindle:

Outlined here  https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-tax-credit-swindle-global-greed-inc-as-usual/

The Tax Credit Swindle costs £30 billion which is £500 per person every year plus interest.

Cost for a family of four: £2,000 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : A decent minimum wage – let Tesco and Starbucks pay their own staff.

Big business gets £30billion per year in subsidies via the Tax Credit Swindle - no wonder they're lovin' it.

Big business got £30billion in 2012 in subsidies via the Tax Credit Swindle – no wonder they’re lovin’ it.

3. The PFI Fraud:

Outlined here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-private-finance-initiative-pfi-fraud/

The PFI fraud costs about £150 per person every year plus further interest.

Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel the fraudulent debt, throw the fraudsters in prison and keep the buildings.

Gordon Brown signed the PFI fraud deals.

Gordon Brown signed the PFI fraud deals.

4. The Big Windmill Rip Off:

Outlined here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/the-big-windmill-rip-off-revealed/

The Big Windmill Rip Off costs about £112 plus interest per family of four every year, but is set to rise steeply.

Cost for a family of four: £112 plus interest.

The Nationalist AlternativeCancel the rip off subsidised deals. Insulate houses to a very high standard and help to replace old boilers with new super efficient ones. There would be costs for a year or two then massive savings in energy use and therefore bills. Also this would be environmentally friendly – not just look “green”.

The Windmill Rip Off has a great green cover story but cost each British family £112 in 2012.

The Windmill Rip Off has a great green cover story but cost each British family £112 in 2012.

5. Foreign Aid:

In 2012 it is estimated the UK wasted about £9billion on foreign aid. Hundreds of millions goes to consultancy firms linked to the Politicians who make the payments. We also fund projects such as Local TV Stations in countries such as Iceland, Barbados ( higher per person income than Portugal ) , Turkey and Brazil.

That’s £150 per person plus interest.

Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest

The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel foreign aid spending.

21092011576[1]

6. The Olympic Games:

Cost was £9 to 12 billion depending on estimates. This is £150 to £200 per person. We’ll average that at £175.

The Olympic secret tax haven cost another £600million+ . At least £10 per person. Secret tax haven details here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/the-secret-olympic-corporate-tax-haven-exposed/

Cost for a family of four : £740 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Let Paris hold it – apart from the elite we all watched it on TV.

London or Paris? I watched it on TV anyway.

London or Paris? I watched it on TV anyway.

7. Illegal Foreign Wars And Occupation :

There are a lot of figures flying around, we’ve decided to go for £5billion in 2012 which looks a believable amount.

That’s about £83 per person.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £330 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Bring the troops home and prosecute the war criminals.

DONNAY

8. Mass Immigration :

The worst part of mass immigration is the child sex slave trafficking, racism , violence, fraud and murder. Also mass immigration holds down wages and pushes up living costs. Immigration costs taxpayers a further estimated £15billion in 2012  – please feel free to debate this figure.

That’s £250 per person.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1000 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Stop mass immigration and start deporting illegals. Also consider whether Blair’s mass immigration and ethnic cleansing was legal.

Mass immigration is dangerous and expensive.

Mass immigration is dangerous and expensive.

9. Interest On Fraudulent National Debt :

You probably realise we allegedly have £1,377.4 billion in National Debt. This is nearly entirely fraudulent and falsely created by our corrupt Politicians at the behest of their real paymasters. This cost about £40 billion in interest alone in 2012.

That is about £667 per person plus further interest.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £2,668 plus further interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Stop paying and cancel the fraudulent National Debt, then throw the corrupt politicians and bankers in prison.

Not under a real Nationalist Government.

Not under a real Nationalist Government.

10. Global Corporations Offshoring Profits To Avoid Tax :

Global Corporations such as Amazon, Starbucks , Ebay etc. offshore their profits to lower tax regimes abroad by using “Royalty” deals. The figures for 2012 for this scheme are £7 to £25 billion, so we’ll average that out at a credible £16 billion.

That is about £267 per person plus further interest.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1,068 plus further interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Make these Corporations pay UK taxes on UK profits.

We all have to pay UK taxes on UK earnings so why shouldn't the Global Corporations?

We all have to pay UK taxes on UK earnings so why shouldn’t the big Global Corporations?

2012 TOTAL FOR FAMILY OF FOUR : £16,998 PLUS INTEREST

You may want to dispute some of the numbers on here or add other spending items – feel free to do so. I can appreciate the costs of foreign wars and mass immigration will be hotly disputed – I had to go for a guesstimate based on a few figures. However this is just a quick list I did of things a Nationalist Government could do differently. Why not do your own list with spending decisions and amounts?

The Real Labour Party Manifesto 1997

In 1997 ‘New’ Labour produced a manifesto that outlined:

We will champion an open-border policy and allow permanent settlement of upwards of five million people from Third World countries. We intend to allow access to our labour markets to all citizens of the new EU accession countries, even though we know that other European countries won’t. We acknowledge that as a result of this unprecedented exercise in diversity, approximately five million indigenous workers will lose their jobs or see their wages depressed so that they would be better off on benefits. Since the new arrivals are in greater need than our own citizens, housing will be allocated on a needs basis, meaning that our own citizens will be discriminated against. The new arrivals from the Third World will dramatically increase the amount of TB, hepatitis and HIV cases. The NHS will be pushed to breaking point and the quality of schooling for your children will be adversely affected because of the multitude of languages spoken in the schools. Entire areas will become Islamised and de-facto sharia law applied in those areas. Rape and the grooming of vulnerable white girls will be a necessary and acceptable consequence of this policy. Anybody who tries to exercise his British rights (built up over a thousand years) and has the courage to speak out will be deemed a racist. If enough people are courageous and speak out, we will pass legislation that outlaws incitement to racial and religious hatred. Incitement in our terms means entirely valid criticism of a seventh-century tribal cult as evidenced in its written texts. We expect society to fragment and disintegrate. We also as a result of diversity will increase inequality by allowing the rich employers to get richer and the poor employees to get a lot poorer (unemployed) and utterly dependent upon government to survive. We expect the middle classes not to notice or speak out because by and large they will not be affected (until much later). We do not expect the British to protest our sweeping reforms. We will wholeheartedly embrace a policy of managed decline and your children will have to pay for our mistakes for the rest of their lives.

‘New’ Labour did not produce the above manifesto for public consumption. They were elected to power where they remained for thirteen years and implemented the above manifesto in full. They could only do it with the largest and most unprecedented credit bubble in the history of the world. The economic and social results are outlined below.

Britain is a nation addicted to a highly toxic and addictive trinity of welfare, immigration and debt that interrelate, intersect and mutually reinforce each other. We are fast approaching a tipping point where the end result is monetary collapse, with welfare implosion and ethnic conflict that would not be out of place in the Balkans.

The last Labour government pursued an immigration policy to make Britain a truly multicultural society with the parallel intention of creating a pool of Labour voters. This policy designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” had the consequence of importing cheap immigrant labour that decimated the bargaining power of indigenous unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

It is not insignificant that the last government had to introduce a minimum wage (April 1999) and working/ child tax credits (April 2003) to supplement the earnings of the low paid, as families could no longer afford a reasonable standard of living on what has been termed a living wage. These two flagship welfare policies were enacted at exactly the same time as the virtual unrestrictive migration to Britain of cheap labour, very often from the Third World.

Simultaneously, the availability of low interest rates and ‘light-touch’ regulation allowed the state and individuals to amass ever-increasing amounts of debt at lower rates, very often secured by mortgages on the seemingly ever-increasing value of residential housing. This apparent economic prosperity fostered an illusion that all was well and sustainable.

If the economy and house prices expanded, cheap finance could be had and payments could always be met. When the bubble burst in 2008, Britain was left with zombie firms and households (only supported by bank forbearance), unaffordable personal consumption, a lack of investment and an interest rate on savings that was negative after inflation.

It quickly became evident that many British workers were better off on welfare and in-work benefits than working full-time. Workers particularly from Eastern Europe did the jobs that British workers were subsidised not to do because the benefits system made it unprofitable. Moreover, this had profoundly damaging effects on the social fabric of working class communities as they became a new underclass impervious to the need to work and the rise of the chav (‘council house and violent’) mentality. The breakdown of the family and in particular the demise of marriage as a bedrock of society left the unenviable consequence that one in four children grow up in a family where neither parent has ever worked.

In modern times it has become the norm to attribute the irresponsible behaviour of individuals to society and not the individual themselves. The responsible in society are therefore subsidising the irresponsible to act irresponsibly. Since this is positively reinforced through welfare and the impossibility of earning a similar or greater amount through work, this will continue unabated. When a nation insulates its citizens from responsibility by providing cradle-to-the-grave welfare and medical treatment it cannot do anything other than produce a permanently irresponsible adolescent citizen.

The unintended consequence of the Left’s welfare policy was to provide incentives to be feckless and reward immoral behaviour. Those on welfare have found that should they start work they would effectively be paying a tax rate of 85% (i.e. working for 15p for every pound earned after the removal of benefits) which removes any incentive to work. In a study cited in Chris Philp’s, “Work for the Dole: A proposal to fix welfare dependency“, 59% of welfare recipients agreed that welfare payments were too high and discouraged work.

At the same time the in-work benefits disproportionately provide advantages for Islamic communities who are for the most part self-employed in cash industries. Cash industries allow the much easier under-reporting of taxable earnings and therefore the over-claiming of in-work benefits. This has a knock-on effect of financing much larger families than the indigenous population which then makes them more eligible for public housing. All of this is financed by British taxpayers to effectively Islamise their own country.

Britain has become a divided ‘community of communities’ under the umbrella of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism was modelled on everyone sharing broad values of being British within their own cultural framework. It was not expected that tribal forms of behaviour would survive in their historical form when they came face to face with the advantages of modernity and Western Civilization.

The struggle for race equality was perceived to be facilitated by multiculturalism, but it left in place cultural norms such as stoning and ‘honour’ violence abhorrent to a civilized nation. Conversely, the laws put in place to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred and to promote race equality actually makes the propagation of Islam illegal in Britain. The Quran, Hadith and Sira all outline either organised discrimination against or execution of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers and apostates. There are very few prohibitions concerning violence in Islam and many promoting violence against non-believers.

The British people had never been consulted on the unprecedented transformation taking place in their country. The coalition government has indicated that they will bring non-EU immigration down to the tens of thousands by 2015. When Enoch Powell made his “Birmingham Speech” in April 1968 immigration was running at 50,000 a year. In his “second” speech in November 1968 Powell outlined:

The English as a nation have their own peculiar faults. One of them is that strange passivity in the face of danger or absurdity or provocation, which has more than once in our history lured observers into false conclusions – conclusions sometimes fatal to the observers themselves – about the underlying intentions and the true determination of our people. What so far no one could accuse us of is a propensity to abandon hope in the face of severe and even seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Dejection is not one of our national traits; but we must be told the truth and shown the danger, if we are to meet it. Rightly or wrongly, I for my part believe that the time for that has come.

It is time for the British people to abandon the mainstream parties who have deceived and manipulated them into second class citizens, a minority in their capital city and a minority by 2064 (on current projections) in the rest of the country.

dilemma of cultural contact cartoon in jpeg(1)

Who The Fuck Is Chris Spivey? Written by Matt Taylor

If you haven’t heard of Christopher D Spivey, well I don’t blame you. He’s the up and coming voice of the alternative media.
Chris Spivey [pronounced Spy-Vee] first hit the head lines as a feature writer for the Sovereign Independent Newspaper. He’s a tattoo artist and body piercer, a single father [whose 18 year old daughter has recently given birth to a healthy baby boy] and the man most likely to trigger a British revolution.
I first heard of him via Facebook in 2012, after the Jimmy Savile scandal broke. As far as I can gather he’s just a normal guy from Rochford in Essex. He’s got two Rottweiler dogs and he’s built like a brick-shit-house. He raised his daughter alone since she was 6 months old, and by all accounts he’s a loving father who cares about the world around him.
Like the vast majority of the population, I got my news from such places as BBC, Sky, Channel Four and ITV news programmes. I used to pride myself on having a comprehensive understanding of the world around me by investing in the 45 minutes of Newsnight and the hour of Channel Four news everyday. It was only when I got a Sky box that I discovered other news channels such as Press TV, RT and the news channels from India, France and China. Slowly but surely I found myself watching these channels in favour of the old, finding them more informative and balanced. Surprisingly, I got really upset when Press TV [the Iranian news channel] was taken off the airwaves by Ofcom.
I soon came to realise there was a choice in the type of news you could get. Either the mainstream [MSM] namely BBC, Sky, ITV or the alternative [AV] which is made up of a diverse set of blogs, newspapers, websites and programmes screened on obscure TV channels such as Showcase TV, Edge Media TV and Paradigm Shift TV.
Chris Spivey’s articles stuck out as a high-light and my view of the world has been changed irreversibly ever since.
I was once a Royal Military Policeman who pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen of England. I joined the Army ready to kill and be killed for my country. Kill and be killed on behalf of who I thought then was a great and illustrious Queen.
But reading Monsters Inc by Chris Spivey [the first article which I read of his] I now consider our great and illustrious Queen Elizabeth II to be a monster, a charlatan and an immoral person. Chris Spivey would describe her differently, maybe as a ‘cunt and a slut’ but that’s just how he talks, ‘Don’t cha know’.
Now, I have been called naive before but I’ve never really agreed with that description. I like to think of myself as an intelligence free thinking individual who takes people at face value and who is willing to listen to what anyone says with an open mind.
If someone tells me they’ve seen a UFO, I’ll believe them until such time it’s proven that they’ve lied. If someone says they’ve seen a sex video of the London Mayor Boris Johnson having rampant sex with Samantha Cameron, the Prime Minister’s wife, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until such time I’ve seen the tape myself or when they’ve been exposed as a liar. I like people and take people at face value until such time they have been exposed as frauds or liars.
I’ve read books recommended by Chris Spivey such as The Falsification of History by John Hamer which totally threw me of kilter and which I’m still recovering from. But I’ve also read other books which he doesn’t recommend about the subjects he covers, to get a balanced view. Many personalities in the alternative media ask the reader never to take them at face value and to do their own research on the subjects they cover.
The reason I’ve taken Chris Spivey’s articles on board is because they are well crafted, articulated, researched and written. Another major factor is that I like them. He injects humour, personality and passion into every piece. If any of you have read his articles you know he swears like a trooper and if you haven’t yet, you’ll be shocked by the language he uses. Then there are his pictures he accompanies with his articles. You have to see them to appreciate their artistic value. But I understand why he uses such language and images. Number one, he’s real and doesn’t hold his punches and number two, he’s pissed off and angry with the status quo.
Make no mistake, Chris Spivey is writing and circulating articles with libellous accusations. Quite frankly I am shocked with everything he comes out with. And that is only because I believed the MSM to be the authority on news and that if it wasn’t reported by the BBC then it wasn’t true. The AV has changed all that.
Okay, let’s get down to the nitty gritty…. WHO THE FUCK IS SPIVEY?
This man writes well crafted and researched articles which tell, amongst many things:
  1. Tony Blair tried to rape his daughter. [See here for article]
  2. The Royal family are Satanists. [See here for article]
  3. Prince Philip is a paedophile. [See here for article]
  4. That all the Parliamentarians and Lords in the House of Commons are paedophiles. [See here for article]
  5. That Gordon Brown is a paedophile. [See here for article]
  6. That the Woolwich hacking murder was a fake and an acted scenario. [See here for article]
  7. An ex South African terrorist worked for the NSPCC. [See here for article]
  8. That David Cameron may have sacrificed his first born to the Devil. [See here for article]
  9. That Lord Mc Alpine is a nonce [as he likes to call paedophiles]. [See here for article]
  10. and that Madeline McCann is buried under the drive way of Robert Murat. [See here for article]
‘Unbelievable’ wouldn’t you say? How can someone circulate such disgusting accusations and get away with it? Surely this man should be arrested for libel and slander and thrown into a dark dungeon for the next one hundred years…
But no…. Chris Spivey backs up every accusation with well researched and verified public evidence. The proof is there right under the surface and all you have to do is scratch and see for yourself that he’s onto something. He’s got a point… What he says rings true… And the blaring FACT that he hasn’t been thrown in prison says a lot about what he says; namely that the accused daren’t take him to court for libel because what he says is true.
After all, Sally Bercow, the wife of the House of Common’s speaker John Bercow, recently lost her libel case in the High Court for sending a tweet which didn’t specifically accuse Lord Mc Alpine of being a nonce but yet Chris Spivey specifically calls Lord Mc Alpine a nonce in dozens of his articles but yet no lawyer has got in touch.
Giving credit where credit is due he covers a wide spectrum of subject matters. Exclusives are common-place. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known about former ANC/MK terrorist Heinrich Grosskopt holding and abusing an important position within the NSPCC. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t know the true nature of the renowned MP Tom Watson. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known where Madeline McCann’s body maybe buried. If it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t known a lot of things. Most importantly, if it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t have known that the British Establishment and Royal family is invested with perverts, murderers and Satanists.
img143
He writes about subjects which are important and relevant. He comments on the news of the day and wipes away the cloak of mediocrity to unveil the stark truth and reality of the subject matter. He doesn’t hold punches and lays the facts on the line. He’s fearless of bullies and doesn’t give a hoot about threats from Lords, Kings or Queens. The man is a brick wall of opinion and righteous stance. He fights passionately for the rights of children, the downtrodden and abused. If ever you were in a war, Chris Spivey is the type of guy you’ll want standing next to you.
Chris Spivey seems untouchable… And as a consequence very likely to be the one who triggers a British revolution which will see every MP in the country and Royal family member put in jail for either sex crimes or treason… [Don’t think it hasn’t happened before!]
He seems even more determined than ever to bring the House of Cards crashing to the ground after the birth of his Grandson.
“Young Clay makes me more determined than ever to see the downfall of these wholly corrupt, nonce infested, so called democratic governments. I will not rest till there is real change for the better in this country.
My new little man deserves better. Your children and grandchildren deserve better… Let’s go to war.”
You might think that he hasn’t been pulled up because he’s simply irrelevant. A lone voice in the throng of bloggers and alternative journalists who are epidemic across the internet…
You’ll be wrong. Firstly, I’ve heard of him, and I’m your average Joe-the-public type of guy. I visit his website [www.chrisspivey.co.uk] once a day for any new articles and I’m not alone because 30,000 to 40,000 others do the same everyday too. He’s a prolific blogger who checks the newspapers so we don’t have too. If there is any news worth mentioning, Chris Spivey will bring it to our attention. His following is increasing everyday and it’ll only increase further with his appearances on the radio and up coming festivals.
Chris Spivey is a clear and present danger to the British Establishment and I amongst many, welcome it.
After all I agree totally with his sentiment:
“THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO YOU FUCKING PLEBS.
The elites raping our kids and getting away with it. And why?
BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL FUCKING NONCES THAT’S WHY!  THE ROYAL FAMILY, THE GOVERNMENT, THE POLICE TOP BRASS, AND THE FUCKING JUDGES TOO. VILE, EVIL, CHILD RAPISTS.
The quicker the blind cunts who think the likes of us are mad realize that fact, the sooner we can protect our children. Until that time comes, the sick cunts with money and power will keep on and on.
WAKEY, FUCKING WAKEY.
I am so fucking angry at the moment, I would fucking hang the Monsters myself.
CUNTS.”
Suffice to say Chris Spivey is not going away. I am positive that once EVERYONE embraces the alternative media and switches of the mainstream news, then a British revolution is inevitable.
Chris Spivey has demonstrated through public record and research that our politicians are criminals, paedophiles and murderers. He has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the British Royal Family are Satanists, murderers and frauds.
Chris Spivey has proven beyond reasonable doubt that EVERYTHING we are told by the MSM is a lie and that there is an alternative point of view…
Read Chris Spivey at your own risk. Your opinion of the world will never be the same again…
Let’s go to war….
!Bw7b-h!!Wk~$(KGrHqN,!hEEv1+zyBfNBMLN9YlcZw~~_12