OK I remember. I did the Wagh interview on Friday, Aug. 26, with a plan to do the story in two weeks. On Sunday, Aug. 28, Fuellmich appeared on a panel with Wagh and with the live stream rolling, Reiner invited her onto the committee. Around these parts, jaws hit the floor...I was encouraged (privately, but now I can say this, by Mark Bailey) to maybe consider picking up the pace of the story. I went to work, and went straight through till publication at about 4 am on Tuesday, Aug. 30. Then on Sept. 2 (about three days later), Viviane announces that the committee is on hiatus and there is a shakeup that nobody understands. Now we know what happened; it's all in this interview.
Thanks Brian. What is the factual basis of your question?
The "questioning the spinning ball thing" is a joke and a hoax sustained by profound confusion and the illusion of the digital environment "flattening" reality.
The "spinning ball" is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of thousands of technologies and services you use every day, including the calculation of when the Sun will rise in any locale, the seasons, the general climate, the satellites that convey this transmission I am typing now, and the function of ordinary compasses and GPS.
From the standpoint of astronomy and geophysics, we have the elegant symmetry of the length of days at different latitudes; the predictable timing of eclipses, planetary transits of the sun, retrogrades, the timing of full and new moons, the measurements of shadows at solstice, the direction of the sun (due east-west all over the planet) at equinox, equal length days at equinox and at no other time; and countless other repeatable experiments with independent variables.
This does not include photographic observations from space observatories which are casually dismissed as hoaxes with no evidence. The only photos FErs allow are their crufty images with no provenance (record of their creation). There is no "being convinced." I do not believe in the shape of the solar system, I live in it and observe it every day of my life.
One other bit. It's not the year 1300. In order to dismiss the spherical Earth, you must dismiss the experience of aeons of sailors who have navigated by compass and sextant, which rely entirely on the sphere; as well as the experiences of all of the modern pilots and seafarers who have circumnavigated. These are not all government people, they are skilled people with their own ships and airplanes who know know how to find their way home safely.
The FE argument is "they are clueless about where they are," but I would like to see an FEr find their way back to port on a sailboat from the middle of the Indian Ocean, with or without GPS -- but GPS alone demonstrates the spherical model because the satellites are in stable, predictable orbits that can somehow miraculously "find your iPhone" (meaning detect your exact location) even if you're in the middle of the Indian Ocean away from all land-based towers. The hilarious FE view is that because NASA allegedly buys a lot of helium, the satellites float around on balloons. (This ignores the fact that most satellites are not lofted by NASA, they are private, for technology services).
Additionally, "flat earth" is an actual theory about a conspiracy of the "Freemasons" to conceal the shape of the planet (for what?) as well to hide vast continents and on and on and on and on. These people are confused, and miserable, and misery wants company. And their channels that capitalize on basic ignorance about geography are extremely popular and profitable. And listen to my two interviews with FErs. The NEVER give a direct answer to a question. They always go somewhere else, spew some jargon, and then go out and get somewhere new using their GPS device.
Then I'll ask you as you asked Amandha, "Okay, one last question. Uh, what is what is your confidence level that you're you're right about this and what what is the uh, how would would you estimate the possibility of being wrong?"
The scientific and logical answer to your question is, "All of the available evidence using repeatable experiments with independent variables describes a spherical planet and a heliocentric solar system." When one of those experiments fails, tell me about it and I'll consider it.
Additionally, none of them can point to a practical problem with the sphere model — an instance where its calculations fail, or some practical purpose of navigation, communication or timekeeping fail. Show me one such failure and I will consider it.
The reason I asked Amandha that question is, she presented no evidence whatsoever and dismissed all of the evidence to the contrary of her viewpoint. I never previously made a case or a claim of a spherical planet. I merely used it as a matter of day-to-day work, I have verified the results of that work, and I have never seen a problem; I have never seen a spherical Earth experiment fail.
Show me one and then we can look at the hypothesis, the experiment and the conclusion and consider it.
In sum, my answer is, "I am confident based on the available evidence to a high degree of certainty."
Look into the Sunrise/Sunset Equation (not the song in A minor). With this equation, you can predict the time and direction of sunrise or sunset for any day anywhere on Earth between 66n and 66s. This can be verified by sight. It's how the Weather Channel, the newspaper or an astrology program can tell you when sunrise is going to be and you can verify by sight. This equation uses the following assumptions in its calculation and does not work without them:
— coordinates on sphere Earth
— distance of sphere Sun average 93 million miles
— 23 degree axial rotation
— precessional movement accounted for
Standing in one location, the independent variable is the day you test for.
On any given day the independent variable is the location.
It works every time without failure — and is verifiable without special equipment, just a watch and maybe a compass. This is the simplest and most elegant proof that works anywhere, any day (unlike certain proofs that only work on the equinox or summer solstice).
FErs say "it works on a flat plane" but that is impossible as the FE model has no coordinates to test; that has never been tested, and the assertion is a false hypothesis that cannot even be tested.
You would also have to disprove things like the Sunrise/Sunset Equation, which in my mind settles the matter without use of photos. But disqualifying photos is not fair. FErs always want to be the plaintiff, the judge, and the jury.
This is becoming one of the most revealing investigations of the last three years. The fraudster leading the Wuhan lab leak narrative and others son to be outed!!
What Alschner says about Fuellmich amounts to very serious allegations. Working on behalf of Scientology to control the movement, part of then discrediting it. And, "it was later than we thought, when we first believed him." Fuellmich has been lying to the world for a long time. The bit about his firm doing pro bono work for the Corona Investigative Committee while charging the committee oodles for... answering emails is remarkable in its audacity.
Alschner unfortunately retains a deep belief in the validity of Phisher and Wardog's work. And while i'm glad you didn't go after him for mistaking our analysis as being substantially the same as that of JJ Couey., i nave to say he doesn't really get it. Still believes in RFK Jr and the Wuhan lab leak garbage.
By the way — these are serious allegations, but nothing less than we have considered many times; in my view, meaning my eyewitness perspective, RFK's role has been to destroy the movement and I say that because I watched him do it. At Arclight, In Ghent, New York, I was part of an incredible scene in late 2020 and into 2021, where Cowan and Kaufman first talked, and I watched it first slide toward irrelevance with certain speakers (a)_________ and (b)_________ and others who are essentially popular political hacks, and then the entire place turned into RFK zombies. A friend of many years — to whom I had referred 100 clients — canceled her subscription because I was "against RFK," and this cannot be the only person (I said no, I caught him lying — to my face.) We have long known we were in one divide and conquer situation after the next. We have long known there was deep state activity. Yeah, well, now we've given it a name and an identity that makes basic, logical sense and is part of a horror show beneath the crust of American life that has destroyed many and runs and rules God Knows What.
Thinking now that Scientology might have its hand in the pandemic psyop is a mind blowing revelation...and I mean that. You are the only person I know who is investigating this and pulling all the strings together. Thank you! Is there a version of the You Tube with translations?
Jeff, it took me a while to put it all together and filter out the issues based on the logic of what I had personally learned. It took Mark Bailey and a few other people to help me get clear on all of this. Alscher listens and he's highly intelligent. He also understands the importance of the missing virus point of view — I was in the conversation...watch those parts. I doubt this will be our last conversation. Lab leak is an extremely seductive point of view, a narrative that just soaks in. Let's see where our discussion goes.
I wasn't saying you should pour scorn and ice cold (or boiling hot) water on him, just providing my snapshot of the moment. And stating that there are sharp differences between us and Couey which he at this point seems to miss.
The fuel for the lab leak narrative is rage. It's a proxy for "this was done to us" without having to take the seeming existential leap of "there is no such thing as a pathogenic virus." Such still defies most people's comprehension...it's way outside of their ken...and so it's much easier to graft onto a science fiction narrative. btw I do not think that is what Alsceher is doing...but it's what most people on the "wuhan leak" wavelength are doing.
Plays into the victiimhood mentality which is widespread.
That's why i prefer to not phrase things in terms of "there is no such thing as a pathogenic virus." MUCH better to state in terms of "there is no proof of a pathogenic virus." The first amounts to a belief, the second is a question of fact, which even the most dedicated apologist finds it hard to counter.
It is LOGICAL. if you have not done so, do a "directions" map from the Wuhan market to the Wuhan lab and you may think something like, ahh — obviously, this is the answer.
1. Government scientists on the whole operate within the mechanistic materialism paradigm, which sees everything as a machine or mechanism, which tales virology to be absolutely valid, never mind the lack of proof.
2. Such labs are a great way to funnel money to particular scientists and projects, perhaps use that as a cover to funnel some of that money into “other endeavors.”
3. Such labs can be used to obfuscate chemical weapons research.
4. Such labs can be used to research bio-implantable devices for monitoring the people into whom these are inserted, for data collection, both for surveillance as well as social impact investing. Alison McDowell has written several pieces on this matter, go to her page and search “Berkeley,” and that’s the first item which comes up, because that’s where several labs are pursuing this very project. On second thought, here it is.
I think what he said about couey is that a biologist, it's taken him a long time to come around on the missing virus problem. Uwe understands how hot that issue is — as he put it in his own words.
It does not; it's a hoax, and the history is in this article from 2011. The signs do not change; that's the whole point. They are the division of one solar cycle into 12 based on the seasons, not the constellations.
Get a basic astrology calendar -- not on the net, invest the $12 and work with a real book, so you have pages you can turn -- and then live through the cycles for a while. Astrology is not theory, it's experience. Also, get yourself a subscription to Planet Waves and follow my writing. You will have fun, if you have interests like this. It's at http://planetwaves.eu
and that's another cycle; imposed over the solar cycle; and the two have meeting points at the time of solar and lunar eclipses...so there are two cycles plus a metacycle that unites them.
Wow, I forgot how absolutely silly Pink Floyd was when Syd Barrett was with the band. I never got him...I know that is an unpopular stance among the purists.
Robin, you may be interested in researching “black nobility” (nothing to do with color). Supposedly, they are the families at the very top who are behind the scenes running this melting pot of a ‘whirled’. If you’re interested, here’s a few links to get you started...
Ro, "illuminati" means "the illuminated ones." It's a mythical caste of people who are said to be the top echelon aware of all the big secrets. The concept is meaningless. But if it intrigues you, I suggest you dive into Robert Anton Wilson, who had fun with it. People who don't know what they're talking about use the term "illuminati" as a byword; it i void for vagueness (except for the guy who I saw walking down my street with a Mason pendant, and when I asked him about it, he announced he was a member of the illuminati! And I said I never thought I would meet one of you, wow.
OK I remember. I did the Wagh interview on Friday, Aug. 26, with a plan to do the story in two weeks. On Sunday, Aug. 28, Fuellmich appeared on a panel with Wagh and with the live stream rolling, Reiner invited her onto the committee. Around these parts, jaws hit the floor...I was encouraged (privately, but now I can say this, by Mark Bailey) to maybe consider picking up the pace of the story. I went to work, and went straight through till publication at about 4 am on Tuesday, Aug. 30. Then on Sept. 2 (about three days later), Viviane announces that the committee is on hiatus and there is a shakeup that nobody understands. Now we know what happened; it's all in this interview.
Thanks for jumping back on the Big Virus Hoax.
I don't quite get the Astrology thing...and especially now that I'm questioning the Spinning Ball hypothesis.
And I did see your interview with Amandha Vollmer on Flat Earth.
You said you would not be interested at all in FE if not for many the No-Virus folks questioning it.
Are you 100% convinced of Globe Earth just like Amandha is 100% convinced of FE?
Or is there some wiggle room?
And, if so, don't you have to explore it more?
Either way, I'm now finally a Paid Subscriber.
Thanks Brian. What is the factual basis of your question?
The "questioning the spinning ball thing" is a joke and a hoax sustained by profound confusion and the illusion of the digital environment "flattening" reality.
The "spinning ball" is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of thousands of technologies and services you use every day, including the calculation of when the Sun will rise in any locale, the seasons, the general climate, the satellites that convey this transmission I am typing now, and the function of ordinary compasses and GPS.
From the standpoint of astronomy and geophysics, we have the elegant symmetry of the length of days at different latitudes; the predictable timing of eclipses, planetary transits of the sun, retrogrades, the timing of full and new moons, the measurements of shadows at solstice, the direction of the sun (due east-west all over the planet) at equinox, equal length days at equinox and at no other time; and countless other repeatable experiments with independent variables.
This does not include photographic observations from space observatories which are casually dismissed as hoaxes with no evidence. The only photos FErs allow are their crufty images with no provenance (record of their creation). There is no "being convinced." I do not believe in the shape of the solar system, I live in it and observe it every day of my life.
One other bit. It's not the year 1300. In order to dismiss the spherical Earth, you must dismiss the experience of aeons of sailors who have navigated by compass and sextant, which rely entirely on the sphere; as well as the experiences of all of the modern pilots and seafarers who have circumnavigated. These are not all government people, they are skilled people with their own ships and airplanes who know know how to find their way home safely.
The FE argument is "they are clueless about where they are," but I would like to see an FEr find their way back to port on a sailboat from the middle of the Indian Ocean, with or without GPS -- but GPS alone demonstrates the spherical model because the satellites are in stable, predictable orbits that can somehow miraculously "find your iPhone" (meaning detect your exact location) even if you're in the middle of the Indian Ocean away from all land-based towers. The hilarious FE view is that because NASA allegedly buys a lot of helium, the satellites float around on balloons. (This ignores the fact that most satellites are not lofted by NASA, they are private, for technology services).
Additionally, "flat earth" is an actual theory about a conspiracy of the "Freemasons" to conceal the shape of the planet (for what?) as well to hide vast continents and on and on and on and on. These people are confused, and miserable, and misery wants company. And their channels that capitalize on basic ignorance about geography are extremely popular and profitable. And listen to my two interviews with FErs. The NEVER give a direct answer to a question. They always go somewhere else, spew some jargon, and then go out and get somewhere new using their GPS device.
OK. Fair enough.
Then I'll ask you as you asked Amandha, "Okay, one last question. Uh, what is what is your confidence level that you're you're right about this and what what is the uh, how would would you estimate the possibility of being wrong?"
The scientific and logical answer to your question is, "All of the available evidence using repeatable experiments with independent variables describes a spherical planet and a heliocentric solar system." When one of those experiments fails, tell me about it and I'll consider it.
Additionally, none of them can point to a practical problem with the sphere model — an instance where its calculations fail, or some practical purpose of navigation, communication or timekeeping fail. Show me one such failure and I will consider it.
The reason I asked Amandha that question is, she presented no evidence whatsoever and dismissed all of the evidence to the contrary of her viewpoint. I never previously made a case or a claim of a spherical planet. I merely used it as a matter of day-to-day work, I have verified the results of that work, and I have never seen a problem; I have never seen a spherical Earth experiment fail.
Show me one and then we can look at the hypothesis, the experiment and the conclusion and consider it.
In sum, my answer is, "I am confident based on the available evidence to a high degree of certainty."
Thanks for that, Eric.
Since I am in research mode, I'll look for a spherical Earth experiment that has failed.
I appreciate you keeping us on our toes.
Look into the Sunrise/Sunset Equation (not the song in A minor). With this equation, you can predict the time and direction of sunrise or sunset for any day anywhere on Earth between 66n and 66s. This can be verified by sight. It's how the Weather Channel, the newspaper or an astrology program can tell you when sunrise is going to be and you can verify by sight. This equation uses the following assumptions in its calculation and does not work without them:
— coordinates on sphere Earth
— distance of sphere Sun average 93 million miles
— 23 degree axial rotation
— precessional movement accounted for
Standing in one location, the independent variable is the day you test for.
On any given day the independent variable is the location.
It works every time without failure — and is verifiable without special equipment, just a watch and maybe a compass. This is the simplest and most elegant proof that works anywhere, any day (unlike certain proofs that only work on the equinox or summer solstice).
FErs say "it works on a flat plane" but that is impossible as the FE model has no coordinates to test; that has never been tested, and the assertion is a false hypothesis that cannot even be tested.
You would also have to disprove things like the Sunrise/Sunset Equation, which in my mind settles the matter without use of photos. But disqualifying photos is not fair. FErs always want to be the plaintiff, the judge, and the jury.
This is becoming one of the most revealing investigations of the last three years. The fraudster leading the Wuhan lab leak narrative and others son to be outed!!
heh heh heh...mmmm hmmm....
What Alschner says about Fuellmich amounts to very serious allegations. Working on behalf of Scientology to control the movement, part of then discrediting it. And, "it was later than we thought, when we first believed him." Fuellmich has been lying to the world for a long time. The bit about his firm doing pro bono work for the Corona Investigative Committee while charging the committee oodles for... answering emails is remarkable in its audacity.
Alschner unfortunately retains a deep belief in the validity of Phisher and Wardog's work. And while i'm glad you didn't go after him for mistaking our analysis as being substantially the same as that of JJ Couey., i nave to say he doesn't really get it. Still believes in RFK Jr and the Wuhan lab leak garbage.
By the way — these are serious allegations, but nothing less than we have considered many times; in my view, meaning my eyewitness perspective, RFK's role has been to destroy the movement and I say that because I watched him do it. At Arclight, In Ghent, New York, I was part of an incredible scene in late 2020 and into 2021, where Cowan and Kaufman first talked, and I watched it first slide toward irrelevance with certain speakers (a)_________ and (b)_________ and others who are essentially popular political hacks, and then the entire place turned into RFK zombies. A friend of many years — to whom I had referred 100 clients — canceled her subscription because I was "against RFK," and this cannot be the only person (I said no, I caught him lying — to my face.) We have long known we were in one divide and conquer situation after the next. We have long known there was deep state activity. Yeah, well, now we've given it a name and an identity that makes basic, logical sense and is part of a horror show beneath the crust of American life that has destroyed many and runs and rules God Knows What.
put this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_(Scientology)
together with this hypnotic, driven, determined confidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEM_H_Mhhlo
Thinking now that Scientology might have its hand in the pandemic psyop is a mind blowing revelation...and I mean that. You are the only person I know who is investigating this and pulling all the strings together. Thank you! Is there a version of the You Tube with translations?
correction...I listened further and Fuellmich speaks in English
Jeff, it took me a while to put it all together and filter out the issues based on the logic of what I had personally learned. It took Mark Bailey and a few other people to help me get clear on all of this. Alscher listens and he's highly intelligent. He also understands the importance of the missing virus point of view — I was in the conversation...watch those parts. I doubt this will be our last conversation. Lab leak is an extremely seductive point of view, a narrative that just soaks in. Let's see where our discussion goes.
I wasn't saying you should pour scorn and ice cold (or boiling hot) water on him, just providing my snapshot of the moment. And stating that there are sharp differences between us and Couey which he at this point seems to miss.
The fuel for the lab leak narrative is rage. It's a proxy for "this was done to us" without having to take the seeming existential leap of "there is no such thing as a pathogenic virus." Such still defies most people's comprehension...it's way outside of their ken...and so it's much easier to graft onto a science fiction narrative. btw I do not think that is what Alsceher is doing...but it's what most people on the "wuhan leak" wavelength are doing.
Plays into the victiimhood mentality which is widespread.
That's why i prefer to not phrase things in terms of "there is no such thing as a pathogenic virus." MUCH better to state in terms of "there is no proof of a pathogenic virus." The first amounts to a belief, the second is a question of fact, which even the most dedicated apologist finds it hard to counter.
It is LOGICAL. if you have not done so, do a "directions" map from the Wuhan market to the Wuhan lab and you may think something like, ahh — obviously, this is the answer.
The definition of a "virus" is a "pathogenic particle". A "pathogenic virus" would be, therefore, "a pathogenic pathogenic particle".
(Similarly, the "ramen (拉麵) noodle" reads as "pulled noodle noodle" to the native Chinese/Japanese.)
Mainstream narrative is that there are harmless and even benign viruses, so just for emphasis.
If you want a little lab leak fiction fun, this very serious interview by Jordan peterson about the Lab Leak is highly entertaining https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEh5JyZC218&t=384s
I am sure they think they are doing GOF. And torturing my best friends, the Bat.
1. Government scientists on the whole operate within the mechanistic materialism paradigm, which sees everything as a machine or mechanism, which tales virology to be absolutely valid, never mind the lack of proof.
2. Such labs are a great way to funnel money to particular scientists and projects, perhaps use that as a cover to funnel some of that money into “other endeavors.”
3. Such labs can be used to obfuscate chemical weapons research.
4. Such labs can be used to research bio-implantable devices for monitoring the people into whom these are inserted, for data collection, both for surveillance as well as social impact investing. Alison McDowell has written several pieces on this matter, go to her page and search “Berkeley,” and that’s the first item which comes up, because that’s where several labs are pursuing this very project. On second thought, here it is.
https://wrenchinthegears.com/2022/06/20/computational-life-and-industrial-design-erode-the-boundaries-of-our-being-synthetic-pretenders-part-7/
I think what he said about couey is that a biologist, it's taken him a long time to come around on the missing virus problem. Uwe understands how hot that issue is — as he put it in his own words.
this is disappointing in so many ways
really great article --- thanks for all you do ---- i
The plot thickens.... great interview!
Deep state attacks- confer the bona fides
Reiner (IMO) is/was always a stalking horse...
How does the positi of Ophiuchus affect my Aquarian identity ... ?
It does not; it's a hoax, and the history is in this article from 2011. The signs do not change; that's the whole point. They are the division of one solar cycle into 12 based on the seasons, not the constellations.
http://members.planetwaves.net/you-are-who-you-are/
So- I am confused as to the solar cycle as compared/contrasted with the lunar- ( quite possibly, I might add)
you have to study them.
Get a basic astrology calendar -- not on the net, invest the $12 and work with a real book, so you have pages you can turn -- and then live through the cycles for a while. Astrology is not theory, it's experience. Also, get yourself a subscription to Planet Waves and follow my writing. You will have fun, if you have interests like this. It's at http://planetwaves.eu
https://www.amazon.com/Llewellyns-Daily-Planetary-Guide-Glance/dp/0738768928/ref=asc_df_0738768928/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=647189862918&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2015669506704742672&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9004747&hvtargid=pla-1966665840951&psc=1&mcid=56ac31bbce943fe98d39ee001aae2273
I feel compelled by my interest in the 13 month ( of 28 days each) calendar to importune ..
and that's another cycle; imposed over the solar cycle; and the two have meeting points at the time of solar and lunar eclipses...so there are two cycles plus a metacycle that unites them.
This is all I’ve got - and I m heading towards the sack - waiting upon the jolts-aka the de rigueur attacks (5Gsus)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FPMXt9Me_Fo
Wow, I forgot how absolutely silly Pink Floyd was when Syd Barrett was with the band. I never got him...I know that is an unpopular stance among the purists.
I am not really into the sound BUT there are some incredible songs from his era and they learned everything they did later from him.
The last few paragraphs are in need of some editing, for grammatical correctness- if I am not misreading...
give me a clue please.
We might check the opposite of that Ro.
the Scientology has infiltrated the CIA.
The CIA is real. And historic.
Robin, you may be interested in researching “black nobility” (nothing to do with color). Supposedly, they are the families at the very top who are behind the scenes running this melting pot of a ‘whirled’. If you’re interested, here’s a few links to get you started...
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican144.htm
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/who-rules-the-world
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/black-nobility-101
The masters tell the operatives of bureaucrats what to do.
Ro, "illuminati" means "the illuminated ones." It's a mythical caste of people who are said to be the top echelon aware of all the big secrets. The concept is meaningless. But if it intrigues you, I suggest you dive into Robert Anton Wilson, who had fun with it. People who don't know what they're talking about use the term "illuminati" as a byword; it i void for vagueness (except for the guy who I saw walking down my street with a Mason pendant, and when I asked him about it, he announced he was a member of the illuminati! And I said I never thought I would meet one of you, wow.