Monday, June 17, 2013

The Realist Report - Sofia Smallstorm: Sandy Hook


On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by Sofia Smallstorm to discuss her recent presentation at the Conspiracy Con 2013 conference in Milpitas, California. We'll be discussing the alleged Sandy Hook "shooting", the concept of media fakery and PSYOPS, and Sofia's research into chem trails and other environmental and health issues.

Please visit The Realist Report on TalkeShoe to download this and past episodes.  

27 comments:

  1. Intellectual Warfare involves 11 basic themes. The are Distraction, Overload, Paralysis, Exhaustion, Deception, Divisive Techniques, Pacification, Deterrence, Provocation, Suggestion and Pressure.

    The Sandy Hook Movie was designed as a Civilian Disarmament Campaign. The Distraction principle involved creating an imaginary threat against a high-value target such as our children, forcing us to reevaluate our decisions about our basic rights (2nd Amendment). The Overload principle was manifested by presenting us with large amounts of conflicting information about the alleged incident. The Paralysis principle was manifested by presenting the “gun threat” to our poor, defenseless children - to paralyze us with fear. The Exhaustion principle was manifested by causing us to carry out useless investigations. This is designed to cause us to expend our resources as part of the “Overload” principle. The Deception principle is manipulation, distortion, or falsification of evidence to induce us to react in a manner prejudicial to the our interests. This is the core reason for the Sandy Hook Movie in the first place. The Divisive Techniques principle is accomplished because the gun-control agenda is a highly contentious issue among certain individuals anyway and the population is pre-disposed towards division on this issue. Certain people simply refuse to believe that the authorities would lie to them. Others notice obvious deception coming from the authorities. This creates division between well-meaning people and serves the Divide-and-Conquer strategy.

    There is plenty of literature on these strategies available to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A witness to the Sandy Hook Movie would be considered to be an original source of information about certain aspects of the alleged event, as would others who were present at the time and place the event took place – including Adam Lanza - the alleged perp. Have you been able to interview any original source of info about Sandy Hook? The answer is “no”. Nobody has. You have been fed a video interview of an alleged original source. You have not been able to interview or cross-examine that source.

    More complex types of sources include those who are intermediate sources, who are by definition not original sources. To greater or lesser degrees they filter, interpret, repackage and disseminate information from other sources – sometimes other intermediate sources – and the information relayed by them can sometimes be very different from that provided by their originators.

    We hear a lot of people say “I have a friend who knows someone …”. How credible is a claim of having “A friend who knows someone”? Are you prepared to believe everyone who makes claims like that? Not credible.

    As the number of intermediate sources in the information chain grows, the greater becomes the potential for uncertainty in the information that is received.

    If the information is transmitted via word-of-mouth, or filtered and repackaged like a report or news article, then the certainty of the information will decrease unless every intermediate source is completely reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John,

    Great show. While I was impressed with your guests grasp of many well-understood deception techniques, I am not prepared to extend her credibility into the "chemtrail" domain.

    Claims like "chemtrails" require objective proof. Surely your guest knows what objective proof is - and how it differs from "unsubstantiated claims".

    A bit of research into your guests background reveals her coy unwillingness to discuss where she got her info on organized deception operations. Maybe she read it somewhere.

    Claims of "chemtrails" require proof. I have not seen any to date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A contrail will dissappear in minutes as they are ice crystals formed by the air rushing through the engine. Therefore when I see "contrails" that last for hours and spread out and form a haze I know for a fact that it isn't ice crystals. It's really simple physics.

      Delete
    2. Rick,

      Please do some research on Contrails. What you just said in inaccurate. Contrails do sometimes "persist" and spread out to form high level Cirrus clouds - depending upon ambient humidity, etc.

      Delete
    3. Even if that is true that does not account for the scores of chemtrails I see almost daily in New England. I see a plane go by with a normal contrail and watch it turn into a thick chemtrail for a distance and then turn back into a much thinner contrail all of a sudden. The contrail section will dissipate rather quickly, the thick chemtrail will not dissipate at all. This is not normal. Personally I don't care if you realize chemtrails exist or not but you're not going to tell me that they don't because I see them everyday and I've been watching them for years. They do patterns in the sky, they do X's, they do all sorts of things like us turnstiles, this is not a contrail. You can see many videos on utube that show these chemtrails coming out of planes where there aren't even engines! Like out of the tail section on a plane and that would be physically impossible for it to be a contrail.

      Delete
    4. Also, I fond it a bit odd that someone who would go to this site would debate the issue of chemtrails. Do you not believe the powers-that-be would do something like poison our air/modify the weather? I don't quite understand.

      Delete
    5. Rick,

      You are making stupid, invalid claims. In fact, you are so stupid that you don't seem to understand the difference between engine exhaust and water vapor condensing out due to the low pressure area created by an aircraft wing. Not only that, you seem to think that both phenomena are "chemtrails".

      You provided no proof either. You are the one making the absurd claim that all the white stuff in the sky is a "chemtrail". The burden of proof lies with you. Yet, you provide none.

      Remote Sensing technology to discern the chemical makeup of "those white lines in the sky" exists. "Strangely", nobody has detected any "chemtrails". Read it and weep.




      Remote sensing and gas analysis of aircraft exhausts using FTIR emission spectroscopy

      Author(s): Joerg Heland; Klaus Schaefer; Rainer Haus
      Published: 20 September 1995; 10 pages; 83 papers;
      DOI: 10.1117/12.221070

      Paper Abstract
      To evaluate the impact of air traffic on the upper and lower troposphere, one must find an effective method to measure the actual gas emissions of aircraft engines at defined thrust levels and at all altitudes. FTIR-emission-spectroscopy detects the thermal radiation of hot exhaust gases, yielding all information about its compounds during one measurement. This remote technique can be used under ground- and flight-conditions. The theoretical line-by-line retrieval of the measured spectra simulates the radiative transfer through several plume- and foreground-layers and is based on the HITRAN 92 database. After the spectroscopic determination of the plume temperature and its profile from the CO2-band around 2400 cm-1, one obtains the toal mass of the single gas species in the field of view of the spectrometer. Comparing the measured data with the theoretical emission index of CO2 from ideal stoichiometric combustion, one obtains the emission indices for the other measured species. Knowing the fuel consumption of the engine, one may get the emission rates of the compounds in g/a. Several engine types, old fashioned engines (no bypass) and modern JT8 and CFM56 bypass at different thrust levels have been analyzed. H2O, CO2 CO, and NO concentrations can be derived immediately from the measurements right behind the nozzle exits, where the temperature profile is known to be homogeneous. The retrieval of the measured data far behind the nozzle exit uses a computer time consuming multilayer model. Formaldehyde and other hydrocarbon species are seen in some spectra and shall be implemented in the computer code. Apart form future applications for the turbine development and the engine-status control after a certain flight time, this remote sensing system can deliver emission data of aircraft engines and the temperature decay of the exhaust plumes at all altitudes.

      Delete
    6. Ricky,

      I address the dubious claims of "chemtrails" because certain people use the "wild goose chase" technique of making ridiculous assertions as a cover for real and measurable jewish crimes.

      That kind of intentional "lie injection" and "fear mongering" is designed to waste and divert our resources.

      If you want to continue making "claims" - kindly post your proof.

      Post your "proof".

      Post some FTIR emission spectroscopy emission data. Go ahead - post it. Surely, if this "chemtrail" phenomena is more than a lie - there must be some objective proof.

      Go ahead and post it.

      BTW, is the trash on the side of the highway coming from "planes" also?

      Delete
    7. OMG...I saw some pollution today...it was lying there on the ground. And...um..well I couldn't figure out where it came from. And I was looking around - then I looked up and I saw a plane flying away. It was up real high - and it looked like it was trying to get away from the crime scene. I think they're "dumping trash" from planes. I think they're leaving "trash trails". The "illuminait" are throwing their trash in my yard...omg!

      Delete
    8. John,

      It might be a good idea to require these "chemtrail cranks" to supply their aircraft exhaust plume analysis data - along with the methodology used.

      To date, all we've seen is uneducated people saying they "detected a chemtrail" using their "Mark 1 Eyeball".

      So, they "analyzed the chemical composition" of an aircraft plume flying at 40,000 feet above ground. 40,000 feet is Eight Miles. I am a "bit" skeptical that someone could just "look up" and "eyeball" a vapor trail from a minimum distance of 8 miles and accurately provide a chemical analysis of that vapor trail.

      Delete
    9. I'm with Rick.

      I too find it odd that an educated person would visit this site. I was hoping that this could be a place where a bunch of jewish trolls could meetup and try to get everybody to look up in the sky and get all worried about what they're spraying.

      I don't understand why someone with actual knowledge of how Science works would come to this site and spoil our fun.

      Does this mean I have to go back to the ADL now?

      Delete
    10. Rickster:

      If you think the powers-that-be are "poisoning our air/modifying the weather" - that's fine.

      You have not submitted any proof that they are doing that.

      You "suspect" they are. Great. Keep on suspectin'...but with no PROOF - you got "nuthin'". Got dat?

      Delete
    11. Rick..Sssssssssssssssssss

      I like you. You're can squirm with the best of us. But that doesn't make you credible.

      Posting some actual data would bolster your credibility from your now "Ssssssssssssssslithering Statusssssssssssssss" to that of a biped.

      Delete
    12. To anonymous who called me stupid: Fuck You, I'm not stupid. Who do you think you are calling me stupid because I disagree with you?! You've got a lot of nerve saying I have no credibility because you don't know me. How would you know that? It's very incredible of you to talk to me this way. You've said a lot about yourself.

      Delete
    13. To Snake, are you saying that I'm no more than a snake because you find my argument about chemtrails weak? And my status will be brought up to a biped if I appease you? What kind of asshole would say that to someone? Some people on here are very rude and not for nothing, but would you have the guts to say that to my face?

      Delete
    14. It's one thing to question my theory, it's quite another to call me Ricky which is belittling and childish when my name is Rick. you anonymous a real jerk.and you don't even use your real name so where is your credibility? I'll bet you with your keyboard muscles would never be so rude to my face. Only pussies act the way you do. talk to me like intelligent person I am, even if we disagree on something, and I'll treat you with respect. Until then you're nothing.

      Delete
  4. Last night in the chatroom associated with this show - "chad" said that he "believed" that "Dorner was real". Someone else chimed in saying that "I have a friend who's an FBI Agent who said..." bla - bla - bla. Total bullshit. No first person account by people who claim they actually knew the guy. None. Just a bunch of bull and people repeating what "they heard" - and they can't even pin down where "they heard" it from. I guess thinking is hard work - maybe that accounts for why so few people do it. I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that "Dorner" was a real person. None. And I would venture to say that neither have you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HOW TO EVALUATE jewish MEDIA

    Should be believe, disbelieve or harbor a certain degree of uncertainty about stories transmitted to you by the jewish media? Do they always lie? Do they sometimes lie? How can you tell? Consumers of jewish media must ultimately decide among Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty.

    The jewish media walks along a precarious line between maintaining their credibility with you and facilitating jewish deception. What is the best way to deal with this? Should you continue to consume their media products - or should you simply reject them all because the source is completely unreliable?

    If you choose to evaluation jewish media products, you may find it useful to apply a structured metric that quantified Source Reliability and Information Reliability. Such a scoring system might look like this:

    Reliability of Source
    1 Almost Always Reliable
    2 Usually Reliable
    3 Fairly Reliable
    4 Fairly Unreliable
    5 Unreliable
    6 Untested


    Reliability of Information
    1 Almost Certainly True
    2 Very Likely
    3 Likely
    4 Unlikely
    5 Very Unlikely
    6 Unknown

    What about the reliability of CNN as a jews-news source? Many people would rate them a “5”, meaning that they are “Unreliable” as an information source due to many instances of objectively proven lying, omission and outright deception. What about the reliability of CNN’s reporting on the Sandy Hook Movie? Many people would rate their highly contradictory reporting as being “Very Unlikely” to be reliable.

    If CNN is not a reliable source of information - and they subsequently transmit the London Beheading Movie - should you just dismiss it out of hand as being unreliable…or should you examine the content of the London Beheading Movie hoping “this time” that they might not be lying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deborah Tavares at www.StopTheCrime.net has a NASA document you can download explaining how the U.S. Government a/k/a Jewish Mafia, is horribly using CNN for disinformation and psyops, taking us into future wars.

      All should read it, and I hope that John Friend finally interviews her. She so wants to save humanity, as do I!!! BT

      Delete
  6. It looks like the Sandy Hook deception was aimed at lawmakers to either convince them and/or provide political cover for passing reprehensible laws against self-defense and ownership of the means to protect yourself.

    Perhaps the Gun Owners of America would be willing to approach lawmakers about their being targeted by coordinated deception. I'd like to see new laws on the books specifically outlawing any intentionally deceptive PSYOP or influence operation by anyone in the US - whether it is government or non-government. And that would specifically include Israelis.

    This issue should be brought before the public. Who out there wants to be deceived? Nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sylvia initially mentioned that she thinks that we are “being watched” in addition to being messed with. Psychological Operations are focused on manipulating the observable behavior of the Target Audience.
    Once the PSYOP message is transmitted, “they” observe us to determine how we responded. That accounts for Sylvia’s perception of “being watched”. They do this to refine their message.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is Sandy Hook the beginning of systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the US? This exact thing took place in the Soviet Union. Psychiatry was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents") who openly expressed views that contradicted official dogma.

    The process of psychiatric incarceration was instigated by attempts to emigrate; distribution or possession of prohibited documents or books; participation in civil rights actions and demonstrations, and involvement in forbidden religious activity. Religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

    I think the Sandy Hook Movie Narrative is an attempt to institute "political psychiatry" here. Gun elimination will be part of that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Axlerod "Dual Citizen" and chief political advisor for Obama David is the great, great grandson of Leon Trotsky the butcher.

    Did you know that?

    I think that sick f^ck is behind this. Political Psychiatry is something they would do for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Richard EdmondsonJune 19, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    Hey John, congratulations on your 'new' show. Enjoyed the interview with Sofia Smallstorm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do so hope that Friend tells his friend, Smallstorm, that Sandy Hook was a Jew job. She needs to wake up or maybe, be shook up. Total Fascism site owner was right, we that know the truth should always show proof that Jews are behind these chaotic events and explain to our guests how correct Hitler was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bottom line is that Lucifer cannot create, he can only modify God's creations. That is the whole purpose of the transhumanist man/machine hybridization quest for immortality. The same goes for our general natural world created by God. Lucifer must slowly merge virtual reality until he controls most of, if not all of our perceptions of reality Enter facebook, twitter, TV, Sports, Smart phones, IPADS, Sandy Hook, Drudge Report, Jay Z, Lady GaGa, Kanye, Kim Alex Jones, Superman, all design to fill up time while they chemtrail , GMO, and radiate the real world and make it
    useless. They rope off access to best of the natural world and cram who they can't soft kill into prison camera laced surf cities w/ 100 square ft slave quarters like factory chicken farms. When the goons squads kill the yuppie liberals useful idiots that caused this all to happen, I guess we can agree on one thing, no culture wants them around.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.