the lyrics are wretched in both form and substance, pure doggerel crudely perpetuating all the old lies and myths about Rasputin.

Well, needless to say (I hope!) I was not proposing this as serious history. That said, I suppose if Hollywood was going to make a movie about Rasputin, the story you would get would almost certainly approximate what is in the Boney M song lyrics.

I am hardly a Russian specialist, but prior to reading McMeekin’s book, I had never considered the importance of Rasputin’s killing,

Personally, I tend to think that more credit should be given to Boney M.

He can’t, he is retarded.

Well, of course, that is not literally true. IMO, what one can say quite confidently about Ronnie Unz is that he suffers from CJBA.

I bet you don’t know what CJBA is, seeing as I came up with that acronym just now.

CJBA is Chronic Jew-Boy Arrogance.

One symptom of CJBA is that you just can’t tell the guy anything. So, you see, it’s actually not a question of regular intelligence per se, like somebody takes an IQ test and the result of that — if you believe in that sort of pseudo-scientific stuff. (Be my guest….)

No matter how high somebody’s “IQ” is, if you can’t tell him anything, he is effectively VERY VERY STUPID.

You know how many people tried to have him look at indisputable evidence for things that contract his beliefs?

Yeah, it is quite something at times. Well, some of it is that there is some kind of commitment to not understanding certain things. For example, on this page, we see him proclaiming his belief that the pinnacle of manned space flight was achieved in the year 1969. 56 years ago. That’s really one hell of a thing to believe!

As far as I can tell, he still upholds the belief that those COVID vaccines are perfectly safe.

On 9/11, he is an adamant believer in the plane crashes. So he believes that the 9/11 criminals engineered the collision of planes into buildings for the viewing benefit of… well… maybe a few dozen people. (Hard to say precisely, but the number of people who claim to have seen a plane hit a building is not much more than that, it seems.) So you tell him: “Well, look, Ronnie, the people behind 9/11 largely control the media, so any cheesy video they show on network TV is seen by HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people nationally and maybe even BILLIONS internationally. Why are they going to fly planes into buildings so that a few dozen people on the ground in Manhattan can see something? What for?”

And, you know,, somebody who is a very good commenter on these sorts of issues, Sparkon, is quite willing to step him through and show him that the 9/11 plane crash issues are fake. Indisputably.

Well, anyway, I think that CJBA is very much a factor in all this. Now, as for the solution, as best I can tell, the only cure for CJBA, or for arrogance generally, is really just to beat the crap out of the person. Well, not necessarily physically (though one can fantastize), maybe just rhetorically, but there are no guarantees. This Unz is obviously one hard case.

Oh, and a final point about CJBA. I don’t actually think that being a Jewish ethnic is really necessary. Goyim can suffer from it as well. For example, Kevin Barrett suffers from CJBA but is not Jewish. Still, it really does seem that Jewish ethnicity is a major risk factor.

you just quoted me, idiot, saying that “I never really delved into it…”

only an idiot (or a cunt ; ), would say = that means ‘I know nothing about it’

Well, you’re making some sort of fine distinction that I don’t really grasp. If I said that I never got into baseball, I am not interested in it, and I don’t care about it, it’s not much of a logical leap to conclude that I don’t know much about baseball. Why would I?

Besides, even if there really is some distinction that I’m missing, what does it matter? If somebody just doesn’t care about a topic, it is strange to see that person there in some discussion about it, having written many thousands of words…

But the whole thing does have a very simple explanation, after all.

You are paid by the word!

Or maybe not. Maybe it’s just that you have some sort of quota to meet. I honestly don’t know how these professional trolling operations really work. It would be great if one of you guys blew the whistle on it and explained it. I have long suspected that you, Truth Vigilante, and Mr. Anon are in adjacent cubicles, probably in some non-descript office building in Tel Aviv. Or maybe Langley.

While I am not privy to the details, it still is pretty obvious that this whole discussion forum is under attack from troll teams, who use fairly well understood tactics to degrade any discussion. And it’s particularly extreme when the discussion is about certain sensitive topics….

Some of the purpose is to introduce disinfo, I’m sure, but probably mostly, it’s just to degrade the space, render it unusable for any good-faithed people who really want to discuss whatever topic.

some high-res photos of what the landing sites all look like today, something I think has been possible for quite some time now, but curiously, we’ve never been provided with.

Well, yeah, that’s one of the mysteries of the universe, eh? Well, actually, no, it’s not much of a mystery. There’s a really simple explanation of that too, which is that they never provide any photos of the Apollo landing sites because there’s nothing there to see. Some mystery! LOL!

I never really delved into it… (snip)
When it comes to the Moon landings, there too, I’ve made a conscious decision to not immerse myself in it… (snip)
For one, I don’t care, if we went or not…

Okay, but the fact remains that the article up top is about the moon landings. So, presumably that is the topic of discussion under the article, no?

As of this moment, you have written 46 comments comprising over 11,000 (!) words of text. About a topic that, by your own admission, you know nothing about. In fact, you say that you made the conscious decision not to know anything about it. And, in your own words, “you don’t care if we went or not”.

So, what is going on here? To compose all that text is rather time consuming, is it not? Wouldn’t it be better to have spent that time actually investigating the question? Then, the next time this topic comes up (and we know it will!) you would be able to contribute something to the discussion. But, no, you’re going to (as we all know) be back under the newer moon landings article spewing all this vacuous verbiage and also making a point of saying that you know nothing about the topic.

Besides, isn’t this rather inconsiderate to the people who actually have studied the question and want to discuss it in good faith? To have some obnoxious troll around, who knows nothing about the topic, doing this?

Well, as bad as this is, it’s not the worst. The “Mr. Anon” troll has written 109 comments on this page. So, about 10% hof the comments here were written by him (or her or it or they) but if you include the people who can’t resist the temptation to respond to all the trolling, the whole thing accounts for a very high percentage of all the discussion.

Unlike 9/11, where we’re still fighting wars based on that even far greater and more heinous and nefarious crime/lie. The 9/11 lies, have destroyed untold millions of innocent lives, and continue to be used for treasonous purposes. Whereas for myself, I don’t see any nefarious causes of the Moon landing hoax,

So, let’s see… WTF is your point? Apparently you think that people should be discussing the 9/11 hoax, not the moon landings hoax — even though the article up top is about the moon landings, not about 9/11! I guess you believe that the two things are mutually exclusive.

I could care less, how many people, Americans or otherwise, believed or didn’t believe in the Moon landings.

Whereas in contrast, I am very, very much in earnest that I want for every last person on Earth, to know exactly who did 9/11~ and why.

Well, you really ought to try to understand that a typical person possessing only moderate brainpower, can perfectly well understand that the moon landings were a hoax, and 9/11 as well. And they can also understand the Kennedy assassination(s) and the Holocaust and other things too.

As hard as it probably is for you to conceive of this, typical people can actually walk, talk, and chew bubble gum at the same time!

Hi Jonathan. I did mention the fact that many (virtually all) prominent American scientists seem to believe (accept) the (alleged) fact that their were six moon landings between 1969 and 1972.

It’s a minor point in the overall scheme of things, but why do you qualify the word “scientists” above with “American”? Scientists from the rest of the world don’t count?

Actually, it seems to me that if one were to convene some international fact-finding mission to study the case of these moon landings, bringing in international experts, there would be a very strong case for excluding American scientists on the grounds that it is hard for them to be objective. Similarly, if there is a hockey game at the Olympics between the U.S. and Russia, the referee is NOT an American. And he’s not Russian either obviously.

But I don’t consider the above to be that central. The really fundamental problem is what I outlined in the previous comment, which is the fact that, excluding the Apollo missions to the moon, 240,000 miles away, no human being has ever gone as much as 1,000 miles from the earth. So the Apollo missions to the moon, in terms of manned space flight constitute an incredible outlier. They are nearly 300 times further than anybody has traveled from the earth before or since!

In proportions, it is as if Christopher Columbus had sailed to America at a point in time when nobody had ever successfully sailed 10 miles from the coast. And then after his voyages, for fifty years, nobody had even gone five miles off the coast!

I’m quite confident that if you examine all the technical milestones of history — involving planes, trains, automobiles… steamships, sailing ships, submarines… you name it… you’re never going to find anything comparable to this! That, of course, is what the stuff about the basketball and the tennis ball was about. If the earth had roughly the dimensions of a basketball, excluding those Apollo missions (which went to the tennis ball 22 feet away) no other manned mission even went 1 inch from the basketball.

But if you are convinced that America’s various moon landings were all fake, then what about Russia’s (allegedly) successful unmanned landing on Venus in 1970?

Well, the answer is that I just don’t know. I have not investigated that enough to form any solid opinion.

But it’s totally irrelevant anyway, because we are talking about manned space flight. And that is not me being picky. Let’s face it. What makes the Apollo missions so extraordinary and fascinating is precisely that they are manned voyages. A manned mission simply presents challenges that an unmanned probe does not. You have to create and maintain a micro-environment that supports human life. You also have to bring back the human astronauts alive! A mission that consists of an unmanned probe simply does not need to solve these problems.

Moreover, if NASA really did solve the aforementioned problems back in 1969, then why does NASA (and every other national space agency, as well as Elon Musk’s SpaceX) behave exactly as if these problems never were solved!!??

Frankly, when faced with this, to just wave one’s hands and say that all the “prominent” scientists don’t see a problem with all this, so I don’t either… that’s…

What about the Voyager spacecrafts (launched in the 70s) which successfully took pictures of Saturn, Jupiter years later and are still sending back images and information to earth from billions of miles away?

Fake?

Well, again, I don’t know for sure, but it’s irrelevant. These aren’t manned flights. These spacecraft do not need to maintain a human habitable environment. And also they don’t need to land on Jupiter or Saturn or wherever and then come back to earth!

Was America’s successful landing on Mars real?–Or was that also fraud?

(And how do you know these things?)H

You mean how do I specifically know these things? Or how does one know these things? Well, that is an interesting question. If one has proven to one’s satisfaction that the Apollo missions were fake (and I feel I have) then it is natural to at least suspect that other things were faked. But one doesn’t know for sure. The Apollo missions were manned missions and thus posed a set of problems that the unmanned probes don’t pose. All of the objective facts are consistent with the Apollo missions being faked and not consistent with them being real. That much seems quite clear.

Let me concede (as I’ve already done) that I might be mistaken about my belief that all these extraterrestrial missions were genuine. It is certainly possible. But reason tells me otherwise.

Now, as for this:

perpetrating a hoax of this magnitude (with tens of thousands of necessary co-conspirators who worked at NASA during this era) would not be viable.

This is one of those classic anti-conspiracy (or effectively pro-establishment) arguments that is trotted out. I honestly don’t think much of it. It is several degrees away from being a convincing argument. For starters, if one of those “co-conspirators” decides to come forward about this, who is he going to come forward to? The MSM? Of course, they’re basically co-conspirators as well! Second of all, where does this figure of “thousands” even come from? If this is a hoax (and it really must be, you know…) the number of real insiders who can blow the lid on it is probably a much lower number.

And there is the problem of compartmentalization. Almost everybody is just working on some sub-sub-system and doesn’t really have the global view of the thing to realize that the overall project is a hoax.

But perhaps more imporantly, if it is a hoax, how many people are really working there at NASA on this? If it is a hoax, it is very largely a financial swindle, so probably the number of people there working is far lower. They would have a bunch of ciphers or sims allegedly drawing salary but the money is just being stolen.

But anyway, between the fact that it is not clear who you can really report this to, that the number of potential whistleblowers is vastly lower than you think….

But, well, it doesn’t matter, Mark. Aside from the Apollo missions, which are the case at hand, these are not manned missions, so it’s just a spurious apples to oranges comparison anyway.

As for the Holyhoax, that alleged ‘fact’ is an entirely different matter altogether. The penalties for ‘denying’ it can be ruinous.

Well, there you do have a point. But I don’t think it is so decisive. Even without such harsh penalties, there would be precious few holocaust deniers — at least, among prominent public figures. In fact, it depends on jurisdiction. In the USA, the first amendment is pretty unequivocal about free speech, so you can deny the holocaust to your heart’s content. (In theory anyway. LOL.) But anyway, not too many people are going to stick their neck out anyway — whether the question is the Holocaust or the moon landings.

Yes, I remember having a correspondence with you quite some time ago…

Yes. That last correspondence was over 7 years ago. However, I wrote you an email at the only email address I have for you about 6 days ago. (After a seven year silence.) People sometimes stop using whatever email address, so I was basically wondering whether you had received that. That address was bismarkiaXX@XXX

Anyway, I would suggest that you seriously engage intellectually with the points I make above and not write a hasty response. Though, that said, you can do whatever you want!

To call the Moon Landings a Hoax is a tall order for me.

Ah, I see. You find it hard to believe so it cannot be true. In other words, like our host Ronnie Unz, you believe that objective reality is somehow constrained by the limitations of your mind. (Which means, of course, that objective reality is pretty darned constrained! LOL!)

Of course, objective reality is NOT constrained by the limitations of your mind. So you are not making an argument.

We are essentially stating that every NASA Apollo mission was a low orbit HOAX. Not just the televised 1969 Moon walk…but ALL OF THEM.

I see. The people behind a hoax would only try to hoax you once, not 6 times. Obviously nobody has the chutzpah for that — at least not any goyim!

(Well, think again, genius boy.)

Say, that reminds me of the old adage: Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me half a dozen times, BUT THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

But surely, this is just trolling, no? Surely no sane human being reasons like this. In the fable of the boy who cried wolf, once the boy cries wolf (for kicks, when there is no wolf) a couple of times, nobody believes him the third time. You apparently reason that there is no way that the boy would try the same thing six times, say. So if the boy cried wolf six times, there must have really been a wolf one of the six times. (Granted, in the fable, there really was a wolf the third time, but nobody believes the boy, so there could be a wolf, but the point is that the little boy has shot his credibility by now.)

So, I mean to say, you reason in ways that no normal person reasons. I suppose what is noteworthy here is that you reason in this screwball way without even (as far as I know) having attended Harvard! (At least that would be an excuse…)

Further —Some believe The Hoax was carried out to STEAL US Tax DOLLARS????

Yeah, and some people think that the purpose of the Holocaust narrative was to steal West German tax dollars!!!???

Well, maybe that is the case. But the moon hoax would have been perpetrated by goyim. And, like I said, they just don’t have the chutzpah. (At least I can’t imagine them having the chutzpah, which means they don’t, since objective reality IS constrained by the limits of MY imagination! LOL!)

We were locked into a Cold War with the Soviet Union and we pull off numerous Moon Hoaxes and their Propaganda Arm remains silent. In the 1960s the Soviets hated America….they would have loved to expose our treacherous lying broken society to the world. If we were actually lying.

Some years back, Putin was at a town hall meeting in Russia and a young man, given the chance to ask him a question asked: “Mr. President, do you really believe that the Americans went to the moon?”

Putin answered vehemently that of course they had. It would be completely impossible to carry off a hoax of that scale.

A follow-up question was posed: “So, Mr. President, when are our cosmonauts going to Mars?”

Putin answered that he did not know, because so far, nobody had figured out how to get people through the Van Allen Radiation Belts alive.

And they portray Putin as this serious guy with no sense of humor…

It is much easier for me to believe We Went to the Moon….than to believe we did not

Well, yeah, it’s probably also much easier for you to believe that your wife is faithful to you than that she is fooling around on the side.

Now, to be clear, I have no idea whether you are even married, much less whether your wife (assuming you have one) is cheating. I’m just pointing out that your finding something more or less difficult to believe ain’t much an argument! LOL!

And besides, it’s not about you specifically. We know that people never cheat on their spouses. Never happens. So, aside from being in dubious taste, it’s a bad example anyway…

But anyway, I don’t honestly think that the sorts of “arguments” you’ve trotted out are really very convincing. Unless you’re absolutely emotionally committed to be convinced by them, in which case… Actually, the “arguments” you’ve made are not even arguments. For the most part, you’ve just copy-pasted a series of claims that constitute the official story. The official story is presumably proof of the official story… go figure…

I have stated many times that I believe that the standard Holyhoax narrative is a fraud.

I happen to agree with you about the Holocaust, but there is a problem here. If you believe that the Holocaust narrative is false (as we both do) then you are admitting that a belief can be upheld by pretty much ALL of the people whom one would consider authoritative in a field, YET STILL BE FALSE.

Well, maybe there is some way to put this more delicately, but your position (or really combined position, Holocaust+moon landing) is completely lacking in intellectual integrity. If you say that the moon landings must be real because there aren’t any “prominent” people saying otherwise, then surely you would have to conclude that the Holocaust was real via the same logic.

In any case, it is not that hard, once you start engaging in the physical details to realize that NEITHER the Holocaust NOR the Apollo moon landings can really be true.

Let’s think about this moon question. Finally, I thought it best to scale it down to objects of a familiar scale.

Let’s say that the earth is about the size of a basketball. In that case, there is a tennis ball (an object of that approximate size anyway) orbiting around the basketball. That tennis ball is the moon. It orbits the basketball (the earth) at a distance of roughly 22 feet. Maybe 23 feet… Okay? You can do the calculations and verify this. It’s all approximate anyway.

So, okay, the micro-lilliputians who inhabit the surface of the basketball (actually, just some of them, the most advanced, resourceful ones) built a rocket and spacecraft to travel to the tennis ball and orbit it. (That was Apollo 10). And then they had a further mission, where they orbit the tennis ball AND they sent a landing module down to the surface of the tennis ball, hopped around a bit, took some pictures and managed to get back to the orbiting spacecraft and then return home (to the basketball). (That was Apollo 11, right?)

So let us just ask some questions about this. Before embarking on that first trip to the tennis ball (Apollo 10) how far had they successfully traveled from the basketball? (And returned successfully obviously.)

Here is the answer: The furthest the Micro-Lilliputians had ever gone from the basketball was a bit less than an inch. (That was the Gemini 11 mission.) One inch from the basketball is actually about 880 miles. In fact, the Gemini mission, at its maximal distance from the earth, it was 854 miles (1374 km) from the earth. In fact, this is apparently the farthest away from the earth that any manned space mission has gone excluding the Apollo missions. About one inch from the basketball. (Post-Apollo, it seems that nobody even went more than half that distance from the earth!)

In any case, the difference between going 1 inch from the basketball to 22 feet away (where the tennis ball, i.e. the moon is) is about 264 to 1. In fact, the moon is about 240,000 miles away and the Gemini 11 mission’s 854 mile feat is actually a 281 to 1 difference. But the exact figure doesn’t matter that much. The International Space Station is in low earth orbit and its maximal distance from the earth in its orbit, is about 285 miles. That is about a third of an inch from the basketball and the tennis ball (the moon) is about 840 (!) times as far away.

I bring up all of this with everyday objects — the basketball and the tennis ball — just to give you a sense of the relative proportions — and, by extension, the outlandish nature of the overall narrative. It’s not strictly necessary, but I would also point out that Mars is always at least 49 million miles from the earth. So Mars is a baseball, let’s say, that is (at its closest point) something like 4400 feet beyond the tennis ball. Nearly a mile.

So, anyway, the story you’re proclaiming belief in, is that the Micro-Lilliputians, having never gone more than an inch from the basketball, embarked on a mission to go over 20 feet away to the tennis ball. (And come back.) And they were successful! (Just think about that. Think…)

Well, I don’t want to go on much more about this. Just consider the relative proportions, what is being claimed. Also consider that the Micro-Lilliputians, after landing on the tennis ball (over 20 feet away) 6 times, never again went more than half an inch away from the basketball.

In terms of terrestrial navigation, this is like a story in which Christopher Columbus sails successfully across the Atlantic Ocean at a point in time when NOBODY had ever successfully sailed more than 10 miles off the coast. Moreover, after Columbus’s voyages, for the next half century, nobody even sails 5 miles off the coast.

I repeat: once you start seriously engaging in the physical facts, you start realizing that there is a real problem with all this. As with the Holocaust narrative, there are just these horrific problems already. But then you have to start considering that the photographic record is basically fake. (It sure looks that way. Consider the article up top.) Consider that, by their own admission, the Micro-Lilliputians lost all the blueprints and telemetry data and the rest of it for the trips to the tennis ball… Oh, and I didn’t mention that there are these rather nasty bands of radiation between the basketball and the tennis ball and no really satisfactory explanation of how the Micro-Lilliputians could get through that alive….

Look, the bottom line is that these Apollo moon missions are a cold war era propaganda psy-op that is, at this point, way past its sell-by date. (Well, they’re that, but they’re probably the greatest financial swindle in the history of mankind as well…) If you seriously engage with the hard facts, you’ll come to agree with me, I think.

Anyway, Mark, you seem like an okay guy. We had a bit of correspondence some time back. I wrote you an email (at the email I had for you) because I just wanted to go through some of this in private. I never received a response and I don’t know whether you missed my message or just declined the offer to discuss this. Whatever. You don’t have to talk to me in private. Or in public, for that matter.

but it must be true anyway because if it were not true some big Science names would’ve spoken out.

LOL. That does lead to the question of how the “big Science names” became big Science names… That is surely a question worth pondering.

But anyway, in essence, Unz is arguing that the establishment narrative must be true because all of these establishment figures adhere to it. Yeah, that’s really brilliant for sure.

Is that an argument that any genuine critical thinker would make? I don’t think so, but probably more importantly: is this an argument that is going to convince the skeptics out there? That, along with sneering at the people.

OMG, Ron Unz is sneering at me, calling me names. That’s so convincing. I guess I must be wrong…

I’m really not all that interested in the issue, but I’m sure that others could locate those photos somewhere and demonstrate that the silly Moon Hoaxers have already been proven wrong.

They could locate these photos somewhere, eh? Like using Google, for example? I use Yandex more lately. Here is what Yandex image search gives you for the search string: apollo lunar landing sites

https://yandex.com/images/search?text=apollo%20lunar%20landing%20sites

Yes, there seem to be a lot of crystal-clear photos of these landing sites. Here is an article from NBC News entitled “Lunar Orbiter spots Apollo landing sites”. There is a photo right up top that really should make the moon hoaxers eat their hats. Here is a close-up of the Apollo 11 site. And this one is the Apollo 14 site.

Actually, if you look very closely at these photos (though it does require razor-sharp vision) you can see me there on the moon having sex with Julia Roberts. Thus, these photos debunk two silly conspiracy theories at one go!

No, he just demands extraordinary high standards for rigor when it comes to the Apollo controversy

Well, the game is to set the bar extremely high for people on one side of the debate, but then very low for the other side. (The side he favors obviously.) And even if you somehow meet the impossibly high standards of evidence he sets (or even surpass them) well, we all know what happens then, right? He’ll just shift the goalposts. (Everybody who wasn’t born yesterday knows that, right?)

Oh, you provide me the names of these various scientists who back what you’re saying. But they’re not prominent enough. They need to be Nobel laureates.

Oh, you have 2 Nobel prizewinners there. Oh, well, I only pay attention if you can come up with 4 Nobel laureates…

It’s really just a version of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. You know Lucy is going to pull away the football at the last moment!

In my many articles, I’m emphasized how totally wrong I was about so many things for so long.

You don’t say…

That was the case with JFK, 9/11, the Vietnam War POWs, the Holocaust, and dozens of other major examples.

Okay, you were wrong about those things but that is only because you did not investigate them properly. Correct?

However, I’d also explained that I can’t think of a single case in which I’ve actually carefully looked into something and then later discovered that I was completely wrong.

Okay, so you’re saying that you “carefully looked into” the moon landings. Therefore you won’t be wrong this time — as you were (by your own admission) in the case of JFK, 9/11, the Vietnam War POW’s, the Holocaust, and dozens of other major examples.

This time is different. Why? Because you have “carefully looked into this”. Well, okay, but what do you mean by that? What did you do to carefully look into this? Could you explain what this process is for the rest of us “epistemologically crippled” people? If we understood the process, then we could all benefit, no? We could (like you!) never be wrong about anything ever again!

Gee, that would be nice!

if I’m indeed proven wrong, I’ll then have to further recalibrate my reality-detection apparatus.

Your what? Your “reality-detection apparatus”??? Where did you get one of those? You pick it up on Ebay?

But seriously, Ron, don’t you have to make an argument that is built on top of things that other people can observe. If you say: I am in possession of this highly tuned “reality-detection apparatus” and, based on that, I know this, that and the other thing. Well, I know this could sound facetious, but if I said that I regularly talk to God and God told me whatever it is, what is the difference really? I’m making an argument based on something that nobody else can observe — in my case, my conversations with God, in your case, the “reality-detection apparatus”.

Frankly, this is not the first time that you seem unwilling (or unable, I don’t know) to formulate a proper argument. Here is another example of this from a couple of years ago: https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/?showcomments#comment-6148413

One thing that puzzles me is why any half-sensible conspiracy-people concerned about their credibility would be willing to make the Moon Hoax the hill to die upon.

After all, I’d assume that within a couple of years or so, the Chinese or the Indians or Elon Musk or the Americans will happen to do a fly-by of the original lunar landing site or even visit it on land, and provide lots of photographs.

Ron, what is your basis for “assuming” that there willing be lots of photos of the landing sites “within a couple of years or so”? Well, maybe. Maybe within a couple of years, Jesus will come back. (I don’t think so, but I’m not a believer, after all.)

Bu all of this is a very strange way to reason, is it not? Surely, it is obvious that the people who believe the whole thing is a hoax are not worried about a whole lot of photos of the landing sites suddenly becoming available! The people who believe that this is a hoax believe there is nothing to photograph there. (Duh)

That reminds me of something. As you likely recall, I have had sex with Julia Roberts a number of times. However, some people have said (with absolutely no proof, mind you!) that this is untrue. But why do they take that position? Surely they should be worried about all the photographic evidence becoming public, no? And all of those deniers will then look very very foolish, no?

But all of this is kind of confusing, these arguments you’re trotting out. By the way, how many COVID shots and boosters have you received?

I think Ron argues that if something is factually true but is not widely known by experts in the field then it must be factually false (despite being factually true) because the possibility of something being true and not being widely known by experts in the field is zero …snip… Obviously it’s a false argument.

Well, actually, the problem goes beyond it merely being false. It’s a kind of mentally squalid reasoning. Time and again, he is making arguments that are tantamount to: “I find such and such statement absolutely unbelievable, therefore it cannot possibly be true!” It’s like the man literally believes that objective reality is constrained by the limits of his own mind!! (It ain’t, Ronnie.)

So here, Ron dismisses the testimony of a professional photographer, Mazzucco in this case, saying that he, Ron, does not know anything about photography. Then he goes on to say that no other professional photographer has (publicly) questioned the Apollo 11 photographic record, which could be true, but probably is not. Actually, I guess what Ron means is that no other professional photographer (or aerospace engineer or whatever professional) has questioned the moon landings as far as he, Ron, knows!

But hold on a sec. How is Ron going to know that any of these people (“prominent” people in whatever field) expressed any doubts about the moon landings unless the MSM tells him so!!??

It is actually quite mind boggling that anybody could really reason the way Unz does.

Or maybe he’s just trolling us.

Okay, what is this guy Don Petit talking about then?

Well, the problem is that I don’t know anything about photography. So one professional photographer says they’re obviously fake, but 99.999% of all the professional photographers since 1969 have kept silent, suggesting that those photos couldn’t have been so “obviously fake.”

Hold on a sec. What argument are you making now? In comment #112, you seem to be arguing that even if it can be shown that there is video fakery, it doesn’t matter. (i.e. you have some “innocent explanation” of it.) Now you are saying that you don’t think that there is video fakery because 99.999% of all professional photographers have not publicly pronounced on the matter. (Presumably, if people don’t say explicitly that the visuals are fake, then they must believe they are genuine. Shrug.)

But what are you arguing specifically? Is it

(a) There may be video fakery but it doesn’t matter because even if the visuals are falsified, they still went to the moon.

Or:

(b) There was no video fakery as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of photographers have not called these photos out as fake.

But fine, whatever. What about the fact that they “lost” the original telemetry data, the blueprints, magnetic data tapes…. I find all that rather suspicious. Maybe you don’t…

Well… these things happen. I myself inadvertently taped over some VHS tapes at home that contained my favorite Star Trek episodes… So there is nothing unusual about that.

And besides, it still doesn’t prove that they didn’t go to the moon. (Because, of course, the onus is on the other side of the debate to prove the negative! LOL!

Actually, it seems like any of these seemingly glaring problems that anybody would point out, you would invariably engage in some hand-waving that would allow you (at least in your own mind) to dismiss the issue.

For what it’s worth, countless aeronautical scientists, engineers, and astrogeophysicists still firmly believe that all six US moon landers did occur.

Mark, without getting into any details about this topic, I would just make the very general point that you (not just you!) cannot observe whether people really believe something. You can observe whether people say they believe.

Of course, in most cases, people are not on the record professing their belief or disbelief. If, in my presence, somebody states that Jesus walked on water, I think my most typical reaction would be to say nothing. If you (or anybody!) then wants to take that as proof that I believe this, well… be my guest, I suppose…

As I said, I don’t feel like getting into the details of this, so I would just say that my sense of things is that genuine belief in this is nowhere near as universal out there as you (and Ron Unz) seem to think it is. It just isn’t.

Are Musk and and this global constellation of distinguished, professional scientists all ‘imbeciles’?

No, they’re smart guys. That would explain why they stay silent about this! LOL.

[This is not a 9/11 Truther thread nor one devoted to Moon Landing Hoax lunacy. All your future comments along those lines will be trashed, and maybe your other comments as a penalty.]

Go alway talk about your CGI planes then, loonie.

But then, what should one expect from a nut who’s been for years here at Unz promoting holographic planes were used at 9-11. I mean, I know the official narrative is completely false but no need for that type of nonsense…

Hi L.K. Nice to see you here.

I think you’re mistaken about Sparkon. I don’t think he ever said anything about “holographic planes”. Like me (and Laurent Guyénot for that matter) he does not believe any planes hit any buildings, but the holograms theory is really just a red herring. You see, the holograms are ludicrous for the same reason that the planes story is. The planes story (with the remote control hijacking ya dee da) is based on the (quite mistaken) notion that the people behind 9/11, knowing full well that any visuals they can show on the TV are seen my HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people, are going to bother to make a plane fly into a building for real so that at most a few dozen people on the ground can say they saw something.

But that also applies to the holograms story. It’s also based on the (mistaken) idea that the people on the ground in Manhattan (or some of them or whatever) have to see a plane smack into a building — either for real or a hologram… And the whole thing is fallacious. They don’t have to see anything. It doesn’t matter what a relatively small number of people who are there see directly. What matters is what the hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of people see on the TEEVEE.

In my recent podcast with Tony Hall we discuss all this at length. Well, you don’t have to agree, but I think the argument is laid out in a cogent manner and you can consider it seriously. And if you have a rebuttal, then by all means…

If I were to write a book, it would be about more recent events, especially 9/11, but in fact I see I’m nearing 1,000,000 words written here at Unz Review in over 4,000 comments

Actually, you’ve written enough for several books. I think most books are typically in the 100,000 words range. Even very famously big books, like Tolstoy’s War and Peace seem to be more in the 500,000 word range. The number one book on this page is actually Les Misérables by Victor Hugo, at 568,000 words. War and Peace is number two at 567,000, about the same. Those two are big honking books.

Well, you could consider a book on 9/11. I consider you to be about the best regular commenter here on 9/11. I can’t be objective about myself obviously, but I can’t even comment here really. I’ve been restricted to… well, I’m not sure how many comments a day. Maybe two a day, I’m not sure. Or maybe there is a more complicated formula. I tried to respond to another comment of yours the other day, but it did not go through and maybe that was because the comment was a bit long.

But anyway, I was curious what you thought of my recent podcast with Tony Hall.

https://rumble.com/v70o90y-controlled-opposition-911-truth-and-the-truman-show.html

Hi Sparkon,

I wonder, do you have any doubt at this point that TV (as well as that Rurik entity) are paid shills? They both try to represent that they are sincere 9/11 Truth people, but the reality is that whenever anything that constitutes any sort of promising line of investigation comes up, the two of them are there blowing smoke. They work for the criminals.

I did a podcast a few days ago with Professor Tony Hall in which we discussed the 9/11 planes and controlled opposition generally. You might find it interesting. It’s on youtube, though I don’t know how long it will stay up. They’ll probably find some excuse to ban it, say it’s “hate speech” or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alQTR__-D_E

It’s also here on Tony
Hall’s substack. By all means, feel free to leave a comment there, or on the youtube page.

Imagine a big Hollywood studio wanted to produce the greatest King Kong movie of all time. They could spend billions of dollars and over decades breed a gigantic ape using some genetic modification technique. Then they would need to train the enormous animal, get the beast a SAG card and start filming. Or they could just insert digital images of the ape in their movie. The audience will never know the difference.

You make an excellent point with the King Kong analogy. In fact, it can be usefully extended further, I think.

Anybody who goes to New York during the filming of the new King Kong movie is not going to see King Kong, of course — presumably on top of the Empire State Building. Of course not, because King Kong is inserted into the shot later. But, of course, to the people making the movie, that doesn’t matter at all. What matters is what the moviegoers see! (Duhh.)

The people defending the planes story try to make a big deal about what people on the ground in Manhattan that day would have seen. Or not seen…. The real truth is that it just doesn’t matter anyway.

This is a mediatic event, you dumbasses. It doesn’t matter what a relative handful of people there see directly. Or fail to see…

What matters is what HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people see! ON THE TEEVEE! That’s all that really matters!

It’s really fairly obvious, isn’t it? That you can explain the above point OVER and OVER again and these people don’t understand this, when it’s this FRIGGIN OBVIOUS — it’s really just about impossible to believe that they really are that obtuse, so…

One cannot become a “no planer” without engaging with video evidence.

I don’t agree with this statement. All you really have to do is think about this from the POV of the perpetrators. And also use a bit of common sense.

This is a false analogy.

Well, any analogy is imperfect typically. But let’s see…

An airplane could smack into a building… BUT… on 9/11, no plane hit any building…. AND… if a plane did hit a building (in particular, a steel-framed skyscraper like that) it would look nothing like the (fake) visuals we were presented.

Right? (I think we agree on that.)

So, if we look at the (alleged) Charlie Kirk hit, again, a man could be shot. BUT… I don’t think anybody was. (You really think so?) AND… if somebody was shot for real, it would not look like the (fake) visuals we were presented.

So, broadly speaking, the analogy seems about right. But note also that the analogy actually originated with the person I was responding to! That person seems to think that it is self-evidently ridiculous to doubt the reality of the (cartoon) 9/11 plane crashes. And it is also self-evidently ridiculous to doubt the reality of the (cartoon) Charlie Kirk assassination.

At this point nobody can say for sure whether what we saw on Kirk’s neck was an entry or an exit wound,

But they can say for sure that the wound is either an entry wound or an exit wound, I suppose. One or the other…. But, of course, that is assuming that the whole thing is real…

But look… there are very basic concepts at work here. First of all, one must understand that this is a mediatic event. The kinds of arguments that people are trotting out — oh, if this was a hoax, somebody on the scene would have said whatever and…

That kind of thing is all nonsense. Suppose somebody (or even a few people) nearby witness something they weren’t supposed to see. Or conversely, they fail to see something that they were supposed to see… It doesn’t really matter that much. It really doesn’t.

It doesn’t matter what some small group of people see (or don’t see) in the vicinity. What matters is what HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people see ON THE TV.

Capisce.

In that sense, the analogy with the 9/11 planes is quite apt. It doesn’t matter if a relatively small number of people who are really there are looking in the right direction and fail to see any plane hit a building. It just doesn’t really matter. Again, what matters is what HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people see ON THE TV.

The people behind these things understand that perfectly well, of course. Meanwhile, somebody like our gracious host here, Ronnie Unz, does not understand something that basic. “Oh, but if this was a hoax, the various people present would all be screaming that… Well, okay, even assuming that they would be screaming about this, how would we even hear them?

You see my point?

Oh, and in the above, where I say that Unz does not understand this, I’m not sure he doesn’t understand it. He may just be affecting that he doesn’t. The same with countless other people. Like this Ambrose Kane guy… Others…

The claim that Kirk “faked-his-own-death” is about as ludicrous as the assertion that no planes flew into the twin World Trade towers and the many videos and still imagery showing this had all been faked.

It occurs to me that you are actually making a real point in this idiotic, obtuse comment. Inadvertently, of course.

On the one hand, you mention those fictitious aurplanes that we see flying into the twin towers in the video footage from that day. Cartoon physics. Well, these imaginary planes are not constrained by the laws of physics.

And, by the same token, the imaginary bullet that (allegedly) killed Charlie Kirk is not constrained by the laws of physics that a real bullet is subject to!

Until you realize that there were no planes and there was no bullet, you are just going to go round in circles indefinitely.

I think Ron should probe this idea using his razor sharp logical brain.

His what??? His “razor sharp logical brain”… Where did he get one of those? On EBay? (Or maybe AliExpress….)

Out of maybe idle curiosity, do you think this event really happened?

Is the video an AI deepfake?

Of course. The whole thing is fake.

I pointed out to Barrett that Sailer and Karlin can moderate their comments, but Ron has denied me this privilege[.]
True?

Yes. It appears that, yes, it is true.

Linh failed to comprehend that Sailer and Karlin were bloggers, who spent all their time here and constantly moderated their comments.

Could I be the only one missing the point here? Sailer and Karlin spent a lot of their time on the site “constantly moderating their comments”. Linh did not. But hold on… Linh did not have the power to moderate his comments, and thus, well… was not moderating his comments.

The other noteworthy thing about Sailer and Karlin is that they are both what I have (perhaps rather nastily) called “shit-eaters”. It’s not just that they fail to address the key questions about deep events such as 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination(s) but they also profess their belief in the official story on whatever such event — when they quite obviously have never made even the most cursory study of it themselves. Another person in that vein was one Fred Reed, who would occasionally dust off essentially the same piece, sneering at people people who doubt these (far-fetched) stories as wearers of tin foil hats yah dee dah.

Meanwhile, Linh only occasionally visited the website, so his unmoderated comments would have piled up for days, clogging up our system.

Ah, I see. If Linh left the comments unmoderated for a number of days, they would “clog up the system”. Well, I’m always eager to learn and I know you know much more about WordPress than I do. Still, I have an approximate conceptual understanding of the system and I would have thought that an unmoderated comment would take the same amount of space on the disk as one that was moderated and approved. But apparently not. The unmoderated comment must take up more space such that it can “clog up the system”. Could you explain that, Ron?

Linh seems to have lots of fans on this thread, but I’d have to candidly say that few of his articles ever attracted strong readership, so my willingness to publish and feature them was partly because I felt sorry for him.

Fascinating. Out of curiosity, which writers are you currently publishing largely because you feel sorry for the person?

I posed the following question to various AI engines:

How could the Nation of Islam have had a campaign of murdering innocent white people (the so-called Zebra murders) for a period of many months if, as seems the case, any such organization was infiltrated by the FBI?

The answers provided are interesting. For example, ChatGPT starts with:

Your question raises a thoughtful and often overlooked issue: How could the Zebra murders—allegedly committed by followers of a group linked to the Nation of Islam—have occurred over an extended period without FBI interference, especially if the Nation of Islam (NOI) was under government surveillance?

None of these AI engines dispute that the Nation of Islam would have been under FBI surveillance.

I had a Chinese girlfriend from overseas 40 years ago and she said that her Chinese girl friends told her to stay well clear of blacks in the UK because they are rapists.

Forty years ago, eh? So you’re a fairly old guy. Maybe it would be a good idea to finally understand the difference between real facts and story telling.

Well, of course, the Chinese girls were right. Some of the blacks in the UK are rapists. But most aren’t. Some of the whites in the UK are rapists as well. But most aren’t.

Maybe you can get a feel fro this by examining this website that has names and photos of convicted sex offenders in the UK:

https://offenders.org.uk/

Just page through some pages of this and tell me what your “lying eyes” tell you.

It seems that most of the people participating here believe that there is some huge problem in the UK (and Sweden, Germany, etc.) with so-called rape gangs running around raping women. More specifically, non-white rapists defiling the flower of white womanhood yah dee dah.

Here are some questions about all this that I suggest people should ponder:

1. Why has the U.S. State Department never issued a travel advisory warning prospective tourists about the danger these aforementioned rape gangs pose. I just looked at the relevant page here: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/ and, as far as I can see, the U.S. State Department has never issued any such travel advisories. Why would that be?

2. If you go to any travel agency (some brick and mortar travel agencies still do exist!) and express interest in traveling to the UK or whatever other European country, does the travel agent ever warn you about this? As in: “England (or fill-in-the-blank) is a beautiful country, but do watch out for those rape gangs!”

3. Various high schools and colleges in the U.S. have student exchange and year abroad programs in various countries in Europe. The participants are young people in the most attractive phase of their lives. Have you heard of any of these educational institutions having problems with their students running into these alleged “rape gangs” during their stay in the host country? (I haven’t…)

4. Where does all this raping take place? Right on the road? In public parks? Do these “rape gangs” have mobile rape vans?

Now, to be absolutely clear, I do not mean to suggest that nobody is ever raped. In a country with tens of millions of people, all manner of things do happen. But this proposition that there are these “rape gangs” all over the place in these various European countries consisting primarily of darker skinned men who exclusively rape lily white females…

Hmm… well, I would just say that all of this only seems to exist if you read certain kinds of right-wing publications. It really seems that average folks who does not read Breitbart or Occidental Observer or other such publications can blithely go about their lives without ever realizing their is some sort of “rape epidemic” taking place in these various places.

Hi Sparkon,

I was invited to give a talk on 9/11 to a group called “Doctors for Covid Ethics”.

You (or anybody) can view the talk and even discuss it here:

https://discuss.heresy.is/d/11-my-talk-to-d4ce-on-911

A bit off-topic, but there is a new Heresy Central podcast about 9/11 here: https://rumble.com/v6s9b2l-911-redux.-a-conversation-with-professor-tony-hall.html

I actually mention you at one point, I think a bit after the 8 minute mark. You can also see the video here and comment on it: https://discuss.heresy.is/d/8-revisiting-911-a-conversation-with-tony-hall

Finally, as many of us know, you catch more flies with honey, and I think there is merit in showing some courtesy and gratitude to our host Ron Unz for making this forum available, even while we may disagree with him, as I’d like to be able to read more of your comments here.

Well, c’mon Sparkon. There are enough people here willing to fawn over Ron Unz, such that it hardly makes any sense for me, of all people, to join that group. LOL. Besides, those people are actually sincere, I suppose. (Maybe they are…I dunno…)

There was one guy recently who was saying that Ron Unz was America’s foremost intellectual figure. I was pretty bewildered by that. I asked him how America’s foremost intellectual figure could be some guy with zero debating skills. I mean, really. All the guy can do, when pushed somewhat in a debate, is just insist that he’s right! Well, that was comment #404 above.

Anyway, you have to assume that you won’t see me around here much. I think I’m restricted to 3 comments every 36 hours (while the OBVIOUS trolls like Mr. Anon and such are totally unrestricted!). If you do want to have a conversation with me, you could join this discussion forum I set up quite recently: https://discuss.heresy.is/ Of course, it is a rather dull place. No “Truth Vigilante”, no “Rurik”, no “Mr. Anon”. But, I’d be there and pretty responsive. Maybe some more people will join us.

– Interesting, given that the very first comment by lavoisier in this thread explicitly pointed to a thorough Swedish study and gives its exact numbers for immigrant rape offenders (59,2%), are you sure “have not looked at it/bluff” does not just as equally apply to yourself?

The above is a falsehood. The very first comment by “lavoisier” did not explicitly point to anything. There is no link that anybody could follow. Thus, you are trying to take issue with me for not following a non-existent link to look at it!

Well, that alone strongly suggests that I am not talking to an honest person.

But, okay, you now provide these links and I glanced through some of it and seems to be of rather dubious value in terms of getting to the bottom of the question. I suspect that all these links constitute something of a bluff. After all, it is time consuming to wade through all that, and my honest tendency is not to bother.

Here is the essence of the problem. Apparently you believe that it is broadly true that white Swedish women are being raped in great numbers by men of Moslem background. I do not believe that this is true.

But okay, you believe this, so just tell me this: where does all this raping take place? They drag them into dark alleys? Or is it in public parks? At the bus station? Do they break into the woman’s domicile and rape her there?

Where is all this raping taking place?

Stay tuned for another exciting episode of “Troll vs. Troll”.

Finally, I’m not the only one here at UR who’s noticed that you, Alden, are a shameless, serial liar,

No, you’re not the only one to have noticed that! I certainly have.

Strangely, Ron Unz can’t see that. (Or maybe he affects that cannot.) Another troll account that Unz is particularly fond of is “niceland”. I wonder, is niceland the biggest single recipient of gold frames? Well, never mind. I’m sure Unz can’t keep it up. Gold just passed $3k an ounce.

Oh, by the way, that “DJ Thermal Detonator” entity that you are arguing with is surely some kind of professional shill. Must be… Of course, you see him/her/it/they butting heads with “Truth Vigilante”, who is another (OBVIOUS) shill. There is a lot of that in these 9/11 discussions on UR, different troll accounts angrily arguing with one another. Meanwhile, I myself am limited to 3 posts every 36 hours or something like that. It is quite something that my participation is so constrained and the various troll accounts have free rein.

In other matters, I did a couple of podcasts. There are only two up right now but there will be more. https://rumble.com/user/heresycentral

Well, you (or anybody) could be interested. If you have some comment to make under a either video, by all means. Or if you just want to say “Hi, it’s Sparkon!” that would cool too. Sort of like “Kilroy was here.”

I think it’s a bad idea to endorse a dramatic “conspiracy theory” unless you’re extremely sure that you’re correct,

There is a “theory” or I would call it a “narrative” that says that white women are being sexually assaulted in huge numbers in Europe — presumably by immigrants of Muslim background. This seems to be endorsed (tacitly or explicitly) by just about every writer here — particularly those of an ethno-nationalist bent. The one exception that I know of is Kevin Barrett who says (correctly) that this is nonsense.

Recently, Kevin interviewed Alan Sabrosky, who repeated this story and basically made an ass of himself, because Kevin was armed with hard data. Sabrosky had no graceful out and simply hung up in the middle of the show. In short, the man made an ass of himself, for precisely the reason you give above. He endorsed a dramatic “conspiracy theory” without doing the minimal work of checking whether it was really true.

I had looked into this a few years before and thought to look for some more up-to-date data. I came across this site: https://offenders.org.uk/ One can just page through that list of sex offenders in the UK and draw your own conclusions. Yes, there are some individuals of a Muslim background, some blacks, some East Asians, but which ethnic group numerically dominates?

Frankly, this false narrative seems to be of greater importance than the Brigitte Macron story. You earlier wrote an article on “the Myth of Hispanic Crime” so this would seem to be up your alley. Why the utter lack of interest in addressing this?

What I see is a near ancient list (it goes back 40 years to 1985!)

Well, no, that’s completely wrong. It’s not an ancient list at all. There are 6505 convicted sex offenders in the data set and the data is presented is in order of most to least recent. If you start at page 1, you are looking at convictions from this calendar year, 2025. In fact, half of the convictions in the dataset are since late 2022. The vast majority of the convictions of the sex offenders are in the last 10 years.

In fact, there are only 8 convictions in the database that are from the last century, i.e. 0.12%, while 5,425 of the convictions (about 83%) are from the 2020’s.

As for something being “ancient”, the notorious Rotherham case was rolled up in 2013. That offenders.org.uk seems to be a volunteer effort and may not be completely exhaustive, but I reckon the people maintaining the list are pretty thorough.

that is hardly relevant to the issue of collectively organised rape and murder by Pakistani-dominated gangs

Hold on a sec. The “grooming gangs” were apparently pimping underage girls. Did they murder any of them? I don’t recall that. But anyway, 96% of the sex offender convictions in that database are after2013, i.e. post-Rotherham. I don’t know how you characterize this as “hardly relevant”. I guess you just don’t want to concede the point. It is quite clear that the large majority of sex offenders in the UK are white males. There is no reasonable debate to be had about this. Ergo, Sabrosky was just being an ignorant asshole.

The type of discredited racial data that Barrett is using is dealt with at 34 minutes in the documentary shown below.

But hold on. On what basis are you claiming that the data that Kevin was citing is “discredited”? And why do you consider the documentary you are linking to be a reliable information source? As best I can guess, it’s just because the documentary backs up what you want to believe, no?

Look, it took me a minute to find this page:

https://offenders.org.uk/

This is the sort of hall of shame thing that I mentioned in the show. I think that a number of years ago, this was a facebook page, but now it has its own website. In any case, it names the names AND shows the faces. Just page through that. The database currently has 6505 offenders in it. What do you see? Is the list dominated by people of a Muslim background? Or is it mostly white guys? What do your lying eyes tell you?

the majority of sex criminals in the UK are white

While that may be correct,

What do you mean “that may be correct”. Of course it’s correct. I just looked it up and, for census purposes, 82% of the UK population is classified as “white”. The remaining 18% are of various other ethnicities and their levels of criminality vary, but it would be extremely surprising if it was not the case that the majority of sex criminals in the UK are white. At least in absolute numbers.

And, in fact, that’s what the data you linked shows. It takes two more clicks to get there, but it leads you to the spreadsheet here. The bottom row for total sexual offenses has 64.0% as being white people, 6.4% are blacks, 6.3% are Asians. And then there is the category of “mixed”, which is 1.4%. For some reason, “Chinese” is a separate category, not under “Asians” and they are 1.6%. However, there is a somewhat murky thing, which is the “Not stated” category, which is 20.4% of the cases. My offhand guess is that in the majority of the cases (in the U.K. at least) if they did not bother to state the ethnicity of the offender, it is probably just some white guy. But I could be wrong about that.

I assume ‘ethnic minorities’ are overrepresented,

You assume that ‘ethnic minorities’ are overrpresented… Let me get this straight. You linked to this data and you did not even glance at it yourself and just assumed that it would confirm your prior bias. Amazing.

Well… if 6.4% of the convictions are of Blacks, they are overrepresented by a factor of about 2, since they are about 3% of the population. However, “Asians”, which, for whatever reasons seems to not include the Chinese, but is the group that the Pakistanis belong to, amount to 6.3% of the sex crime convictions, and that is an underrepresentation. The Asian census category is about 8.6% of the overall population.

The above is the total sex crime convictions added up. There are separate categories, like “raping a female”, “raping a male”, “sex with minors”… If you look at that last one, “sex with minors”, 71.4% of the convictions are white people and 3.6% are Asians. However, 20.9% of the convictions, the ethnicity is “not stated”. Again, my honest guess is that when the ethnicity is not stated, it usually means the person was white, because that is kind of a default, so maybe they don’t state it in the records. But, again, I could be wrong about that.

it’s also expected, and therefore a rather meaningless and banal statement, as the majority of the population is also white (for how much longer is the question).

Well, you’re right on a certain level. It is quite true that if over 80% of a country is of ethnicity X, most of the sex crimes in absolute numbers are probably committed by members of that majority group. In fact, that is so obvious that one would think that no reasonable person would care to contest that. So, okay, we agree on that, but then what to make of this Alan Sabrosky getting completely discombobulated, having a breakdown and having to hang up the phone, when confronted with a fact that, at least propertly understood, should not be controversial at all?

But this behavior of yours, linking to some data set (though the page you linked does not directly contain the data) and then stating that you are confident that the data supports your position but you have not looked at it. Well, it seems like some kind of bizarre bluff. Maybe you were confident that nobody would do what I just did, i.e. follow the links and look at the data. But it is strange, since it is so easy to do that. Of course, it seems like you are the only one of the “white nationalist” types here who made any effort to find any actual data. So, congratulations on that. Unfortunately, it looks like you scored an “own goal”.

of course i know exactly what a burka is.

Well, of course you don’t have a clue. For one thing, the burka, like any other garment that fully covers the face, has been illegal in France since 2011. Even before they passed that law, the full veil was extremely uncommon in France. I did some quick googling and typical estimates are that about 0.04% of Muslim women were wearing the full veil in France. The number wearing a burka was even a minority of that — really just about nobody!

There can be little doubt that you are confusing the burka with the hijab, which is just wearing a headscarf. A significant minority of Muslim women in France do wear the hijab, but it is still a minority, maybe something like 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 at the most.

you can be sure barrett and his wife had on middle eastern garb. that means at a minimum a shawl on his wife’s head. they’d be fools to go into muslim quarters in france dressed like westerners.

This is just absolute nonsense. The majority of Muslim women in France (and certainly where I live in Spain) wear conventional western attire. The whole idea that Kevin and his wife would be mistreated somehow for simply wearing normal western clothes is simply ludicrous. You would know that if you had ever been in France.

But really, what would cause somebody who has never been to whatever country to sound off in this ignorant way about a place he has never even been to? Well… I have little doubt that I’m replying to a professional shill account. In general, one should not feed the trolls, so I made an exception, but I’ll stop now.

The Muslim thugs and gangs, the Africans… … are regularly threatening train passengers with violence,

I have a hunch. I bet you were in New York on 9/11 and saw a plane fly into a building.

He is a national treasure and to me, the most important public intellectual in the country.

C’mon, David. How can a man who has basically ZERO debating skills be the most important public intellectual in the country? I mean really, c’mon. I have had the direct experience of interacting with Ron Unz and also observed him interact with others, and generally speaking, when pressed in a discussion, Unz simply has one debating tactic (if you can call it that): he insists that he is right! That, and he also engages in ad hominem against his interlocutors, sometimes using weaponized language like “conspiracy theorist” or “agitated antivaxxer”, these kinds of vacuous smears. Not only does Unz not really rise to a challenge by formulating any argument. It seems that he does not recognize the need to do so!

But anyway, there are over 300 million people in the USA. How can the “most important public intellectual in the country” be a guy like this? This is surely akin to claiming that the best basketball player in the country is some guy who lacks basic skills like dribbling the ball. Or claiming that the best boxer in the country is some guy who has no footwork, no feints, no jab… So he has nothing to set up a big punch. All he can do is stand in front of his opponent and pull back and try to hit the other guy, absurdly telegraphing to his opponent what he’s doing.

Well, it is true (continuing the boxing analogy) that he does have a “chin”. You can score devastating blow after blow against him in a debate and it has no effect on him. It does not shake even slightly his belief in his own intellectual superiority.

Well, in short, I think one could say that Unz evinces the Rocky Balboa theory of debating. Like the fictional boxer Rocky in the hit movie franchise, the dumb lug just gets in the ring and refuses to lose! But, of course, Rocky Balboa is a fictitious world champion in a fictitious universe.

His entire article boils down to “I think”, “I doubt”, “I find it unlikely”. Who cares? Nobody.

Yeah, Ronnie definitely has an “I” problem. Maybe he should see an ofthamologist.

Typically his arguments boil down to expressing incredulity. “I find that unbelievable” etcetera. What it boils down to is that Ron somehow believes that objective reality is constrained by the limitations of his own mind.

(It ain’t.)

I also lean towards the hijackers having been on the plane, but once again I can see both sides of the argument, and don’t have a very strong position.

You lean towards the hijackers being on the plane, eh? Well, who else might have been on the plane? Jack Reacher? James Bond? Maybe John Wick…

Look, at some point one does have to understand that the hijackers are just fictional characters from a fictional narrative. As such, there is NO possibility that there were any “hijackers” were on any plane. None. Zero. Zilch.

This kind of thing is kind of shocking, but I had noticed tin various other contexts that you have a rather weak grasp on the difference between real facts and storytelling.

Ah, the good old “demand that the other person prove a negative” shtick. (Yawn.)

Look, in Kevin’s show, the latter 15 minutes or so is me explaining why there are (quite obviously) no planes. If you have a rebuttal, by all means…

Usually how it works is when a guest speaker makes a claim they will provide a link. Or name a website such as coders & CGI programmers for 9/11 truth for example.

Oh, I see. You’re saying that instead of just making an argument myself (which is what I did) I’m supposed to point to what somebody else said. And I suppose that is supposed to be your “rebuttal” to my argument. I’m supposed to provide a link. But hold on… how was I supposed to provide a link in this format anyway?

But anyway, doesn’t it stand to reason that if you were capable of rebutting my argument, then you would?

As the guest speaker it’s just bad manners not to provide anything at all.

(snip)

I know I shouldn’t judge a book by its cover – but you even look like a pedo suspect.

Oh, so you take it on yourself to criticize my alleged bad manners.

But never mind, the fact remains that if you could actually formulate an argument, that’s surely what you would do, so you get on with this kind of crap. You have no rebuttal but you respond anyway with vacuous insults. Now, why would anybody do that? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious. You’re some kind of professional troll/disrupter. I am wondering whether you are paid by the word. That is certainly the case for this “Truth Vigilante” shill.

Revulsky claims that those New Yorkers that assert they did see planes impact with buildings on 9/11,

Well, okay, you do have a point there, TV. It is a well known scientific fact that nobody can assert that they saw a plane impact with a building unless they really did see a plane impact with a building.

But hey, look, we all know that the laws of science were suspended on 9/11, so maybe people could say they saw planes if they didn’t really see them. Only on 9/11, mind you… On any other day, nobody ever bears false witness…

Oh, and by the way, could you provide the names of some of these New Yorkers who assert that they saw the planes hit the buildings? There is Mark Walsh a.k.a. “Harley Guy”. Who else? Give me a few names. I’m curious.

Revulsky’s father and grandfather were themselves rabid Marxist Jewish Bolsheviks,

C’mon, it’s a bit too obvious that you’re jealous because I know who my father was.

Please Jono – since you are the big shot here, supply some links to the best evidence you have for your ‘no planes’ theory.

Ah, the good old “demand that the other person prove a negative” shtick. (Yawn.)

Look, in Kevin’s show, the latter 15 minutes or so is me explaining why there are (quite obviously) no planes. If you have a rebuttal, by all means…

who am I shilling for folks?

The same people as this Truth Vigilante and other notorious shills are shilling for. The 9/11 criminals, broadly speaking.

No planes is indigestible for plebs and therefore counterproductive.
digestible for plebs”remote controlled airplanes on the other hand is by far easier to stomach.

The issue is NOT what is “easier to stomach” (which is bizarre speculation anyway). The issue is what is TRUE.

You can’t be pushing a story that is factually false because (based on your speculation) it is somehow more “digestible”. This is for the simple reason that the only thing that factually and logically consistent is the TRUTH, whatever that happens to be.

In any case, there is no reason to think that the “plebs” cannot understand video fakery. All of them have gone to the movies, after all. Do you think that, when they go to the movies and see a plane hit a building or some such thing, they just automatically assume that the people who made the film really flew a plane into a building?

What you’re saying is mind-boggling really, but whatever. Almost certainly you’re a shill of some sort, so…

Actually, DOGE should root out and fire all government employees who have NOT read the American Pravda series.

Another use of the American Pravda material, particularly in audio form, occurs to me. I think it could be very useful for so-called “enhanced interrogation” and other black sites. I think if you alternated the audio of Ron Unz droning on about “American Pravda” with Tom Jones belting out “Sex Babe” at full blast, anybody subjected to that would confess to just about anything in short order.

The Naudet footage of the first strike does not look like a plane. Was this really a missile fired from the Woolworth Building plus preplanted explosives? Or was this footage faked?

Right the second time.

To put it succinctly, if you don’t what role BUAP played in 9/11, then you don’t know very much about 9/11 at all.

The role it played is the same as that played by Usama Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers.

It’s just a big red herring. There were, quite obviously, no plane crashes on 9/11.

There were NO MUSLIMS, either.

Well, not any real ones, no, since there were no real planes.

On a cartoon plane, you could have some cartoon Arabs, I guess. You know… like the animated characters from a Disney adaptation of Sinbad or Aladdin.

(The show wouldn’t be over ’till the fat Ayrab sings…)

Grok– Dov Zakheim was a former executive at SPC, a company known for developing advanced technologies, including the Flight Termination System (FTS). The FTS is a remote-control technology designed to take over and redirect or terminate the flight of aircraft, primarily for military or drone applications, in situations like hijackings or malfunctions. It’s a sophisticated system that can theoretically control multiple aircraft from a distance

All this stuff about Dov Zakheim and the technology to remote-control planes is just a planted red herring. That’s for a very simple reason:

There were no planes.

Originally, there were independent reports (that I cannot verify) that all 4 planes contained these systems.

Uh, no, because there were no planes.

which would mean that the whole “We took over the planes with boxcutters” is complete bullshit unworthy of our serious consideration.

Well, the “We took over the planes with boxcutters” is complete bullshit because there were no planes.