FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

FAQ on Rappoport Logic & Analysis Course

by Jon Rappoport

October 12, 2017

I’ve been getting requests to describe my logic course–hence this FAQ, which answers a lot of questions.

Note: The Logic & Analysis Course is part of a much larger collection, The Matrix Revealed. The course was selling, alone, for three times as much as the entire Matrix Revealed collection but I decided to roll it into the Matrix Revealed collection to reach a wider audience.

I’ll make this FAQ as complete as I can.

Q: How long is the course?

A: Eighteen classroom sessions. That includes a final exam.

Q: So it isn’t just a workshop or a seminar.

A: No, it’s a real course.

Q: At what pace would you recommend teaching it in a home-school setting?

A: Three sessions a week, if possible. An hour per session.

Q: Is the course available online?

A: Upon purchase of The Matrix Revealed, you then download the document and audio files.

Q: What are the course materials?

A: A extensive teacher’s manual, student study sheets (text passages), and audio files.

Q: What’s in the teacher’s manual?

A: The manual contains a layout for all the lessons, in chronological order, and explanations for all the passages that are analyzed in the course.

Q: Passages?

A: Yes. There are short and long passages of text. I wrote these with logical errors embedded in them. Students and teachers work over the passages and discover the specific logical errors. The main passages are written to resemble news stories, press releases, political-speak, science journalism, and internet reporting.

Q: Why?

A: Because they resemble what you encounter in the real world. The whole point of the course is gaining the ability to deal with information in any form, in life. That means being able to take information apart and pinpoint the specific logical mistakes, and analyze those mistakes, in detail.

Q: If an adult is studying the course on his own, how does he proceed?

A: Actually, whether the adult is studying the course on his/her own or preparing to teach it to children, the approach is the same. Go through the entire teacher’s manual, step by step. Master everything.

Q: What is on the audio files?

A: My analysis of the six long passages of text that make up the core of the course. I wanted to do this part in audio, so the teachers can listen to me attacking the text and pulling it apart. It gives a sense of what it’s really like to dig out each logical error and identify it.

Q: When a home-schooling adult teaches the course, is it a process of the teacher and students mutually discovering logical fallacies?

A: No. The teacher already has mastered the course and knows where all the errors are. However, in class, the children first battle through a passage on their own, with the teacher noting their findings. Then the teacher explains each actual logical error in detail. Then, as homework, on their own, the students go back to that passage again and find all the logical errors, and describe them in writing.

Q: These logical fallacies—are they written in stone or did you dream them up?

A: The traditional fallacies have been discovered and described, in various ways, over the last 2400 years. They are very real and very exacting.

Q: What is your background?

A: As a college student (Amherst College), I studied logic as part of my major in philosophy. I had extensive training in logic there. I taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles, and tutored remedial English at Santa Monica College. I’ve had a 25-year career as an investigative reporter—LA Weekly, CBS Healthwatch, Spin Magazine, Stern (Germany), etc. During this period, I applied logic to my investigations on a regular basis. Particularly in the area of medical fraud, I had to use logic to get behind the PR pronouncements of various “authorities” and find the inconsistencies and deceptions that were occurring in published research.

Q: On what basis do you sell your course to home-schooling parents?

A: They may use it with any size class for as long as they want to teach it, as many times as they want to teach it, but the course must be taught in their own home-school. The course is copyrighted and cannot be sold or given away to other teachers.

Q: I have a plan to teach it to people in my community. Is that all right?

A: Absolutely. You can deliver the course as many times as you want to–as long as you are the teacher.

Q: Is your course given for academic credit in home schools?

A: No. It is for enrichment. I don’t use sanitized and silly politically correct passages in the course—most if not all school systems would refuse to allow real-world-type passages. They want largely unrealistic material. That would defeat the whole purpose of the course.

Q: Why is logic so important?

A: Because it is the foundation on which all other fields of study are built. It is a priceless Western tradition, and it is being lost. We need to reverse that trend. A student can’t be truly literate unless he can analyze what he is reading. This fact is ignored in most schools.

Q: Do you oppose rote learning?

A: Actually, no. I oppose learning that is exclusively and only rote. Students also think. Everybody thinks. There is a choice. You can learn how to think clearly, or you can remain passive and accept whatever is thrown your way. People have a confusion about this. They sometimes believe independent thinking is the same thing as rebellion. Clear thinking is clear thinking. It enables you to face information, reporting, and argument head-on, and make judgments on the merits. The logical merits.

Q: But what about, say, faith? How does logic relate to faith?

A: Learning how to think lucidly strengthens any faith or first principles you live by, because logic is about something else. Logic shows you the difference between profound faith and analysis. You don’t need to confuse the two.

Q: How many long passages are there in the course?

A: Six. They are taken up and analyzed during twelve classroom sessions. They are analyzed deeply.

Q: Is each classroom lesson of the course based on the prior lessons, or can it be taught in any sequence?

A: You follow my sequence. The course is built in a traditional fashion. The easier and simpler material comes first. Then, the more complex lessons and passages.

Q: Can I read an outline of the course?

A: Yes. I’ve included it at the end of this FAQ.

Q: Are eighteen classroom sessions enough to become a logical thinker?

A: Yes. You certainly don’t exhaust the whole field of logic, but you move into a new sphere. You can no longer be deceived or taken in by illogical presentations. You can take those presentations of information, in whatever form, apart and dissect the logical errors.

Q: Illogic is rampant in our society?

A: It’s the “way things are done” now. You have to realize that the higher you go on the educational ladder, the more subtle bias and coercion creep in. Teachers and institutions have their slant on things. They cleverly sell that slant and disguise it. If students don’t know what’s going on, they become captive to some form of bias. They become “products” of the system.

Q: Your course is an antidote to that?

A: It is. In our society, there are many political points of view masquerading as pure knowledge. The question is, do you want your children to fall under the sway of these strategies, or do you want their heads to rise above them.

Q: As an adult, will I be able to master the course myself?

A: Of course. The reading level required for the course is “bright high school.”

Q: I have children I want to home school, but they’re young.

A: I have several parents who have young children. These children are readers, but they’re not yet at the level of the course. So the parents are taking them through the course by reading parts of it to them, and then discussing the logical issues in those passages. Later, when these children are old enough and are reading at a high school level, the parents will teach the course to them again—fully. It’s a very good strategy, and it gives the kids a fine head start.

Q: There are several different types of illogical arguments?

A: About ten basic ones.

Q: Certain patterns of illogical argument emerge and you can recognize these patterns?

A: Exactly. I once had a student who worked for a big company. He was on the receiving end of many reports from a particular manager. After studying logic, the student was able to see that this manager was making the same basic illogical argument over and over, in different situations. He was costing the company a great deal of money.

Q: On the whole, would you say that people who offer illogical information are unable to see what they’re doing, or are they intentionally trying to deceive others?

A: Mainly, these people who chronically commit logical errors are uneducated—they don’t know logic. They’re struggling along in the best way they can. But a surprising number of people are just trying to sell their own personal bias. They’re slanting things intentionally to fit that bias. It happens in politics all the time, but I can say from experience that it happens just as often in science, and in other fields. Economics, history, psychology, for example.

Q: And students who can see this clearly and specifically would be ahead of the game.

A: Such students would have a towering advantage.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me at “qjrconsulting [at] gmail [dot] com”.

Here is the course outline:

The course has 18 classroom sessions. The last two sessions are the final exam and the teacher’s step-by-step review of the exam.

The teacher’s manual explains how every lesson is laid out.

EVERY CLASSROOM LESSON IS FILLED WITH EXAMPLES THAT ARE STUDIED BY THE STUDENT, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE TEACHER.

LESSON 1: The student learns how generalizations and vague terms can infect the reasoning process and make it useless and misleading. What is a generalization? What is a vague generalization? What is a vague term? Examples are studied. Vague terms and generalizations are the most common errors found in the reasoning process.

LESSON 2: The student learns to analyze several traditional logical fallacies that occur in a line of reasoning. These fallacies are shown in many examples. They are concise and clear. These are the flaws first described by Aristotle in ancient Greece.

LESSON 3: The student now begins to examine actual passages of text that contain multiple logical errors. The passages are short. With the teacher’s guidance., the student comes to see how these passages are misleading. This lesson is the groundwork for everything that is to come in the course.

LESSON 4: The student tackles a whole host of text passages that contain logical flaws. These passages illustrate such fallacies as: polemic; attacking the person rather than the argument; vague terms; inappropriate analogy; “sales pitch”; omission of vital information; circular reasoning.

LESSONS 5-16: The student now embarks on the analysis of six much longer and more complex text passages. Each long passage is studied for two classroom sessions. These passages resemble news stories, political promotion, internet journalism, science press releases—in other words, just the sort of material we all come across every day. The teacher has the students take apart each passage and offer up the errors they find; then, the teacher explains ALL the errors.

In my audio files that accompanies the teacher’s manual, I go through each of these long passages and describe the errors contained in them.

Lessons 5-16 are the core of the course. The student gains confidence in being able to dissect, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, realistic written material that contains multiple logical errors. Step by step, passage by passage, the student learns how to find the flaws and see through the misdirection.

LESSONS 17 AND 18: The student takes the final exam. In it, the student examines a new long text passage and writes down all the SPECIFIC errors he/she can find. Then, after grading the exams, the teacher gives, in the last class, a detailed analysis of the exam passage.

The teacher’s manual is very complete. It contains every passage contained in the course–and a detailed explanation of how the major passages are flawed. Essentially, the teacher studies the manual, listens to the audio files of me breaking down the text passeges, and then teaches the course.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Here are the contents of my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

* 250 megabytes of information.

* Over 1100 pages of text.

* Ten and a half hours of audio.

The 2 bonuses alone are rather extraordinary:

* My complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and audio to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst. I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

The heart and soul of this product are the text interviews I conducted with Matrix-insiders, who have first-hand knowledge of how the major illusions of our world are put together:

* ELLIS MEDAVOY, master of PR, propaganda, and deception, who worked for key controllers in the medical and political arenas. 28 interviews, 290 pages.

* RICHARD BELL, financial analyst and trader, whose profound grasp of market manipulation and economic-rigging is formidable, to say the least. 16 interviews, 132 pages.

* JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages.

Also included:

* Several more interviews with brilliant analysts of the Matrix. 53 pages.

* The ten and a half hours of mp3 audio are my solo presentation, based on these interviews and my own research. Title: The Multi-Dimensional Planetary Chessboard—The Matrix vs. the Un-Conditioning of the Individual.

(All the material is digital. Upon ordering it, you’ll receive an email with a link to it.)

Understanding Matrix is also understanding your capacity and power, and that is the way to approach this subject. Because liberation is the goal. And liberation has no limit.

I invite you to a new exploration and a great adventure.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The medical holocaust no one wants to expose

The medical holocaust no one wants to expose

The Starfield revelation: medically caused death in America

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2017

During my coverage of the Las Vegas shooting, many new readers have come to my site and blog. So I want to expose them to a story I’ve been covering for years now:

Verified medical destruction of human life in America.

No mainstream news outlet wants to touch this.

Buckle up. Here we go. Here is one of the original stories I wrote about this unconscionable ongoing crime—

My 2009 interview with Dr. Barbara Starfield, a year and a half before she died, focused on her stunning exposure of medically caused death in America.

Starfield was a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her July 26, 2000, review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In other words, this was a mainstream report. There was every reason for it to cause a firestorm in the press, and in the halls of government.

But that’s not what happened.

After a flurry of press stories, intentional amnesia set in.

If you’re looking for evidence that institutionalized American medicine doesn’t care about killing people, here it is.

Medical societies don’t care, most doctors don’t care, medical schools don’t care, public-health agencies don’t care, Congress doesn’t care, the Department of Justice doesn’t care, Presidents don’t care, drug companies don’t care, insurance companies don’t care.

As for major media and medical reporters, they intentionally hide this story and its implications every day of every year.

When people with the power to do something about medically caused death—and I’m talking about huge numbers of victims—know what’s going on and ignore it…what do you call that? Depraved indifference? Negligent homicide?

I call it murder.

Mass murder.

Barack Obama and his allies have done everything they can to bring more people into the US medical system. Changing the nature of that system has never occurred to these politicians.

Like much of America, they accept the cliches and slogans about American medicine. “It’s the best in the world.” “People are being denied treatment.” “We must take care of our citizens.”

How about this far more accurate slogan: “Let’s force more Americans to die in the care of doctors.”

The American healthcare system, like clockwork, causes a mind-boggling number of deaths every year.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when one of its most respected public-health experts, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revealed her findings on healthcare in America. Starfield was associated with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The Starfield study, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came to the following conclusions:

Every year in the US there are:

* 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;

* 7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;

* 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;

* 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;

* 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.

The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000.

That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

The Starfield study is the most disturbing revelation about modern healthcare in America ever published in the mainstream.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was rather perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have taken effective steps to correct this situation preferred to ignore it.


On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.


MY COMMENTS:

This interview with Dr. Starfield reveals that, even when an author has unassailable credentials within the medical-research establishment, the findings can result in no changes made to the system.

Many persons and organizations within the medical system contribute to the annual death totals of patients, and media silence and public ignorance are certainly major factors, but the FDA is the assigned gatekeeper, when it comes to the safety of medical drugs.

The buck stops there. If those drugs the FDA is certifying as safe are killing, like clockwork, 106,000 people a year, the Agency must be held accountable. The American people must understand that.

As for the other 119,000 people killed every year as a result of hospital treatment, this horror has to be laid at the doors of those institutions. Further, to the degree that hospitals are regulated and financed by state and federal governments, the relevant health agencies assume culpability.

It is astounding, as well, that the US Department of Justice has failed to weigh in on Starfield’s findings. If 225,000 medically caused deaths per year is not a crime by the Dept. of Justice’s standards, then what is?

To my knowledge, not one person in America has been fired from a job or even censured as result of these medically caused deaths.

Dr. Starfield’s findings have been available for 15 years. She has changed the perception of the medical landscape forever. In a half-sane nation, she would be accorded a degree of recognition that would, by comparison, make the considerable list of her awards pale. And significant and swift action would have been taken to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and reform the system from its foundations.

The pharmaceutical giants stand back and carve up the populace into “promising markets.” They seek new disease labels and new profits from more and more toxic drugs. They do whatever they can—legally or illegally—to influence doctors in their prescribing habits. Many studies which show the drugs are dangerous are buried. FDA panels are filled with doctors who have drug-company ties. Legislators are incessantly lobbied and supported with pharma campaign monies.

Nutrition, the cornerstone of good health, is ignored or devalued by most physicians. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to attack nutritional supplements, even though the overall safety record of these nutrients is excellent, whereas, once again, the medical drugs the FDA certifies as safe are killing 106,000 Americans per year.

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the whole literature is suspect, unreliable, and impenetrable.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

LA Times: “Police said Paddock fired 200 rounds into the hallway” wounding a hotel security guard.

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2017

LA Times, October 9: “Police have dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on Oct. 1, revealing Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard [in the leg through the closed door of his hotel room] six minutes before opening fire on a country music concert — raising new questions about why police weren’t able to pinpoint the gunman’s location sooner.”

The previous police story was: Paddock shot security guard Campos after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

The LA Times focuses on how this new information changes the timeline of events—in particular, the addition of minutes before police arrived at Paddock’s door.

Really? That’s the takeaway?

There is a far more serious question. Why did Paddock shoot the security guard through his hotel room door, with 200 rounds of ammunition (according to police), BEFORE starting to fire on the concert crowd?

Whether or not Paddock was using a silenced weapon to shoot the security guard, didn’t he think 200 rounds through a door might possibly alert people in the hotel to what he was about to do—kill people at the concert?

Security guard Campos, according to the Times, was on Paddock’s 32nd floor to check on an alert about another guest’s room door having being left open. Campos wasn’t there to check on Paddock. There is no indication Paddock was suspected of anything.

The new Vegas police sequence of events now goes this way: Paddock is in his room preparing to slaughter people at the concert; security guard Campos comes to the 32nd floor to check on a report of another guest’s door having been left open; Paddock sees Campos out in the hallway outside his door (using a camera Paddock had installed); Paddock fires 200 rounds through his door and hits Campos in the leg; leaving Campos there, Paddock then WAITS SIX MINUTES and begins firing through his broken window(s) at the concert crowd.

Perhaps the police will change their story yet again. Paddock didn’t fire 200 rounds through his door. He stepped out into the hallway and wounded Campos with one shot using a silenced handgun. He then left Campos there, went back into his room, waited six minutes, and then started firing on the concert crowd.

Or, after wounding Campos with one bullet, he paid Campos with a pile of casino chips and told him to wait in the hallway and say nothing to anyone for a half-hour.

Or he bound and gagged Campos after shooting him in the leg and stuffed him into a laundry closet in the hallway.

Or, the most popular tactic in these untenable and absurd stories: “Obviously, Paddock was crazy. There is no way to account for all his actions. We may never know why he did what he did.”

That usually works with the public. The police or the FBI paint themselves into a corner trying to hide the truth. They realize their latest version of events makes no sense. So they invoke the time-honored “we may never know” explanation.

If some reporter wakes up from his stupor and resists going along with the story, he’ll probably hear: “Yes, we’re looking into that. But we have no further comment at this time.”

Or most likely, any time.

Here is a reasonable assessment: since very early on, police had decided on this story: Paddock was the shooter; he was the only shooter; he wounded the security guard after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

But the fact that the security guard was wounded BEFORE the concert shooting was leaking out. People in Las Vegas knew about it. So the cops (or the FBI) decided they had to get out ahead of the leak, if possible. It would be better to change their story than wait and end up with egg on their faces.

And so far, it looks like they made a smart move. Because how many media outlets are pointing out how crazy the new story is?

Most importantly, how many other egregious lies are sitting under the previous security-guard lie? How many other devious twists and turns in the true tale are being hidden?


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Information mind control: directed confusion

Information mind control: directed confusion

The effect is real, but the cause is fake

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2017

—When a person investigates a holy of holies where only truth is supposed to live, and when he offers evidence that the sacred inner sanctum is based on a lie, the public reaction of disbelief is based on Reference to Authority. “Well, all the experts couldn’t wrong. That’s impossible.” The holier the lie, the more impossible is the truth—

In a recent article, I analyzed the Vegas shooting in terms of both real and fake incidents happening at the same time—and the (intentional) confusion and conflict that then plays out.

Now I want to go deeper.

People often get it wrong when they look at cause and effect.

I learned this lesson, in 1987-88, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century.

People were dying. They were dying in San Francisco and New York and Los Angeles and Africa and Haiti. There was no question about that. The effect was real and devastating.

So I blithely assumed the announced cause, HIV, was, in fact, the cause. It had to be.

If I questioned the cause, I would be questioning the truth of the effect, right?

Wrong.

It took me a while to see that. It took me many months of research.

In retrospect, what I did in my investigation was quite straightforward. At the time, it felt like I was walking through a jungle in the dark.

I examined each so-called “high-risk” group. These were groups the medical experts said were prone to “catching HIV” and developing AIDS.

I found that ALL the immune suppression (the hallmark of AIDS) in these groups could be explained by causes that had nothing to do with HIV. Depending on which group, there was: hunger, starvation, contaminated water supplies, toxic medical drugs, vast overuse of antibiotics, vast overuse of debilitating street drugs, repeated instances of debilitating standard sexually transmitted diseases (not AIDS), an experimental vaccine…

On top of that, when I went back to the original research on HIV, I discovered the prime researchers had failed to find and identify HIV in a sufficient percentage of diagnosed AIDS patients to claim the virus was the cause.

I discovered there was no reason to assume HIV was the cause of AIDS based on specific actions of the virus in the body. In other words, researchers couldn’t show the virus was doing anything. They just assumed it was wreaking havoc, and they kept changing their guesses about what it could be doing.

The effect (people dying) was real, but the purported cause (HIV) was unproven, and therefore, fake.

I spoke with many people who accepted HIV as the cause of AIDS BECAUSE so many people were dying. They made that equation. They made that unwarranted leap.

In the field of psychiatry (an obvious pseudoscience), the same thing happens. The effect is real: people have problems, they’re suffering, they’re in pain and confusion. The cause? Specific mental disorders.

Well, these disorders must be real because the effect is real, right?

Wrong.

There are many explanations for what people are experiencing and suffering. On the other hand, there are NO defining laboratory tests for diagnosing ANY so-called disorder in the official bible of the psychiatric profession. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays. Nothing.

The effect is real, but the cause is unproven and therefore fake.

People make this cause-and-effect mistake in various fields all the time. Propagandists use this mistake to their own advantage in promoting false causes of events to forward agendas.

In schools, a proper study of cause and effect would make students independently brighter. But of course, that is not the normal goal of education. The goal is creating obedience. And eliciting specific responses to specific stimuli.

The bell rings, the dog salivates.

That’s a completely different version of cause and effect.

(New “think-piece” — “David vs. AI supercomputer Goliath” — up at my other blog, OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE.)


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas shooter: the “bump stock” revelation contradicts the official scenario—Oops

Vegas shooter: the “bump stock” revelation contradicts the official scenario—Oops

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

There are so many holes in the official story of the Vegas concert shooting, anyone who buys it should consider laying out cash for condos on the moon.

File this one under: GUN ENTHUSIAST WITH LARGE KNOWLEDGE OF WEAPONS USES RIDICULOUS RIFLES THAT ARE NOTORIOUSLY INACCURATE. That’s called a contradiction. Oops.

SMART GUNMAN CHOOSES DUMB WEAPONS.

The latest piece of fraud? The bump stock revelation.

A bump stock is a legal device that turns a semi-auto weapon into a simulation of full auto: faster fire rate. Legislators are falling all over themselves to ban it.

According to press outlets, the accused shooter, Stephen Paddock, brought not one, not two, not five, but 12 rifles to his hotel suite at the Mandalay that were outfitted with bump stocks.

At the same time we’re told Paddock left a note in his suite that revealed he was calculating distance and gravity and other factors—he was carefully plotting out his upcoming shooting spree to obtain the highest degree of accuracy.

There is one problem with that claim.

Bump stocks aren’t accurate. And if Paddock had even superficial knowledge of weapons, he would know that.

Reason.com: “No one seems more mystified by the sudden enthusiasm for bump stocks—from both gun nuts and gun grabbers—than gun store owners. Because bump stocks sacrifice accuracy for speed hunters, sportsmen, and most other enthusiasts have little need for them, some experts say.”

“’I’ve always thought these bump stocks were just a novelty,’ Andrew Wickerham, owner of the 2nd Amendment Gun Shop in Las Vegas, told The Christian Science Monitor. ‘They’re not that good, and they’re hard as hell to control’.”

“’I will order them if someone wants one, but I highly discourage them from purchasing. It’s not safe, they don’t work, and it’s a gimmick,’ Tallahassee gun retailer Will Dance told CNN Money.”

One of my source on weapons wrote this: “There are some devices (like AutoGlove and Bump Fire) that can simulate full automatic fire, but they cannot be used accurately or effectively.”

“The [weapon] on the right [in a photo taken in Paddock’s hotel suite] with the Bump Fire device has something like an EOTech or RedDot optic that is only good for close quarters shooting and out to maybe 75 yards [far shorter than the distance between Paddock’s suite and the concert grounds]…”

Again, if Paddock was making careful calculations to ensure accuracy in his shooting spree, the last thing he would do was bring TWELVE rifles outfitted with bump stocks with him.

Yet another piece of the official scenario crumbles.

Were these twelve rifles planted in the hotel room? Was the room set up by others as a stage prop?


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas shooter brought more than ten suitcases into the hotel

Vegas shooter brought more than ten suitcases into the hotel

No problem

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

Even the Washington Post (10/2) expresses puzzlement: “Among the questions they [investigators] have: “…how he [Stephen Paddock] was able to bring it [a weapon] and many other weapons into a Vegas hotel suite undetected.”

“[Las Vegas Sheriff] Lombardo said hotel staff had been in and out of the two-room suite, which Paddock had stayed in since Sept. 28, and spotted nothing ‘nefarious,’ though he had more than 10 suitcases.”

I see. Ten suitcases. More than 10. How many? Fifteen?

Paddock, a high-stakes gambler the casinos know well, a man they know is a local resident, suddenly shows up with 10 suitcases. Hotel staff are in and out of his suite and no one has questions?

This raises no red flags?

In a city where the hotels and casinos have many layers of security, including metal detectors, Paddock quietly slipped in with more than 10 suitcases holding weapons and ammo?

The city of Las Vegas has shown up in ISIS chatter as a target of interest. Wouldn’t that cause hotels and casinos to step up their already heavy security?

A year ago, KTNV reported, (“Steve Wynn talks about ‘extraordinary’ security measures with Jon Ralston, Part 1”):

“’Terrorism is very much in the forefront of every casino owner’s mind,’ said retired Lt. Randy Sutton, 13 Action News Crime and Safety Expert.”

In the same KTNV piece, hotel magnate Steve Wynn said: “Las Vegas is a target city. We have hardened the target at the Wynn [Hotel]. This is the first time I’ve ever revealed this publicly. But we went [sic], there’s a division in the Marine Corps of special people that are specially trained to guard the embassies. That’s a whole division with separate base, separate training.”

“There are almost 40 of them at every opening [entrance] of my building, plain clothes, armed, on the look-out, changing shift and being relieved every two hours so they don’t get bored.”

“We have another group of a half a dozen seals team six guys and CIA guys who are a counterterrorism unit that … relate on a daily basis to Homeland Security, the FBI, and Metro. My company has metal detectors and devices at every entrance of the building for employees and guests that are non-visible to the public. We have done extraordinary things to make that sure we protect our employees and our guests at the hotel.”

Surely, other hotels in the city have installed major security, too. But again, Stephen Paddock gets more than 10 suitcases filled with metal up to his suite without incident.

And keeps them there for several days.

Here is a revealing nugget: New York Magazine, October 6: “He [Paddock] was also a heavy drinker, known to demand high-end cognac and treat cocktail waitresses and his own girlfriend rudely, according to a source in guest services at a casino he frequented.”

In other words, Paddock was aggressive. Casinos knew he was tightly wound. He could go off on people. This was a reason to hold him in suspicion. But those 10 suitcases in his room? Not a cause for concern or question.

If metal detectors are used at the Mandalay Hotel, how did all that steel and weight slip through security? Was this an inside job? Did Paddock have help from hotel security?

At the moment the first window in Paddock’s suite was broken, you would assume alarms would go off and Hotel security would rush to the suite. Why have we heard nothing about this?

Take this one step further. Is it possible Paddock was set up, or was part of an operation whose ultimate objective was unknown to him? Is it possible some group with far more clout than Paddock managed to get those suitcase into his suite?

The Mandalay Hotel, at this moment, is doing everything it can to minimize and deflect blame for its “lax security.” Therefore, how much Hotel video of Paddock can we expect to see in the coming days? What cover stories will emerge? What lies will be told? What falsehoods will be promoted to defeat lawsuits filed against the Hotel?

Las Vegas will certainly try to allay tourist fears. All the hotel and casino business in the city is on the line. Billions of dollars. The people who make the lion’s share of that money will tell whatever lies they need to, in order to keep up the appearance of “tourist safety.”

Final thought for the moment: If security devices in the Mandalay were turned off briefly, to allow someone to bring in those suitcases full of weapons, we are now talking about a sophisticated level of intrusion, beyond the ability of Stephen Paddock. How would the breach go unnoticed by the Hotel’s full security detail? How would the cover-up of that breach have been rigged?


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.