Remove this ad



Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#41 [url]

Jul 1 16 11:01 PM

By the core I'm referring to the first few levels of it. Let's say the center is Brian Williams and David Muir. Ring 1 Brit Hume and Chris Matthews. Ring 2 Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz. Ring 3 Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow. The person would have to be beyond that to be able to be considered, or have particular salience or currency among young people or those who fancy themselves 'alternative' for lack of a better word.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 1 16 11:06 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad


Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#43 [url]

Jul 2 16 3:46 AM

That's your reasoning? That's how you think? You need to do better.
The links to those shills were simply the most convenient, summarizing the data and points I wanted to make. The data checks out. You can verify it. You do study and verify data, don't you? If you going to dismiss data and argument just because the source is compromised you would never learn anything as everybody is compromised. I told you FDR is all over Google... You do know how to Google and read, right? You know Google is Intel, right? By your "reasoning" everything Google links to is disinfo.
FDR, the massmurdering Jewish bankster, was against the massmurdering Jewish banksters? LOL! If he really was they would have just killed him.
Quit being lazy and study FDR yourself... not that it should be necessary. There is no chance that he was not a banksters' tool.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#44 [url]

Jul 2 16 9:32 AM

Can we get Jon LeBon, Spy Kitten TV and A Call for An Uprising up there and while we're at it I'm changing my mind about Learn of the Jesuit Order, I think he's become a shill.


Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 10:07 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#45 [url]

Jul 2 16 11:37 AM

Moyers, Frontline, John Le Bon, John Oliver, Vice and a few others added. As ridiculous as some of the other channels mentioned are, I'd like to keep it to people who actually and intentionally lie (either by omission or commission), attack or hide the truth or the people genuinely looking into it. Just being wrong or slightly out there isn't enough. It's enough for me personally in many cases, but I don't feel comfortable making public accusations. For some of these the only thing that seems like blatant disinfo is the CERN thing, but I haven't looked into that theory yet.

I used to lean towards Ventura as disinfo based on his support for directed energy theory, but I'm not so sure now. Conventional demo and thermite are completely unacceptable demo theories, and while there is a lot of evidence for mini-nukes it doesn't completely jive with the visual depiction of collapse we were shown, so I do not rule out directed energy or some other unknown weapon. I just think Ventura is a showboat who seeks publicity, and maybe is a tad off due to all the hits in the head. I haven't seen anything that directly indicates Springmeier should be listed either, but if you can point to anything please let me know. Also, what is the evidence for John Lear? Will look into him- thought I recalled TPS making some convincing points on him but might be wrong. Gunderson died several years ago and think it's better not to add deceased people.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#46 [url]

Jul 2 16 11:38 AM

Updating the list (new members in bold):

7 Trumpets Prepper
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (unconfirmed but suspicious)
A Call For An Uprising (unconfirmed but supicious)
Aaron Russo

Abby Martin (Breaking The Set)
Ace Baker / CollinAlexander
Adam Kokesh
Alex Constantine
Alex Jones
Alfred Stubblebine
Amazing Atheist
AMTV (unconfirmed but highly suspicious)
Andrew Anglin
Ann Coulter
Antonio Subirats
Bart Sibel (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Betsy McGee / Conspiracy Theorista
Bill Maher
Bill Moyers
Bill Nye
Billy Meier
Bob Lazar

C. Ervana
Captain Obvious
Celebrate Truth
Cenk Uygur / The Young Turks
Changing Reason
Charlie Veitch / Love Police
Dave Johnson
David Icke
Dave McGowan
David Pakman
David Shayler
David Weiss aka DITRH
Dimitri Khalezov (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Disclose Truth TV
Disclosure Team
Dylan Avery
Ed Chiarini/Dallas Goldbug/Wellaware1
Edward Snowden
Elon Musk

Eric Dubay (Atlantean Conspiracy)
Event Skeptic
Flat Earth Asshole
Franz Springmeier

Gavin McInnes
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (Ancient Aliens)
Gerald Celente
Global Agenda
Godlike Productions
Greg Gutfeld (Red Eye)
Henry Makow
Howard Stern
Innerstanding / Secret Energy Innerversity
Insanity Is Sanity
Ken of Redefining God
James Corbett (unconfirmed but suspicious)
James Fetzer (unconfirmed but suspicious)
James Tracy (Memory Hole) (unconfirmed but suspicious)

Jason A
Jeff C/freeradiorevolution/NewWorldAgenda
Jeff Hill (pumpitout)
Jeff Rense

Jesse Ventura
Joe Biggs (Infowars)
Joe Rogan
John Lear
Jon LeBon

Jon Stewart
Jon Oliver (Last Week Tonight)
Judy Wood
Julian Assange (wikileaks)

Jungle Surfer
Keith Johnson
Kyle Kulinski / Secular Talk
Leak Project
Learn of the Jesuit Order (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Let's Roll Forum (unconfirmed but suspicious)

Lift the Veil
Mark Dice
Mark Passio
Mark Sargent
Martin Liedtke / Flat Earth British
Marty Leeds
Matrix World Disclosure
Matt Boylan / TheNASAChannel
Michael Moore
Michael Savage
Michio Kaku
Miles Mathis
Morgan Reynolds (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Nathan Oakley
Neil Degrass Tyson
Noam Chomsky
Orphan Red
Patricia Steere / Flat Earth and Other Hot Potatoes
Paul Joseph Watson (Infowars)
Peekay22 / Peekay Truth
Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist)
Polarization Nation / Dusty Westfield
PressResetEarth (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Professor Griff (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Ray Kurzweil
RedsilverJ / TeamWakeEmUP (unconfirmed but highly suspicious)
Richard Dawkins
Richard Gage (A&E 9/11 Truth) (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Ron Johnson (Stranger than Fiction)
Round SaturnEye (R$E)

Seth Meyers
Sevan Bomar
Sibel Edmonds (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Simon Shack / cluesforum
Spy Kitten TV (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Spirit Science (Drunvalo Melchizedek
Stars Are Souls
Steven Greer
Stefan Molyneux (unconfirmed but highly suspicious)
Stephen Colbert
Steven Crowder
The Black Child
The Onion
The WTF Files
Ted Gunderson
Trey Parker & Matt Stone / South Park
Tyranny News Network
UFOTV The Disclosure Network
Vigilant Christian (unconfirmed but suspicious)
Wayne Rubens
William Cooper (unconfirmed but suspicious)
William Rodriguez

Zero Hedge


Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 1:46 PM. Edited 19 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#47 [url]

Jul 2 16 11:46 AM

I think the really prominent deceased like Franz Springmeier and Gunderson should be added because they come up so often in searches about anything a few levels deep in the rabbit.

Anybody who appears on your TV screen is likely to be a shill, but Ventura was literally given an entire show about conspiracies. He is the mainstream conspiracy theorist gatekeeper, Alex Jones is the right wing conspiracy theorist gatekeeper.

John Lear is similar to Stubblebine, he put out a lot of UFO disinfo along with his accurate stuff on 9/11 no planes.

Springmeier wrote the book on the 13 bloodlines, if you don't consider that disinfo then you might as well tear the list up.


Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#48 [url]

Jul 2 16 11:56 AM

Let me look over this. It's not for me to decide who is or isn't a shill, but think it's better if we have one person handling the 'official' list on this thread or it can get chaotic and names can fall through the cracks. I'm open to adding anyone that I didn't yet add as long as some evidence or some explanation is put forward.

Absolutely disagree with Morgan Reynolds. Sorry, he's done very good work for no planes (maybe more than anyone else) and there's nothing I can point to that's disinfo. Really not fair to put James Tracy there. I don't think he's always helpful and his blog is often underwhelming and off the mark, but I can't point to a single specific thing that indicates he's disinfo. Disagree on Bart Sibrel. Has done more for moon hoax than anyone else. Yeah he's a little goofy but can't point to anything else. I don't think Judy Wood should either. Reynolds and Edward Hendrie (who has the best written explanation of the event I've seen) both side with DEWs. If you're not for nukes (have gone over evidence for mini-nukes in detail on recent thread), I think you have to be for DEWs/unknown weapon. Shack's theory that the collapse was conventional demo masked by CGI overlay of a pancake with the cleanup being tightly controlled so demo evidence could be removed is impossible because of the height of the dust pile immediately after the event, which was <1% in many to most areas of the building, when conventional demo piles are 12%. Conventional demo also doesn't account for any of the physical evidence I discussed in a previous post. I don't think Khalezov's big nuke theory is correct, but it's not ridiculous and I don't see evidence he is disinfo. I would like to get TPS's opinion on 9/11 collapse because he doesn't seem to side with either nukes or DEWs/unknown weapon.

Agree with Zero Hedge (fearmongering, market worshipping, perspective too crass and amoral, controlled comments section) but some explanation should be added. Agree on Michael Moore, good call. Absolutely agree on Zeitgeist and creators, another good one. New World Agenda already added under Jeff C. Julian Assange highly suspicious but what's the evidence? Same goes for Snowden (who may not even be a real person). At best they should be added as suspicious. Agree on Elon Musk, but don't think his persona and opinion-making are public enough to be relevant for this. 

Absolutely disagree on AE911 and Gage. Yes, they're way off on their overall theory, but they don't vehemently attack no planes or even get into the planes or hijackers, they just say they're focusing on evidence with the buildings themselves. Gage defended himself I believe to Kevin Barrett and Fetzer recently and made a very sound and coherent defense of what AE911 is doing. You're generally not going to get engineers and architects involved in things like CGI, no planes, fake hijackers, etc. Most hard science types are not able to make that kind of leap, though there are surely exceptions. To get them involved you have to keep things calm and sober (in the sense of dealing with topics that are part of normal engineering and science discourse). I've already made a defense of Corbett and I have yet to see anything specific on him. I think he is a good channel for people new to the truth movement or psychologically unable to go deeper. That doesn't mean he's a shill or gatekeeper. You can't expect everyone to embrace no planes overnight, if ever. People can be generally on your side without having to go to those lengths.

You can think Ventura is a gatekeeper, but where is the real evidence? He got to be governor through his wrestling and acting career which was totally non-political, which then allowed him to make himself a TV/conspiracy persona. No one needed to put him in that role, he had the PR capital to make it happen himself. I think you should have to point to a single remark, interview, something where he displays shill behavior. Talking in a bit of a singsong voice and wearing weird clothes isn't enough. Rense's hair alone, eerie presentation style, and talk of UFOs may be grounds for inclusion as suspicious, but again, can you point to anything specific?

(going to continue editing this post, just wanted to get that out there)

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 2 16 12:18 PM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#49 [url]

Jul 2 16 12:02 PM

Hang on is this a list of disinfo agents or all types of shills?

Morgan Reynolds wasn't disinfo, but he's a whipping boy for the truth about no planes. Like James Tracy, these people are the "official" representitive of the truth in the mainstream media but they are made to look either crazy, unnattractive or foolish so that they public will completely disregard them and their message. 

The same could be said of Gage and A&E for 9/11 truth. They are right about what they say, but they're movement is purposefully ineffective. Not all shills are disinfo agents, many are just controlled opposition.

As for the demolition method, there's nothing wrong with the thermite theory and mini-nukes/DEW disinfo introduces technologies which may not even exist and that even in theory wouldn't be as effective as a more conventional method.

Ray Kurzweil and Elon go hand and hand as pushers of the transhuman agenda.

Bart Sibel is like Aaron Russo. They are both low-ballers who manage the rabbit hole for those who are waking up. Bart Sibel's documentary does raise suspicions about the moon landings but it protects the rest of NASA's fakery from being revealed. The same could be said of Aaron Russo who does a lot of raise awareness about the Rockefeller's but protects the true extent of the conspiracy.

Here's the thing I think you're not taking into account. When you see a real whistleblower like Andrew Wakefield or DBrad come about. That person is blacklisted and their reputation is completely destroyed. Jesse Ventura if he was legit would not only never get a syndicated television show, he would be completely out and nobody famous would even associate with him.

Even someone like Dave Chappelle, who kept his mouth shut but refused to obey the inner-code of Hollywood wasn't allowed to work again for years and likely the only reason he was allowed back in at all is because he cut a deal.

I think you underestimate the degree to which the media is completely controlled and makes sure every single thing you see is carefully skewed to fit one of their choosen narratives.

Also, I didn't mean to highjack your job as the list keeper, but I had so many I wanted to add (many which are 100% certain), it would have been super inefficient to make a bunch of separate posts about it, but next time I will just make a list of all those I want to add instead of hijacking the whole list.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 12:42 PM. Edited 6 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#50 [url]

Jul 2 16 12:45 PM

I really don't see a clear difference between shills, disinfo, and controlled opposition. I see shills and controlled opposition as people who knows on some level what they're saying is wrong, but they say it anyway to please their masters. The loose distinction between that a disinfo agent would be that disinfo is more a science than art, an organized campaign by public or private intelligence agents. A shill is more likely to be a servant to the system in an indirect way while a disinfo ait'gent is actually a paid employee or contractor of it. They also have to be trying to trick people who have good intentions into their audience. I don't really consider Musk a shill since he's just saying 'I'm a transhumanist' but doesn't appear to be trying to deceive people. There's also the probable reality of shills who are paid by foreign countries to focus on conspiracies in the US. As long as they're not lying or misleading people, I don't consider them to be shills or disinfo, even if their allegiance to a foreign power and status as a paid operative is clear.

I don't disagree with your point on Chapelle and Hollywood, but there are gray areas with some of these people. Re: Ventura. He's a likeable guy, he kind of makes himself look zany in interviews, and he never gets into any really deep conspiracy material. That may or may not be intentional. Some people are just wrong. He's allowed to stay on air because he's not really a threat and doesn't get viewers in too deep. But that doesn't make him a true gatekeeper. He's financially independent and I haven't seen any evidence of him hobnobbing with celebrities or looking for or getting any work other than conspiracy-related stuff.

I think some of these entries fall more in the realm of personal theories than something like a blacklist. I just don't think a case has been made for many of these people: Bill Cooper, Tracy, Fetzer.

Agree on Abby Martin, Assange, Snowden, Dylan Avery, Jeff Hill, WeAreChange (some of its members; I think many may be legit), Rense, Springmeier (think he is more just wrong than disinfo), Zero Hedge as suspicious (many are all but confirmed as far as I'm concerned but I don't have specific evidence). (for me it's much closer to confirmed, but based more on a hunch). Agree on Moore, Greer, Zeitgeist as confirmed. Disagree on Reynolds, Fetzer, Tracy, Corbett, Sibrel. Don't see any evidence at all for Rodriguez. Inconclusive (as far as the list goes): Russo, Gunderson, Judy Wood, Rogan, Ventura. Haven't had a chance to look into Lear. I think Coulter is too mainstream a conservative to be considered a shill. As far as I know she has pretty much echoed the Limbaugh talking points.

For a lot of these channels, they are over the top but I don't see things that are actually lies or that mislead viewers. I believe there is a satanic element to these events, and the number and mark of the beast is clearly some kind of real agenda. There are also real agendas to create confusion around gender and sexual orientation, and destroy the family. A lot of these channels cover things like that, albeit in a very over the top way, and then might have one video asking questions about CERN. To me that's not a home run to be added to the list as confirmed.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 2 16 1:12 PM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#51 [url]

Jul 2 16 12:52 PM

Well, I would never say that these people should be blacklisted. I've always maintained the position that shills are often the best source of information if you can pick out the truth from the disinfo or see through their purpose as a gatekeeper/controlled opposition.

Of all the people on the list, Jesse Ventura is probably the most obvious shill. I'm surprised of all those I threw out there you are defending him the hardest. Do you really think they're going to let a legitimate voice on The View on a regular basis? 

I'll throw an asterisk on Cooper, Fetzer and Tracy, but they are prominent enough that I think they belong on the list. At the very least, we should be suspicious of them and their true intentions.

I agree with your point about the religious dogma which is why I labeled Vigilant Christian as unconfirmed, and I'll do the same for A Call to an Uprising.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 12:55 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#52 [url]

Jul 2 16 12:58 PM

People should be wary of everyone in the media, big and small, but this list can't include them all. By blacklisted I mean that the viewer should not just be wary but consider the author of the material to be a probable/definite liar who is trying to deceive them, while also remembering the possibility of gleaning useful information from them. I don't mean they should ignore their material altogether, since I agree there is often a lot of truth amid the lies. I don't think the unconfirmed label should apply just to a maybe, but someone who appears to have sinister intentions, and where the reason why can be articulated and specific evidence produced. I really don't think being alive or being on a show is enough. Ventura was on the view, but he was a state governor and major celebrity, and as I explained his show was relatively harmless, and maybe he is an unwitting gatekeeper. But as far as I understood we have been focusing on people who do these things knowingly. The eligibiltiy for useful idiots would be limited to people who attack truth tellers unwittingly, not for people who don't go far enough unwittingly.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 2 16 1:05 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#53 [url]

Jul 2 16 1:02 PM

I like that definition of blacklisted. I agree not everybody who has ever been on TV is a shill, but when you see people regularly appearing on RT or InfoWars or you see a youtube channel which has hundreds of thousands of subs talking which is supposedly exposing information which would overthrow the power structure you've got to explain why this person would be allowed such a platform if they were really working against the elite.

I think Tim Russert is a good example of someone who was on TV and wasn't a shill, but who was naive and often let a lot of things go (9/11, the Iraq War). However, I don't personally believe he was "in" and that is why I think he was murdered during the 2008 election season.  

Another potential example of a person in media who is not a shill is Libby Casey who is one of the anchor people for the Washington Journal. I don't think she is actually aware 9/11 is a conspiracy.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 1:18 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#54 [url]

Jul 2 16 1:11 PM

Ho hum. So are you really open to adding to this list? I suggested a few, with reasoning, but I only hear crickets. Is this about egos? I have a lot to offer but so far I'm not feeling welcomed
or intelligently received.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#57 [url]

Jul 2 16 1:21 PM

I read your post but couldn't find channels (assumed they were YT) for ce399 or constantine. It appeared Maury Terry wrote one book on Son of Sam, and hasn't been involved in anything recently. For me the list is about people who are currently in the mix. I disagree that Paul and Farage are controlled opposition. You may be right but there is really no evidence as far as I'm aware.

As far as this list is concerned it has to be based on real evidence, otherwise it is weak conjecture and watered down. You can't just say things like 'they would have never let him get into power.' You really don't know because you've never tried to do the same thing. I'm not calling AJ a shill because he is a big channel (although at this point, if not from the beginning, YT is clearly messing with comments, sub counts, etc), I'm calling him a shill because he has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be a shill by his behavior and the material on his site and channel. This kind of conjecture is little better than the Chomsky 'something would have leaked' or 'the government is too incompetent' BS we get from both the shills and ordinary people who oppose the calling out of conspiracies.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#58 [url]

Jul 2 16 1:23 PM

CE399 is a blogger

So is Alex Constantine

I agree, the list should be about anyone who is at all still relevent or talked about. A lot of the Area 51 shills can be left out like Phil Schneider, but I'm going to add Bob Lazar and Billy Meier because they still so frequently brought up when the government-alien link is talked about, and I'll definitely add the guy from Anceint Aliens.

I'm going to leave out John E. Mack even though he's so prominent on the UFO question I have not found any reason to believe he's a shill.

Also, as another example of a media personality who functions as a shill but is probably not "in" is Rachel Crane. She does all sorts of space fakery propaganda, but as far as I can tell she genuinely believes in it. These kinds of people I think should be left off the list because aren't even aware they are spreading disinfo/gatekeeping.

I don't think there's anyway to make this list beyond conjecture. There certainly isn't hard proof of collusion for 80% of the names of the list and anyone could claim innocence even a super obvious shill like Lift the Veil, however at some point we've got to make a judgement call. I think the system where we mark those who are still uncertain is good enough for now and encourages productive discussion on the shill phenomenon.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 2 16 1:34 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   


Posts: 332 Member Since:11/22/15

#60 [url]

Jul 2 16 1:56 PM

The kind of conjecture I'm talking about is 'I have a feeling so and so is this (e.g. Paul and Farage)' or 'there's no way so and so would be alive, would be that big, etc.' If you point to anyone on the list I can produce a video clip, sourced remark, interview, etc that most people would agree is indicative of them being a shill, even if it's clear they're a shill without seeing that evidence. On a personal level I agree with a lot of the 'I have a feeling' inclusions, but for the purposes of this I think it's better to only do it when there is evidence, not hunches or unsupported theories.

It would also be good to minimize the suspicious designation as much as possible. It makes the list hard to read and makes it watered down when every other name is marked as that.

Another thing is I think we should keep off sensationalist channels that basically tell the truth, i.e. channels with all caps, goofy presentation styles, overemphasis on one issue, etc, unless they're very big and relevant like a RedsilverJ. There's so many channels like this (probably in the hundreds) that it will drown out the other names if we include them all. Some are surely disinfo to discredit the movement, many might be using sensationalism to get attention, get more views, and make money. Many of these channels generally tell the truth about what is going on, albeit in a very sensationalist way, so it can be hard to tell the difference. If the channel includes outright lies and deception that's a different story, but evidence of such needs to be put forward.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 2 16 1:59 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help