Friday 3 April 2015

Richplanet 2015 Tour

Richard D Hall is a solo maverick in the truth movement. He is fiercely independent and the only events he ever organizes are his own. I've been to his live shows before, for example see: (See links column for Richard's website). I'd heard some reports from others who'd attended his shows in the previous few days, but I knew that his format could change at the last minute. His work is based around current affairs so you never know what you're going to get untill you're literally sitting in front of him. The 2015 Richplanet Tour is subtitled "as NOT seen on TV" which is appropriate because Richard has had no end of trouble from the television network related to his programme; they forbid him from broadcasting all his best material and a few months ago they banned him because of his episode with Nick Kollerstrom about the Woolwich incident, see: Showcase TV are not as "controversial" as they profess. It costs Richard £600 to buy the airtime and he wonders "Is it worth it?" The good news is that all his shows are available, completely uncensored, on his website viewer, see link above. Ustane and I were familiar with the venue, as we trudged up towards it we recalled the 2013 AMMACH conference which was held there, see: Also some years earlier we had seen the late Lloyd Pye give a lecture there. The Belgrave Rooms are the city's Masonic centre and are covered with the Brotherhood's occult symbolism, see: However they have the cheapest function suite to hire in Nottingham, which makes it quite understandable that Richard and other would choose to book it. I was keen to pick up Richard's latest DVD releases from his stall; two full-length films. I was delighted to meet up with lots of my old friends; some I knew would be there, with others it was a nice surprise. Some of them had never met Ustane and it was nice to introduce them to her; the social side of these events is equally important as the lecture content itself.
Richard D Hall bounded onto the stage in his trademark dark brown suit to thunderous applause from the audience, some of whom were standing at the sides beside the packed seats. The first part of his talk was entitled: Subversion in the UK, although strictly speaking a large part of this subversion relates to an incident that did not happen in the UK, but in Portugal. It was the subject of one of Richard's new films, the second part of his expose of the Madeleine McCann case, called Buried by Mainstream Media, the True Story of Madeleine McCann- The Phantoms. The film opens with the same music that the first one does. I can't recall who Richard gets to compose his theme tunes, he did tell me once, but they're excellent at their job. Ustane and I find the score very poignant and we've started calling it "Madeleine's Requiem". Madeleine McCann was three years old in May 2007, the time she allegedly disappeared from a holiday villa at an Algarve resort in Portugal. According to her parents they left her sleeping in a bedroom with her brother and sister while they went to a restaurant for a meal just a short walk away. They nipped back to the villa regularly to check on the children and on one of these checks they found that somebody had broken in and abducted Madeleine. There was a huge international media storm and campaigns to "find Maddy now!" which raised millions of pounds. This second part of Richard's investigation provides lots of new information and maybe even some answers. The only evidence of any abduction of Madeleine comes from a few eyewitness accounts which are very dubious in themselves. One of the McCann's friends, Jane Tanner, says that she saw a man carrying a young child in his arms, yet the forensic artist's depictions of the man, whom Richard calls "Tannerman", are very vague; they even look a bit like Richard D Hall himself! What's more Ms Tanner never mentioned him at the time. Strange how one would fail to tell the police about a man seen carrying a child away from the apartment after knowing there's been an abduction of a child there. Three other suspects were seen in the area. In one case a man reported to the police that one of them had attempted to abduct his daughter, yet for some reason he only came forward after Madeleine's "abduction" had been publicized. The footprints of conspiracy lead on to where the body of Brenda Leyland was found in a hotel near Leicester, see: Richard managed to track down a former employee of the McCanns who says that nothing in Jane Tanner's story makes sense. It makes even less sense when Ms Tanner added more and more details to Tannerman's description, some of them, at least, clearly imaginary. The second supposed suspect Richard christened "Sagresman" because he was said to have been seen on the beach near the village of Sagres on Cape St Vincent, about sixteen miles from Praia da Luz where the McCanns and their friends were staying. It's chilly and windy there in April and few people would have been on the beach, yet a father claims that a man tried to kidnap his daughter there in late April, the 27th or 29th (which!?). Yet for some reason this man didn't report it to the police until after Madeleine's disappearance; he also sent the authorities on a wild goose chase across Europe to question a polish holidaymaker and his wife. The father gave his name as Nuno Lourenco and Richard suspects his story is a fantasy invented to support the idea that there was a dangerous paedophile at large in the area who was intent on abducting a young girl; this would make him an accomplice of the McCanns and their friends. Another phantom suspect, "Smithman", crops up from a report in Ireland by the Smith family from Drogehda. They claim to have seen a man walking down to the beach just after Madeleine's disappearance; he was carrying a young girl in his arms and he closely resembled Tannerman. However similar criticisms can be made of their statements that were made of Jane Tanner's. The Smiths didn't report their sighting for thirteen days, even though Madeleine's disappearance had been on the headlines across the world since then. The confusion and incompetence the Portuguese investigation suffered seems to have been the product of a spanner in the works thrown by the English translator Robert Murat; was he a mole working as part of the conspiracy too? He was eventually set up as another suspect, one more red herring to thwart police progress. Despite the disintegration of the Smithman farce, the story was promoted by Scotland Yard and even thrown together into a superficially plausible "new lead" that was included in a special report on Crimewatch UK. The McCann team also propped up Smithman in their personal publications, and it's covered by Kate McCann, Madeleine's mother, in her book. The plot is thickened even more when, unbelievably, a fourth phantom is revealed; he came forward to the police after over three years had passed and claims to be Tannerman. He was a local father carrying his daughter home from a creche. The Scotland Yard Crimewatch photographs of "Crecheman" blur his face so he's not been revealed in his full identity. Luckily Wendy Murphy, a legal expert on crimes against children, has spoken publicly about her doubt. Another is the famous TV crime reporter Shaw Taylor (sadly he's just died). I thought this odd at the time; why was Madeleine McCann's case getting so much publicity when, sadly, children disappearing like this is not unusual; in fact similar events happen literally every day. Richard thinks Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents and their friends disposed of the body, and they are covering up her death. The evidence comes from searches of the scene by sniffer dogs which picked up the smell of blood and dead bodies there. Also the McCanns' stories are full of contradictions and very imprecise information. The McCanns' "charity" is connected to some extremely untrustworthy people including high diplomatic officials, media spin doctors from Tony Blair's government, fifth column psychological mind-controllers and also supposed private investigators with links to fraud, espionage and organized crime. Even the Pope offered his moral support. The question is, did the parents murder Madeleine or did she die of natural causes? If it's the latter then why didn't they just say so? They were on holiday with a group of about seven friends, with children of their own, "the Tapas Seven" as they've been christened, and it looks as though they're involved too. Did one of the friends kill Madeleine? If so why are the parents collaborating with them? If the parents are the culprits then why are these friends collaborating with the McCanns? The entire group of people surrounding the McCanns even tried to frame somebody for kidnapping Madeleine; it's totally "Bob Lazar" as Richard himself would say. Why has Madeleine McCann's supposed kidnapping been made such a cause celebre involving such high profile people, front-page headlines and official institutions? There are no certain answers yet. Richard speculates that it might have something to do with organized child abuse and MI5 involvement in it, like at Kincora Boys Home. Possibly, we know MI5 were involved in that, see: The DVD of this film can be purchased here:
Richard D Hall's second new production is called An Independent Investigation into the Cumbria Shootings- Patsy Driver; it is a new viewpoint on one of the worst firearms offences in British history. The official story goes that Derrick Bird, a mild-mannered taxi driver from Rowrah, Cumbria who had been behaving perfectly normally up to that point, suddenly got up one morning in June 2010 and went on a killing spree; he shot dead twelve people and injured eleven others before driving to an isolated rural lane and turning his gun on himself. However, as is often the case, the truth behind the news is more complicated, and it's deliberately hidden by the authorities. It does seem as if Derrick Bird did carry out some of the attacks, but the evidence for the party line, that he was the only killer, simply isn't there. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and Mark Chapman, he is a "patsy", somebody manipulated into taking the blame for the secret crimes of others. In fact I think the Derrick Bird incident has remarkable similarities to the Port Arthur shooting in which a young man called Martin Bryant supposedly gunned down people at a tourist cafe in Australia; but the evidence doesn't match, see: In the case of Chapman, who allegedly shot John Lennon, and Sirhan, who is supposed to have killed Robert Kennedy, the patsies were in a trance state and probably under mind control, see: The same possibility emerges in the Derrick Bird case, although Channel 4's documentary on the subject was a typical pathetic primetime whitewash. As far as the witnesses to the shootings go, not all of them saw the gunman and of those only a few got a good look at his face. The witness who got the best look at him describes him as somebody who is totally different to Bird in appearance. As with 9/11 and 7/7, the CCTV evidence which has been released to the public, is scant, ambiguous and, so it seems, specifically selected to conceal and mislead. Richard's research is thorough and systematic; he retraces the route supposedly taken by Bird that day and interviews some of the witnesses himself. The region is a close-knit community and many of the residents knew Bird personally; they all say that he was not somebody they would ever suspect of being a mass murderer. There are also discrepancies in their testimonies. The gunman... or gunmen's taxies were Citroen Picassoes, but in some cases it's reported as greyish blue, on other cases maroon. In Whitehaven the killer shot out his left quarterlight, yet in other places the witnesses say that all the car's glass was intact. Some of the CCTV shows a vehicle with a taxi sign on the roof, in others this is absent. Some of the people involved with the victims are very reluctant to speak to the media, and one of them called the police when Richard approached them. The people who live in the inland areas in the later part of Bird's supposed rampage are the most cagey of all and Richard says: "It's like drawing teeth to get them to make a statement after Seascale!". I had a similar reception in Nottingham when making inquiries about Helen Duncan, see: Neil Sanders is featured in the film in a few scenes describing how "Manchurian candidates" can be programmed using the methods developed many years ago during the CIA's MK Ultra project (see here for more information on Neil's work: Was Derrick Bird one of these hypnotized assassins? Were other operatives driving different cars used to carry out some of the other killings? Was bird murdered? He might have been shot by somebody else, like Oswald was by Jack Ruby, or programmed to shoot himself. Either way the end result was that there were no suspects to try for murder and the legalities of the case were dealt with by a coroner's inquest. These are much easier to rig than criminal trials. If the official story is true and Derrick Bird was the proverbial "lone nut" then why would he do it? The papers have tabled a whole array of motives, that he was angry over financial issues, even though he had £22,000 in the bank. He also supposedly had woman trouble and issues at work. Also apparently the taxman was after him, even though he was not eligible to pay tax. His first alleged victim was his own twin brother, although there's little evidence to link Bird with the killing; the same goes for his solicitor Kevin Commons. All in all the official story of Derrick Bird makes no more sense than the official story of Madeleine McCann. If something else was going on, and that multiple killers were used along with the mind controlled Bird, then why? If we assume that the government or elite were behind this incident then there is definitely a cast iron motive to kill one of the individuals on Bird's inventory of death: the second victim, Bird's solicitor, Kevin Commons. This is because Commons was attempting to prosecute United Utilities, the company running the local waterworks. The allegation was that the company had mismanaged the nearby reservoirs causing them to overflow into adjoining rivers. This had resulted in massive floods which caused millions of pounds worth of damage and caused many people to lose their homes. A policeman was drowned in the torrent bravely keeping people away from a bridge just before it was destroyed by the deluge. Mr Commons was leading a class action lawsuit against the company; powerful people were in danger of losing millions and even ending up in jail for criminal negligence. Interestingly, two senior executives of the water company resigned around the time of the Derrick Bird shooting and Commons' replacement solicitor was investigated for fraud, perhaps on trumped-up charges. The other eleven victims might have been an attempt to camouflage their real objective by burying it under a pile of shock and horror. The media seemed to react very quickly, suspiciously so. The BBC presented their regional news programme from Whitehaven; which means they must have been planning to do so before the shootings even took place; how is that possible? An Independent Investigation into the Cumbria Shootings- Patsy Driver can be purchased here: The fifth anniversary of the incident is coming up in a couple of months so this film is an opportunity to cut across the propaganda.
Richard has been approached several times by mainstream media and in the London lecture last year (see link above) he explains how he was asked by Plum Pictures to take part in The Great UFO Conspiracy while they were in preproduction. He wisely told them where to go, as did I; the end result has completely vindicated us, see: However the word has not got round yet because a lady called Jenny Kleeman asked him to take part in a "documentary" she is making about alternative views on the fate of Madeleine McCann... you can guess what Richard said. Then lo and behold, she turns up at the event! Actually she just hung around outside hoping to get a vox populi on Richard's talk (if you ask me I think she fancies him!). Richard talked more about the media, highlighting something I've noticed myself, but not given much thought to. Because newspaper sales are dropping, newspaper stands are found in places they would not have been a few years ago, like supermarkets and department stores. Also more free papers are coming out, most notably Metro, a paper that people can just pick up and read from free racks on busses and trains etc; it makes all its income from its ad pages. Another trick the media use is to create false role-models and Richard asked his viewers to vote on who they thought was the biggest of these. I voted for Russell Brand; I said: "Russell Brand, a man who is being very highly promoted in the mainstream for his supposed anti-establishment views.  Brand used to be a friend of David Icke and knows about the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, but will not say so publicly. David told him: 'Walk the talk or walk away!' and they haven't spoken since. Brand is being led along by his giant ego and his puppet masters feed it to make him do whatever they want him to." Brand is bringing out a film very soon about bankers, but will it be anything other than controlled opposition? Doubt it, but we'll find out; I'll review it. However, Brand was beaten into second place by the man anybody who knows me will have thought I was going to vote for, that smiling Simeon of the small screen, Prof. Brian Cox. I've written about Cox an awful lot, maybe too much, but I stand by what I've been saying; His Royal Coxness is playing a very important and unique role in media mind control and disinformation, see: Other nominated media reaction agents include Stephen Fry; he presents a comedy quiz show called QI and it has a very Skeptic-based theme. He recently appeared on Irish TV presenting some rather theologically weak arguments for atheism; and his co-host on QI is none other than Dan Schreiber, presenter of The Great UFO Travesty, see: Jeremy Clarkson was also nominated by a few of the voters. Clarkson has been in trouble many times at the BBC, for instance he once described a very dark place as: "dark as Lenny Henry in a cave!" Lenny Henry being a well-known black comedian. That metaphor is completely benign as far as I can see yet there was uproar; black celebrities came on TV to say how disgusted they were and "race relations" groups lambasted him. Clarkson doesn't care and I respect him for that. Interestingly it's in the news at the moment that Clarkson has been sacked from his job at the BBC; therefore somebody with the initials "JC" is being crucified at Easter... you have to credit the Loomies for their sense of humour! I got into a heated argument with somebody over Clarkson because this person I know thinks that anybody who so much as mentions Clarkson has fallen for a simple distraction psy-op; I disagree. I think there is an agenda over Clarkson; but it's not distraction, it's cultural Marxism. Jeremy Clarkson has failed to abide by the political correctness rules of society and therefore he has been pilloried as a warning to the rest of us. Appropriately, Richard then went on to discuss the work of Yuri Besmenov, a former KGB agent and defector from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He has revealed the psychological warfare tactics used by communist agents who infiltrate and corrupt an enemy state in order to make it become communist itself. What he reveals is deeply chilling because it's exactly what I see in the world today being carried out by cultural Marxist fifth column organizations like Common Purpose, the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School. These methods include sewing discord and confusion, breaking up relationships and families, and destroying a sense of cultural identity. Things such as feminism, so called "anti-racism" and the abuse of white, straight males are a part of that, see: and: A lot of people make the mistake of seeing Marxism as an anti-authoritarian idea, a quest for freedom; this is how it presents itself. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially if you're young and naive. I myself was seduced by it for a short period in my late teens when I became an active trade unionist; luckily it was a phase I quickly got over.
Richard talked some more about the media and about how minor issues are blown out of all proportion to cover bigger issues; the MP expenses scandal and phone hacking inquest are examples. The real stories lie underneath. I myself have always said: when a story like that breaks out on page 1, look and see what's on page 15! According to Richard, the globalists probably have their eyes fixed on Malaysia right now. This is because it's predominantly Muslim, it has natural resources and it has recently held a war crimes tribunal against Tony Blair and George W Bush; it also doesn't currently owe any money to the World Bank and has not sold off its gold at discount prices like most other countries. Could this be why Malaysian Airlines have had such bad luck lately, losing two aircraft in the space of a few months? Richard has calculated the odds of that happening by chance and they're staggeringly small. However Skeptics will still say this is "just a coincidence!" And this brings us on to the coincidence fallacy. Nothing physically possible is so unlikely that you can say: "This can NEVER happen!" therefore a Skeptic can use a coincidence call to debunk almost anything. There needs to be a discussion about what "level of likelihood" would become the universally agreed cut-off point between what is to be considered random and what is to be considered intentional, a statistical ceiling. This so far has never been done and therefore coincidence has become something of a trump card for Skeptics, an unfalsifiable wreaking ball that they can drive into any debate, see here for more details: Richard paused the footage of the Malaysian trial of Blair and Bush and pointed dramatically at the screen where Alfred Webre can be seen on the presiding panel. Actually this is not a scoop by Richard; Alfred has said several times himself how he took part in that war crimes tribunal.
However this was a good segueway into the subject of controlled opposition in the Truth movement. I think it's fair to say that Richard regards much of the rest of the Conspirasphere with suspicion and disdain. Sometimes he is unfair, as I said in my review of the London event, see above. This may be one of the reasons he has remained such a lone wolf. He has never openly made unfounded accusations, but he has implied many times that certain individuals within the UFO/conspiracy/paranormal community are compromised. He is no doubt correct in some cases, but I caution him against being overzealous. I've explained in a recent HPANWO TV production how excessive and hasty shill-shaming can do far more harm than good, see: One of the few people Richard does trust and works closely with is Andrew Johnson who has also suggested several people as possible candidates for cointelpro. A lot of Andrew's frustration comes from a very legitimate and justified gripe: why has the 9/11 Truth movement been so reluctant to accept the definitive research of Dr Judy Wood? In his book Andrew relates how 9/11 Truthers, who themselves have been misrepresented and ridiculed by believers in the official nineteen hijackers story, go on themselves to misrepresent and ridicule Dr Judy Wood and her discoveries when they really should know better, see: I myself have fallen into conflict over this, see: Andrew is correct when he says that the "thermitically correct" brigade is a controlled response to 9/11, but I suspect that most of the antagonists he describes in his book are not knowing agents who are purposively corrupting the 9/11 Truth Movement; they have merely come down with a failure of nerve. They are frightened to step outside the norms created by the masters of deception who are running the show. A good example of this is the aforementioned Alfred Webre. Webre was interviewing Leuren Moret one day when he interrupted her and told her not to mention Dr Judy Wood; why? The answer might lie in my own experience with the "stop Kevin Annett!" cult; see the link above to my film The Shill Squad. Did Alfred join those people because he was rationally and politely persuaded? I doubt it; based on their usual conduct I suspect he was bullied and browbeaten into accepting their dogma. If so then this would mean he is not very resilient when targeted by "truth mobs" and there have been some really nasty examples of those truth mobs tying to chivvy and chase people away from Dr Judy Wood. There are other kinds of norms in 9/11 Truth. In the UK the "official" 9/11 Truth Movement is very sensitive about its image; it is affiliated to the Stop the War Coalition... although I suspect that this affiliation is one-way and the StWC doesn't reciprocate. However UK 9/11 Truth portrays itself as very middle class and centre left. It eschews anything it considers too "far out" for their shop window, which is why Dr Judy Wood is so unwelcome. Whenever they even bring up the subject of Dr Judy Wood, or "Judy Wood" as they insist on calling her, their line tends to be more: "but what will people think of us!?" instead of: "She's wrong because..." UKT-9/11 wants to be seen as distinctly separate from the rest of the Conspirasphere, which is why I didn't fit in there. I really must one day write a piece on my own experience of my involvement with them, but my general unspoken feelings were well worded by Joshua Blakeney, a British researcher based in Canada: "Do these people really think that if they just spend enough time wearing suits and voting for the Green Party then eventually The Guardian will agree to investigate 9/11 Truth!?"
At the moment Richard awaits his challenge to engage our Fearless Leader David Cameron is a live public debate... which would be hell of a lot more exciting than the election debates that are on TV at the moment. However his eyes have also turned skywards as questions are coming in about Mars. At the moment there are several spacecraft on Mars, including mobile rovers; however Richard is wondering if these missions are faked and the images we see of the Red Planet are just pictures of remote locations on Earth; this is similar to the notion that the moon landings were faked, see: It's perfectly possible, after all if NASA can fake men on the moon, robots on Mars shouldn't be a problem; they don't even have to worry about private individuals with telescopes any more. Why would NASA fake data from Mars? Perhaps because they're trying to cover up evidence of life there. Richard is also changing his strategy to one much more proactive than reactive and he wants to set up his own free energy research project, see: There are a few existing ones of these like Dr Steven Greer's, but this is not to be trusted, see: Michael Tellinger has just emailed his list with an announcement of a free energy discovery; hope it's the real thing, but either way the more people who research this subject the better.

Richard received a well-earned cheer at the end of his lecture. At the time of writing his tour is still underway so do go and see him if you can: Although we have definite differences of opinion, Richard is somebody I really respect and we need more like him if we're going to see the end of this New World Order... and we are. It was getting late by the end of the event and Ustane and I had to catch a bus so we couldn't stay around to talk to Richard, Andrew or any of our other friends who had travelled there. As we left the Belgrave Rooms we saw Jenny Kleeman interviewing a member of the audience. We walked quickly on by.
See here for the latest HPANWO Voice articles: