Richard D Hall December 2020 Presentation "Scamdemic"

[happyuk]

Long awaited new presentation from the Geordie engineer and researcher.

As with much of his important work, this needs to be listened to by millions of people.

He hosts his complete set of videos from the richplanet.net home page (which he prefers his viewers to use) due to unrelenting YouTube censorship.

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_gen...&part=1&gen=99

After taking a six month break from producing videos, Richard returns with a five part series exploring the global corona virus pandemic scam. Richplanet has received nearly 1,000 emails from concerned citizens about many different aspects of this frustrating and highly concerning situation, which humanity has been plunged into. With help from campaigner and Richplanet stalwart Andrew Johnson, Richard explores areas including germ theory, evidence of pre-planning, evidence of fraudulent statistics, legal challenges, vaccination, propaganda, censorship, Bill Gates, Geopolitics and the new monetary and technocratic systems which are being planned as a result of a blatantly engineered "crisis". Humanity is being dehumanised in a number of ways, the population of the world must protest harder if freedom is to be re-gained.

[Tintin]

Thanks for posting this up.

This is only my own view here, but, I don't think the world is holding its breath for Richard's "take" on all this. I'll give it a go, but, and I do mean this kindly, he's not the brightest spark out there. His Madeleine McCann efforts were the best I've seen him do actually and have a lot to merit them.

My two cents....

[happyuk]

Posted by Tintin (here)
Thanks for posting this up.

This is only my own view here, but, I don't think the world is holding its breath for Richard's "take" on all this. I'll give it a go, but, and I do mean this kindly, he's not the brightest spark out there. His Madeleine McCann efforts were the best I've seen him do actually and have a lot to merit them.

My two cents....

Hi Tintin, like me Hall is an engineer. In a previous life as an engineering consultant and contractor he worked on motorway communication networks, nuclear loading systems for the Trident programme and power station data acquisition and control systems. These are all tough, don't-come-back-until-it's-fixed kind of roles. Not to mention running his own IT consultancy.

This puts him light years ahead of most media pundits, YouTube / social media commentators, politicians, medical bureaucrats, newsreaders, actors, rock stars, reality TV contestants, civil servants, mainstream media journalists - and most of the population in general really.

What leads you to believe Hall is not the "brightest spark" out there?

[Brigantia]

Posted by happyuk (here)
Hi Tintin, like me Hall is an engineer. In a previous life as an engineering consultant and contractor he worked on motorway communication networks, nuclear loading systems for the Trident programme and power station data acquisition and control systems. These are all tough, don't-come-back-until-it's-fixed kind of roles. Not to mention running his own IT consultancy.

This puts him light years ahead of most media pundits, YouTube / social media commentators, politicians, medical bureaucrats, newsreaders, actors, rock stars, reality TV contestants, civil servants, mainstream media journalists - and most of the population in general really.

What leads you to believe Hall is not the "brightest spark" out there?

I'm with you there; I've met Richard twice and spoken to him at length; he has an amazing memory and ability to make connections. If you give him an opinion, he will tease out and stretch your reasoning. He does that in a kind way too, never "you're wrong" or "you're an idiot".

I would also recommend his Jo Cox film. I thought that the conclusion that he came to was brilliant, as was his train of thought that led to it.

[Tintin]

Posted by happyuk (here)

What leads you to believe Hall is not the "brightest spark" out there?

That's interesting feedback from you there (and Hikerchick as well.)

Hey, I could be wrong here To answer your question, based on seeing him interviewing people is what prompted the comment. I have at times found him excruciating to listen to and it's that style that doesn't come across convincingly, at least to me, when he conducts interviews; he seems to bumble around. Perhaps that interviewing skill isn't his forté.

Like I said, I'll give his videos a go here, but I'm not expecting anything 'new' that hasn't already been covered eg by someone like James Corbett who, in my view, is streets ahead of other commentators.

I'll provide further feedback, if it's appropriate to do so and helpful in any way, when I've made time to view his contribution.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I've watched and considered a great deal of his work. His best presentations - and required viewing in my opinion for particularly UK viewers - are the documentaries listed here:

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre_menu.php?gen=17

His Madeleine films are stunning, and more comprehensive than any other production I've seen. The Jo Cox, Jill Dando, Patsy Driver, UFOs and NATO films were also top, top quality productions. There are also a large body of 9/11 and 7/7 material in various 30minute episodes. It was with these that he brought Judy Wood to everyone's attention. He does rely rather a lot on the input of Andrew Johnson (also a member here), who is also a bright spark, but in my opinion simply not correct with all his conclusions. But the shows in which Neil Sanders appears should not be missed.

The main caveat I have are with some of the terrorism cases Hall examines (and he examines most of them), where he concludes that virtually all of them are false flag/psyops, that seemingly all terrorism is state sponsored theatre and the victims are just actors (i.e. probably no real casualties involved). I believe his show on the Lee Rigby murder, which he claimed was completely fake, was what got him pulled from TV by Ofcom. I can't seem to find those shows on his site anymore so maybe he removed them?

At any rate, his tinfoil hat is considerably larger than most. He's on the money with a great deal of his research, but in some areas he wanders down the wrong rabbit hole.

My 2 cents.

[Tyy1907]

His work on cattle mutilations and the UFO phenomenon I thought was pretty good. We can all be led astray at times.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
I've watched and considered a great deal of his work. His best presentations - and required viewing in my opinion for particularly UK viewers - are the documentaries listed here:
...

At any rate, his tinfoil hat is considerably larger than most. He's on the money with a great deal of his research, but in some areas he wanders down the wrong rabbit hole.

My 2 cents.

I like Richard as a person. He comes across as being sincere and certainly has strong convictions.

I won't be rushing however to view the work mentioned above anytime soon.

It was his worshipping and proselytizing of Judy Wood's 9/11 D.E.W. work
in conjunction with his no-plane theory for the twin towers that turned
me off from him.

Nice guy though.

[Lazarus]

Hi Happy
Richard D Hall, oh yes. I,m a brand newbie and I honour you with being the recipient of my first reply on Avalon.
Only yesterday I was eagerly scanning Y/T for Richards take on the current shambolic, did,nt know he had taken leave
and was disappointed. Thank you for this info.

[Harmony]

Posted by Lazarus (here)
Hi Happy
Richard D Hall, oh yes. I,m a brand newbie and I honour you with being the recipient of my first reply on Avalon.
Only yesterday I was eagerly scanning Y/T for Richards take on the current shambolic, did,nt know he had taken leave
and was disappointed. Thank you for this info.

Welcome to Project Avalon Lazarus. Thank you for your post and we look forward to reading more from you.

[Justplain]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
I've watched and considered a great deal of his work. His best presentations - and required viewing in my opinion for particularly UK viewers - are the documentaries listed here:
...

At any rate, his tinfoil hat is considerably larger than most. He's on the money with a great deal of his research, but in some areas he wanders down the wrong rabbit hole.

My 2 cents.

I like Richard as a person. He comes across as being sincere and certainly has strong convictions.

I won't be rushing however to view the work mentioned above anytime soon.

It was his worshipping and proselytizing of Judy Woods' 9/11 D.E.W. work
in conjunction with his no-plane theory for the twin towers that turned
me off from him.

Nice guy though.

I think Judy Woods' analysis of 9/11 was superb, and I personally believe they used holograms to disguise the missiles used in 9/11. Have you seen the video of a whale hologram spashing in a gymnasium? That's an example of it in action:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LM0T6hLH15k

[yelik]

I for one thought this was an excellent video. It takes someone with high intelligence to explain stuff in simple terms.

University Professors typically use highfalutin terminology to appear intelligent whilst confusing others to protect their status and Rockefeller grants.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

I like Richard as a person. He comes across as being sincere and certainly has strong convictions.

I won't be rushing however to view the work mentioned above anytime soon.

It was his worshipping and proselytizing of Judy Woods' 9/11 D.E.W. work
in conjunction with his no-plane theory for the twin towers that turned
me off from him.

Nice guy though.

In a subsequent show he thoroughly (and thankfully) retracted his no-plane theory after conducting a detailed and very fascinating second-by-second analysis of the WTC attack, by overlaying a 3d model of Manhattan with the radar tracks he obtained for the two planes, and cross-referencing those tracks with video footage of the second impact from I believe upwards of 40 different angles.

He not only went out of his way to disprove his earlier (pet) conviction but ended up illustrating the reality of two real, physical planes crashing into the twin towers that day, and that there was no video fakery involved. Watch that episode, it's a slam dunk.

It's also a sign that he's a researcher with strong integrity, that all he is interested in is the truth (even if he does get it wrong sometimes).

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Justplain (here)
I think Judy Woods' analysis of 9/11 was superb, and I personally believe they used holograms to disguise the missiles used in 9/11. Have you seen the video of a whale hologram spashing in a gymnasium? That's an example of it in action:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LM0T6hLH15k

Not a hologram, because that technology does not exist. This is simply augmented reality. In other words a composite.

[Mike Gorman]

Posted by Tintin (here)
Thanks for posting this up.

This is only my own view here, but, I don't think the world is holding its breath for Richard's "take" on all this. I'll give it a go, but, and I do mean this kindly, he's not the brightest spark out there. His Madeleine McCann efforts were the best I've seen him do actually and have a lot to merit them.

My two cents....

Could be that this man has a 'working class' Geordie accent, this can sometimes obscure perceptions-he has a very blunt style of speaking, typical engineer really!
i have taken a look, this is a good video, a comprehensive survey of the issues, and sound analysis IMO

[DaveToo]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by DaveToo (here)

I like Richard as a person. He comes across as being sincere and certainly has strong convictions.

I won't be rushing however to view the work mentioned above anytime soon.

It was his worshipping and proselytizing of Judy Woods' 9/11 D.E.W. work
in conjunction with his no-plane theory for the twin towers that turned
me off from him.

Nice guy though.

In a subsequent show he thoroughly (and thankfully) retracted his no-plane theory after conducting a detailed and very fascinating second-by-second analysis of the WTC attack, by overlaying a 3d model of Manhattan with the radar tracks he obtained for the two planes, and cross-referencing those tracks with video footage of the second impact from I believe upwards of 40 different angles.

He not only went out of his way to disprove his earlier (pet) conviction but ended up illustrating the reality of two real, physical planes crashing into the twin towers that day, and that there was no video fakery involved. Watch that episode, it's a slam dunk.

It's also a sign that he's a researcher with strong integrity, that all he is interested in is the truth (even if he does get it wrong sometimes).[COLOR="red"]

Hall has been all over the map with his 9/11 research.

First he did a painstaking 3-D analysis of the flights and determined they were flying orbs!

Then he changed his mind and said they used holograms!!

Then he changed his mind and said they were cloaked missiles!!!

If you could point me in the direction of any video he made where he states two real planes crashed into the towers
I'd appreciate it.


As per his zealous role as a Judy Wood disciple; some credit must be given to Dr. Wood. She did get it partly right. D.E.W.'s were used on 9/11, just not the ones Dr. Wood refers to.
No 'Star Wars' beams coming from space or above ground.
But underneath the towers in the sub-basements D.E.W.'s were used.
Nuclear D.E.W.'s.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by DaveToo (here)
First he did a painstaking 3-D analysis of the flights and determined they were flying orbs!

Then he changed his mind and said they used holograms!!

Then he changed his mind and said they were cloaked missiles!!!

If you could point me in the direction of any video he made where he states two real planes crashed into the towers
I'd appreciate it.

Yes he changed his mind as he dug deeper and conducted more analyses. That's the scientific method, and the sign of a researcher without an agenda. Each and every one of us, me included, have changed our minds, and many times, while developing theories for how exactly the events of 9/11 played out.

The first rule of 'alt' research in my book is, do not rule out the improbable, nor even the absurd. The second being, remain fluid. Assume the conclusion you have reached will not be the ultimate one.

That goes for every theory on every topic.

The 9/11 episode in question is probably this one, where he does state quite clearly (at 26.40) that his conclusion "is merely a theory, and he's prepared to change his views in light of new evidence."

And you can't get fairer than that.

And just because I disagree with the theory of 'missiles' or whatever, it doesn't depreciate the quality of his work in other areas, notably his above mentioned series of documentaries.

Hall is right in one aspect, the WTC towers were not hit by 767s. Not standard Boeing 767s. That's disproven in the first layer of analysis by virtue of structural integrity and the laws of air resistance: a 767 will simply disintegrate flying 500 mph+ at sea-level; its engines also only have 1/6 of the power necessary to even reach that speed at sea-level.

Not missiles and certainly not holograms. I conclude (somewhere in one of the 9/11 threads) that what hit those buildings were planes, but reinforced military grade 767 analogues/lookalikes. But that's another debate.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by DaveToo (here)
First he did a painstaking 3-D analysis of the flights and determined they were flying orbs!

Then he changed his mind and said they used holograms!!

Then he changed his mind and said they were cloaked missiles!!!

If you could point me in the direction of any video he made where he states two real planes crashed into the towers
I'd appreciate it.

Yes he changed his mind as he dug deeper and conducted more analyses. That's the scientific method, and the sign of a researcher without an agenda. Each and every one of us, me included, have changed our minds, and many times, while developing theories for how exactly the events of 9/11 played out.

True an honest researcher will confess to their mistakes and yes I have made my share of them too. But the difference is that I have not gone public with them, whereas Richard has, and that has left him open to criticism about his wavering on this issue.
That is an important distinction. But kudos to him for updating his views and always being willing to change his view if new evidence is presented to him.

Having said that, I find an amazing degree of sloppiness to his 9/11 research even 16-17 years after the events of that day!

The 9/11 episode in question is probably this one, where he does state quite clearly (at 26.40) that his conclusion "is merely a theory, and he's prepared to change his views in light of new evidence."

And you can't get fairer than that.

Star Mariner I was asking specifically:
“If you could point me in the direction of any video he made where he states two real planes crashed into the towers. I'd appreciate it.”

And to that you came up with the above clip at 26.40.

Well I watched that and much more than I probably should have and he never states
that real planes crashed into the towers.

And just because I disagree with the theory of 'missiles' or whatever, it doesn't depreciate the quality of his work in other areas, notably his above mentioned series of documentaries.

Yes I agree with that. But my comment was zeroing in on planes, and you had led me to understand that Hall had finally come around and was now stating that planes did hit the towers. He did not state that in the clip you referenced above.

Hall is right in one aspect, the WTC towers were not hit by 767s. Not standard Boeing 767s. That's disproven in the first layer of analysis by virtue of structural integrity and the laws of air resistance: a 767 will simply disintegrate flying 500 mph+ at sea-level; its engines also only have 1/6 of the power necessary to even reach that speed at sea-level.

Correct, almost every serious 9/11 researcher has come to this conclusion.

Not missiles and certainly not holograms. I conclude (somewhere in one of the 9/11 threads) that what hit those buildings were planes, but reinforced military grade 767 analogues/lookalikes. But that's another debate.

And after years of 9/11 research (on all areas of the events) I agree with your conclusion!


I mentioned I watched way more of the Hall videos at his site now than I really should have. But here are some key points that you and others should be aware of:

From the clip you referred to (around 26.40)

“Right, but I've looked at all of the evidence, I've looked at all of these videos in detail and my current theory is that there probably was something solid that was seen in the sky. I don't think it was a plane. So the most likely explanation in my opinion is, there was some solidness to it, but I suspect it was a missile, alright.
And what we were actually seeing is some kind of fakery.”

” People have called it a hologram, I don't use that word, I don't know what they use. But I do not believe that there was a plane in the sky, I believe that we were being tricked by whatever was seen.”

“Now if we just go down the premise of my theory and as I said I'm prepared to debate this with anyone and I'm prepared to change my view on it, um, and I'm not the first person to suggest that it was a missile cloaked in an image, right.”

The above video was made on Oct 21, 2016

In his Sep 9, 2017 video "Layers of Deception" he did soften his view noticeably, but still found a way to throw in his missile theory towards the end.

Notable quotes from this video and also some summaries:

Andrew Johnson:
He says the litmus test for whether the person is telling the truth about the planes can come from whether the person believes in Dr. Judy Wood and her DEW theory !!!
If they don't believe in the DEW theory then their position on the planes cannot be trusted! LOL!!! I kid you not!


Richard D. Hall: 9:12

"I'll go as far as to say that the planes were at least to some degree faked,” (a softening of his position)

“The Herz. footage seems to go inside and then there's an explosion, so do you think that was, ummm, part of what went inside the building that created the explosion, because it seems to project forwards, part of a missile, which is now exploding?”

Mark Conlon:
“Yeah I'm more of a 'missile may have been cloaked' hypothesis. (as suggested in Pentagate (Meyssan)).

Andrew Johnson:
"Even though the one found in Murray St. in New York, it was under some scaffolding, and there was no crater, you know there was no like bounce, where it bounced along the ground or crashed into the ground, it was just like there, under some scaffolding.”

This is simply pure sloppy research by Johnson! There is plenty of physical evidence
of cratering and bouncing/rolling of the engine until it finally rested under the scaffolding.

Richard D. Hall:
"So somebody could have come around with a van and just dumped it..."

This comment by Richard shows that he too has done little to no research about the Murray St. engine!

"I remember there was a photograph in Milon Lane (?) you know the under-carriage where the wheels come down, there was a wheels stuck between two apartments blocks in N.Y. years and years after, like someone wouldn't have removed it or, whatever?”

Once again this comment shows that Richard hasn’t done his homework with respect to those plane parts!

And then after all this he still posits that it might have been holograms near the end of the video!!!

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Oh yeh I'm totally with you on that Dave. Missiles are a complete dead end. The idea is almost as illogical as holograms. Occam's Razor states (to me anyway), that if - step one - you want to destroy the WTC in a grand spectacle involving two planes crashing into the World Trade Centre, then you actually crash two planes into the World Trade Centre!!

Step two in this scenario - hypothesizing - is that you ensure the desired affect of those collisions: eg enormous explosions, widespread fires, and gigantic holes in the towers. 'Normal planes' won't do that, so you use 'special planes'. They had to look like normal planes because these had to take the blame for triggering the structural failure of the building(s). But they act as merely a key to open the door to step three: initiating the actual but covert structural failure of the buildings (with thermite charges, DEWs, or whatever it was).

That's probably what went down. But anyway, I totally agree Hall is off base here. Way off. I also agree, as I said in post #6, about Andrew Johnson. And whereas I find Judy Wood's work very interesting, there's no slam dunk smoking gun evidence for her 'dustification' model. It is just a theory, although to some it has become an ideology.

Posted by DaveToo (here)
Star Mariner I was asking specifically:
“If you could point me in the direction of any video he made where he states two real planes crashed into the towers. I'd appreciate it.”

Nope can't find one lol, and like you I'm reluctant to go searching for any. But again, just because he's totally wrong in my opinion with his missile theory, it doesn't lessen the value of his other work. If for example you've watched his Maddy McCann films you'll note how impressive and rigorous his determination and research methodology is. He makes connections (in that case) that I've never seen before.

It does beg the question why he's championing such a daft idea as cloaked missiles. It smacks of disinfo if I'm honest, but he just does not strike me as a disinfo artist. Not when you look at his other work. My assumption is that, as I said in post #6, is tinfoil hat has grown too big, as he tends to overlook the mundane and rational in favour of an X-Files type explanation to everything. I'd say he was only guilty of that.

[happyuk]

Another presentation from Rich D Hall, show #299

In part one of today's show, more on the Scamdemic, including a scientific paper which presents the truly shocking and earth shattering claim that CRISPR gene drive DNA has been found within the Pfizer/Biontech Covid-19 vaccine. If this is true, the ramifications are potentially unthinkable. It means that someone has wielded the power to genetically alter not just some, but ALL human beings, because once a CRISPR gene drive is released into a population, the genetic modification that it carries will eventually permeate into the entire population. The claims in this scientific paper have not been confirmed and Richplanet is seeking to have independent tests carried out on the Comirnaty vaccine to either prove or rule out the claim. In part 2 we take another look at self sufficiency and reducing dependence on the "system".

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_gen...&part=1&gen=99

[norman]

Posted by happyuk (here)
Another presentation from Rich D Hall, show #299

In part one of today's show, more on the Scamdemic, including a scientific paper which presents the truly shocking and earth shattering claim that CRISPR gene drive DNA has been found within the Pfizer/Biontech Covid-19 vaccine. If this is true, the ramifications are potentially unthinkable. It means that someone has wielded the power to genetically alter not just some, but ALL human beings, because once a CRISPR gene drive is released into a population, the genetic modification that it carries will eventually permeate into the entire population. The claims in this scientific paper have not been confirmed and Richplanet is seeking to have independent tests carried out on the Comirnaty vaccine to either prove or rule out the claim. In part 2 we take another look at self sufficiency and reducing dependence on the "system".

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_gen...&part=1&gen=99

My big burning question is, what will the genetic change they are making to the whole (remaining) human race manifest as, if they get it done ?

I assume they have a very specific change in mind, and I assume, despite all the noise about "experimental vaccines", that they have been perfecting this secretly in underground facilities for decades using thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of human laboratory test victims.

In my own mind, it's not enough to know they are changing the human DNA, I need to know what into ?

I imagine there are early production specimens of such new humans somewhere. Can I see or meet one ?

What about the possibility that those stories we've heard about hybrid 'aliens' needing training to be humans by being placed in foster home situations were really the early output from this secret underground project ?

Or, is the genetic tweak an alien genetic tweak ? There is so much to know, that we are not even asking yet.

I had a conversation with my brother on the phone recently where he told me a lot of people are now aware that the tv news is lying to them. My replay, bluntly, was big-deal, so now they know it's all lies, how long will it take them to find out and get their heads around what it is they are NOT being told. Realising you don't have the truth is not the same thing as joining truth dots. That's another step up again.

I feel the same thing about this vax scam. Calling every official in the world a corrupt criminal liar ( at best ) gets us no nearer knowing what's really going on.