Joseph comments about his blog "What the Hell is Going on in the Alternative Research Community" and also about the recent lawsuit of Chris Hedges against the Obama Administration.


Link to Chris Hedges' Interview on Democracy Now:

Chris Hedges' Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Meritt Conley on January 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    We are all either telescopes or microscopes or barometers; we are individual instruments measuring the reality around us, as well as having a hand in creating it. In that respect, it takes a consortium of people who can meet on certain agreements and in certain tangential psycho-social arenas to fully flesh out the truth. You have a truth based on belief and a truth based on fact, but that fact is derived from the same perception that the belief is; namely, perception. I trust the oral traditions of our ancestors in that nothing speaks to the attention so much as someone whom you know and love and trust sitting down with you and telling you, “This is important for you to remember. This is the history of your people. We’ll revisit it several times in your life to make certain you have it straight and can repeat it.” That tradition has its’ downfalls, of course. A description of some ancient alien overlords that created us as a slave race may have been met at some point with the question, “What did their skin feel like?” To which the answer may have been, “Oh, no, we couldn’t touch them.” That social taboo could then have been interpreted as meaning incorporeal as opposed to unacceptable.

    Written tradition has been accepted in Western civilization for quite some time and, excluding true researchers such as yourself, is widely accepted, perhaps too much, as having originated from a trustworthy source. The stakes are higher in the mass-proliferation of information in this way due to the danger that, if something is published that is untrue or mistaken or based on partial knowledge, it becomes a widely held and fiercely defended part of the general culture and is much harder to remove or even question.

    In these two approaches, we find a dichotomy of trust in the individual vs. trust in the society. In the alternative, or independent, research community, where so much speculation must exist from the outset of the journey toward polished, cohesive information, this split is easy to see because it manifests from an already fractured belief and a questioning of the socially acceptable trust. Because of that divide, the tendency to process information from “standard” sources being mixed with experiential data in the same myriad presentation of the question drives the propensity to believe one over the other.

    All of this speaks to the central division of humanity itself. In the same way that Democrat vs. Republican or nature vs. nurture attempts to cordon off the spiritual, truth based on fact vs. truth based on belief have effectively divided this community and forced it into a closely-knit, scattered quasi-meeting of the hearts and minds of those who question. A house divided, based on the unknown something that dwells within the darkness of the chasm between heart vs. head, right-brain vs. left, masculine vs. feminine, logic vs. impressionistic.

    What I look for in the presentation of truth based on anything is; a corroboration of sources, an investigation into who they are and what their motivations might have been, and a clear, cohesive tendency for the new information to solve more than one question about the general subject. If two or more shooters could more appropriately answer several questions about the JFK assassination, then that theory will garner more belief from me than the lone nut theory. We have to remember that anyone who is willing to participate in such a community as this is starting out with questions and a general concern for themselves, their families, and the world around them. They are therefore coming from a place of acceptance of new awareness, even if their discernment isn’t fully tempered. The last thing they need is to enter into a divided house with an already divided consciousness. Because of the fragmented nature of the research, a lot of disparity exists in the subject matter presented at any conference at any one time. I’d like to see a move toward the separation of topic more clearly defined so that a persons’ question may more readily be addressed, even if they don’t yet know how to phrase it.

    Sorry for the long answer, but it’s a large concern and can’t be addressed without the proper considerations taken toward truth, belief, and the manner in which these subjects are naturally expressed within the consciousness of the individual, both biologically and philosophically. Thanks so much for your pioneering work and I hope to see much more of it in the future. Not to say that you need to work more. As a matter of fact, why don’t you have a smoke right now and think about a calm boat ride or something. Hope you have a great day/week/month/apocalyptic year, Dr. Farrell!

    • Robert Barricklow on January 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      The struggle of man against power is
      the struggle of memory against forgetting

      • Meritt Conley on January 24, 2012 at 6:04 am

        But the only thing more dangerous than evil people with power (or knowlege, or guns, etc.) is good people without it.

        • Robert Barricklow on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm

          Like the peoverbial road to hell is paved with good intensions

  2. Jon Norris on January 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    I think split has always existed, and I have always looked for people like you who not only cite and reference your work, but also share the process of analysis and the reasons why you weight various sources in your deliberations.

    I think there are actually 3 categories: serious researchers who cite and reference their work with checkable sources, pseudo-serious or wannabe researchers who try to make it look like they are doing what the first group does, and the flat out fluffy new agers who consider any passing thought a “source of information.”

    My favorite example of the second group, who shall remain nameless, uses as a “source” in “proving” he is on the right track in one “investigation,” a newspaper article that an elderly relative of a friend of his once thinks she read, but cannot remember the paper, the date, the reporter, or any other details, and which article cannot be located in any known newspaper archive (obviously having been “scrubbed”). To even mention such a thing is pathetically ludicrous, and instantly paints the author as an absolute fruitcake with no powers of reason whatsoever.

    Or a paid shill.

    I also think that some researchers start out in one camp but can be drawn into the others (Hoagland and Comet Elenin come to mind) for whatever reason. I thought his analysis of the physics of the mysterious “ice particles” in the STS-48 video was very rigorous and thoughtful, but his work on Elenin was just sad. This can happen when they trust the wrong people and get manipulated, or when they just lose their way as any human can. We all have egos, and others can learn to push our buttons and make us believe our own PR instead of staying centered.

    I see this in other areas as well, such as health and nutrition, Gullible Warming, etc. I think it is a convergence of the trends of information overload, deliberate disinformation campaigns, the awakening part of the population who want to take a more active role in their own growth and evolution, the stratification of society by knowledge and cognitive ability, and so on.

    I do see a great many more people beginning to question the status quo and looking into things for themselves. For these people, researchers like you who take the time and trouble to line out the process of research and evaluation as well as offer conclusions are vital to the continued growth and education of the awakening public.

    I think the lines, which were always there, are becoming clearer and more distinct. I have felt a clear shift in energy in the last few months, and the number of people I encounter who are beginning to question things more openly and thoughtfully appears to be increasing rapidly. I hate to give any credence to the whole “Quickening” thing, but I have noticed some fairly powerful shifts in my own life as well as the lives of others around me. I am hoping this is in actuality the positive change which some 2012 folks have predicted, but I really don’t care how one labels it, it is either happening or it isn’t, and that should be pretty clear fairly soon.

    On the other hand, if it turns out that Elenin was indeed a harbinger of this change, then I will owe Hoagland an apology for dissing his Elenin stuff on my blog. (And will gladly do so.)

    I think you are spot on with your observation.

    • paul degagne on January 24, 2012 at 4:52 am

      All this CHECKING REFERENCES sounds a bit like someone has learned or taken their college course instructions TOO LITERALLY or TOO MUCH TO HEART?( in this dumbing era it’s usually the reverse that is true)

      So you are reading something that refers to a book in some library in WEST – MONGOLIA. Only one in existence.

      How in the world would YOU check that for its VALIDITY OR ACCURACY? (you say photo-copies, nope, for the one doing the coping could be a FORGER. You will have to check-out his credentials, and will have to check out the credentials of the one checking out the credentials of the other. SO ON AND SO FORTH!)

      NOW add that with about a HUNDRED other sources that NEED to be checked! (I can PREDICT your not going to get much WORK DONE unless your FILTHY RICH and can afford a huge team of GO-FERS! — even then GO-FERS are KNOWN TO FUDGE a little here and there?)


      This may not be related to the above? Maybe it’s even a STRETCH on my part?

      I read that INFORMATION (DATA) is different from MEANING? (this so-called DISTINCTION greatly arouses my curiosity.)

      First — there is practically no information so what little there is is very valuable.
      Second — there is much information and much work can get done.
      Thirdly — there is an avalanche of Information and it FLOODS EVERYTHING for it takes ages to sort it out if even that IS POSSIBLE?

      So in an ENVIRONMENT like the present (I am not saying this fits everywhere?) —- CHECKING SOURCES is not the highest PRIORITY because YOU WILL PROBABLY BE AN OLD MAN OR WOMAN BY THE TIME something gets to the point where one can say, “PROVEN!”

      • paul degagne on January 24, 2012 at 5:26 am

        This IDEA that MEANING is different from INFORMATION really appeals to me?

        I am thinking of a FACTS MAN — for example QUAZAR reminds me of one of these FACTS, AND NOTHING BUT THE ‘FACTS’ kind of MAN. (although I wouldn’t say he’s the highest example of this, ha, ha?)

        Ever come across them? ( actually they remind me of ABSURDITY and I feel better because I am not THEE.)

        Then there are THOSE who like a good story. A GOOD STORY has what is called MEANING?

        The FACTS MAN would deny that such a thing as MEANING even exists. He/she might assert, It’s just STRUCTURAL UNITS IN A LINGUISTIC SYSTEM (SYNTAX) and that’s all it is. Or you can BREAK IT DOWN to purely units only. Any further speculation is just that for–


        This concept of MEANING IS just some FANTASY HUMANS HAVE MADE UP!

        (very CHILLING INDEED if you call this in question then spend a night out with someone like B. F. SKIN-HEAD. I aint absolutely certain of this for maybe he can be CHARMING like a COPRA IS — or did I get this comparison wrong?)

        “UNITS,” my young man! Don’t annoy me with your RELIGIOUS TENDENCIES!

        DOESN’T THAT SOUND LIKE SOMEONE IN HERE? I give you 3 guesses WHO? Ha, ha! (Ok? I’ll give you a hint —- HE —–HOOTS—- LIKE A MINERVA OWL?)


        Well, something of this sort went on between two famous anthropologists. The meaning defender was a guy called STANLEY DIAMOND and the facts man was LEVI STRAUSS.

        So Strauss conceded (?) to Diamond by saying or admitting that there are some written stories that are so good or well written they draw you into further reading— BUT THAT’S ALL IT IS!


        Not quite SHERLOCK, for that is exactly what MEANING IS — that ATTRACTION that wont go away even when broken down to units!


      • paul degagne on January 24, 2012 at 6:43 am

        A thought or memory came to my mind after these two posts. It was something Noam Chomsky wrote which brings me further to how the MAN — PUT IT TO WARD CHURCHILL? (old news but so what, I am not in the broadcasting business. I am in the understanding business and I don’t have a payroll —too bad for I cant pay myself dividends.)

        CHOMSKY STATED: if your spreading any kind of NONSENSE in the interest of the ELITE then you can say and quote anything and it GOES or STANDS.

        BUT, but — just try and state a FACT that the ELITE would not like to be KNOWN and you have to PROVE every little-itsy-bitsy word. (nothing like TIE-ING UP ONE’S TIME and RESOURCES proving the SKY IS BLUE!)

        About Ward Churchill — HE WON HIS LAWSUIT but guess what —the jury only awarded him ONE STINKING DOLLAR! ( I would consider that a slap in the face but Native Americans are STICKLERS for LAW AND JUSTICE and even a SYMBOLIC VICTORY is WORTHWHILE. Plus I imagine with all his books out in print he may not be so desperate for $$$$$$. I am only assuming or guessing here but I didn’t see him CRYING over the sic VERDICT?)

        Someone more NEUTRAL explained his disgresion (PREDICAMENT) from standard research procedures was so minor that if everyone had to STRICKLY follow it most writers would be up in court too.

        He posted something like 350 or was it 250 SOURCES and I think 3 later knocked down to one (I think) so called plagerism but then not even that but some misquote and not even that but some WORD ANALYSIS THING in which the WORD can have multible meanings BUT HIS ENEMIES can assert THAT IT HAS ONLY ONE MEANING. (just like DICTIONARIES DICTATE)

        So watch out and pick your ENEMIES with care. If they happen to have REAL POWER then act accordingly for SAFETY’S SAKE.


        (if might not if you were in charge but we know YOUR NOT IN CHARGE, SI-SENIOR?)

        They once said this to LITTLE-BOY-BUSH (who is rumored to stick a firecracker up a frog’s anus to scare his little sister. A rumor we LOVE TO BELIEVE, ha,ha!) —YOUR INVENTING REALITY!




        What REALITY —WORDS —- BOTH WAYS. I think CHURCHILL IS BETTER OFF GETTING —KICKED OUT from where? A place he was too lazy to leave because it’s TIME WAS UP? And —the sic ‘ESTABLISHMENT” was happy because they got to SET an EXAMPLE for all those brave professors shaking in their NAZI BOOTS!

  3. marcos anthony toledo on January 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    The problem with the Black Forrest saucer crash is Germany would have been crawing with British,French,Soviet,Polish spies at the time and if that story were true that item would have been at the top of their list in their technology searchs at the end of WW II..

  4. Robert Barricklow on January 20, 2012 at 9:47 am

    The following Two Minute video exemplifing ‘Diva Capital Research’:

    • Robert Barricklow on January 20, 2012 at 9:53 am

      • paul degagne on January 20, 2012 at 10:06 am

        THAT SONG —-the knee bone is CONNECTED to the thigh bone, the thigh bone is connected to the HIP bone, the hip bone is CONNECTED to, gee – I FORGOT, what is the hip bone CONNECTED TO?


        HA, HA!

      • paul degagne on January 20, 2012 at 10:21 am

        Thanks Robert —

        I just got a LANGUAGE LESSON in just 1 minute and 49 seconds flat!


        • Robert Barricklow on January 20, 2012 at 10:29 am

          This guy is either a politician or Norm Crosby’s son.

  5. HAL838 on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 am

    I’ve always thought of that as ‘independent research’ rather than ‘alternative’
    because the latter only gives to an idea of narrow research against
    the ‘mainstream,’ whereas ‘independent’ seems to address many views
    from others in many forms of research or stated opinions, as long as those
    opinions are not tauted as ‘fact.’

    I also have no doubt that I hold in that sentence the rope for anyone to
    hang me with.

    The political piece I wrote from two minor college thesis, combining
    them with a bit of rewrite that was stolen by an editor, contained
    a brief on minority/majority and how I thought that our [supposed]
    form of government was not so much based on that , as many believe;
    but meant to encompass the indivdual,
    often drowned out, but many times right, found
    mostly postumously !
    And that speaks to prejudice more than to how our government was
    formed to take into account that individual.

    This is very often found out when the accepted [usually majority]
    viewpoint is tried and fails.

    [Of course, I now realize that we are far and away from the
    country’s founding purpose and origins Constitutionally,
    and that entire idea is more idealistic than it ought to be.]

  6. LSM on January 20, 2012 at 7:54 am

    not all of ancient/present-day orthography is the truth nor are all present-day verbalizations falsehoods- tricksters have been around since air

  7. paul degagne on January 20, 2012 at 4:00 am

    Sorting out in the process of PANNING for gold.

    I like this better than all that DIGGING IN A DARK CAVE? (At least one can feel the warmth of SUNLIGHT on my shoulders/ back after a chilly early dawn panning for gold up some shit-creek nobody cares to visit (they say, ‘What’s there? Absolutely NOTHING! IT”S A DEAD-END chump!)

    They may be right about this “chump” business but from what I gather all those ‘Fields” have been exhausted. NO TEN POUND NUGGETS THERE. Maybe a little dust but not much.

    My philosophy is go where NO-ONE suspects where the probability of HITTING on something is almost NIL but this SOMETHING can be ENORMOUS.(who says the days of ESCTACY ARE OVER!)

    {{{{Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING kind of thing?}}}}}

    Some say the opposite —- for when one is aware of all this, as you put it –NEW AGE FANTASY! (maybe the reason so many people (the public) go for this kind of DIET is because secretly or unconsciously they already sense the nothing and want no DAM PART OF IT so they go-fer the something which is really NOTHING REVERSED!)


    I like running water coming from my faucet and washing machines! Screw this bucket carrying and scrub-boards. I chose death before inconvenance even if I already know WHAT the KARATI KID found out scrubbing fences.


    Nah, I am only putting you on here? If it is the mother-lode than I would break-my-back helping even at age 62! I think one of the problems in this area is there are sheep in disguise as wolves(pining for a leader) and the rest are a bunch of kitty-kats who are not going to herded at any cost ( or believe anything)

    (Aint I so smart PINNING THE TAIL ON MY BIG-BUT like that game we use to play as kids?)

    Who gets stuck with the DIRTY-WORK? JANITORS THAT’S WHO. Just like mother’s who have to clean messes. ALL THOSE TALL MAGNIFICENT BUILDINGS OF SCIENCE but without a janitor soon nobody wants to get into them. AND I always was told the SPY IN-ON the real-secrets will CONVINCE you he is just a JANITOR? ( They never get caught because WHO HIM (?)— he’s just the janitor!)

    Farrell, there is at LEASTsome finnancial renumifications (I know my spelling is atroacious but I too am not a WEBSTER MAN, ha, ha!) not to mention a bit of prestige along with that that is especially nice as one get older in age.

    While this video clears up nothing (at least for me) it does slightly pin down a problem? The problem I am certain you know about but I think you avoid for obvious reasons. (why confound muddy waters?)

    • paul degagne on January 20, 2012 at 4:27 am

      I must confess — I FIBBED! I will confound MUDDY-WATERS for I like the blues too.

      I bought this interesting but difficult book a little while back called MORE(in red) Radical Hermeneutics (in white) underneath (about an inch in red) is a small letter “not’
      by an author called John D. Caputo.

      On the back cover is a reference “Studies in Continental Thought —John Sallis, general ediitor.

      This time I wont write the entire paragraph but just a few sentences on the back-cover of this book.

      In the middle of it is:

      “We have not been chosen as
      earthly instruments, and there is no supreme SECRET (he capitalized the first letter, I do the rest) to which some have been given privileged access; we make our way through the world hoping to find
      meaning and structure in our ‘factical” lives. But this is not all bad news. Ac-
      cording to Caputo, the necessity of interpretation, which arises from lack of
      access to the Secret, radicalizes hermeneutics, opens interpretations and per-
      spectives, and prevents the dominance of any one point of view.”


      I will gladly exchange clarity for MASSA COMFUSSIA ( the Prima Matera of Alchemy)


      as in the paragraph = ” ….prevents the dominance of any one point of view.”


      Have a bountiful day and I will be looking forward to your next presentation. ( I like your modesty)

    • paul degagne on January 20, 2012 at 5:42 am

      The word INDEPENDENT is an excellent SUBSTITUTE. (until it is spoken or NAMED a zillion-times like the word – DEMOCRACY)

      Now how can we BRAINSTORM WORDS that ellicit or GENERATE

      responses like Farrel’s article did?

      Come on guys — IF WE COULD then FARRELL could neglect the money side of things freeing up MORE-TIME for prospecting!

      ( and maybe some outdoor camping as well. Or even a fine-meal now and then?)

      Instead of the DEGENERATE —GIMMICKS—- getting others RICH IN THIS FIELD —

      he could come up with a real page turner STRANGER THAN FICTION!

  8. Ramura on January 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    You have a Facebook page? I didn’t know that!

    I didn’t know about TheByteShow for the longest time, either, until I heard you mention it in a chat one time. Maybe I haven’t poked around this page enough (“Other?”) yet, but I would like to see this page have links to both, and any other places where your work can be found consistently, somewhere on THIS page (right edge somewhere?)

    As for the content of this chat, what can I say? I LOVE the weirdo stuff (Camelot, Fulford, Martinez & Friends, RMN)…but I take it all with a grain of salt. I take a “wait and see” attitude, although I must say I LOVE the scenario of the idea of White Hats (or Bix Weirs “Road to Roota” theory that actually makes Alan Greenspan a HERO of returning to the gold standard!) preparing behind the scenes for the inevitable crash of the current system. I really don’t want to live a Mad Max existence or have a complete mess when that happens. So I LIKE the idea that there may be people within those institutions who see what is going on, know who each other are, and are ready to take the wheel and put a well-though-out structure in place that favors the little guy for a change. So, although I am not expecting Jesus or the Galactic Federation (or its many clones) to come save us (if they do I would consider it psyops, for sure!), I guess I AM still in the thrall of the idea of being rescued by SOMEONE! I am not holding my breath for that, either, but clearly I still have a way to go on this issue…

    That said, YOU are the one that I buy the books, pay the membership (finally!), tell my friends about, and listen to the interviews. Just the way you think and the excellent case you have been steadily building for several years HAS shifted my opinion on a LOT of things, including the concept that Nazi Int’l is behind the UFO flap and subsequent “cover-up.” I have felt for a long time that MOST of the UFOs are now secret government craft, but it really hadn’t occurred to me that they didn’t back-engineer ET technology until you posited that everything so far could be done by humans. It makes sense to me, and I am trying to catch up as quickly as I can on your more recent books that cover that aspect. I DID always wonder why Admiral Byrd’s “north pole” people spoke German, except to think that, yes, the Nazi’s had hooked up with the Inner Earther’s or something. So I am now looking at a lot of past assumptions in a whole new light.

    So, thanks! I am “waving” back at you. I am waiting for P-on–D “Yahweh” and bought another as a gift for friend online last night! Can hardly wait to get it in print; and “Saucers” arrives Tuesday from amazon. Yeah!

  9. tom m on January 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Joe Farrell: I agree with your argument regarding what I call the Wild Bunch speculators. There is far too much dependence on insider undocumented emotional blah blah. There is no doubt that insider contacts are helpful but it must be balanced with reliable/confirmed information.

  10. Charles Frith on January 19, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    With respect to documents versus video testimony what is the difference (in the 21st century) between a piece of paper asserting a fact and a person? Stanton Friedman for example is a shill and this has been well supported by Douglas Dietrich in his video testimony based upon his document shredding at the Grand Presidio in San Francisco. Friedman was wheeled out when it suited the authorities to play up Roswell as a UFO incident when it was likely a Japanese Fugo balloon issue.

    Trusting paper over video testimony only has an edge as part of a bureaucratic paper flow which is harder to forge and has a robustness to it in terms of context and history but the hard to swallow evidence is the video testimony of Mr Dietrich doesn’t fit the wider Roswell obsession framework in the UFO community. There’s a strong possibility of the Trickster archetype throughout all this as ever in the field and that’s worth factoring in.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on January 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm

      Good point Charles! And point well taken!

    • LSM on January 20, 2012 at 8:24 am

      I couldn’t agree with you more- love your website- you post truly thought-provoking videos-

      your last Dietrich posting was a real hum-dinger-

      my grandparents came from Siebenbürgen/Transylvania in Romania (the primarily German/Hungarian-speaking section)-

      my aunt (mother’s sister) battled her whole life and subsequently succumbed to a very rare form of Leukemia (official allopathic diagnosis)- she had been diagnosed at a very early age as being very iron-deficient (?)-

      I simply don’t know if there was another “coefficient” involved or not-

      but I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the more bizarre/weird a concept initially appears the more truth there just MAY be behind it (have had too many freaky experiences in my life since my childhood not to believe this)-

      Larry in Germany

    • paul degagne on January 21, 2012 at 3:48 am

      I am thinking of a famous picture of Stalin and the WHITE-OUT of someone in that picture who was disposed of or purged.

      With today’s media-technology — They could put ‘CHARLES FRITH’S likeness on a screen and have Charles’s JAWS flapping/moving up and down like some VENTRILOGIST’S DUMMY.

      WHO WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? (this is funny but I don’t mean it the way it sounds?)

      So it ‘s coming soon to where ‘SEEING ISN’T BELIEVING.”


Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events