Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Mass media deception and Schapelle Corby

October 7, 2009, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

08 October 2009 | Permalink | comments: 11

Schapelle Corby

In tonight's program we continue our investigation of the Schapelle Corby case, which we began in an earlier podcast.

I have as my guest Schapelle's uncle, Shun Hatton, who joins us from Darwin.

Tonight we examine in depth evidence which suggests that mainstream media organisations engaged in a deliberate campaign to discredit Schapelle and her family, and we present the startling revelation that this campaign of vilification was orchestrated at the highest levels of government, with active collusion from Australia's public broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

In particular we focus on the allegations made by investigative reporter John Stewart, in a Lateline program aired on 4 July 2008, which asserts that Schapelle's father was involved in the drug trade. When originally broadcast these assertions were offered as "facts".

The ABC later acknowledged that they "should have made it clear that these were allegations, not facts", however this retraction did little to reverse the massive effect on public opinion caused by the original program.

Today marks the fifth anniversary of Schapelle's incarceration in Bali. Her health is deteriorating rapidly. Clearly there is more than enough "reasonable doubt" in this case to warrant major diplomatic efforts to have Schapelle returned to Australia. Instead we have seen a carefully crafted campaign to turn public opinion against her - and the only plausible reason for this is political expediency.

We all suffer as a result of this assault on our democracy and human rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmJBTK-fpOk
| PART 2


More links:

Comments

I hate this world…so many lies and no one cares!<br><br>Free Schapelle viva Schapelle!<br><br>May I think of her every day :(<br><br>Regards John

By John Bursill on 2009 10 08 - 22:55:12

The media burying of Schapelle Corby has been the most obscene episode in the shameful history of Australian broadcasting and publishing. The media have been a tool of political corruption and complicity, and a young woman is slowly being tortured to death as result. <br><br>Public opinion has been subdued and managed at will, with every smear, every lie and every hidden truth being a nail in an innocent’s coffin.<br><br>I hold my hand up to Truth News for having the courage and integrity to scratch the surface of this, and to begin to expose a scandal that makes all decent people shudder. <br><br>Thank you for standing up to be counted, and for confronting those with zero regard for human rights and human life.

By Mark Watson on 2009 10 09 - 02:39:38

Whether or not she is actually guilty means nothing.  As previously said, there is enough doubt.  Heaven and earth was moved to return a “convicted terrorist” to Australia and free him, but nothing has been done to return a “convicted drug runner”. <br><br>Both were convicted in “kangaroo courts”, and neither conviction could have occurred if they had been tried in Australian courts.<br><br>So why did David Hicks matter while Schapelle Corby did not?

By Christine Kent on 2009 10 09 - 12:15:02

Great show. It’s very sad to hear her speak. Its clear she was innocent. And from a legal standpoint beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.

By Foolmetwice on 2009 10 10 - 12:53:47

I have struggled to comprehend why the Australian media took it on themselves to so blatantly go out of their way to destroy any chance Schapelle Corby had of defending herself prier to her guilty verdict and afterwards prier to her appeals. I have read the many comment’s that should not have been expressed by representatives of the Australian Government the Australian Federal Police, her QC and subsequently her x lawyer Robin Tampoe. If this case had been held in Australia many would have been charged with professional misconduct I am sure of this amid Tampoe being the first to be struck off.<br><br>In all my years of being involved with the media, I have never before witnessed such obscene and gutter journalism. With the continuous airing of negative press via TV and print media over the past five years I have watched the media damage this young woman’s life “forever” and this will go way past her 20 year guilty conviction, not to say what they have done to her family’s character.<br><br>Is it not so blatantly obvious that Schapelle Corby’s fundamental human right’s have been exploited? Schapelle Corby is an Australian and is seen by many as a political prisoner a prisoner locked away in a filthy 3rd world prison out of sight of the Australian Governments eyes being used by some in the Indonesian prison system as a tourist attraction which to generate extra rupiah.. <br><br>It is known fact tourists can pay anything up to $100 AU 852,234 Indonesian Rupiah to view Schapelle in the Kerobokan prison court yard and you don’t have to be a member of her family or a friend to do so, you just have to cough up the bucks and you’re in. Schapelle Corby is nothing more than a caged human locked away for profiters. <br><br>What evidence did the Indonesian’s have? a boggy board 4.2 kg of marijuana which Schapelle categorically states even though being diagnosed as insane, the marijuana found in her bag did not belonging to her, it was placed in her bag by someone els.<br><br>This young women continues to protest her innocence yet NOT one Indonesian or Australian investigative journalist/lawyer will taken up the fight to help free her, so you have to ask why and what are they all afraid of? <br><br>“Is this your bag Miss Corby?” Schapelle YES but that’s not mine pointing to the plastic bag “thank you, we don’t care you said the bag belongs to you, that is all we need to know go straight to jail for 20 years young lady!!!”<br><br>This case is irrefutably bloody scandalous and there are many in the media and Government who are responsible for this women’s present position.

By DG on 2009 10 10 - 20:44:25

Hereward, You should have a donation payment set-up on your site for this. We can get people can fight this injustice through raising funds. something like a grath to show how much is raised to fight these bastards

By Damian on 2009 10 12 - 17:53:13

Schapelle Corbys arrest was beneficial for the AFP for a number of reasons. <br><br>Firstly it was a media feeding frenzy to divert attention away from Gary Lee Rogers AFP Internal Investigator who had uncovered an organised Federal Police Marijuana Smuggling ring, and for his trouble wound up dead…. JUST BEFORE Corby was arrested.  The best way to stop pesky media types asking questions is to have a breaking big story… ENTER Schapelle and her boogie bag.  <br><br>http://southeastasianews.org/corby_special.html<br><br>Curious that the security cameras didn’t work at Sydney Airport…. Nor at Brisbane Airport Nor at Bali Airport.  What are the chances of that?<br><br>Secondly…. Have a guess who took credit for the BIG CORBY BUST in Indonesia?  None other than former AFP trained Indonesian Police Chief who had recently been promoted to Head of Narcotics… Curiously.. the same guy who invited the AFP to BALI to investigate the Sari club bombings… I Made Pastika.<br>http://southeastasianews.org/un_at_bali.html<br><br>Schappelle Corby was Mick Keeltys way of thanking Pastika for a job well done in Bali 2002.<br><br>What a tangled web they weave. Using an innocent person to feather their political careers of these criminals.

By Steve Johnson on 2009 10 14 - 19:01:32

Check out:<br><br>http://www.womenforschapelle.org

By Kim Bax on 2010 01 26 - 02:13:15

run this [blog|page] through [google translate|babelfish] for a [giggle|laugh]. They FAIL [bigtime|epically|pretty bad]

By Madelyn Cairns on 2010 12 07 - 20:19:34

Hello there,<br> <br>Thanks for sharing the link - but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody here at http://www.truthnews.com.au have a mirror or another source?  <br> <br><br>Cheers,<br>Peter

By watch Justin Bieber Never Say Never online on 2010 12 11 - 11:51:59

I check back often, I want to say hello.

By agein65 on 2010 12 18 - 14:24:57

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

you have argued that there would always be natural clouds present if conditions were right for persistent contrails.

In my reply I quoted an atmospheric scientist who spends his life with researching contrails. He says that persistent contrails can form in levels of ice supersaturation that are not yet high enough for natural cirrus formation.

Do you think he is wrong?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:54:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

what is your evidence for the aerosol spraying that you are referring to?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:39:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

There is no reason on earth why one should keep on talking about contrails vs chemtails just because those who launched this aerosol spraying decades ago thought that it would be nice to have the contrails cover story. The starting point for discussion is the claims by geoengineering advocates (such as Clive Hamilton in Australia) that solar radiation management would be a good idea and that aerosol spraying for geoengineering or other undisclosed purposes is not already a global reality. And the onus of proof is on them, i.e. those that are making this claim.

By Wayne Hall on 2014 11 01 - 16:42:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh dumdum,
you still seem incapable of comprehending the simple fact that i consider engaging seriously with you a complete waste of time..

your only qualification from the school of sophistry does not qualify you to pretend you are some sort of expert on anything, and again, nothing you say is of any interest to me. you have failed time and time again to prove people should not be concerned.

i dont need you to tell me anything, nor does anyone else. there are plenty of qualified experts who are not afraid to put their names to their claims who id trust way before someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on nondescript websites trying to “debunk” the truth…

that is the lie.

 

 

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 10:20:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 09:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:34:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

By Cris on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories