Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Rochelle Macredie on the Sandy Hook massacre

December 19, 2012, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
December 19, 2012, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

29 December 2012 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ 2012, Sandy Hook Massacre ]

My guest tonight is Rochelle Macredie, LLB, BSc, who joins us to expose discrepencies, anomalies and disinformation in the coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Rochelle's incisive intellect dissects many confusing strands of this story in an attempt to penetrate through the propaganda to work out what really happened and the agenda at work.

Rochelle provides solid facts which dispel some of the myths about the relationship between the availability of guns and homicide, and presents some shocking revelations about the connection between SSRI medications and aberrant behaviour.

Rochelle is a vegetarian and no gun enthusiast, nevertheless she is stridently opposed to gun bans. Why?

As Rochelle puts it: since government was the leading cause of death in the 20th century, handing our weapons back to the government may not be the best way to keep us all safe.

In the second hour I am joined by Damon Crowe, who brings us his perspective on 2012 and the Mayan connection.

Related Links

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:53
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:48
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Cris,

you say that “there is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are, except when rain is likely.”

You can spot jet planes easily if they create contrails, short or long. As I have stated before, contrail conditions usually improve when a weather front is approaching. That explains why you see more jets then.
(As a matter of fact, right now there is a large warm front approaching the area where I live - lots of trails that get more and more embedded into cirrus clouds; tomorrow will be rain all day.)

The big problem is to spot jet planes at cruise altitude when the air is dry up there, and no trails are formed.

It’s hardly possible with bare eyes - not because your or anyone’s eyes are bad, but because the planes are tiny and there is the unwelcome effect of “empty-field myopia”. This means that everyone has trouble focussing on a distant object if there is no reference in the vicinity, like in a uniformly coloured piece of sky. (Leonard Clampett probably knows it from flight school.)

To count any non-trailing planes you need to do a systematic and slow sweep over the visible sky with a pair of binoculars. (You may be surprised!)

Again, have a look at flightaware.com or flightradar24.com, go to your area and see the actual traffic going by your place at any time. Keep in mind that if there are no mountains or buildings blocking the view, you can see contrails in a range of 65 miles and more from your position.

Can you state where you are, county-wise at least? I would like to have a look myself.

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:22:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

I did not talk about ill-meaning individuals when I wrote about the attack on science and reason. I was referring to the ancient caveman in everyone of us, who is always ready to invent a god or some other higher power in order to construct a simple explanation when reality becomes to complex to grasp.

Let me stress that I believe that no one is really safe there, and that it requires an act of will to escape the attraction of explaining world problems away by postulating some secret evil power. I can’t really blame people who fall for it (I myself was into UFOs as a teenager), but unfortunately it distracts from the real problems; consequently I am convinced that someone should give a voice to skepticism ...

That all aside, have you researched ice supersaturation and the creation of water during combustion of hydro-carbons?

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:17:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hi Josh
You have a problem. There is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are,except when rain is likely.Beside that how would you explain 3 planes abreast spewing the rubbish out? Isn’t that a bit odd? Do Jets usually fly 3 abreast? Do they make circles, checker boards and other weird patterns? And for the record an ex Ansett 767 pilot who came here thinking I was exaggerating about the amount jet made chemtrails, only when rain was forecast, admitted the situation was exactly as I stated. He was a senior pilot, trained in meteorology. I’d say his views should be taken seriously. I believe there is approaching 150 patents for atmospheric modification chemicals alone. Am I to presume that HAARP’s coupling with the chemicals is a fairy story too?
Ignore at your peril. Disinform to your disgrace.
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 08 29 - 13:13:26
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josua Dietze. So you no longer have to hide from the public, or is it your real name? Wanting to know a name is not a fixation, it is courtesy to advise who you are unless, of course, you have something to hide from. A friend advised me you had come back to continue to spread misinformation, so, why have you not been able to understand a couple of simple things. The first is “conspiracy”, and the second is “theory”.
CONSPIRACY (Middle English-Anglo French) is defined, in the main, as “an unlawful alliance” and some synonyms include: 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one. A conspiracy usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective: a vicious conspiracy to control prices. A plot is a carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends: a plot to seize control of a company. An intrigue usually involves duplicity and deceit aimed at achieving either personal advantage or criminal or treasonous objectives: the petty intrigues of civil servants. Cabal refers either to a plan by a small group of highly-placed persons to overthrow or control a government, or to the group of persons themselves: a cabal of powerful lawmakers.
THEORY (late Latin and Greek) is defined as a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena, e.g. Einstein’s theory of relativity.
I am wondering just what seditious, evil, criminal, treasonous, surreptitious, illicit, harmful objectives you believe we, who understand that chemtrails are real, have entered into as a group to viciously “conspire” to cause harm to whomever you think would be harmed by telling the truth as opposed to spreading falsehoods.
In order to conspire, as you can see, a group must enter into some kind of agreement to cause harm. So, the question for you, as the claimant that says people “conspire” to cause harm by pointing out that chemtrails are real, is, “What is the harm that would be caused, and to whom, by those who understand that forces are at work to modify atmospheric conditions, by way of atmospheric spraying of unnatural ingredients to have power over all?”
Do you believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or hundreds of millions of people, across the globe are “conspiring’ with each other to do harm by telling of chemtrails?

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 08 29 - 10:48:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:55
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:52
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Categories