Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

The political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby

November 2, 2011, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

03 November 2011 | Permalink | comments: 7
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Schapelle Corby ]

 

WARNING: this podcast will make you angry.

If you take the information seriously and research the links we provide, you will soon realise that the people who govern you have no decency or integrity. If you have a conscience at all this will force you to take a stand. You will not be able to sit on the sidelines any more.

You will be radicalised.

The substantive facts in the story of Schapelle Corby are not well understood, largely because the media has done such a good job of muddying the waters and putting doubt into the minds of the public. We wish to set the record straight, and we wish to inspire the people of Australia to demand accountability from their elected representatives in government. We wish to hold the media to account, and we want the purveyors of baseless smears and hit pieces to be brought to some kind of justice.

In our system of laws a person is innocent until proven guilty. A person does not have to prove innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt. Like it or not, that is the underlying principle of the laws which govern our land, and that is what differentiates a country like Australia from despotic regimes around the world where people can simply disappear if they offend the tyrants who rule over them. It is central to democracy.

We are not claiming absolute proof that Schapelle is innocent. We are claiming an astonishing lack of proof that she is guilty. In addition to that, we have overwhelming evidence that the government colluded in covering up information which may have fully exonerated Schapelle and forced the Indonesians to release her.

For a detailed summary of the the key facts in the Schapelle Corby case, please visit the Expendable Project.

Today's show consists of 2 interviews. The first, conducted on Sydney's Radio Skid Row 88.9 FM, is an interview with one of the creators of the Expendable Project website, who details for us the bombshell evidence that senior members of the Howard government conspired to misinfom the Australian public, Indonesian prosecutors and defence counsel about crucial evidence that Schapelle's bag had been tampered with during her transit from Brisbane to Bali.

In the second interview we talk to Schapelle's uncle Shun Hatton, who knows Schapelle well, and who had been planning to meet her in Bali for the family reunion which ended in disaster in October 2004.

To those who think they know Schapelle is guilty, I wish to remind you that every assertion that has been made linking Schapelle to the drug trade has been debunked. Every single one. There is simply no extant evidence that links Schapelle or her family to the drug trade. Her sister Mercedes continues to live in Bali. She has never been a suspect in any criminal investigation and she won a defamation case against Channel 7 over a series of Today Tonight episodes in which Schapelle's former friend, Jodie Powers, made allegations about the family's drug dealing history. It later emerged that Jodie Powers was paid $100,000 by Seven network for airing these baseless allegations on national TV.

We have previously debunked other rumours about the Corby family which were circulated by mainstream press. For more information on the smear campaigns against Schapelle please check our previous episodes on the subject, and the Schapelle Corby Media Project.

On a final note, if there are visitors to this page who wish to share new information pertaining to this case, we urge you to contact us. Our mission is to find out the truth, rather than to protect or defend any point of view. We will absorb and reflect upon on any new information, regardless of its implications for the guilt or innocence of Schapelle.

Related Links

Comments

Expendable proves Schapelle is innocent. But it also proves something else: that the Howard government were corrupt. They sold her to hide the post 9/11 truth: that the airports were being run by criminals.

They hid evidence. They lied. They covered up. They initiated propaganda. It is there, in their own own letters on Expendable. But not one word in the mainstream media. Silence. If anyone ever wondered why TruthNews was so important, this is the answer.

By Madam Geeky on 2011 11 03 - 19:16:40

It is astonishing how far a government will go in order to hide their shortcomings to the world and it s citizens. The fact that the main stream media in a country like Australia, is aiding this government in spreading false rumours about Schapelle and her family and in doing so manipulating the publics opinion, is to me criminal. They as well are responsible for the condition Schapelle is in now.
Thanks to independent intelligent radio broadcasters like Truth News Australia radio and Radio Skid Row, the truth will come to the people! Thank you guys and girls!

By Nathan Vankerkhove on 2011 11 04 - 10:08:29

I’m not surprised at all how far our governments will go to achieve their own evil ends. Surely we don’t think that our country is immune to the evil, corrupt behavior that we see in other western countries.
Port Arthur should have been our wake up call, at least it was to some. It showed us what some already knew which is that our leaders don’t care about us, not one tiny bit. Their only concern is their own personal gain and they will sacrifice any one of us to achieve their own goals, even a poor innocent girl, at the prime of her life which they took away without a single thought. How will these monsters repay what they’ve taken from Miss Corby ? Will we just stand by without a word as we usually do or will we finally take some action ?

By Jake on 2011 11 04 - 17:11:42

The Schapelle Corby case highlights a disturbing distinction between ‘Eastern” and “Western” court procedure. The principle of innocent until proven guilty appears to be an exclusively “western” protocol with the Indonesian courts adopting the diametrically opposite position.

By Jake on 2011 11 04 - 19:03:44

The notion that under Statute/Admiralty law that one is deemed innocent until proven guilty is incorrect.

The ship of state, “Australia”, is a registered company and by our consent we as crew behave as good corporate citizens under the directorship of our elected board of directors called politicians.

See: http://basic-fraud.com/

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter15.pdf

and

YouTube Mary Croft Interviews

By Kevin Moore on 2011 12 02 - 11:34:31

Looking for remedies?

Season of Treason History. Kurt Kallenbach’s website is here

http://seasonoftreason.tumblr.com/

By Kevin Moore on 2011 12 04 - 14:37:00

Ummm..what rubbish is this site spurting? There are no links between the corby family and the drug trade? What about james? wasn’t he present when the body board was packed? Wasn’t he at bali airport? Doesn’t he have numerous convictions for drug and violent offences?

By The truth on 2011 12 19 - 20:08:04

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Link to freeze point table is broken by comment formatting. Paste the whole next line to browser:

dimitrxe.pp.fi/pub/pol/chem/pages/Persistent Contrail.html

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 06:11:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett wrote:

“You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them.”

Are you saying you have not checked the references I provided?


“Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point”

Again you are ignoring saturation with respect to ice which is not the same as saturation with respect to water. You want to look at the frost point, not the dew point.

Supersaturation with respect to ice can be reached at RH levels of 70 percent and less. Have a look at this table - are you saying it’s wrong?


“The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time”

You are leaving the ground of school-grade chemistry. I have already provided you twice with the chemical equation for kerosene combustion in a jet engine.

For the third time:

2 * C12H26 + 37 * O2—-> 24 * CO2 + 26 * H2O

By the way, here is the benzene combustion in your car - every time the engine runs it creates water:

2 * C6H6 + 15 * O2—-> 12 * CO2 + 6 * H2O

In case you did not notice, the H2O molecules are water. Which is newly created by the combustion.
Again, not my invention, it’s basic chemistry. If you’re saying these equations are wrong, then where are your’s?


“If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist”

That’s not what you have claimed. You described a contrail at around 10 degrees above the horizon and said you determined the altitude to be 10000 feet - with your bare eyes. You did not mention any plane.

Here is what you wrote:

“[...] I took 4 [photographs] today at midday showing two distinct chemtrails at about 10,000 feet near our home at Enoggera near Brisbane, which were about 2,000 feet above some scattered fair weather cumulus cloud”

I had provided a reference to a scientific study that determined the maximum distance for stereo viewing at 160 meters. I won’t quote it again, it’s all on the previous page.

Bottom line is that you have not shown how you could determine the altitude of these contrails as 10000 ft with your bare eyes. Do you know of any other pilot who would believe you?

By Josh on 2015 01 23 - 05:32:31
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

God I’m sick of these dismissive hit pieces with nothing more to offer than an attempt at a boot in the ‘gonads’ at a wholly ambiguous collective. “Sandy Hook trutherism is unforgivable” is it ? Whatever else Sandy Hook was it was a media extravaganza with an agenda and people are entitled to respond to it as such without being turned into parahias.
——————————-
Kathy C | Seller Support Team Manager at Westpac

By Kathy C on 2015 01 23 - 04:50:26
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

She is shallow, unintelligent, scheming, passive aggressive. I wouldnt be suprised if Wills wanted to get shot of her, but in a round about way was just forced into marriage with her because he had never been given the opportunity to play the scene. Here was safe. Hand picked for safe. Boring, smug, shallow kate.
——————————-
Sophie Hackett | Manager at <a >Bank of Melbourne</a>

By Sophie Hackett on 2015 01 23 - 04:44:58
From the entry 'Count me out of the Sandy Hook truther movement!'.

These are great tips! Thanks so much for putting the spotlight on "no plane" and "video fakery" theories!
---------------------
Matilda Barratt | Seller Support Team Manager at St George Bank

By Nancy Barratt on 2015 01 23 - 04:35:03
From the entry 'For those who are on the fence about "No Planes" & "Video Fakery" Theories'.

Leonard Clampett wrote about me:
As an amateur he claims to be more informed than I, as a professional
As I have said several times before - credentials are irrelevant if you don’t get your facts straight. You still have not issued any comments regarding your earlier claims after I have refuted them.
Did you change your stance on supersaturation with respect to ice?
Does it exist and is it a commonly occurring phenomenon as atmospheric science says?
Does one tonne of jet fuel generate roughly 1.3 tonnes of water when combusted?
Isn’t it basic chemistry that burning of any hydrocarbon fuel creates water?
Have you accepted that you can’t determine the altitude of a contrail just by using your stereoscopic view?
By Josh on 2014 12 30 - 08:22:05

Credentials from scientists therefore cannot be relevant if you don’t believe their facts are correct. Is that correct Joshnonymous? Who is the arbiter?
You have never refuted any claims you have simply disagreed with them. You are not right simply because you think you are.
Saturation of a parcel of air is when cloud forms. You can see this occurring in the sky above you on most days. Saturation of a parcel of air is 100% moisture when the temperature is at dew point. Supersaturation in clear air can occur when the water in exhaust emissions from an aircraft at altitude, in the right ambient conditions, condense after being turned to gas in the high temperatures in the can (combustion chamber). When this condensate is left to its own devices it takes up the temperature of the surrounding air and evaporates as the water content fuses into the surrounding drier air. This can take a few minutes but certainly not linger and become cloud as you claim. Otherwise we need just fly a few aircraft around to make cloud and dispense with droughts. That has been tried and does not work for obvious scientific reasons. If the surrounding air was saturated their would be cloud already. The difference between contrails that disappear within a kilometre or two behind an aircraft and those that remain for many minutes is caused by the variance in the humidity. You never see the contrails emitted in cloud do you? Meteorology 101. You get to understand all this in the senior examination studies but not in the hobby pilot exams.
The burning of carbon based fuels does not create water, the water is there all the time, and the aircraft does not carry 1.3 times its fuel load into the upper atmosphere. Weight and balance tables will tell you that. Load data sheets tell you that. The operations crew who load and fuel the aircraft will tell you that. The pilots know that because they do not take off overweight, otherwise their TOLD cards would be wrong every time. The extra water comes from the air masses that are compressed by the engines as they fly through the air masses.
If you cannot tell the difference in altitude between an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet and one at 15,000 feet you should really see an optometrist, or better still an ophthalmologist, the ones I see every year to have my eyes thoroughly checked in accordance with the legislation so provided.
Have a good day.

By Leonard Clampett on 2015 01 22 - 20:55:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

まずは|素晴らしいと言う私がしたいと私がしたいブログ!私は簡単な質問を持っていた心|私はあなたがいないをすればそうでない場合は、聞きしたいのですが、その。 自分の考えあなた自身とクリアを中央にどのように  見つけるために知っている前書き込み私がいた。 私がしたいた困難な時期|アイデアを得ることに私のクリア思考の心を出。 失われた無駄な 私は本当にない|書き込みしかし、それはでの喜びを取る楽しむちょうど最初の10〜15分のように思える単純に開始する方法を把握しよう。どれアイデアまたはヒント? おかげ!

By ugg ブーツ 店舗 大阪 on 2015 01 22 - 20:30:46
From the entry 'War monger Tony Abbott recklessy accuses the Russian President over downed passenger plane'.

Amazed: Hereward isn’t saying anything here about 100% free speech, only pointing out that the people who rule have double standards: upholding the right of one group to freedom of speech, but not to another. Thus your argument is irrelevant to the subject. Unless you’re suggesting that because 100% free speech is undesirable (according to you), it’s ok for this situation to occur?

By zek on 2015 01 22 - 01:00:55
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

If Hereward believed in 100% speech, then he would have left everyone alone on his 9/11 forum.
There is a line to speech. What most are saying, without saying it now days is, they want their right to offend other people. Does Hereward call Jews “kikes” or Negro’s “nigger”? Or allow other people on his site to use those words? No of course not. There is no such thing as 100% “free” speech. If it were “free”, then we could say any and everything to any and everyone.

By Amazed on 2015 01 20 - 18:15:06
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

people all over the world know about chemtrails..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLwclSjaro

there is plenty of evidence. josh and fenton just say ... no no no no no…

they offer NOTHING!

By yryk on 2015 01 20 - 12:42:01
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories