Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video


By Mark Conlon

In the video below, I explain some of the misconceptions which have been circulated over the years by various 9/11 researchers' in relation to the "historical" Michael Hezarkhani video, where they have incorrectly claimed it to be a fake video.


The reason I believe "falsehoods" have been put-out about the Michael Hezarkhani video is to cast doubt in people's minds as to what was really captured in the video, thus to "discredit" the video visual evidence contained within it, such as; impossible plane speed and impossible crash physics. This video could potentially reveal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology, if people were to believe the video is authentic, thus ruling out video fakery. This appears to be why "video fakery" was introduced around 2003-4, and in my opinion  is a clever "Psychological Operation" to create enough doubt in people's minds regarding the 9/11 visual evidence record through subtle perception management, thus to conceal an "advanced" 3D volumeteric image projection technology of a plane in the sky in New York. 

A Brief History Lesson: 
It was Thierry Meyssan in October 2001 who first discovered evidence that "No-Plane" was involved in the Pentagon attack, which he wrote about in his two books; 9/11 The Big Lie - released in March 2002 and Pentagate - released in June 2002. 
 
Meyssan's hypothesis contends a missile hit the Pentagon not a plane. Something which I agree with. It was following Meyssan's revelations that around 2003-4 that the "No-Plane" theory was born and carried over to the WTC New York event, which was promoted by Rosalee Grable AKA "The Webfairy" and Gerrard Holmgren. (Sadly both are no longer with us). A list of other people who have promoted "video fakery" can be seen below: Some in the list also promoted the "hologram theory" also.


Please find links to articles & information I refer to in my video below: 


*NEW VIDEO EVIDENCE* UPDATED: 03/01/2018
I feel this is important new evidence discovered by 'Conspiracy Cuber', who posted this video evidence of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park which Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor were stationed on when they documented the 2nd WTC event. See Below:

 Video Published on 24th Dec 2017 by Conspiracy Cuber




Please follow me to keep track of new articles I post at my blog by pressing the "Follow-Me" button. Or you can contact me using the "Contact Form" at the bottom of the side-bar located on the right hand side of the blog page. 


Thank you for reading and watching!


***********IMPORTANT NEW UPDATE 7th Jan 2018**************

It now appears that Steve De'ak is now responding to this article I wrote by calling me a "Con"? So he is now reverting to name calling, and not talking about the actual content of my video analysis I produced. 


He admits in his latest Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make no reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would reliese if he had read the article or watched the videos. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, No-Planes and also holograms.


Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren passed away.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren being disinformation OPs, and they are NOT certainly portrayed in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles. I have merely quoted a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I disagree with. Rosalee herself has many times made clear during many interviews her position on the subject, and archive history is the same for Gerard Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject which is factual.

Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video. 


In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's inaccurate theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held.



I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?


I also corrected Steve's claim that I had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response 19/12/2017 to Steve's De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website 17/12/2017. As I explained my 'YouTube Channel' was closed down by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, not by myself deleting my comments which he again has "inaccurately" repeated in his latest Facebook comments. 

On a final note, what is clear all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.  

So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw their own conclusions...


Thank you for reading and caring...



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In Search of United Airlines ‘Flight 175’

Image
By Mark Conlon I would like to begin by thanking Julia Ratsey and Conspiracy Cuber for their help towards this blog post. Also thanks to Andrew Johnson, Richard D. Hall and Chris Hampton who have been supportive of my research.   United Airlines “Flight 175” (UAL 175) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport, in Los Angeles, California. On September 11 th 2001 UAL 175 was scheduled to depart at 08:00 a.m. for Los Angeles. Allegedly fifty-one passengers and the five hijackers boarded the 767 through Terminal C's Gate 19. The plane pushed back at 07:58 a.m. and took off at 08:14 a.m. from runway 9. It is estimated that UAL 175 was hijacked between 08:42 a.m. and 08:46 a.m. while American Airlines “Flight 11” (AAL 11) was just minutes away from hitting the North Tower. We are told the hijackers forcibly breached the cockpit and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijac
Read more

Who Is 9/11 Harley Guy..? "Seeing Through The Disinformation"

Image
  By Mark Conlon   Much has been made in recent years of the use of "crisis actors" involved in relation to 9/11 and a number of " staged " terrorist attacks that followed. Much of the early promotion of "crisis actors" originated and was heavily promoted by Simon Shack, along with other so-called 9/11 researchers'.  One of the most famous 9/11 cases was the "Harley Guy" on Fox News who gave an account of the " official " 9/11 WTC building collapse story from the get-go, or did he? There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Of course Mark Humphries denies any involvement on 9/11, and claims he was in Los Angeles at the time the 9/11 events were happening. See image below: Taken from Simon Shack's - September Clues forum.  So who is the "Harley Guy"? I still see and hear people accusing Mark Humphries of being the "Harley Guy". From research which doesn
Read more

Flight 175 and The Truth about 'The Truth in 7 Minutes' in FIVE Minutes

Image
By: Mark Conlon - 25 Jan 2014   (Updated 24 Feb 2017) Short introduction and note by Andrew Johnson [ADJ] Below, Mark has carefully documented some further errors made by Markus Allen in a recent response to another error he made in an earlier video. The thrust of what Markus Allen appears to be trying to say is that “the videos of Flight 175 crashing into the WTC are fake”. This, of course, has been a topic much discussed on 9/11 “truth” websites. I have come to the conclusion, partly because of what I have covered in this article, that there has been a deliberate attempt to promote the 9/11 video fakery position in order to obscure or cover up the knowledge of the use of some type of image projection technology, which was used to create a very powerful illusion of plane crashes (for those chuckling about this idea, simply try and account for the physical evidence that plane wings cannot cut through steel box-girders and also account for the fact that some witnesses did not see or hea
Read more