BBC sets up team to debunk fake news

BBC debunker or promoter of fake news?

On the 12th Jan 2017, the Guardian reported that “BBC sets up a team to debunk fake news.” On the very same day, the BBC website and phone app are reporting that “Orcas reveal the origin of menopause.” Both appear to be untrue.

Orcas reveal the origin of menopauseBBC news chief James Harding apparently told staff on Thursday that the BBC would be “weighing in on the battle over lies, distortions and exaggerations”.

“Orcas reveal the origin of menopause.” Distortion, exaggeration or just a lie?

The BBC article says that “Prof Darren Croft from the University of Exeter, … says the findings, published in the journal Current Biology, could reveal how and why the same phenomenon evolved in humans.” As we get into the article we come to the word ‘could,’ suggesting speculation, the headline was definite, “Orcas reveal the origin of menopause.”

Probably more than half of the people who came across this headline just accepted it as ongoing proof of evolution and the origins of… well everything from life to the menopause. This headline is at the very least deceptive. Come on Reality Check, start looking at the BBC’s website.

James Harding continued “The BBC can’t edit the internet, but we won’t stand aside either,” Harding said. “We will fact check the most popular outliers on Facebook, Instagram and other social media.” Humm, they can actually edit the BBC news website. The BBC site is very much more influential than the outliers on Facebook, Instagram, so should be held to very high standards.

Review of the US Intelligence Agency report into Russian election hacking

Updated – see the end of this article. 


This is a review of the document Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. You can read a copy of it here. I am writing this not because I am pro-Trump or pro-Russia or the Kremlin or Putin. But because it appears to me to be a gross inaccuracy and is propaganda, not accurate reporting.

There is very little of any substance to this report. In fact this report in more propaganda than intelligence briefing and does not even take to structure of a normal intelligence briefing. There are more than 10 pages that contain no information other than title etc. and a great deal of it is repetitive.

Many pages are no more than pure speculation. But let us have a look at the few pages that do contain specific claims, well almost specific.


The report argues that Putin wanted to, “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” Why? That would not get Tump in, and if it did, it would just leave questions over his legitimacy.

He also is alleged to want to, “denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” That did not need any help from Putin. She has been denigrating herself from many years. Her record is poor, and her involvement in illegal or immoral behavior does not need exposing by Putin. There was a conspiracy with the mainstream media to give her favorable coverage, even to give her some of the debate questions before time. The release of DNC emails may have accelerated, the process, but she was a self-denigrating candidate.

A further claim is that “the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.” If the Kremlin rightly or wrong felt that the US liberal democratic order was a threat to Russia, we should only expect Russia to try to protect itself. Maybe, we should think about that before we practice war drill, just meters from the Russian border.

It apparently is a problem that, “Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers.” They were public, maybe Putin reads the papers, and comment on what he reads in them. That proves he hacked the election I guess.

One of the most telling accusation is that “Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012 and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.” Is this not tantamount to an admission that Clinton himself had interfered in Russia, and had incited mass protests against Putin? I guess it is ok for America to do that as they are the good guys, but if Russia does it is it a near declaration of war.

I think the weirdest accusation on page 1 is that “Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.” So, Putin did not publicly praise Tump… he must be guilty.

Putin also is accused of, “publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia.” So he wants to work with America… how terrible.

Apparently, Putin was keen on Trump’s, “Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine. Putin publicly contrasted the President-elect’s approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.” So, Putin, who has been working to push the Christian killing jihadist forces out of Syria, would like to work with the next president of the USA, rather than having to deal with an aggressive, pro-insurgent president. These are damning accusations indeed.

Another horror to the intelligence community in the USA is that “Moscow also saw the election of President- elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).” How terrible, Putin and the Kremlin are against ISIS. Notice that the US intelligence agencies use the anti-Israel term ISIL instead of SISI.

Russia is criticized for its involvement in eastern Ukraine and its denials of involvement. Yanukovych’s decision to not sign an association agreement with the European Union in late 2013 triggered a mass wave of protests across Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup. In US President Barack Obama’s interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Obama reveals the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups. So Russia is evil for involvement in the Ukraine, but the USA… well, again they are the good guys.

The US intelligence agencies claim that “In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.” Humm, how can this have been to support Trump, as in 2015 he was not considered a serious candidate.

The report claims that “GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal email accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.” Is this not rather shameful for the only world superpower. Why are not people in such important jobs, help to keep their emails accounts secure?

Another claim is that “Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on starting in June.” However, it is considered that the DNC and Podesta security was very poor. It would be very surprising if there was only one person or organization that hacked into this information. Hacking is rampant on the internet, and it can be shown that many appliances that are connected to the internet are at times hacked and owned within seconds of being connected to the internet. So it could have been the GRU, but that fact that they had an interest in this information or even a desire to publicize it, done not prove that they were responsible for leaking this information.

The report goes on, “In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian “state-level” involvement.” America and Obama are not shy about coming out with comments about other countries. Why is Putin not allowed to make such comments? And he is right. Well, I think he is. If a party that is seeking to hold the most powerful office in the world, is trying to gain that power by both criminal and immoral means, should not the electors be told? Is not Putin right that this who Russia leaked the information a distraction from the fact that the DNC under Clinton was corrupt?

There is much talk about the close relationship between the Kremlin and RT, (formerly Russia Today), however, what is surprising about this? If you watch, RT do you not expect that you are hearing news from a Russian viewpoint? I know I do and I can filter it accordingly. In the same way, we have to do the same thing here in the UK. When you are watching the BBC, you know that it will be pushing a liberal, pro-feminist, pro-gay agenda.

Apparently, few Americans are aware of the fact that their mainstream media is almost if not actually in the pocket of the DNC. Even to the point of sharing some if not all of the debate questions with Clinton. For example, the Observer says, “nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails validated the concerns of Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC helped rig the primary election for Clinton. These emails provided a glimpse into how the DNC and the mainstream media work together in providing public relations support for the Democratic establishment.” This relationship is so bad that even those media outlets that were for Clinton had to report it. A Washington Post headline says, “Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught.”

The close relationship between Julian Assange and RT is again hardly surprising; WikiLeaks mission is to “designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.” So they are likely to work with an organization that will let them communicate to the public.

The report relates that Russia was “NOT involved in vote tallying,” so why do they keep saying that Russia hacked the election? The may have informed the US electorate about immorality and illegality in the DNC, but that is not the same as hacking an election. Using the term, “Hacked the election,” is hyperbole and is in itself disinformation. So in the very statements that they make about Russia, they are themselves taking part in the same action, they are trying to influence world opinion against Russia. Only at the very worst, Russia used truthful and accurate information, American intelligence agencies, appears to be using hyperbole and disinformation.

When they claim thing like this, (and this is getting rather repetitive, much of this report is just the same empty claim repeated again and again,) “State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President- elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.” So what, the BBC did the same thing but negative on Trump and positive on Clinton.

Another claim is that the Russians painted, “Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.” The former is self-evident, most if not all mainstream media in the USA was anti-Trump, and many leaked emails show the close relationship they had with the DNC, even letting the DNC pre-vet stories before publication.

The American intelligence agencies then accuse Russia of using Trolls as well as RT to promote their message. A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers. These trolls are said to have amplified stories about Clinton. But they do not seem to realize that the big problem is the accuracy of the stories about Clinton. The reports were accurate, or many of them where. Any amplification appears not to have been in the story as in a distortion of the story but in the spread of the story.


My conclusion is that this is really vapid and an empty piece of propaganda not evidence of Russian interference, or at least no undue interference in the US 2016 presidential election.


Today, (10th Jan 2017), The Washington Times is reporting that the FBI Director James B. Comey, has said that the bureau requested but was denied direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s email servers and other hacked devices as part of its probe of Russian hacking. He said that the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but in the end a private company, (that by the way was associated wth the DNC), was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators.

Conclusion cont.

So we are hearing that they know that Russia hacked the US elections, but they are taking someone else’s word for it. We could ask what the DNC had to hide, but let just leave it that we are looking a very serious accusation being made against a very powerful country, in a substantial part based on hearsay!

the guardian - fake news

The Guardian – Newspaper or fake news?

On December 24th, 2016 the Guardian newspaper published a fake news article. Written by Ben Jacobs this article made three central claims. The first claim is that “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in an interview.” The report also claimed that Assange “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” Then in a complete distortion of the truth, Jacobs claims that “In his interview with La Repubblica, [Assange] said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.”

Each of these claims are false, or are, to use a popular claim made against independent news media, they are ‘Fake News!’

But none of that happened. Those claims are made up. To read the full story of this see the Intercept article.

Lies travel easily

These false statements, or fake news, published by the Guardian, have been spread all over the internet by, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to hear these false claims or fake news.

Facebook, Twitter and the like, though claiming to be fighting ‘fake news,’ where in fact used and powerful methods of spreading this fake news.

I hope whether or not you like or loathe Julian Assange, and you would agree that no one, and especially not a reputable newspaper should be publishing lies about him.

This article and the false narrative that it teaches plays into the hands of the Clinton supporters and those opposed to Trump who are trying to paint a picture that the Kremlin used its agents, like Assange, to support Trump and sink Clinton.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is NO evidence to support the claim that the Kremlin supported or helped the Trump campaign and that it was the DMC who were responsible for their own downfall. However, when influential members of the media give credence to this claim, they are supporting those who are seeking to undermine a duly elected head of a sovereign country.

Birds aren't dinosaurs

Dinosaurs into birds won’t go!

Yesterday I met up with an old friend on Facebook. It was not long after we started chatting that he asked me about a statement that I had made about people being deceived into believing that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. At least, evolution outside of each kind or family of animal or plant. That is Cat beget cats, Yes from the lion to the house cat, there are probably evolutionary relationships, but to from the cat to the dog, nor from a dinosaurs to birds.

The zebra and the Shire horse and the pony probably all come frim the same created kind. But the dog, the cat and the horse are not related.

Mammals do not all come from a proto-mammal, and early ancestors to all mammals. There is not a tree of descent starting at a root of all animals and branching off here or there to produce a new species. Instead, of a tree of life, there is a forest of life. God created every ‘kind” of animal, the dog kind, the cat kind, the horse kind. From each of these trees, there is diversity. The zebra and the Shire horse and the pony probably all come frim the same created kind. But the dog, the cat and the horse are not related.

There are many claims made that this fossil or that fossil is the ancestor or this or that modern day animal, but the truth is that they have no proof of this relationship. The fossil only proves that an animal died, it does not show that it had offspring or that its offspring are now very dramatically different to its parents.

Birds from Dinosaurs


You would almost believe they have seen evolution happening!

Let us take just one example from the animal world. Most if not all school and college and even university textbooks will tell you that birds are the modern descendants of dinosaurs. Many will even go so far as to say that dinosaurs are not extinct, but feeding on your bird table. You will also hear and see this fable being pushed on your children at every conceivable opportunity by very plausible TV presenters like David Attenborough, Steve Backshall, and Brian Cox.

Virtually every living and extinct class of reptiles have, at one time or another, been proposed as the ancestor of birds. Thomas Huxley, the famous Darwinian apologist, was the first to put forward this idea way back in the mid-1800s. And it is still the popular view among evolutionists today.

Today the current favorite ancestor is a member of the theropod dinosaur family, the bipedal meat-eating dinosaurs, such as the Tyrannosaurus rex.

However, there are significant problems with the idea that a dinosaur evolved into a bird.

Dinosaurs are reptiles, (on the whole) are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded.

While there are attempts to claim that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded, Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic, (warm-blooded).” 1

You would need a thick skin to believe a story like this

seagull in flightFortunately, dinosaurs have a thick skin, or at least a single layer continuous sheet of scaly skin on the surface of their bodies which grows and sheds as an entire sheet, but birds have feathers that, unlike scales grow individually and are shed individually. Fathers are not like scales but are immensely complicated feats of engineering.

Dinosaurs will need to get hip!

There are two major groups of dinosaurs, the bird-hipped and the lizard-hipped dinosaurs, but do not be fooled by these terms. In many respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, such as the theropods are less bird than the lizard-hipped dinosaurs are. A point is rarely promoted by those who want you to believe the dinos to birds story.

Dinos need a breath of fresh air.

Dinosaurs literally need a breath of fresh air. They need to breathe in and out whereas birds have a continuous flow of air through their lungs.

Birds lungs are dramatically different in structure and function from that of a dinosaur. Birds have flow-through lungs, but mammals and dinosaurs have bidirectional, in and out lungs. This difference in lung design affects more than just the oxygenation of the blood, but also things like level flight. There is no realistic model for how you would evolve from one form of breathing to another, especially while maintaining a viable organism, for the thousands or millions of years the transition might have been expected to take.

Problems with ageing.

We all have problems as we get older; likewise, the dinosaurs to birds story is having problems with its ages. To date, the so-called feathered dinosaurs are just too young to be the progenitor of birds. So far the so-called feathered dinosaurs that have paleontologist have found are an alleged 20 million years too young to be the fathers of the Archaeopteryx, now generally recognized to be a true bird. 2

We could go one, but it is probably time to stop for now.

polystrate fossils

Polystrate Fossils

We could look at many other problems with the naturalistic view of evolution. We could consider the fact that most method of ageing the earth come up with an age of less than 10,000 years. We could look at the way we often see alleged millions of years of rock layers bent as though they had all be soft mud at the same time. We could even investigate polystrate fossils, (generally a plant grown through what evolutionists claim is millions of years of sedimentary deposits.) but that will all have to wait for another time.

  1. A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe in ‘Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence”, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005
  2. P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004

Taught in Britain to hate the Jews

I thought it was very timely when I found a link to this video in my inbox. This week the world, well most of it has been expressing its hate towards Israel’s Jews and making, unfounded judgments about the so-called, ‘occupied territories.’

If you have find minutes you might find this very interesting.

Please note both the indoctrination and the erroneous claims about Israel.

The book recommended in this video is [easyazon_link identifier=”B00DNL0NVE” locale=”UK” tag=”successmatter-21″]The Case for Israel[/easyazon_link]

[easyazon_image align=”none” height=”160″ identifier=”B00DNL0NVE” locale=”UK” src=”” tag=”successmatter-21″ width=”105″]

Craig Murray

Former UK ambassador – CIA’s Russian Conspiracy Claims Are ‘Bulls**t!

In an interview with The Guardian, a former UK ambassador, Craig Murray, called the CIA claims “bulls**t”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

I do not know Craig Murray, nor can I vouch for what he says. But it has more ring of truth about it than the claims that the Russians have been leaking these emails.

I am sure the Russians do hack many things in the USA, and all over the world. Like wise we, the USA, Israel and any country that is not struggling just to survive is doing this.

But that does not mean that they leaked the emails.

I do not believe that from what is left behind on server logs etc. you can tell who hacked into a server, at lest not accurately. It is too easy to spoof the information that would be recorded. Russian hackers would for sure know how to do this. The only way would be to be monitoring in real time. We must ask, do the Americans have 18 intelligence agencies monitoring internet hacking in real time, and if they do… why did non of them stop the hack.

I believe there is something fishy about the claims that Russia has been interfering with the USA election.

Fake News

Fake News

It seams that almost everywhere you look now, on the TV, in newspapers or on social media, someone is talking about Fake News. 

All over the place we are reading headlines like…

“Facebook’s plan to tackle fake news raises questions over limitations”

“German courts should tackle fake news now, says justice minister”

This “fake news” theme appears to me to be a reflection of the left’s a deep fear of losing control of the public information area. The mass media, owned by just a few billionaires, and populated by liberals and the left wing has for many years enjoyed their dominance of what the public can hear or read.

“Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:” (Mark 13:5)

Now, however, there is a rise in citizen journalism and a great growth in independent news media outlets, YouTube channels, Twitter streams and many other forms of new media are being utilised to enable, many more people to put forward their understanding of the major events taking place in our world. No longer do the millionaire owners of the media or the liberal university media studies graduates, stand as gate keepers preventing a more balanced view to be heard.

On the whole, what is or is not fake news, is not about weather the story being told is true or not, weather it is factually accurate, but weather it complies with the views of those in authority. Weather it is telling the acceptable liberal line.

Even on top of what is, or is not true, is the question of what is not being asked. For example, Obama is saying, ‘the Russian’s hacked our election!’ In itself probably not true, see (Assange confirms, Russia Was NOT source of DNC/Podesta Leaks). But where is the media asking, If interfering with other countries elections is so bad why did America under Obama do it so much, both with money and man-power?

I believe we are going to see an increasing attempt by tech companies and others to silence ‘Fake News’ or ‘Independent News,’ or at least an attempt to label it as untrustworthy.

We need to hold main stream media’s feet to the fire over their biased reporting, but also we should probably be voting with our feet. Over in America, many, many independent media outlets are now being read, viewed or listened to by more people than almost any other, ‘main stream,’ media.

However, more important than all of this is that we need to be close to our Lord and to heed his advice, “… Take heed lest any man deceive you:” (Mark 13:5)

Julian Assange

Assange confirms, Russia Was NOT source of DNC/Podesta Leaks

In an interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday, (15th Dec 2016), Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, declared that Russia did not provide hacked documents.

“Our source is not the Russian government,” Assange told Hannity.

“In other words, let me be clear,” Hannity asked, “Russia did not give you the Podesta documents, or anything from the DNC?”

“That’s correct,” Assange replied.

Wikileaks has been accused by the U.S. government, and most if not all main stream media in the USA and around the world, of working with Russian state actors during the presidential election to hack Democratic Party organisations and provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton in order to sway the election in favour of Donald Trump.

This is pretty conclusively proven to be untrue. Who is peddling “Fake News” now?

But the real investigation should be into what the DNC and Podesta where up to, not how did it come to the public knowledge. If the emails where all innocent, there would have been no news.

Are Nazis, far right?

[Moved from]

A great deal of the western media, especially in the UK seek to associate unpalatable ideologies like nazism with, what might be thought of as good and upright ideas.

They constantly call things like nazi ideas, “far right.” But what the Nazi party a far right party?

What was the full name of the Nazi party? The National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Since when has socialism been a far right concept. Only in the propaganda filed main stream media. Or should we call it the lame stream media?

What they want you to associate is evil people, or evil ideologies with reasonable good people or ideologies like that of UKIP or Nigel Farage.