Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- US Media: From Sheep-Dipped Journalists to Black Holes & Double Standards

Welcome to our eleventh episode of Probable Cause. Per your requests, for this episode we are going to continue our coverage of the system’s indispensable tool-the media, as another major channel to infiltrate viable opposition, distort facts and truth, and disseminate and popularize propaganda.

In addition to sheep-dipped journalism, we are going to discuss several other methods and tactics utilized by the deep state to direct, control and censure information. Domestic espionage, censorship of pertinent information, and dissemination of misinformation by the media can take many different sizes and shapes. In relative terms some may be more innocuous than others, and some more indirect than belligerently direct. However, no matter the degree or behind-the-scene justification, the end result is the same.

As with our previous episodes I will be providing you with real-life examples and cases to illustrate these methods and practices, and their end results. And as always our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. andrei_tudor says:

    Very interesting examples, Sibel. I like how you’ve chosen them, to show the variety of means they
    use for neutralizing truth telling. It seems that the net is cast very tight.

    Are you still involved with NSWBC? I’m interested to find out how the number of whistleblowing cases
    has evolved over the years. Has it been growing, stagnating, or decreasing? And do whistleblowers
    still insist on using the mainstream media as a channel, or are they by now mostly aware of what’s
    going on in that respect?

    • The numbers have been declining. The peak was 2002-2004.

      Some of us are in regular contact- we engage in not so ‘overt’ actions now and then. For ex: The story BFP broke on Syria-Jordan- we had our covert DOD sources on that (I consider them WBs). This is why I consider BFP as the most promising channel for whistleblowing. Instead of chasing the futile channels, wasting time, be trapped by the media … they can covertly accomplish the most important objective: inform the public.

      • “… they can covertly accomplish the most important objective: inform the public.”
        So simple. If for no other reason — and there are plenty — we need to keep BFP up and running. Another great expose, Sibel. Thanks.

  2. Mgrdichian says:

    Feels like a sequel to Classified Woman. Hot stuff. Gonna play it loud out my window to melt the snow and ice here in the Northeast.

    Hope the surgery goes well.

  3. Mike Mejia says:

    Very depressing- but I guess after what Gary Webb, no journalist will dare step too far out of line, even at Knight Ridder/McClatchy.

    The blogosphere does seem to be the only hope left.

    • Indeed, Mike.Gary Webb case is the best example/illustration of what happens if one practices real fearless journalism in pursuit of truth.

      Blogosphere: The biggest problems- looking for a needle in a haystack (with millions of blogs and self-declared journalists, lack of transparency to determine who is who …). Also, it has become a polarized stage where partisanship and biases compete against each other, where everyone involved lose, and the system of divide-conquer wins.

      • nail on the head
        its wider than just the blogosphere… nearly the entire independent contribution to the internet whether it be forums, twitter, social networks etc it seems everyone has picked a side and they’ll blindly follow whoever is whistling their tune whilst closing their eyes and ears to anything that challenges their existing world view. I dont know what the solution is anymore.

        Even broadcasting an incriminating video on the big screen in Times Square would likely be met with apathy or incredulity these days. I sometimes wonder if the entire world, or at least the 5 eyes empire that I live in is stricken with a mass mental illness.

        • “Even broadcasting an incriminating video on the big screen in Times Square would likely be met with apathy or incredulity these days.”

          Mike, exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote that scene in Lone Gladio. I left the outcome kind of hang there. I couldn’t bring myself to paint an unrealistic picture where people watched and then mobilized. Not many people pay much attention to that scene in the story. Same with the chapter where Elsie goes to the major networks as a Gladio messenger, delivering the script to be aired verbatim … I haven’t heard anyone bringing up that chapter and the ‘points.’

          Anyhow, you made my ‘early morning.’ Thank you for reading it with that extra pair of eyes:-)

          • Andrei Tudor says:

            Actually… a Times Square billboard, if not a video, that questions the official 9/11 story, was put up. Not sure what the reaction was.


          • you made my early morning with your kind words. 🙂

            well maybe back in 2003 when the novel was set, people were more impressionable than now, however lately I’ve noticed a change to thorough jaded confusion. Too much information maybe, though I hesitate to call it ‘information’.

            on the topic of TLG, I was imagining Greg to resemble something like Daniel Craig physically. Not because of James Bond, but because thats how I visualised your description. Maybe that entered your subconscious. This is the value of books over movies. The interpretation has a life of its own.

            The other aspect is on the meta level of it revealing many things about the author that she may or may not realise. I guess I think of this more when I know a lot more about the author than other books written by faceless people. But I digress.

            I did enjoy that book a lot – although the nature of the violence early on was disconcerting and I wondered what was going through your mind. However I realised later it was necessary such that the reader realised what was at stake and how scary the main character was; and these type of operatives in general.

          • “I was imagining Greg to resemble something like Daniel Craig physically.”- That’s amazing. When I sent my final manuscript to my editor he asked me, ‘Do you have a particular person/type when you visualize Greg?’ I closed my eyes, thought about it for a few seconds, and then said: ‘Daniel Craig. That Russian look … and everything. Now that you asked me it occurred to me that he looks exactly like him!’

            You are the first person who has brought this up since my editor. I find it amazing.

  4. SIBEL; this a fascinating description of the many leveled twists and turns from someone(you) who has worked in one of 100s of thousands of jobs under the rubric of what is called NATIONAL SECURITY- in a now Fascist militarized police state system. It would appear that the way you became an evolved person of conscience was to join as a naïve person who actually never, ever thought such dark dynamics could exist–all the way to the top!. You were in a crucible of sorts–a one way rabbit hole from which many apparently do not escape. You learned by fire, as it were, and became the person you are today. Let’s just say you know things which most would never believe. And there seems no way to answer the question, “what should I have done?” And the masses are not really interested.
    Damn cognitive dissonance again! I ask a friend to look at bldg. 7 and he sees no internal demolition!

    The Federal National security System now covers all aspects of American life. What’s the point of listing them all? .A lot of this clandestine stuff started post WW2 with Truman. 9/11(PNAC’s wish) has now created a level of mistrust so broad and encompassing, one wonders how in the hell the mail gets delivered.
    It has to be haunting to you that so many people–trusted or not have simply disappeared. Gone

    • 344thBrother says:

      @ron, You wrote “I ask a friend to look at bldg. 7 and he sees no internal demolition! ”

      I take heart in the fact that as ugly and frightening and sad and annoying and overwhelming as it all is sometimes, I’m not afraid to look “Evil” full in the face. Imagine what your friend’s life is like. He’s either unable to see what’s in front of his face (Basically an automaton) or he’s afraid to admit what he sees (A paranoid or a coward) or, he’s decided to just go along (A traitor). *No offense meant to your friend, I too have friends who are unwilling or unable to see what is obvious about 911*. I wouldn’t wish these fates on anyone.

      What each of us does, however small is important. Everyone we wake up is a small part of the big picture of awakening the masses, but it’s also a life changer for the individual. I like to remind myself that every time someone really sees the truth of some enormous event like 911, they can never really go back to sleep. They may choose to stay silent or cower or deny what they see, but they still know and they can’t “Un-know”. Which means that the scoreboard relentlessly and steadily turns in our favor.

      And we all should keep in mind that those who aren’t just pre-programmed robots cannot fail to see a glimpse of the truth if we keep at them. Those glimpses add up and work on an unconscious level to help them move forward. So, we’re also working on the unconscious mind of the masses.

      Yes it’s a rough row to hoe, *and the pay sucks : ) * but the alternatives are much worse (At least I hope the people I’ve awoken feel that way, most seem appreciative if somewhat torn). Carry on brother.


      • 344thBrother says:

        ps ron:
        I was glad to see that you mentioned Truman. I personally believe that the atomic bombs that we detonated after WW2 were part of a bigger plan to bring in the national security state via the national security act of 1947 and also installed the cia and the nazi’s. (I’ve decided not to capitalize that crap any more it gives them too much respect.)


      • DAVE: I truly respect your position and your intellectual curiosity.
        I’ve had friends call me “hard core”, in the sense that I am determined to see into the depths of things .I do net rely on hope or beliefs. I do have a few friends with whom I can communicate. But they know (and I know) that I can be a bit intense when I spot flawed logic and/or “opinions.” This marvelous thread that Sibel has created gives me a chance to get a liittle real. Since at my age I seldom engage anyone–I’ve been called too” heavy” and my “way” causes me to shy away from confrontation now. But I have done my share.
        You sound like a very nice person who is willing to have certain hope(s). And I don’t want to shatter anything in your world view.
        Power to you!

    • Ron,
      “You learned by fire”- a very correct and applicable way of summarizing; baptism by fire.

      Just like Dave, I’m glad you brought up WWII & Truman. So many people disregard the history and related context. This notion that things happen all of a sudden, and unexpectedly. The script was written a long time ago. The plans have been in place for a long time. Sure, improvisation and ‘convenient’ events pop up now and then, without being strayed from the original script …

  5. I was thinking about where the ‘public mind’ is located as opposed to the reality of these great examples from Sibel’s real experience. There’s a film from back in the 70s called Three Days of the Condor which reveals a CIA within the CIA. Seems quaint now to think that THAT is what makes it nefarious, but anyway Robert Redford of course finds his way through the drama and the final scene ends up in front of the New York Times. He’s going public with what he’s learned and Cliff Robertson’s CIA character is looking at Robert and says, “How do you know they’ll publish the story?” “They’ll publish it,” Robert says confidently. And as Robert starts to walk away Cliff again asks “How do you know?” Final shot, I think, was a ‘stately’ shot of, and implying the foundational integrity of, the NYT. I’m just thinking that that’s what we’re up against. We’re looking at a mountain.

  6. andrei_tudor says:

    Seeing how tight the control is over what what does not get published in the MSM, I think it follows that whatever gets a lot of play with them is most likely a planted story, and needs to be treated with a lot of skepticism. After all, if they have the media on such a short leash, they must surely use that not only to block certain stories, but to plant others as well.

    For example, in Canada, the CBC has been blaring lately about the detention of an Al-Jazeera journalist in Egypt, one Mohamed Fahmy. I’m not sure what the angle is, but it’s covered intensively and “professionally”, with tweets from politicians and fellow journalists, and the guy looking like he dropped out of a James Bond movie:

    It has all the makings of a manufactured event, and I bet it will be “used” sometime in the future.

    • 344thBrother says:

      i agree on the “planted story” comment andrei. I would add this caveat. If the story is FORCED out into the msm=Lame Stream Media, from the blogosphere or the internet ingeneral, then it’s more likely to have some validity. When it’s big, or a story that interests me, I like to skim the Lame Stream story and then follow it back to the roots to see what the whole story is, who broke it, when etc. .

      There’s usually a spin put on any important story that you can identify if you start from the source. Also this lets you know if the source itself is suspect. I figure you already know this, but just thought I’d mention it.


    • Andrei Tudor says:

      The Fahmy plot thickens. His lawyer is none other than Amal Clooney, wife of CFR member George Clooney.

  7. Without the prosecution of Sterling, myself and most people would never know about the CIA’s hairbrained scheme to plant evidence of nuclear weapons tech on Iran, so ironically, the state facilitated BFP’s”inform the public” purpose, since most people never read Risen’s book.

    According to Wikipedia (understandably, not to be taken as authority at face value), unlike in the instance Sibel describes in this podcast, Risen did try to get the NYT to publish Sterling’s story, and “In early 2003, the New York Times refrained from publication of the story after an intervention by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice with the NYT Executive Editor Howell Raines.[3]”.

    Per Sibel’s take, Sterling’s name might have been disclosed by Risen’s bosses or just by the NYT disclosing the nature of the story, the CIA could surmise likely WBs. Following which, Wikip says, “While doing research for the book, Risen’s email and phone connections with former CIA Operations Officer Jeffrey Alexander Sterling were monitored by the US federal government.[4][5] The US federal government also obtained Risen’s credit and bank records.[6] The CIA Public Affairs Office issued a press release indicating that Risen’s book contains serious errors in every chapter. However, CIA documents released in January 2015 confirm many details on Operation Merlin.[7]”

    My point is that while the NYT is totally disreputable for me, nonetheless, for whatever reasons, they have on occasion employed competent & even well principled investigative reporters — maybe for covert intel purposes or maybe because their elite readers need to get some accurate information now and then. Just as Sibel, herself, went to work for the criminal FBI. When I was barely 20 years old, I participated in a W.I.T.C.H.E.S. hexing of the F.B.I. building then under construction, but I do not assign nefarious motives to everyone associated therewith. So let us not throw babies out with the bath water by jumping to conclusions about motives and culpability of journalists who have given important information to the public.

    Someone commenting on the last episode discussed a link (on WMadsen’s site if memory serves) where someone was villyfying Sibel & Corbett because they didn’t blame all the troubles of the world on Israel. That is an extreme example of a manipulative– divisively destructive — rhetoric style one encounters in people’s movements again and again. It can just be a kind of self-advertising gimick, foolish partisanship, or more nefarious, so I am just urging sensitvity to such tendencies.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      In fact I’d followed up those WMR comments with this… “Please, let’s stop calling the very people who have given us crucial information and exposed aspects of deep state networks that otherwise would have remained concealed shills and frauds and limited hangouts, etc. when they don’t go as far as we think they could. Just say: “Thank you for your service” and be done with it!”

      As much as we might question the true motivations of Snowden’s and other seemingly staged leaks, we cannot deny that we are better off with them rather than without them, can we?

      • Ronald, re Snowden:
        I’m on the fence, for this one reason which maybe someone can shoot down and in so doing, knock me off the fence.

        Snowden’s information about all the projects with acronyms and the catalogue of spy goodies and the industrial espionage and ad nauseum, was absolutely no surprise to me and I think many others. Anyone who grasped what was technically possible, would have been Pollyannish to assume every bit of it wasn’t being done, balls out. If it can be done, they’re doing it. If it can’t be done, they’re working on it. Take that to the bank.

        What if Snowden is playing 3D chess while we think we’re looking at a checkerboard? Has anyone considered the possibility he picked Greenwald to be the conduit so as to give him enough rope to hang himself?

        Which dataset has been more instructive to YOU and ME? The information released by Snowden, or the insight into media manipulation which we’ve gleaned from Greenwald’s actions, and inactions?

        In my case at least, it is most definitely the latter which has displayed the hand of the state most plainly.

        • Well Knarf, after the Oscars they did a Reddit ask me anything session with Snowden, Poitras, and Greenwald. Snowden was asked, “What’s the best way to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election?” In answering the question he couched much of his response around the argument of a book he had read that stated “that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case.” He then went on to give examples of laws whose perfect enforcement would have been bad. Excuse me, but that seems like a real prettying up of what is going on. It is a far greater sin than overzealous law enforcement. It is the following of illegal and unconstitutional agendas that are anathema to all that this country was supposed to stand for. While this was one answer to one question, the complete text can be found here

          I found this an infuriating answer if he is what we hope him to be.

          • Mandela, the question posed was in the context of traditional government and an election, and thus was his answer, though it appeared to me that he subtly discarded the Pollyannish notion that such an election could be a remedy.

            He wasn’t asked about the deep state and its sins, and his answer didn’t veer in that direction. I’ll decline to be infuriated just because he chose not to go out of his way to open a can of worms he wasn’t asked about.

            I’ll stay on the fence for now. I’m not looking for a hero, but rather merely the presence or absence of malicious intent. I found his complete answer devoid of malice.

            We gonna have to be our own heroes.

    • 344thBrother says:

      Tenor, you wrote: “someone was villyfying Sibel & Corbett because they didn’t blame all the troubles of the world on Israel. That is an extreme example of a manipulative– divisively destructive — rhetoric style one encounters in people’s movements again and again. -” Agreed. It’s ad hominum and a logical fallacy on the one hand and makes no more sense to blame you or I for what “America” does.

      Having said that, the Israeli government and Global Jewish business interests have historically been and continue to be a huge part of the problem. Bankers, communist movements, wars, the media, politics, and much more all seem to have a lot of Jewish intrigue at the top and that intrigue always seems to be negative. Would you agree?


    • Tenor,

      “So I am just urging sensitvity to such tendencies”- Absolutely. All of us must resist those tendencies.

      As far as the example goes: Keep in mind that neither I, or any of our sources and whistleblowers, ever used phones or other e communications in our dealings with the media. Think about it, people like Sterling, CIA or FBI veterans who know many of the dirty tricks, including the means and methods of surveillance, would never recklessly communicate anything (of substance) via phones/e-mails, etc.

      Here is one question for you and others here @ BFP: Let’s say since 9/11, okay? How many true journalists, or journalists with integrity, have blown the whistle on their bosses (be it NYT, WP … or a particular editor ….)? None. We can try to justify it by saying: oh, the fear, loss of income/livelihood possibilities, etc. But none of these justify the lack of whistleblowing within the industry. You have 100 times more obstacles (reasons for refraining) within agencies like the FBI or DOD, etc. Yet, we have had several whistleblowers from these agencies. Now, how come we have not had a single one, a single journalist from these institutions coming out, blowing the whistle, exposing how things work, and say ‘heck with you … I don’t want to work within this evil system!’

      A good example: Risen. He has now tons of money. Has made a parallel career with authorship. If what you say is the culprit, why is he still employed by that evil institution? As I said, the reason is not financial security. He has lots of money. It is not about access. He has the brand name, and sources would/do come to him directly. He has the internet, where he, with all his money, brand name, visibility, can run a news outlet, and sustain it …

      Maintaining the cover is always part of the deal; part of the partnership contract. Pure and simple.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Sharyl Attkisson was quite public in trashing CBS news, after heading out on her own.

        Ben Swann was a little more “diplomatic” in describing his departure from a FOX news local affiliate, but it was due to similar pressures from management.

        Those are the only mainstream examples I can think of at the moment – so it isn’t none, but very few indeed.

        • Good examples, Ronald. As other have reminded me, it is important to be fair, and give credit when deserved. I haven’t had much time to follow either example, and see how they’ve been performing. Ben Swann has done some really good work, again I haven’t seen much of that in the last year or so, but prior to that some exemplary work.

      • Risen is the perfect poster-boy for what you are getting at – the entire edifice is a bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece, these people are mercenaries.

        Let’s all remember that Ben was a low level local news guy, he was never compartmentalized to begin with.

      • Dear Sibel, Thank you for your reply. I’ve been staying in a relatively remote area of South Asia, beset by one winter storm after another, so internect connectivity is worse than usual. Maybe journalists are a bit like other types of performers, addicted to a certain level of fame and attention that most government or corporate workers neither expect nor seek. Also, working and living in rarefied atmosphere of the NYT/Manhattan scene where life is extremely expensive and surrounded by extremely wealthy persons of limited capabilities . . . of course, those are moral defects but quite human. Without researching the subject of former journalists who have bit their former masters’ hands, Chris Hedges comes to mind as someone who left a prestigious career at NYT in disgust. in one of the prior podcasts in this series, you emphasized bribery and blackmail as primary methods of control, which rely on moral weaknesses of the target. However, even within the USA, threats of violence against loved ones or the victim, and actual murder are far more common than we want/tend to believe.

        • Tenor,

          “However, even within the USA, threats of violence against loved ones or the victim, and actual murder are far more common than we want/tend to believe.”- I agree. This threat, or at least the fear of this threat, has been an ever present fear (thus, pacifier) among many wanna-be whistleblowers within the intel/dod/law enforcement agencies.

          I guess I will be getting closer to where you are (in terms of miles) in a few days. I will be traveling through SE Asia.

  8. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Journalism is public espionage. Like state espionage, however, the profession is riddled with double agents, informants, disinfo artists, agents provocatuer and so on. The consumer of intelligence, in the case of the general public, is not nearly as prepared to detect the presence of bad intel as is the seasoned spook, however. This is a problem, when the average news consumer expects a neat little polished narrative to be presented to them on NPR or on the nightly news (the Brian Williams debacle at least has alerted them that something is amiss). As for the news makers – the genuine news writers and their sources – they must be alerted on the indicators of a mole that would quash a story and sabotage them. Is this even considered in journalism school?

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Ronald: I would add all the propaganda that’s slipped into our daily lives via entertainment. I admit, I have a liking for netflix of late (I went many MANY years without a phone, (still no TV) and dialup) so I finally broke down a few months ago and ordered their 3 movie at a time deal. I’ve been enjoying the entertainment, it gives me a chance to put my mind in neutral for a while, however I am very sensitive to not only the messages that they put out (Batman movies for instance) but also how they package the movies. FLASH FLASH FLASH BOOM FLASH FLASH BOOM BOOM. Obviously meant to go straight into the old unconscious. Some is overtly hypnotic. Some like the constant smoking and drinking by the main characters is subliminal advertising. (I like to holler out “Cigarette commercial!” whenever one of them lights up.

      And the underlying messages (War is necessary, there is an evil bad guy out there and we need a hero to save us, America is good bla bla bla,. So that detracts from the movie somewhat but it’s also amusing to see how plebeian and downright LAME all this propaganda is. Unfortunately Orwell said that propaganda is intentionally banal because it’s for the proles… Hopefully I can at least pick out what we’re up against and not get sucked into the BS at the same time. While enjoying myself, a plus since all this truth telling… *The pay sucks*.


    • Ronald, my response to Tenor covers that. At least I hope it does. We have to turn it upside down and examine it from that angle as well. The pre-selection factor. Meaning: they would not have been given the positions, titles, awards, without first passing the test, fulfilling the selection criteria. A great example of this: Walter Pincus of Washington Post. Look, the guy was directly employed by the CIA before. His son is one of the top attorneys working for and defending BlackWater (whatever is their current name). Look at his rank. Look at his awards. Look at his coverage area.

      It would be extremely foolish to exclude the journalists from the system, and hold on to the belief that they are so innocent recipients or victims. With these particular set of journalists (Those who cover DOD, intel, etc; those with marketed name as a brand, those with flowery awards …) you are looking at a willing participant/player.

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Indeed, what we know about Operation Mockingbird tells that the distinction between state espionage and what I’m calling “public espionage” is very problematic. In fact, it is no longer an operation or CIA program simply because it has become the status quo.

        Still, the information that these mockingbird agents give us can be useful if we can read past what they are trying to get us to believe and discerning instead what their true motivations are. Of course, this requires an amount of analytical energy that the average consumer of news is not prepared to exert.

        • “Of course, this requires an amount of analytical energy that the average consumer of news is not prepared to exert.”- Right again. With much experience and practice, I can visit a site like NYT or Salon or Mother Jones, take what’s reported/written about, deconstruct it, and after that reconstruct a version that is ‘useful’;-)

          • CuChulainn says:

            Dean Acheson once told a junior partner at Covington Burling, when he saw him reading a newspaper, “don’t believe anything but the sports pages!”

          • 344thBrother says:

            Sibel you wrote: “With much experience and practice, I can visit a site like NYT or Salon or Mother Jones, take what’s reported/written about, deconstruct it, and after that reconstruct a version that is ‘useful’;-) ”

            I think my personal filter is less complex than yours. I start with a headline. If my BS idiot light blinks I either ignore it, or read it to see what kind of BS they’re putting out today. If it doesn’t blink on the headline, I usually skim the report for the gist of it and see if the BS light goes off again and try to figure out what sort of BS they’re feeding us and why. Then move on.

            It covers more ground, less thoroughly. I guess it’s like a weedwhacker versus a putting green mower. So in that respect I guess I’m kind of a (w)hack << so be it.

            I do look at 911 related topics more closely, but that's my primary interest.

            ps, I've got your coffee and am mixing it today and sending. It's not my best work, I had to make do with limited organic ingredients in the small town nearby. If you like it, I'll make more.

            God bless us every one

          • Absolutely, Dave. I do that with a very few ‘noteworthy’ items. For example, when Wash Post wrote a major propaganda piece on Fethullah Gulen. It was great to use their article to take them down: the two ‘experts’ they relied upon were both known former CIA guys (Graham Fuller & Robert Bear), while Fuller was the person who sponsored Gulen’s citizenship (I had the court documents to prove it) …

            On the other hand, like you, I ignore 99% of bs- not worth the time.

            Coffee: Looking forward to it. Soon I’ll be in SE Asia (for two weeks), and will covert to their traditional concoction while there (I always do). Dark, thick, yet not too bitter. Sipping, while sitting on one of those tiny stools on the sidewalk, watching 1000s buzzing through on their bicycles/scooters. Great coffee for less than 50 cents per cup!

    • @RONALD; They must obey their masters!! It’s a rigged system we are staring at. I’m sure Sibel knows a” gatekeeper” or two. So-called high-powered journalists who raise a progressive’s hopes–takes one to the edge…and then nothing. Zero. zilch happens. I have experienced that feeling too many times to count.

  9. Mike Mejia says:


    You’re relying on Wikipedia for the truth ? 🙂

  10. 344thBrother says:

    OK this sounds Naive even to me, but I have to ask it.

    Isn’t there some way to hold a “reporter” *cough* civilly liable for say… enough money to REALLY hurt them by using a notarized and signed document or the equivalent up front in any negotiation between the media and whistle blowers? I’m sure criminal charges trump civil ones, but still a signed ironclad privacy agreement with penalties delineated might go some distance toward protecting the sources. Yes?

    Also, Sibel you reported this:
    “Do you think I’m going to give up my deputy FBI source for some F-ing contract linguist whistle-blower?”

    Read that:
    “Do you think I’m going to break the biggest story of all time, exposing the machinations behind 911 and the involvement of the Federal Government? (NO) Do you think I’m really a reporter? (NO) Do you think that “Reporters” job is to “Report?” (NO) Our job is to obey orders and the order is, thou shalt NOT break any story that exposes the Federal Government’s culpability in 911 (etc.. ).” (RIGHT)

    “It’s all about our valuable high level inside sources” *COUGH* It’s all about what these so called “Valuable high level inside sources tell us to print! THAT is how we make our living as “Reporters”! We’re supposed to be the 4th arm of the government, but we’re still attached at the shoulder CAPICE?”

    RE: Dennis Hastert
    It occurs to me that blackmail works both ways. It keeps the blackmailed person under control and it gives the blackmailers an excuse NOT to publish any information relating to their “Confidential informant” or “Person of interest” or “Case that’s currently under investigation” (Read that Blackmailed individual). (Obvious I know, but I thought I’d mention it anyway)

    It’s great cover for the “Powers” and the “Investigating agency” as well as insurance against any “CI” going off the reservation.

    You have to give these guys credit for being clever. I wonder what Machiavelli had to say about blackmail… I’ll have to look that one up. (Note, I did and I could find nothing) which surprised me a lot. Perhaps I just didn’t look in the right places.

    peace freedom truth justice

  11. Regarding the award-winning guy Sibel and her source got leery of and dumped, and events surrounding him years later, I may see a parallel in my very close (and most definitely unauthorized) monitoring of how law enforcement drug task forces “run” their Confidential Informants (CIs). If the CI happens to be present when they make the bust, the CI is generally taken down with all the others, none too gently. Well, anyone who watches cops shows knows that’s SOP.

    But HERE is the important part: The cops go to some length, often using technical means, to construct parallel probable cause and evidence chain for prosecution along a route which appears to completely exclude the CI from suspicion as being the “rat”. For a highly theoretical example, if their CI lets them know a substantial load will be moved in a certain vehicle, cops in unmarked cars could conceivably use covert technical means to cause the load vehicle to stall in traffic, whereupon uniformed Officer Friendly will just happen to be on the spot to offer assistance. In the course of providing aid and assistance, Officer Friendly’s highly trained olfactory nodes will detect a suspicious odor, and there is your probable cause for a vehicle search. In this theoretical scenario, the mule never knows the actual reason he had such bad luck that day, and there is certainly no cause for suspicion of the CI, thus keeping him viable for future use.

    In the case of a journalist who has a supposedly confidential source prosecuted, there could theoretically be a “revelation” in the media that the unsuspecting journalist was having his electronic communications monitored covertly as result of a warrant obtained on the clearly unjustified allegation that the journalist himself was suspected of criminal activity. In such an instance, the Big Bad State takes all the heat for being the heavy, while the journalist keeps his bona fides intact in terms of journalistic integrity.

    Would a proper term for this kind of thing be “sheep-washing?”

  12. Another intriguing podcast; thank you Sibel.

    I am so impressed by someone who could walk through such a minefield of corruption and not only stay true to your integrity and values, but to not have given up on the fight!

    I am humbled and will continue to listen and learn (to you all) so I may do the same when required.


    • Thank you, Shane. During the first 7-8 years of this journey I ‘quitted’ dozens of times, saying ‘What’s the point, what difference can I truly make … so futile …I’ve had it.’ It would last a few days, and in some cases even a few weeks, and then it would come down to: ‘What chance do we have if we all give up trying? Are we going to sit and take it passively?’ And then, back on my horse for a few more rounds, and then the ‘quitting’ scenario would repeat itself again.

  13. Dear Sibel,
    Thanks for the new “Probable Cause” series which I have been following faithfully. I was watching a clip with Indira Singh yesterday where she was reading a letter of Thomas Kean. I also follow James Corbett’s site and he recently talked about Indira Singh and wondered where she was. Are you able to divulge any information you have?
    If not openly perhaps directly with James.
    All the best,

    • Hello Chuck, and welcome.
      I listened to the Indira Singh interview on Corbett’s PTECH podcast – it is incredible material and new to me. It does dovetail in with much of what Sibel has been discussing in this series. I would be keen to hear if Sibel is in touch with Indira, but I’ll guess if she was then James would know about it by now.

    • Check, welcome to our forum! We always get excited when we hear/read from a new voice; a new name.

      Last time I heard from Singh she was going away- somewhere far from this madness. It is the norm. So many get tired, exhausted, disgusted, and just quit. Most do. Look around you, how many of the 9/11 family groups/activists do you see out there, still standing? Last I heard, a few of them went to visit Obama in White House in early 2009 to make him promise he would do something about 9/11.

      How many of the outspoken gov whistleblowers do you see still standing? I’d say, close to 80%-85% have taken a bow, and exited the stage. Unfortunately, it is so easy, common, to give up all disgusted, and go away. It is a long-term battle, and as with all long-term battles, as you approach the end, you see a very few still standing.

      In a way I view our community here as those who have geared up, prepared, for a long tedious bloody battle.

  14. arealjeffersonian says:

    Sibel has certainly given us a plethora of real life examples of the negatives of today’s main stream media players – outlets and journalists, and how they are controlled by the deep state. Does anyone have any positive examples? Are there any? And if not, how are we ever going to counteract the propaganda without a major media outlet that isn’t controlled? Maybe if a Bezos or Omidyar came along who wanted to use his billions to create one – but that’s a pipe dream. So, what do we do? Beyond what Sibel is already doing here at BFP.

    Of course the mainstream media never gave us unfiltered truth. It was always thru the lens of the organization, with the organizations motives and the self interests of the owners. Hearst published what the Hearsts wanted.Same for the Grahams at the Washington Post. However, because they were not controlled by the states’ players as they are today, we did sometimes get anti-state, or state corruption news. Certainly better that today.

    Excuse the rambling, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that journalism and reporting was never perfect – never what we would really like to have, and always needed to be interpreted with a eye to understanding the motives of those presenting the news – but was nonetheless somewhat a balance to the state. Now that even that balance has disappeared, back to my question – what do we replace it with?

  15. We can see, at this point, it is a given the media, including the leading “alternative” media, is state-coerced at the very least, if not fully state-controlled. Whatever other reasons the deep state has for expending the time and energy to control media, it’s logical to assume self-preservation is at or near the top of the list. An uncontrolled media would present a clear and present danger to the kind of state we have, for reasons I don’t think I need to waste a lot of keystrokes iterating. Suffice to say briefly, the state certainly doesn’t want the media actually revealing uncolored truth, which could theoretically lead to a non-synthetic popular revolt.

    So how does the deep state relate organically to the media? Does it fully integrate the media as part of its organism, or is the media and its pretty talking heads considered as servants only? Assuming there are concentric circles, is it logical to assume the pre-selected and co-opted media figures are given seats in the innermost circle, or are they held to some outer orbit?

    Aside from popular revolts, the other way states get overturned is by military junta, which can be direct as we’ve seen in many cases, or somewhat indirect as in the case of Egypt, where the military exerts final say while not actually making itself the visible figurehead of government. What it boils down to, I think I’m trying to say, is that if the state is unable to control the leadership of the military, it is no longer the master of its destiny. This view presupposes the state and the military leadership are distinct, but are they?

    Is the MIC we speak of, one and the same as the Deep State? Or is the MIC a coerced and controlled appendage of the deep state in the same manner as the popular media, restricted to orbits outside the inner circle? I ask this because Eisenhower was the last military leader installed as POTUS, and that was long ago. He in fact sounded a warning about the MIC. Not very long prior to that, another great military leader who quite conceivably could have had the White House for the asking, was very publicly slapped down by POTUS Truman. Whereupon he accepted that his fate was to “fade away”. He juxtaposed fading away with dying. Reviewing his farewell address through the lens of what we know now, might be revealing.

    The question I’m forming seems to be, is the MIC the actual deep state inside the innermost circle, or is the MIC an external factor the deep state endeavors to control and coerce in the interest of self-preservation?

    We’re lucky to have Sibel’s insights into how the state coerces and controls media, alternative media and NGOs. I wonder if she or a WB she trusts, can give similar insights on how the state controls and coerces military leadership, and to what level of rank? What about the defense industry giants? Is the allegiance of the CEOs and Directors to the MIC completely organic and profit-driven, or are there purposeful designed-in mechanisms to make sure everyone who gets to that level of corporate leadership is “with the program”?

    The US military is the one force on earth which could overturn ANY state on Earth virtually overnight. I was taught in school our military voluntarily submits to civilian control as signified in the oath of each member to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Given that the deep state clearly is an enemy of the plain language of the Constitution, the fact that the military has failed to keep its oath so far is the best evidence I can point to, of coercion and control of military leadership.

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Knarf you wrote: “The question I’m forming seems to be, is the MIC the actual deep state inside the innermost circle, or is the MIC an external factor the deep state endeavors to control and coerce in the interest of self-preservation? ”

      In my opinion it’s a bit of both. Like any of the deep states puppet (massive) organizations, the MIC is full of individuals and bureaucracies and within them are a bunch of individuals with differing points of view, priorities and behaviors. I view it as similar to a bunch of cats trying to heard a bunch of other cats all being herded by a few dogs… for lack of a better metaphor. The dogs catch and eat some of the cats and scare some of them into a corner, but overall the whole thing is too complex to be managed.

      On the other hand, the MIC itself is a self perpetuating war machine and it’s teamed up with all the so called “intelligence agencies” *oxymoron there* in order to feed propaganda into the system and thus continue the wars and the infinite support of itself.

      I think there may be a military leader somewhere who’s popular enough (Schwartzkopf? for instance) who could make a good run for president against a Hillary or a Jebby clone… but I doubt that there’s any military leader in our ginormous military system who could take over without massive resistance from the other branches of the military and thus failure.

      In the end, I think and hope that overall the military system probably has more people who support our efforts than not, even if they follow orders that are detrimental and don’t come out publicly. If some big event happens in the USA, after the initial screaming and bloodshed, I expect (and hope) that the military will be stalemated at worst and on our side at best.

      Don’t ask me to support that with facts, I can’t, it’s a gut feeling but my gut has a pretty good track record.

      What do you think?

      • Actually, I think there must be a very tight-knit core which is controlling operatives who are compartmentalized by “need to know”. The coordination and resources required for preparing and executing a 9/11 operation is indicative of a very competent organization with at least sufficient, if not excellent, operational security.

        When this group creates and propagates a narrative which, for example, justifies and gives urgency to a military incursion, and this narrative is propagated faithfully by controlled media, then a process begins which could be likened to chains of dominoes falling.

        Politicians suddenly have hay to make, in favor or even in (controlled) opposition to the incursion. The military intrinsically has a bias for action, so it just needs to be pointed in a certain direction and told “Go!” The industrial complex which supports the military is competitive and customer-oriented, so it needs no prodding to be sure. The media has a “big story” to debate and develop human-interest stories around. In a way, it’s a feeding frenzy.

        There are many other self-actuating players who only need the narrative for impetus to do their part. ( I could probably be more lucid and expositive if I wasn’t lousy with the flu right now).

        Once the narrative is properly crafted and propagated, the “cats and dogs” seem to herd themselves. The paradigm we live in assures this will happen.

        How to change this? Here the consensus seems to be that we have to change ourselves first. I’ve been trying to develop the capacity to absorb and integrate the FIREHOSE of information which has certainly been coming at me lately, thanks to Sibel and Corbett and so forth.

        I’ve been down a rabbit hole most of my life, in that I knew young and know now, that most people live in the General Mainstream Illusion. Even so, for the most part I made sweeping assumptions about how the deep state operates, without actually investigating and understanding the nitty-gritty. So in terms of the change of mindset needed to grasp the reality of the deep state and mentality which drives it, I was already there, but I was lacking hard knowledge about the mechanisms.

        This process of changing ourselves and supporting venues such as this one which are raising awareness, is of course good and necessary, and I intend to support this effort until I draw my last breath. I see a parallel between Sibel and John the Baptist, both of them determined to cry out from the wilderness even if no other voice joins in with them. That is the place we all need to get our heads and hearts into, I would humbly suggest. The place where we will continue to seek the truth and speak it when it is discovered, even if no there is no other living soul remaining which can bear to hear it.

        When the core Irate Minority becomes a sufficiently sizeable portion of the populace, the instrument which seizes the moment to turn against the deep state may well be the military, if history is any lesson. What is “sufficiently sizeable portion of the populace?” I don’t know, but I suspect it’s less than 5%. There will be another group, 10-30% perhaps, who will have been primed with some knowledge and distrust of the deep state, and they will be generally supportive of changing things. The rest will either be apathetic, passively opposed, or actively opposed.

        So, as others have pointed out, in the end there will be lots of blood and screaming, because that is how things get done when all else fails, and also because we’re human beings who are wired to be predatory and territorial , deep inside our little lizard brains beneath the cortex.

  16. So. at least Redford’s question is answered. They will not print. Not then. Not now. Whatever character he played is already dead. so where is Redford? If he’s done his sums, he knows 911 is an inside job..he makes movies…..Sundance is coming up ….

    • So I awake this AM on my way to checking my email and the news feed (NBC) from my major broadband provider tells me that our Top Guns are organizing to counter the “Putin Push”. Ahh, Maverick and Ice Man are on the job, protecting us all. I’m reassured, and thinking that fish hooks for breakfast would be good.

    • 344thBrother says:

      remo, love your avatar
      how did you get it posted?
      ihave one in mind for myself that i’ve used for a long time.

  17. I think the worst part about the awakening process, is realizing there is nowhere to ‘come out’ to. No safe haven. ‘Safety’ – ‘Law’ ‘Justice’ …..was the illusion each and every instance revealed here and otherwise concerning 911/gladio/deepstate illustrate..

  18. WaPo was definitely used to initiate persecution, as evinced by their subsequent case isolation behavior and failure to report details of how the hammer was being dropped – and the reporter was almost certainly a sheep-dipped hatchet man as well. This is de rigueur and the access reporter stable is routinely used to do precisely this sort of thing. They set the stage for the smear job and often the best way to isolate someone so they can be ruined is to blow the whistle on the whistleblower, contrast with snowden/greenwald for instance where you have a manufactured media darling doing his first interview a few blocks from the U.S. embassy in Hong Kong – anyone who really understands modern China and the geopolitical reality knows that the U.S. is basically a hijacked nation and that “China” is a NWO laboratory, stripped down and rebuilt from scratch via yat-sen/kai-shek/tse-tung etc. arc – moreover, they will understand how implausible this dude not getting whacked is were he an actual threat – rather he was a “manufactured avatar of the intelligence community” used to debrief the plebs and condition them to being chilled by the new technopanopticon that has been in place since 9/11 and patriot acts 1&2. Genuine whistleblowers end up destroyed, isolated, impoverished. Their contacts dry up, they get audited, etc., but in Snowden’s case he becomes a celebrity appearing at megatrendy tech conferences via telepresence droids… used to sell the slaves essentially meaningless swiss cheese soft encryption solutions from NSA adjuncts like Google and Apple in an era of beowulf architecture quantum computing chipsets like the DWave (remember, this architecture is what’s Commercially available…) that has the heuristics muscle to approximate a non-deterministic process, meaning even encryption like layered PGP can simply be brute forced in linear time. Of course the real reason for this roll out is to get people to meta-tag their own data as being worth looking at, they have been hoovering up everything since 9/11, the real problem they have is that even their best algorithms cannot discriminate what is worth looking at out of all this traffic. What better way than to condition people like TSA love pat downs at their airport and such dog training? Get them to meta-tag their own data according to self-directed organic protocols – after all, people generally will not encrypt data that isn’t worth looking at, or they will use lower levels of encryption for non essential data, and higher levels for stuff they want to secure more…

    Even military-grade encryption solutions are, at this point, only going to slow the “NSA” (really, a global technopanopticon grid) down.

    Suffice it to say – a clear example of how people who try to go through official channels get railroaded, clearly contrasted with a debriefing psyop (snowden).

  19. Here is an amazing update:

    Yesterday I finished my notes and pre-recording of our next episode: ‘The 1980 Coup in Turkey: False flags, coups, hearts and minds.’ The subtopic is based on first-hand experience of the coup, the events that massages and prepared the hearts and minds prior to the coup (False flag ops; synthetic terror incidents between 1977-1980, etc.), and the parallels with 9/11 …

    Anyhow. This morning I saw the headline news: The Turkish General (Kenan Evren) who implemented the coup for his US-NATO bosses died today … Talk about timing! I will try to have the episode up later this afternoon…

  20. 344thBrother says:

    looking forward to the Turkey episode Sibel.
    clarification? you escaped to Turkey from Iran then the Turkish coup happened?
    i know you’re going to answer this in the podcast, but wow…

    • Turkey was always our home base; all our extended family members were there. We spent 4 months a year there while resided in Iran (3 months in summer; more or less one month during winter breaks). We permanently returned (escaped Iran) in 1982 during post-coup curfews, military tribunals, hundreds of thousands disappearing …

      So we were there, and witnessed the so-called ‘chaos and anarchy’ period; the terror (false flag operations’) events …

  21. Two questions still sit with me from this podcast.

    1. Sibel, do you wonder if your trusted whistleblower friends who referred you to Darth Vader set you up?
    2. There was proof of criminal conduct committed by a handful of politicians that has never seen the light of day. Why did it have to be released only through major broadcast news outlet? Why not on the web, WikiLeaks, Rolling Stone, or BFP, or anyplace where it could be printed up accurately?

    • Rolling Stone: You could not get more sheep-dipped than RS. On top of that they are ultra Zionist.

      Wikileaks: The jury is out on that one.

      BFP: You need resources. You need legal resources (attorney and the money to pay to the attorneys), you need editor(s), fact-checkers … Without resources not possible. And as far as millions of blogs/sites out there: nothing like using those as channels to destroy credibility, waste solid info, and marginalize the info/messenger.

      Do you remember what happened with two sources who got the documents on CIA torture? The CIA and its legal department came after them. We were the only site (later, Gawker reposted it) that was willing to risk and put ‘some’ of that info out.

      As I have said before: easier said than done. And one of the main reasons I started BFP. Unfortunately we are no where near that capability (having the needed resources) currently …

      • arealjeffersonian says:

        Why not BFP? I understand Sibel, without deep pockets, legal resources & editing/fact checking resources its just not possible. So why can’t we get enough support here to make that possible?

  22. 344thBrother says:

    Damn Sibel. After all the horror you’ve witnessed in your life, I am amazed and impressed by your courage to continue to fight this good fight. You give me hope.
    peace freedom truth justice

  23. Hi Sibel et al,

    On February 18, 2015, John Cothron, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners,, informed me that the Board has opened an investigation of my professional conduct, based on a complaint it received.

    This is, I hope, good news, as it may result in an official determination that I have at least “reasonable belief” in my public claims of “decades-long, compounded, continuing, civilization-threatening, law-breaking in federal agencies U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).” Leaders of OSC and MSPB, for many years now, have done everything they can to evade any such review of my claims – successfully in very large part – up to the Supreme Court.

    The complaint, the Board’s letter to me, and my response can be found at

    I would appreciate your contacting John Cothron, Executive Director of the Tennessee Board, to express your interest in the outcome of the Board’s investigation. A positive determination by the Tennessee Board will, I trust, spur the media and Congressional interest necessary to persuade President Obama to comply with his primary statutory duty to the 2 million members of the Federal Civil Service by directing a review of how OSC and MSPB have interpreted and applied over a dozen specific civil service statutes in performing their essential roles in the regulation of the management culture in every federal agency, including intelligence agencies.

    Just a short email or letter would be adequate. Mr. Cothron’s contact information is on his letter, his email is Thank you for whatever consideration you give this request, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.


    Joe Carson, PE
    Knoxville, TN

  24. Amazing. The rules of wapo to have “multiple witnesses” is like the accusation hurled at sharia about “multiple witnesses” needed to corroborate infidelity. It’s the deep state and propaganda press that have an irreligious marriage.

Speak Your Mind