Welcome to Johnlebon.com


This website has grown and changed over the past two years.

This is true of both the content and the user base.

Content: There is now more than 100 hours of audio/video material and two large books’ worth of written pieces in the back-catalogue.

User base: More than half of the current members of the site joined in just the past nine months.

So I decided to get the opinions of some of the OG crew: people who were here back when this place was an empty mud-hut compared to what we see now.

These are individuals who have not only watched on as the site has developed, but played an active role in that development.

I asked them: where should new members begin, when trying to make their way through the archive of older material?

What is most worthy of attention? How can a n00b get ‘up to speed’ as quickly as possible?

Chad, fuhng, Nate and Mezzie were happy to share their thoughts.


This video (and accompanying links) may be of use to three different groups of people:

New members will hear some suggestions about where they might like to begin their journey through the older material.

Existing members will likely enjoy the reflections of the OG crew.

Visitors will get a better idea of what this site is all about.


JLBA #14 | Welcome to Johnlebon.com (21-Aug-2018)


I will be making all of the content which came up during that chat available to Freeloader members.

This means that prospective full-access members can see for themselves if this is really the kind of site they want to be part of.

If you can’t get through all of this material without getting bored or distracted, then don’t sign up. It is not for everybody.

If on the other hand you check out the following pieces and realise what sets this website apart from everything else on the internet today, then you know what to do next.

You will need at least a Freeloader Membership to access several of the pieces below.

If you don’t already have any form of membership to this site, you can fix that problem here.

Primary Source Research Methodology

The History Hoax – A Primer

The History of ‘Histories’

37 Things Normies Believe

Thinking About Thinking

The Practice of Skepticism

The War Hoax Pt 1 – Introduction

9/11: How Many Really Died or Got Hurt?

Production notes: Audio recorded 19-Aug-2018 during MSC #32 aftercall. Video produced 21-Aug-2018. Released publicly. Updated 25-Aug-2018.


14 thoughts on “Welcome to Johnlebon.com

  • 21-August-2018 at 8:35 pm

    Very nicely done! I haven’t listened to/ watched the video but the pieces above are the best on the internet for the skeptic n00b!

    This piece should have a permanent spot on the home page!

  • 22-August-2018 at 9:45 am

    Ha! This was the first time I listened to myself. Jfc, my chair was loud, and I kept moving around, sorry about that. I need to speak more clearly too.

    One of your first rocket videos helped me a lot. It might have been the very first, I cant remember. I think you drew things out with force arrows and all that. That was what helped me to see that horizontal rockets are impossible. I’ve taken a lot of physics and engineering courses, so maybe drawing it out helped me think of it the same as a problem from my statics and dyamics course 16 years ago.

    Once I could see that rocket science was hyped up and at least partially bs, it was easy for me to see how fucking hilarious V2 rockets really are. I remember you mentioned them in a msc and we looked them up. If V2 rockets are a joke…

    I couldn’t remember if the war hoax video had any drawings or visuals, so I started watching it. About 5 minutes into the video you show videos of rockets taking off and you ask about what is REALLY being shown in those videos. What is actually being shown vs what is suggested and imagined.

    That reminds me of the things Lesta Nediam talked about. Noobs would have benefited from some of Lesta’s work, unfortunately he took down most of his content. His twitter is still up, I still go there every so often and read his tweets. I would love to have a “page a day” calender made up with Lesta’s tweets.

    Anyway, that idea of “what is actually shown vs what is imagined” reminds me of a recent Twitter post of Lesta’s:

    https://t.co/zzAeGNvZls https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/1024199132682969088?s=17

    • 22-August-2018 at 6:49 pm

      One of your first rocket videos helped me a lot. It might have been the very first, I cant remember. I think you drew things out with force arrows and all that. That was what helped me to see that horizontal rockets are impossible. I’ve taken a lot of physics and engineering courses, so maybe drawing it out helped me think of it the same as a problem from my statics and dynamics course 16 years ago.

      It was pretty cool to read this, thank you.

      You are referring to ‘Are Some Missiles a Hoax? How Do They Generate Lift?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad1iCYcdyiM

      To this day, one of the most important pieces of content I have ever produced. And completely misunderstood by 99.x% of the people who have seen it. All see but only a fraction have eyes to see. The beauty of that video is not so much what it reveals about missiles but what it reveals about the audience.

      Wow, more than 15 months ago now, I released that video. A huge stepping stone for me. It helped me to see just how utterly hopeless most people in the ACT realm truly are. The vast majority of commenters on that video were not even able to understand the point(s) I was making, let alone respond in a constructive fashion.

      Effectively brain-dead. Not merely unable to think, but unable to comprehend. Even when given colorful pictures to follow along.

      The force/vector diagram is such a simple yet effective way to consider and explore the Missile Question. And I owe that idea to my senior high school physics classes. It is no surprise to me that a person who has been trained in science (such as yourself) would have been able to resonate with that video.

      You are quite right about Lesta’s talent in encouraging his/her audience to ask themselves if what they are seeing on the screen is the same as what they are being told is taking place on the screen. With the nightly news, especially when it comes to ‘war’, the viewer is usually told that something is happening when the footage itself simply does not corroborate the claim being made.

      Once again we see that the skeptic’s duty is similar to the person explaining a magician’s trick. Encouraging the audience to think consciously about what they are being shown. To ask themselves if there are omissions and if these omissions may be deliberate i.e. part of the act.

      Lesta did some good work. Shame that he/she went off the rails and started arguing that ‘outer space’ is real etc.

      • 24-August-2018 at 6:26 am

        Lesta did some good work. Shame that he/she went off the rails and started arguing that ‘outer space’ is real etc.

        JLB, may I ask again what “outer space” means to you?
        My logic keeps telling me that if there’s an outer space there should be an inner space too, but where does one end and the other start? And what distinguishes the two?

        • 31-August-2018 at 12:41 pm

          First, let me apologise if I have failed to answer this question in the past.

          When I say ‘outer space’, I am using the term in the general sense, as in, the place which we are led to believe exists beyond our own ‘atmosphere’.

          In this place, we are told, there is a ‘vacuum’, and things can float about, as though they are submersed in water, when they are supposedly submersed in nothing.

          This is, of course, a place which you and I can never go to, but which our great and fearless experts of ‘science’ can visit at any time!

          When you speak about an ‘inner space’, I presume you are speaking about the atmosphere as we know it. This obviously exists.

          Those who promote ‘outer space’ as a real place, are trying to have us believe that there is something beyond what we know to be real. A magical and fantastical place, where gigantic objects fly around at incredible speeds, on an infinite (or practically-inifinite) trip through an ‘infinite vastness’ of nothing.

          • 01-September-2018 at 4:52 pm

            OK, so outer space basically means out of atmosphere. Hence not believing in outer space is akin to believe atmosphere just goes on and on with no ending.
            That may well be the case, but if we agree there’s a significant and constant drop in air density with increasing altitude, density going at some point around zero seems to be also a plausible option.
            We simply don’t know what’s “up there”, but I think a vacuum definitely cannot be ruled out as a reasonable possibility.
            My point being that “believing” or “not believing” in outer space is in no way proof someone is going “off the rail” as a good skeptic, as you seem to imply about Lesta.
            As you know JLB, it’s not a matter of “floating”, but of traveling at an high enough orbital speed to counteract gravity. Alas, that kind of velocity cannot be reached by physical objects within the atmosphere, so the “vacuum of space” is an essential part of the satellites/space travels narrative.
            On the other hand, the fact that space travels are BS doesn’t imply or prove that there’s no vacuum of space.
            As an aside note, I think the “vacuum of space” might turn out to be the greatest Achille’s heel in the space traveling narrative, coz I’m confident that to (purportedly) generate propulsion by free expanding gasses in a vacuum is against the laws of physics.

  • 23-August-2018 at 9:23 am

    Yes, that was the video.

    Lol, the response to that video! Yes, I thought the same thing, that video was important for opening my eyes to the war hoax, but probably more important because it helped me realize that the “truth movement” is a hopeless waste of life.

    How the magic tricks are done, that’s what Lesta taught.

    For instance, that Korean guy that got poisoned in an airport a while ago, remember that? Watch the blurry potato cam footage of him being “poisoned” by someone from behind. What do you see in that video? Do you see him being poisoned? I see him getting strangled with a piano wire, because I think that is more exciting.

    Its so blurry and low def that anything a viewer happens to see in that clip will only be a subjective interpretation. The authorities suggest a story, and then the viewer projects that story onto the potato cam footage, “oh yeah, she must be trying to get him to inhale that poison, you can kindof see right there with the bag and the way they move.”

    In this way, the audience convinces themselves of the story. They “fill in the blanks” themselves and so the story is actually more convincing than a story coming entirely from someone else. Its a trick that con artists use. A con artist will set things up so that a mark will convince himself of the ruse, the mark’s greed will convince himself that he really is going to get rich or make out in the deal.

    Also, when the audience accepts silly claims supported with only potato cam footage, the audience is trained to accept claims with little to no proof. After enough training, the authorities will be able to make up all sorts of ridiculous claims and they wont need to show any proof at all to support the claim. Or they would probably show the audience cartoon recreations of the event to help viewers construct the story in their head.

    The point is that it doesnt really matter if Korean dude was poisoned, or strangled, or hugged, or even real, we will probably never know. The point is that the media made a claim (“korean man was poisoned”), and the video presented to support that claim was so blurry that it is proof of nothing.

    Claims presented without “sufficient proof”, that is what the media is all about. Its so simple, and important.

    • 23-August-2018 at 11:49 am

      Excellent comment. Lesta did indeed explain how the audience is expected to fill in the blanks for themselves. One of the most insightful ideas or concepts I derived from Lesta’s work.

      It would be interesting to find out how many members of this website still believe in things like ‘heat-seeking missiles’ and other War Hoax mythos.

      In my mind, there are still a few different options on the table as to what to do next, once the Dinoskeptic film is released.

      Now that I have come to realise just how many of the members of this site still believe in things like Flat Earth, ‘ancient history’, ‘War’, etc etc, it has kinda forced me to reassess the options with a fresh perspective.

      I mean this in a positive way. I like the idea that this place can attract (and maintain a positive and constructive atmosphere while hosting) people who still think the magic tricks are real.

      But it is odd to me that people can watch my video about, say, the Missile Hoax, and disagree with me, but then want to hear what I have to say on other, related topics.

      If I am wrong about missiles being a hoax, then surely I have ‘lost my mind’. Surely it calls into question my entire method, my framework for interacting with the world around me.

      Why would sane people want to listen to what a complete madman has to say?

      • 24-August-2018 at 12:03 am

        I bet they are after another hit of “mind blow”, and they are willing to go through just about anything(lol) for just one more fix.

        I remember hearing someone say how heroin dealers don’t have to advertise or push their product once a customer is hooked. Once a person is hooked, they will go through ridiculous lengths just to get more dope. Once a person is hooked, they would cross WWI battlefields, climb active volcanos, pay ridiculous prices, etc for just one fix. Heroin dealers have the problem that customer demand is always high, he could retire from the drug business and become a police officer and he will still have junkies banging on his door for the chance to get high.

        Con artists have that problem sometimes too. Con artists let the mark convince himself of the scam, and so sometimes a con artist will rip someone off, but then the mark will still keep bugging the con man for another chance to get rich. Anyone with eyes should be able to see they got ripped off, but the mark doesnt want to see that, they want to believe their plan/dream/delusion. Plus, folks don’t like admitting they got tricked.

        Marks are usually more intelligent than non-victims because an intelligent mark is able to tell himself a more convincing story. Marks sometimes want to make it rich soooo bad that their eyes will refuse to see they were ripped off. A mark would rather imagine that something went wrong during the last deal and that maybe THIS time they will get rich. Im pretty sure con men have to leave town sometimes because they are getting stalked by retarded marks bothering them for another shot.

        I know a dude who believed he won the lottery in Africa. He lost his whole retirement fund trying to pay “customs” for his lottery winnings. It was so sad, that guy worked hard his whole life. Guess what? The dude is STILL trying to get to his lottery winnings. He wants to believe.

        I admit, I love me some mind blow. That first missile video gave me a hell of a hit.

        It seems like there are folks that can get a hit of mind blow off something, but then they don’t adjust their framework, they apparently don’t think about all the corollaries. For me personally, I enjoy the sort of mind blow that I can spend days or weeks thinking about what I can infer from that mind blow. For instance, its mind blowing that V2 rockets are an blatant joke, but its more mind blowing for me to think about the corollaries of that.

        Oh great, now im running late. Lol, its like I went into a time warp just now writing this comment. Whoops!

      • 07-October-2018 at 4:21 pm

        As a newcomer to your site, JLB, I’ll try to address why I enjoy engaging with your material, and even in disagreement, wouldn’t accuse you of ‘losing your mind’. 😉 Reading, watching and listening to your material so far, I have of course agreed with some things more than others, but on the whole my views are aligned with the vast majority of the content.

        ・You show your thought processes. I’ve been entertained by many a YouTuber telling me this and that, but they almost never outline their reasoning, nor provide source material.
        ・You’re not dogmatic. You’re clearly sincere and passionate about what you do, but you don’t shove it down our throats.
        ・You encourage us to think for ourselves.
        ・You’re not abusive to those who disagree with your ideas, and you in turn counter-argue in a respectful manner.
        ・You don’t have any agenda, other than self-improvement. You’re doing this for your own journey.

        I can’t speak for everyone, but I imagine the above qualities go a long way with people. They certainly do with me.

        • 09-October-2018 at 11:08 am

          Many thanks for the kind words. After years of doing what I do, I have arrived at the position that the best I can hope to do with this platform is to encourage people to think about their own thinking, while I continue to explore my own thinking about my own thinking. Or, to put it another way, I am challenging what I think I know, and I am trying to encourage others to challenge what they think they know.

          The process could be described/visualised as:

          What do I think I know?
          -> What is my evidence?
          -> What is the official story?
          -> Does this really make sense or seem believable to me?
          -> What are some other explanations/claims?
          -> What is the evidence for or against?
          -> What do I make of this now, having revisited it?

          With so much of what I thought I knew, my answer to the final question has been different to my answer to the initial question.

          My interest is not in convincing people to agree with my answer to the final question. It is merely to encourage them to engage in the process for themselves.

          Where that process takes the individual, or where it takes the site more broadly, only time will tell.

  • 24-August-2018 at 11:41 pm

    I’ve been wondering for a while, “if the moon really isn’t a solid physical place that a person could ever possibly go to, then what is it?”

    I have no evidence, but I’ve thought before while hallucinating that the moon is part of “humanity’s soul”. Lol, Im a lunatic!

    I remember someone asking before, “What is the shape of human consciousness?”. I love that question. But yeah, I think that the moon might be part of our “group mind”.

    Ive got some strange views and beliefs, and they have been evolving a lot in the past five years, and especially in the past year or so. Ive started thinking that human consciousness creates the material universe, and it does so in a unanimous decision kind of way. The earth and “reality” change each day to fit the beliefs of the majority, and the losers wake up slightly changed in order to be congruent with the popular configuration of reality. The loser’s “backstory” is altered to fit the day’s popular reality. The past is literally rewritten, or normalized.

    I know it seems like there is an “objective reality” or material universe that exists independently from humans, but I don’t see it like that anymore.

    Each day we die(sleep), and each day we are reborn into a fresh “episode” or configuration of reality.

    We are born with memories of the past, so it seems like all those years ago really happened, but I don’t think so. Each day is like a play where the scene is setup and explained with a backstory just before the curtain opens. The past is just a story to explain the present, and since the story can change, it never really happened.

    Since reality is configured each day to fit the memories of humans, the configuration only has a certain amount of depth or history. A single person can only have a certain amount of backstory, a person can’t have 4 billion years of backstory. History seems to only go back ~200 years. I doubt there is a 200 year old human, so perhaps the backstory of earth allows for memories to be passed down once from one person to another. So if a 100 year old man had a child and told the child one of his earliest memories, then that son could live to 100. Then “history” would stretch back up to 200 years, and the configuration of reality would have a backstory with a depth of 200 years. And maybe memories can’t be passed down more than once.

    Idk, its a work in progress, im still trying to figure things out. Lesta said, “the universe functions like a dream”. How do you know when you wake up from a dream that you arent waking up into another dream?

    • 06-October-2018 at 2:03 pm

      Hi Nate, this was a wonderful read. It seems very reminiscent of that great movie “Dark City”. I may be misconstruing things slightly, but there seems to be contradictions here between individual experience and shared experience. Ironically this is the issue I had with Dark City.

      Everyone in the world sleeps at a different time, some people not at all. When a day starts or finishes is different depending on where you are. I personally don’t think that time exists anyway, nor that there is a thing called ‘a day’ that starts or finishes; merely the continuous, uninterrupted motion of celestial bodies (I use this term loosely). I can’t go along with the idea of a shared, daily reality starting or finishing together.

      Therefore I don’t see how humans could have a shared RE-configuration and ‘reset’ at the same time.

      However, I’m certainly not dismissing the idea of a shared reality. I have come across the idea before, that our perceptions are shaped by the beliefs of the majority. It’s an idea I like.

Leave a Reply