On Tuesday, the daily telegraph published a piece titled "Blackjack" in it's "culture" section.
It is a series of slides illustrating an event to take place on 20 June 09 - (the summer solstice) 2pm
The slides are extremely disturbing - they show the explosion of nuclear bombs in London (and lastly, in New York) - there are images of destroyed
British landmarks - Big Ben, Buckingham Palace - the aftermath is then portrayed - empty shelves in supermarkets - empty petrol pumps - congested
roads (moving away from the South)
Beneath the slides it reads "A slide show story - the events portrayed in this slide show are entirely fictitious"
Link : www.telegraph.co.uk...
Many individuals on the David Icke forum have telephoned the Telegraph to discover the identity of the author and what the Telegraph's motives were
concerning this publication. They have been met with individuals who are defensive, interrogate the caller as to who they are and why they want to
know - and then the phone has been slammed down on them before they have been given any information.
Theories so far:-
This is a warning of an real event - the new world order often advertise their plans in clear view - not front page but in the shadows! Many of the
elite are sun worshippers - the solstice is a time when the sun (therefore their power) is at it's strongest.
The story has been published in the knowledge that conspiracy theorist will pick it up and run with it - when nothing happens on 20/06/09 - the media
can then diminish the credibility of conspiracy theorists.
This event could be planned, not for 20/06/09 - but for 22/01/09 - when Colin Powell - following the election of Obama, stated that Obama would be
faced with a catastrophy.
Or This is purely a media excersise in spreading more fear about "war on Terror"
If the Telegraph (a supposedly reputable media group) chose to publish material of this nature - they have a responsibility to readers, and at the
very least, should be forced to release details of the author/designer, along with the editor reasoning for passing this item for publication.
VERY VERY ODD
[edit on 15-1-2009 by suziwong]