What Went Right With… Richard D. Hall & Rich Planet TV?

Caricature of Richard D. Hall by

Richard D. Hall is an Engineer, IT Consultant, and U.F.O. researcher, and his programme “Rich Planet TV” (previously know as “RichPlanet.Net” and “The Rich Planet Starship”) began airing in the UK during the mid-to-late noughties on Edge Media Television and then later on Information TV, Showcase TV, and Controversial TV satellite channels. The show takes an alternative look at subjects the mainstream media shy away from, and by taking the format of a chat show, Hall discusses the various issues with his guests without shoving a particular point of view down your throat. Rich Planet TV has now covered topics such as the corruption of music, television, entertainment, and broadcast news, it has also tackled staged terror and false-flag theories such as 9/11, 7/7, the Lee Rigby case, and the Cumbria Massacre, he of course has looked into animal mutilation and U.F.O.’s, and he has even made a few documentaries about the Madeleine McCann disappearance.

If you’ve never watched his show before, I recommend his discussions concerning mind control with Neil Sanders which are very informative and entertaining, his chats with Andrew Johnson about black project aircraft and 9/11 are also a great watch. Richard’s style is very relaxed and easygoing and this approach lets the viewer slowly take in the information and make their own decisions. This technique compliments the varied demographic not only of his audience, but also of his guests which ranges from Wilson & Blackett and their research into King Arthur to Douglas Gibson concerning the Nasa Mars Rover and other space exploration anomalies (which are quite conclusive in my opinion). His chats with Keith Hunter to me, contained one of the most interesting topics out there, and this theory about the limitations of nuclear weapons is something I hadn’t heard of until watching the show. If these topics are too “out there” for you, Rich Hall’s talks about the economy are very eye opening and easy to understand, but if you do desire something more radical, his sit-downs with Dr. Nick Kollerstrom and his various shows about the 7/7 attacks, Sandy Hook, and Lee Rigby are quite compelling, as too is his documentary on the Cumbria Massacre.

In 2013, Hall’s interview with Kollerstrom concerning the Woolwich Attack ended up getting the show banned from the airwaves following a single complaint to Ofcom from an unnamed viewer (a very dodgy situation indeed). It just goes to show that Freedom Of Speech is usually only afforded to people who toe the line and to those who perpetuate a mainstream point of view. To someone like me who was only an occasional viewer, the corruptness of this whole affair has made me a bigger fan of the show.

The lo-fi look of Rich Planet TV could put some people off, but to me this aesthetic gives the show an honest and down-to-earth look. Unlike some more famous “conspiracy theorists” and conspiracy researchers who seem to mask their motives behind a slick façade (whilst simultaneously giving the free-thinking community a bad name) …Alex ahem Jones… Rich Hall is the most genuine and level-headed guy who insists on the facts rather than hearsay. His purely fact-based method of research and presentation can make some of his documentaries such as the Madeleine McCann investigation somewhat lengthy, but the simple fact that Hall delves into all subjects with a fine tooth comb is to be respected and commended. You know when someone gives their documentaries and shows away for free, it means they’re in it for the truth rather than the profit.

Rich Planet TV which is occasionally broadcast on Showcase TV, is now subject to heavy editing and it’s much better these days to view the programme via his site Hopefully Richard can get his website redesigned, his YouTube Channel monetised, and in turn get more people to watch, because he’s one of the good-guys among the ever increasing corrupt media and he deserves a bigger audience. If you desire an alternative to the mainstream bullshit out there, and you hate a certain website constantly showing up on the first page of Google if you type in any search term which includes the word “conspiracy”, then Rich Planet is the place to go.

Undiluted Free-thinking Opinions.

32 replies »

  1. I don’t know what to think of Niel Sanders. When he recently appeared on the program he acted like people shouldn’t speak their mind on social networks like any conspiracy theory is automatically untruthful and untrustworthy because it appears on Twitter or Facebook. At the same time he is on Facebook trying to promote his book on what could be interpreted as a conspiracy. The whole exchange between him and Richard just sounded like some old men ranting about technology they don’t understand. Like Facebook is the only social media out there. Like anything new or anonymous is basically corrupt or controlled by the CIA. Is that not a conspiracy? Or is that valid because it’s on television?? A bit hypocritical for me but still I love Richard’s show.

    • I watched that episode. The main thing for me is if your going to talk about celebrities get their names right…. “Kate Lynn Jenner”….. “Bruce Jenna”…… “Ganman Style”? You lose all credibility when you do sloppy work like that. Neil Sanders too…… “you don’t know how you’d react to a shooting……. but buy my book on mind control” all very contradictory indeed!! I don’t watch the show religiously but I do now and again, it would be better if Rich paid a little more attention to detail and also watch some telly if your going to talk about celebrities.

    • Alex Jones and Infowars have been saying the same thing too; 9/11 and Sandy Hook were apparently false flags but the Virginia shooting and the Paris Attacks were definitely real. Since none of us witnessed these events first-hand it’s strange that alleged “alternative media” outlets can say all events ten or fifty years ago (ranging from assassinations, wars, to terrorism) were all conspiracies, but all news stories regarding war or terrorism today are the unequivocal truth, aren’t the media always lying?

      I also agree that Rich Hall should research the topics he talks about. Justin Bieber, The Kardashians, and Jenners are everywhere, so I’m surprised that he didn’t know who they were. If you’re going to criticise popular culture you have to experience it, you don’t have to agree with something when you watch it online or on TV. It helps your arguments if you know who these people are, how they act, and the product they make (if any).

    • Rich is an engineer and IT consultant, and I too are these. We engineers pay an incredible attention to detail, we have to, because what we design and develop simply won’t work,and can result in costly mistakes.

      However, we recognise the work we do is important to mankind and we realise the low value people like celebrities who are simply famous for being famous such as the Kardashians and their ilk add almost nothing to society, they have no talent in anything , and for this section of society we engineers have no time for. Even myself, with the tremendous attention to detail I pay to my IT work, not even I would care if I got the names wrong of these airhead good for nothing celebrities.

    • Granted, but as an IT consultant if you misspell a word it can impact your SEO as I’m sure you know. I know the item we’re referring to is a video and not an article, but let’s say Rich tags his YouTube videos incorrectly simply because he feels celebrities have little or no value, that will in turn affect people navigating to his channel or site. Not everybody who writes “Kardashian” into a search bar approves of them, what if someone searches a term like “Kardashians annoying”? That person won’t find anything if everybody who criticises celebrities misspells names because “they don’t care”.

      Rich Hall makes a television show which is there to give an alternative view, things like this make him look amateur. Surely he wouldn’t mispronounce or spell “David Cameron” incorrectly if his topic was Etonian classism, or misspell “Donald Rumsfeld” if his video was about 9/11. Surely the same thing applies here? He picked the topic of celebrity, nobody forced him, he should then (at the very least) spell these people’s names the way they’re supposed to be spelled.

      This is simply constructive criticism, take it or leave it. But I have to point out that I hate talentless celebrities as much as (if not more) than Rich Hall, so much so that I have an entire site dedicated to mocking them…

  2. Every sell-out twat is currently trying to dissuade people from researching conspiracy theories…

    And every over-privileged wanker is wading in too…

  3. Gotta say I used to be a fan of Richard but now he seems to dismiss anybody or anything that doesn’t gel with his theories, he doesn’t listen to others and seems almost fanatical at times. I saw his tour and I have to say Ian R Crane is more interesting and aware. Hall just seems to have jumped on the David Icke bandwagon but without the charisma and knowledge.

    • That’s simply not true. He’s a very intelligent man and he respects others opinions. He might not agree with them but he will be honest and tell you why. I’ve saw him before in Glasgow and I’ve saw all his documentaries. He’ s a true investigative journalist in every sense and goes through everything he investigates meticulously. I trust what he has to say.

  4. Fuck David Icke — I wouldn’t trust anyone who worked for the BBC

    Plus I like to live by the motto NEVER TRUST A PIG

  5. Maybe there are spelling mistakes by Rich Planet but for me the value of the show and website is in making viewers aware of things that mainstream media doesn’t talk about and alternative points of view to the topics that are covered by mainstream . It is then down to the viewer to do their own research in the light of the new information Rich Planet presents to get a better understanding of what is really going on . Keep up the good work Richard

  6. I love Rich Hall’s show and I’ve been watching him more and more since the mainstream news is filled with lies and all channels BBC/ITV/C4/C5 are propaganda

    He needs to do some shows on the Mandela Effect, the flat earth, CERN, that would be brill!!

  7. Superb shows and broadcaster I suppose there’s no chance we can get Richard his own channel on free-view? Some of the best stuff Ive seen in years. Truly superlative I hope to see him in Norwich on my birthday next year.

  8. I actually give Alex Jones a fair pass aside from his problems. When it comes to the letdown of alternative media, I say the real deal is David Icke.

  9. Tut at all the neg comments when I doubt no one has checked the evidence (here you are there’s another good site) for themselves on these issues. You have to do a lot of work YOURSELF before you can fairly comment. If you’ve looked at the evidence and you come to the conclusion that yes they just think everything’s conspiracy, then so be it. I’ve ditched ms now for 2 years while researching and looking for truth, educating myself on facts and asking why these facts are misrepresented or completely ignored in msm. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy because conspiracy is the very top. And they are human, insane, maniacal, psychopathic, incredibly arrogant, but human all the same and they conspire to brainwash us all into thinking we’re free.

  10. Mike Keegan has to be the worst guest Richard has had. He looks like he had a mental breakdown and may even be sexually repressed. Wasted a hour and a half of my life watching that crap.

  11. I’ve been watching Rich on and off for a few years and would recommend his show to anyone who is interested in the bigger picture. He researches things thoroughly as seen in his Madeleine McCann films. I like the simple set design too as a flashy set up like on Info Wars tends to be more of a distraction than anything else.
    I would take Hall over Icke any day.


  13. Richard D. Hall did great work in exposing mainstream media lies about the Madeleine McCann case, however in my opinion he really lets himself down when he collaborates with his mate Andrew Johnson. Richard has also made rather a fool of himself by arguing that a Boeing 767 couldn’t have been travelling at high enough speed to fly into the WTC on 9/11. He claims that large passenger aircraft can’t fly fast at low altitude, even though they routinely reach speeds of between 165mph and 190mph on the runway before they even take off!
    So it’s fairly obvious that if a 767 is put into a dive from high altitude, on full thrust, with the ‘pilot’ literally intending to crash it into a tall building then it’s gonna be going a lot faster than 190mph, even if it levels out before striking the building!

    • Since I’m not an engineer or pilot, I can’t really argue your point. Someone asked the question “Can a Boeing 767-200 fly at 510 knots at a height of 400 metres?” on and this was the answer:

      It would, in all likelihood, be impossible for a large transport category jet to even reach an airspeed of 500 knots at an altitude that low. Drag increases with the square of the airspeed and the transsonic region presents some additional challenges on top of that.

      A 767 should have sufficient thrust to accelerate past Vmo at low altitude, but Vmo for a 76- is 360 knots at MSL, a long way away from 500. Even if structural and powerplant failures due to overstress weren’t an issue, it’s safe to say that a 76- would be drag-limited from reaching anywhere near 500 knots in level flight.

      With respect to failure modes, there are structural concerns, skin integrity concerns, powerplant concerns, and Mach tuck, and one or more of these would be encountered long before you had a chance to read 500 on the Airspeed Indicator.

      Bending of the airframe – going sufficiently fast will induce the various aerodynamic structures on the aircraft the generate forces and turning moments in excess of what the structure was designed to handle, leading to plastic deformation (and possibly outright failure if the stresses are sufficiently large)

      Control surface flutter – this is probably less of a concern in fly-by-wire and hydraulically-actuated control surfaces than for free control surfaces, but at sufficiently high speeds, air particles will strike the control surfaces with sufficient force to displace them and cause them flutter (ailerons are by far the most susceptible to this and the infamous control column “buzz” is caused by this). Sufficiently aggravated flutter has caused control surface separation in several fatal accidents.

      Skin integrity – sufficient suction over the top of the wings has been known to cause material, rivets, and inspection panels to separate and compromise the surface. Probably less of a concern for a stressed aluminium metal or composite skin than for a canvas skin.

      Mach tuck – the center of pressure moves rearward along the wing chord when the aircraft enters the transsonic regime (the exact speed and characteristics of this shift differ by aircraft) and causes nose-down pitching moments, which may become impossible to overcome. This effect is aggravated in a conventional tailplane arrangement by the generation of standing shockwaves and the subsequent change in airflow separation characteristics.

      Powerplant failure – reaching 500 knots would require the powerplant to generate tremendous amounts of thrust, requiring a much greater displacement of air through the compressors (and turbines) and a much hotter burn in the combustion chamber. The resulting engine rotational speeds and temperatures would ruin the engine for further use, if not cause it experience an outright structural failure. There’s a pretty infamous case of an Egyptian MiG-25 overflying the Sinai Peninsula at Mach 3+ (the Foxbat was rated for a maximum of 2.8); the engines were toast afterwards.

      Though not necessarily a failure mode, something to watch out for in fast-travelling swept-wing aircraft with large wingspans is the possibility the aerodynamic forces might twist the wingtips to the point where aileron functionality is reversed from normal.

      Lastly, the control difficulties at such a high speed would stem more from the fact that the control surfaces (especially ailerons) become much more effective at higher speeds (less displacement is necessary in order to generate the forces necessary). Ordinarily, this might lead to an aircraft that is responsive bordering on twitchy and would require very light control inputs, but the story is a bit more complicated in an aircraft like the 76- due to the role played by the envelope protection software and the hydraulic actuation system.

    • Any large aircraft plunging from cruising altitude on full thrust, in a steep dive, with gravity in their favour, will reach incredibly high speeds, far higher than if they were trying to attain the same high speeds in level flight at low altitude.There are many fairly recent air accidents that prove this from the flight data recorder, notably the Lion Air, Ethiopian and Germanwings crashes. The airframes don’t tear themselves apart very quickly either because they’re immensely strong.
      Richard D. Hall let himself down on this subject which is a shame because he’s done some fine work on other matters.

    • In my opinion, 9/11 was at best allowed to happen or at worst orchestrated. Whether the plane was remote-controlled, superimposed onto video, or flown by intelligence agencies assets, it doesn’t stop September 11th from being extremely suspect.

    • I too have seen comments from engineers stating that the plane would break up due to the higher air pressure at the speeds reported on 9/11, but the point is there are many other reasons to prove there were no plane crashes that day.

      Mark Conlon has done loads of research that proves this, go to a search engine like Million Short and search for “mark conlon blogspot”, you’ll find everything, it’s undisputable now.

What Went Wrong Or Right With This Article? (spam & shite will be deleted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.