Archive for March, 2014


… by Chip Tatum

 

Boeing Phantom Works Logo F4

According to Boeing’s super secret development company Boeing Phantom Works and the Federal Government, you can not handle the truth! It refers to the Safety of Flight in ”Fly by Wire” (FBW) Aircraft. What is a Fly by Wire Aircraft you ask? Well simply put it is an aircraft that is flown by electronic signals rather than by cables or hydraulic systems.

With the loss of Malaysian Air Flight 370, there has been a lot of speculation concerning the possibility of an electronic take over of the aircarft. Authorities have either evaded the questions or denied that there is the ability for the aircraft to be electronically hijacked.

Electronic flight controls systems have been used in commercial aviation for more than 40 years. With the introduction of the Concorde, the use of electronic systems (with mechanical backups) to manipulate the hydraulic controls used to fly by wire started the revolution on flight control. Digital systems were first used in the Airbus 310 where digital computers controlled flight control surfaces. European experience in Fly-by-Wire (FBW) application is now some 30 years old. With the entry into service of the A320, a new standard of FBW was defined in the flight controls and system integration.

Boeing Phantom Works Patent designed to prohibit hacker access to the flight controls of Fly By Wire Aircraft.

The United States was lagging in these achievements. The Boeing Company embarked in an unprecedented journey to build a totally FBW controlled aircraft, completely designed and integrated by computer. The Boeing 777 is the first commercial aircraft manufactured by Boeing which employees a FBW Primary Flight Control System. Here we will provide an overview of the flight control characteristics and constraints for the Boeing 777 FBW aircraft.

Conventional primary flight controls systems employ hydraulic actuators and control valves actuated by cables that are driven by the pilot controls. The cable-controlled system is heavy and requires periodic maintenance. In a Flight by Wire (FBW) flight control system, the cable control of the primary flight control surfaces has been removed. Rather, the actuators are controlled electrically. At the heart of the FBW system are electronic computers sending signals to the control surfaces.

Fly-By-Wire (FBW) Primary Flight Controls have been used in military applications such as fighter jets for a number of years. It has been a rather recent development to employ them in a commercial transport application. The 777 is the first commercial transport manufactured by Boeing which employs a (FBW) Primary Flight Control System. The Airbus A320 and predecessors are examples of earlier systems developed in Europe. Many other aircraft were fully electronic with an electro-mechanical or electro-hydraulic backup.

__________________________

Invention Secrecy Act Invoked

Someone discovered that there just may be a problem with this system of flight control. Boeing filed for a Patent to protect technology that they hope will keep any hijacking or jamming of the control systems in their 777 airliner protected. The Government immediately attached the Invention Secrecy Act to the Patent. It disappeared from the patent office online archives here.

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 (Pub.L. 82–256, 66 Stat. 3, enacted February 1, 1952, codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 181–188) is a body of United States federal law designed to prevent disclosure of new inventions and technologies that, in the opinion of selected federal agencies, present a possible threat to the national security of the United States.

The U.S. government has long sought to control the release of new technologies that might threaten the national defense and economic stability of the country. During World War I, Congress authorized the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to classify certain defense-related patents. This initial effort lasted only for the duration of that war but was reimposed in October 1941 in anticipation of the U.S. entry into World War II. Patent secrecy orders were initially intended to remain effective for two years, beginning on July 1, 1940, but were later extended for the duration of the war.

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 made such patent secrecy permanent, though the order to suppress any invention must be renewed each year (except during periods of declared war or national emergency). Under this Act, defense agencies provide the PTO with a classified list of sensitive technologies in the form of the “Patent Security Category Review List” (PSCRL). The decision to classify new inventions under this act is made by “defense agencies” as defined by the President. Generally, these agencies include the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Energy, and NASA, but even the Justice Department has played this role…

more…

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/30/you-cant-handle-the-truth-boeings-secret-patent/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=you-cant-handle-the-truth-boeings-secret-patent

 

image

 

 

 

By Tara MacIsaac

A growing number of scientists are calling for a shift in scientific methods to acknowledge phenomena commonly experienced but difficult to study according to conventional methods.

Here’s a look at some insights from scientists who explore paranormal phenomena or matters related to human consciousness. They discuss how science can move forward.

1. Dr. Gary Schwartz

Dr. Gary Schwartz received his doctorate from Harvard, taught psychiatry and psychology at Yale, and is now a professor at the University of Arizona. He has studied individuals who say they are able to predict the future.

“If you’re going to test someone who claims to do extraordinary things, it’s essential that you design the experiment to be as close as possible to what they actually do,” said Dr. Schwartz on his website.” And if you don’t design an experiment around their actual skills, you can end up asking people to do things that they actually can’t do or that don’t really represent what they do.”

Schwartz tailors the tests specifically to the individual abilities instead of imposing a cookie-cutter test of precognition. Not everyone who can predict the future can predict it in the same way, he says. He has found people he considers “the real deal.”

2. Dr. Bernard Beitman

Dr. Bernard Beitman, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia, proposes the establishment of a transdisciplinary study called “Coincidence Studies.”

He wrote in a 2011 paper: “One of the biggest challenges in the development of the new discipline of Coincidence Studies is providing a systematic place in scientific research for subjectivity and for human consciousness. Meaningful coincidences depend upon the mind of the observer. The question of how to develop methods and an accompanying technical language that includes and respects the subjective element built into the fabric of coincidence needs to be answered.”

3. Dr. Alan Sanderson

Dr. Alan Sanderson is a psychiatrist, hypnotherapist, and spirit-release therapist. He founded the Spirit Release Foundation in 1999, an organization dedicated to the clinical treatment of spirit possession.

Dr. Sanderson wrote in a 2003 paper: “I want to stress that the concept of spirit attachment and the practice of spirit release are not based on faith, as are religious and mystical beliefs. They are based on the observation of clinical cases and their response to standard therapeutic techniques.”

“This is a scientific approach, albeit one that takes account of subjective experience and is not confined by contemporary scientific theory.”

He noted that this field of study still faces some obstacles, though he hopes to see those clear as it progresses. The discipline is relatively new; much “suspicion, ignorance, and misinformation about the subject” exists; and funding is an issue.

How Do You Form a Control Group for ESP?

In their 1973 book “The Challenge of Chance,” Alister Hardy and Robert Harvie explore a widely publicized test of extrasensory perception (ESP). The experiment did not provide strong evidence for ESP, but perhaps the methods didn’t fit the subject.

People were asked to read other people’s minds and draw what they saw. For the small portion of pictures that seemed to match, the researchers were tempted to say it may truly have been because of telepathy. But they stopped short of that admission, in part because the success rate in the control group was high compared to the group being tested.

But what if not all the people in the test group who claimed to have the ability did, while a few were genuine? What if many people have ESP and a random sampling of people are actually able to sense to some degree what another person is thinking on without necessarily having felt in the past that they had some special abilities?

Future Experiments


Collective consciousness app. (Screenshot/Indiegogo.com)

Smartphone apps are being used to study collective consciousness and the phenomenon of coincidence. Users report their experiences in real time and the wealth of data collected helps researchers…

more…

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29560

image

 

 

 

 

 

German General Anton Dostler is tied to a stake before his execution by a firing squad in the Aversa stockade, Italy, December 1945.

German Gen. Anton Dostler is tied to a stake before his execution by a firing squad in Italy in December 1945. Photo courtesy National Archives and Records Administration/Colourized by Mads Madsen

Is it time to bring back this method of capital punishment?

Doctors say lethal injection is often botched and horrific.

By Matt McCarthy

Dennis McGuire clearly knew something was wrong. At 10:34 a.m. on Jan. 16, as a crowd at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility looked on, the convicted murderer began gasping for air. Then McGuire began to make snorting and choking sounds. For the next 10 minutes, as a combination of midazolam (a relaxant similar to Valium) and hydromorphone (an analgesic related to morphine) coursed through his veins, McGuire’s chest and stomach heaved as the oxygen in his blood dwindled. Death was approaching, but slowly.

Watching a man gradually suffocate may have come as a surprise to some people in the gallery, but it didn’t surprise David Waisel, an associate professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, who had predicted this would happen. Ten days earlier Waisel had presented U.S. district court judge Gregory Frost with a nine-page declaration explaining that the state of Ohio planned to use an improper dose of midazolam—a short-acting benzodiazepine that’s often used to induce sedation and amnesia before a medical procedure—to kill McGuire. “In light of the insufficient dose of midazolam,” Waisel wrote, “it is substantially likely that McGuire will be aware of this agony and horror.” Based on his expertise, he felt there was a “substantial, palpable, objectively intolerable risk of experiencing the agony and horrifying sensation of unrelenting air hunger” during the execution, suggesting that “McGuire will remain awake and actively conscious for up to five minutes, during which he will increasingly experience air hunger as the drugs suppress his ability to breathe.” It turns out Waisel may have undershot things; Dennis McGuire took nearly 30 minutes to die.

When I spoke with Waisel about his testimony, he explained that he had used a standard, simple set of criteria called STOP-Bang to determine that McGuire’s airway would likely become obstructed shortly after the medications were administered, causing him to slowly suffocate. He would die, certainly, but not in the manner intended. Medications do different things at different doses, and the amount of midazolam that McGuire received caused his throat to partially close, as though his body was slowly strangling itself from the inside, rather than causing him to drift off to sleep…

more…

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/03/death_penalty_drugs_lethal_injection_executions_are_so_bad_that_it_s_time.html

image

 

 

 

According to one report, the owners of a valuable patent
were aboard MA 370. If they died, the patent would belong to
the company, Freescale Semiconductor, which is owned by Jacob Rothschild.

Latest! Philip Wood, an IBM executive and passenger on MA370 may have got a message out that the plane was hijacked as part of a CIA operation and taken to Diego Garcia. Watch this!

Jim Stone — IBM engineer got a message out from Diego Garcia
ZZ- http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fzezorro.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fbreaking-gdzie-sa-porwani-w-malaysia.html

by Alan Cundy
(henrymakow.com)

What happened to flight MA370, why and who could be involved? Let’s look at some of the possibilities:

The plane either:

(A) Was a genuine accident caused by equipment or pilot error.

(B) The plane was taken down deliberately.

(C) The plane was hijacked/stolen and has landed.

Let’s look at the possible motives. Malaysian Airlines was on its way to China and its transponder did not respond. Many passenger cell phones were called and GPS information exists somewhere. The flight had an all-Malaysian crew of 12 and a total of 239 passengers of which the majorities were Chinese and Malaysian. One group of passengers included 12 Malaysians and eight Chinese all from the same company, Freescale Semiconductor.

In my experience, this defies all company policies. You don’t “put all your eggs in basket.” Generally travel groups are split up to reduce business risk. This company is called Freescale Semiconductor and is based out of Austin TX with manufacturing and design facilities in the Far East. Their products and services are across the board of applications from automotive, medical, military etc.

They now produce the world’s smallest micro controller at a size of 4 square millimeters using integrated circuitry which includes Radon Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM) and a High Frequency Counter/Clock. This product known as Kinesis KL02 uses adaptive (learning and correcting) and is useful for Drones that are smaller than a fly, Micro Submarines and Micro Satellites. The technology is duel use so it can have the best of both markets; high volume low cost and high tech low volume giving it commercial access to automotive, medical, robotic etc., as well as high tech military applications.

Military benefits of this technology include, but not limited to:

(1) Radar Jamming (2)Target Modification (3)RF Power (4)Missile Guidance (5) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) (6) Electronic Counter Measure
(7) Cloaking for Radar & Visual Disappearance

In 2007 the Syrian Military experienced the use of this technology. Israeli planes were spotted on the countries air defense radar. At first, it appeared that no jets were in the sky. Then in an instant, it made the radar believe there were hundreds of planes.

The flight path of MH370 was headed NNW to China over Vietnam, but the plane “vanished” when the transponder was turned off . The Malaysian military reported the plane was directed west across the Malacca Strait. Is it possible that it was taken down or hijacked? Some people in the Maldives reported hearing a low flying jet making a noise like a loud fan. Also, the Malaysian Prime Minister has been quoted saying there was no mechanical error and their focus is now on the passengers and crew.

This technology could have been used on this very plane. Looking at this situation, we have Western Military technology being designed in a Muslim country with ties to China and Russia, who are often at odds with US foreign policy. Apparently, there is a sister plane made by Boeing on the tarmac in Tel Aviv. The theory is that the Israelis would claim the Iranians hijacked it, loaded it with explosives and used it for a false flag attack on the US.

Apparently Jacob Rothschild is the owner of Freescale Semiconductors. The ownership of the patent would be solely owned by Rothschild if four other owners who were on the plane are deceased.

“If the patent holder dies, the other owners share equally in dividends from the deceased. If four of the five patentees die, then the patentee left alive gets 100% of the patent. That remaining patent holder is the company Freescale Semiconductor. Who owns Freescale Semiconductor? The answer is: Jacob Rothschild. British billionaire owns the company Blackstone, which in turn owns the company Freescale Semiconductors. Several speculations on the Internet now pay attention to this circumstance.”

This seems the most plausible explanation for the disappearance of MA-370. The world’s militaries and interlligence agencies are chore boys for the Rothschilds. The plane was probably flown to Diego Garcia where the passengers were liquidated.

http://henrymakow.com/2014/03/what-really-happened-to-flight.html

 

image

 

From artist James Bridle's Drone Shadow series, Brixton, London. Photo courtesy James Bridle

From artist James Bridle’s Drone Shadow series, Brixton, London. Photo courtesy James Bridle

When is it ethical to hand our decisions over to machines? And when is external automation a step too far?

by Tom Chatfield

For the French philosopher Paul Virilio, technological development is inextricable from the idea of the accident. As he put it, each accident is ‘an inverted miracle… When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck; when you invent the plane, you also invent the plane crash; and when you invent electricity, you invent electrocution.’ Accidents mark the spots where anticipation met reality and came off worse. Yet each is also a spark of secular revelation: an opportunity to exceed the past, to make tomorrow’s worst better than today’s, and on occasion to promise ‘never again’.

This, at least, is the plan. ‘Never again’ is a tricky promise to keep: in the long term, it’s not a question of if things go wrong, but when. The ethical concerns of innovation thus tend to focus on harm’s minimisation and mitigation, not the absence of harm altogether. A double-hulled steamship poses less risk per passenger mile than a medieval trading vessel; a well-run factory is safer than a sweatshop. Plane crashes might cause many fatalities, but refinements such as a checklist, computer and co-pilot insure against all but the wildest of unforeseen circumstances.

Similar refinements are the subject of one of the liveliest debates in practical ethics today: the case for self-driving cars. Modern motor vehicles are safer and more reliable than they have ever been – yet more than 1 million people are killed in car accidents around the world each year, and more than 50 million are injured. Why? Largely because one perilous element in the mechanics of driving remains unperfected by progress: the human being.

Enter the cutting edge of machine mitigation. Back in August 2012, Google announced that it had achieved 300,000 accident-free miles testing its self-driving cars. The technology remains some distance from the marketplace, but the statistical case for automated vehicles is compelling. Even when they’re not causing injury, human-controlled cars are often driven inefficiently, ineptly, antisocially, or in other ways additive to the sum of human misery.

What, though, about more local contexts? If your vehicle encounters a busload of schoolchildren skidding across the road, do you want to live in a world where it automatically swerves, at a speed you could never have managed, saving them but putting your life at risk? Or would you prefer to live in a world where it doesn’t swerve but keeps you safe? Put like this, neither seems a tempting option. Yet designing self-sufficient systems demands that we resolve such questions. And these possibilities take us in turn towards one of the hoariest thought-experiments in modern philosophy: the trolley problem.

In its simplest form, coined in 1967 by the English philosopher Philippa Foot, the trolley problem imagines the driver of a runaway tram heading down a track. Five men are working on this track, and are all certain to die when the trolley reaches them. Fortunately, it’s possible for the driver to switch the trolley’s path to an alternative spur of track, saving all five. Unfortunately, one man is working on this spur, and will be killed if the switch is made.

In this original version, it’s not hard to say what should be done: the driver should make the switch and save five lives, even at the cost of one. If we were to replace the driver with a computer program, creating a fully automated trolley, we would also instruct it to pick the lesser evil: to kill fewer people in any similar situation. Indeed, we might actively prefer a program to be making such a decision, as it would always act according to this logic while a human might panic and do otherwise…

more…

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/can-we-design-systems-to-automate-ethics/

image

 

 

A group of flight attendants as well as investigations by the EPA have exposed shocking revelations regarding the health dangers in the skies courtesy of most major airlines. The information should make you think twice before having that cup of coffee, using their pillows, headsets or even washing your hands in the lavatory.

1. Don’t Consume Any Water That Did Not Come From a Bottle

Whatever you do, do not drink the water in the lav. They sanitize the water tank at selected maintenance intervals, however parasites build tolerances to the cleaners. And that thunderous volcanic toilet flush doesn’t exactly help the situation, spraying water and releasing potential germs into the air every which way. The CDC cited the lavatory as a major danger area for the spread of disease during epidemics. Use a paper towel to close the toilet lid before flushing — and then leave without washing your hands. You’ll come away cleaner if you skip the sink and reach for healthy hand sanitizer instead.

Do not EVER drink water on an aircraft that did not come from a bottle. Don’t even TOUCH IT. The hoses that supply the airplanes water is filled with slime. The ports to purge lavatory feces and refill the aircraft with potable water are within feet from each other and sometimes serviced all at once by the same person. A random sampling of 327 unnamed domestic and international aircraft caused a stir in 2004 when some water samples tested positive for E. coli, one strain of which is the leading cause of food poisoning.

2. Don’t Consume Coffee or Tea

Much like the drinking water, that used for making coffee, tea, etc., should NEVER be consumed. The holding tanks in these sometimes 60 year old planes are never cleaned. They have accumulated so much greenish grime on the walls that in some places it can be inches thick. This one is very known by all airline employees.

3. Filthy Seat Pockets

Reaching into that pocket is akin to putting your hand in someone else’s purse and rummaging among their used tissues and gum wrappers.

Toenail clippings and mushy old French fries are even nastier surprises that have been found in seat pockets. Consider that cold and influenza viruses can survive for hours on fabric and tissues, and even longer (up to 48 hours) on nonporous surfaces like plastic and metal — and you realize that you might pick up more than that glossy flight magazine when you reach inside.

Bring a small, easily accessible carry-on bag so that you can avoid stashing things in the seat pocket. If you must use it, keep magazines and other items within a plastic bag for protection.

4. Airplane Meals Are a Threat To Your Health

In-flight meals have long had a bad reputation for consisting of bland, barely identifiable dishes. Then, in 2009, the meals made headlines when FDA inspections of the Denver location of LSG Sky Chefs — the world’s largest airplane caterer with clients including American Airlines, Delta and United — found the kitchens crawling with roaches too numerous to count and employees handling the food with bare hands or unwashed gloves…

more…

http://preventdisease.com/news/14/033014_Flight-Attendants-Confess-To-8-Ways-Your-Health-Being-Jeopardized-On-Airplanes.shtml

image

 

 

This graphic shows observed examples of climate change worldwide.  Scientists expect Northern Brazil may lose 22 per cent of its annual rainfall by 2100, while the area around Chile could get a 25 per cent increase

This graphic shows observed examples of climate change worldwide. Scientists expect Northern Brazil may lose 22 per cent of its annual rainfall by 2100, while the area around Chile could get a 25 per cent increase

.Report said we have seen impacts of global warming on every continent
.Experts warned people are ill prepared to cope with the dramatic change
.It predicted violent conflicts, food shortages and infrastructure damage
.Extreme weather will increase poverty and damage animal and sea life
.One of the report’s contributors has accused the IPCC of being too ‘alarmist’ – and demanded his name be withdrawn

By Ellie Zolfagharifard

No one will be untouched by climate change with storm surges, flooding and heatwaves among the key risks of global warming in the coming decades, claim scientists.

This was the warning made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II report.

The report said that violent conflicts, food shortages and serious infrastructure damage were also predicted to become more widespread over the coming decades.

It argued that rising temperatures will exacerbate poverty and damage land and marine species.

It also claimed that the world is in ‘an era of man-made climate change’ and has already seen impacts of global warming on every continent and across the oceans.

 And experts warned that in many cases, people are ill-prepared to cope with the risks of a changing climate.

The IPCC report is the first comprehensive analysis in seven years of the global consequences of climate change…
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2593198/Climate-change-lead-war-famine-extreme-weather-claims-IPCC-report.html#ixzz2xYQEINka

image

 

Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, have discovered the brain merges together similar images seen within 15 seconds - explaining why most of fail to spot movie mistakes

•All but the most eagle-eyed viewers tend to miss continuity errors in films
•Researchers claim this is because we view the world in 15 second chunks
•This means that most people will miss slight changes as our brains wash over them

By Suzannah Hills and Fiona Macrae

The Romans were certainly an advanced civilisation, but as far as we know, they never discovered gas propulsion.

But a scene in the hit film Gladiator suggests otherwise when a chariot strikes a wall and flips over – revealing a gas canister hidden beneath.

This is just one example of hundreds of continuity errors to appear in Hollywood movies but most of them go unnoticed by the audience.

Scientists believe they have now discovered why this is – we view the world in 15-second chunks, so will miss brief continuity errors.

Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, have discovered the brain merges together similar images seen within 15 seconds. 

Without this skill, even simple changes in people’s facial expression would be so overwhelming that we’d feel like we were hallucinating.

Researcher David Whitney said: ‘The continuity field smoothes what would otherwise be a jittery perception of object features over time.

‘Essentially, it pulls together physically but not radically different objects to appear more similar to each other.

‘This is surprising because it means the visual system sacrifices accuracy for the stake of the continuous, stable perception of objects.’…

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593239/Why-Hollywood-howlers-dont-stop-enjoying-good-film-brains-skip-them.html#ixzz2xYNZevC2

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Jeff Thomas

The average person in the First World receives more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached — neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings

In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

  1. The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.
  2. Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.
  3. On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)
  4. Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.

So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities

The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option — an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World…

more…

http://wariscrime.com/new/question-everything/

 

image

 

by Angie Riedel (1956-2013)

It was somewhere around 2004 that I first ran across David Icke online. Someone had posted a video of one of his day-long slide presentations at a theater in England. It was just him up on a stage talking to a full house of people listening intently to his every word.

I started to watch it and was immediately engrossed in what he was saying. He was saying what I was seeing. He was making sense. He was stringing together all of the pieces like beads on a necklace and revealing how they were all connected.

I was so excited. At last, here was somebody talking about the things I was trying so hard to gain insight about. I had done the rounds and never found anything that felt real to me. It was a waste of time going to political web sites, especially the supposedly popular ones. All they did was go around and around and manufacture tangled plates of talk spaghetti. They accomplished nothing. They provided no insights. It was a great big endless taffy pull of ‘he said – she said’ and upholding the same viewpoints and framing of officialdom and big media. It all stayed on the same mainstream acre and never strayed off it. David Icke swerved all the way off it. He was coming at it from a completely different angle.

The first four hours of that video had me riveted. It was straight facts, history, and connecting the dots. I was starving for it. Here was someone who had some answers. I felt so gratified and was not going to budge until I saw the whole thing. At the end of the fourth hour he told the audience it was time for a lunch break and to go eat something and be back for the next part in an hour. I took fifteen minutes and then fired up the next segment. Everything was going great, then all of a sudden he started talking about lizard people. I will never forget how I felt. I was absolutely livid. I jumped to my feet in outrage. It was some kind of sick joke. The guy had made a fool out of me. I was sorry I’d ever had the misfortune to run across this stupid video. I shut it off and walked away.

I went back to sifting through all kinds of things looking for clues, and reading everything I could get my hands on. I had a lot of catching up to do. I was keeping track of what was happening day to day with the absolute intent of knowing who all those people were in congress by name and by face. I was going to watch them and listen to them until I personally knew who they were. At the same time I was going backward in history to understand a great many events I’d heard of but didn’t honestly know a thing about. Iran Contra, the Kennedy assassinations, the first Iraq war, Colombian drug lords, senators dying in plane crashes, the Franklin Scandal, the CIA, black ops, false flags, Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Pan Am/Lockerbie. The list goes on and on. It was pretty damned awful finding out what a bunch of lying, murderous, corrupt men had always been smiling in our faces while doing unspeakable things behind our backs. I was finding out real things, true things that most people didn’t know and it was double damned awful finding out that telling friends about them made me lose all of my friends. They reacted to me as if I had gone over the edge and they were very impatient with me. They didn’t want to hear it. To them I was sadly misinformed and too dull-witted to know how wrong I was. Or just plain crazy

more…

http://wariscrime.com/new/found/

image

 

 

%d bloggers like this: