Thursday, January 28, 2010
When has this been used? When hasn't it?
Who and when will the (truth?) story come out about (insert your fave conspiracy theory here!) ?
Climategate? Sure! Lots of knots there and most have a slip element!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
No access and the Yves Smith site is blocking access to older posts so if you do not have the url it is tough luck!
Unless you are here
Recession-linked crime wave fails to materialise, new figures showBizarre? Unexpected certainly. Anything to do with all the extra heroin hitting the streets, lowering prices? Maybe the Afghan jaunt is justified? UK property vs Afghan and Pakistani lives?
Too early to tell? Premature as the depression has a long way to go.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
For more, go to his site!
Is it that the sheeple are “dumb as dirt”, as the Dog Poet recently posited? No. Many of them are as smart or smarter than you or I. Is it that they are a different breed of humanity? No. There is no DNA you can find that makes someone look and not see. No. Is it that they are willfully hiding the truth from themselves and just stubbornly refusing to give up their illusions? Again, no. No. It’s not any of those things. All of those things we could have solved. No.
Bill told me of a startling stage demonstration of hypnosis once. The hypnotist implanted a suggestion that the subject would not be able to see or hear his own daughter, who had attended the show with him. After he brought the poor subject out of his trance state the daughter did everything she could (short of physical contact) to attract her father’s attention. Nothing worked. She had vanished from his universe. Then the hypnotist startled the audience by placing his pocket watch in front of the man and having the daughter stand between the watch and the man, completely blocking his view of the watch. The man was able to read the time on the watch with the greatest of ease – right though the body of his daughter. The audience was so stunned that they didn’t even react. The hypnotist had pulled back the curtain on the truth of their lives just a bit too far, and they did NOT like it.
Hypnosis. It is an art as ancient as humanity itself. It is an art well known to those of evil intent. The true power of it is lied about. TPTB make sure of that, as it is the foundation of their entire control over the population. The laws of hypnosis are the laws that the Main Stream Media and Hollywood operate by. It is how they get you to react. It is how they get you to buy Wheaties. It is how they will get the majority of mankind to lay down and die without even understanding what is happening to them. It is an art which you should learn about, even though it is so thoroughly soiled and discredited by the uses it has been put to down through the ages.
So why doesn’t hypnosis work on everyone? Well, there is a dividing line. There is a level below which hypnosis works and above which it begins to weaken. Those below the line can only be lead. Those above the line can lead, in varying degrees. They can lead because they can see. What can they see? The actual source of things that come at them. That is is.
If you want to know if someone is above or below this line simply discuss concepts with them like the famous motto of our century, “shit happens”. The more they agree that things, “just happen”, in life the further below the line they are and the more they will believe the hypnotic flashes of light and sound that come out of their TV sets for hours every day. The more questioning they are. The more they wonder about what caused this or that the more likely they are to be at or above the line. And don’t be fooled by people that are totally certain that god is the cause of everything that happens in their lives. They are merely puppets of the hypnotists in organized religion. God gave us free will. He certainly did not do that on a lark or for no reason.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Researchers have found sediment on the ocean floor off France which originated in the north of the channel which must have been transported by the river originally fed by the Thames and the Rhine. The samples, taken from the Atlantic sea bed, have provided scientists with the final piece in a geological jigsaw, enabling them to reconstruct the story of the 'Fleuve Manche' (Channel River) - a giant waterway that flowed through the area now occupied by the English Channel.
Earlier studies have already suggested that the river existed during a sequence of ice ages that began 450,000 years ago. It formed when a huge glacial lake in the North Sea overflowed, causing a prehistoric 'mega-flood', which sent water surging into the basin between Britain and France and gouging through the hills of chalky rock connecting them. To date, however, the timings and nature of the river have been based on a mixture of evidence from the English Channel and sedimentary deposits in coastal Europe, many of which are incomplete due to erosion. An Anglo-French team of researchers claim they found a more perfect record of the river's existence beneath the sea.
The study was carried out in the Bay of Biscay, where the Fleuve Manche met with the ocean and discharged layers of sediment which have gone undisturbed for thousands of years. "This is the first time we have looked at what flowed out of the Channel and into the Bay during these crucial periods," Professor Phil Gibbard, from the University of Cambridge's Department of Geography and one of the project leaders, said. "It provides the final piece in the puzzle, forming a complete record that reconstructs the dramatic events that cut Britain off from Europe and gave it its island status."
Half a million years ago, Britain was connected to Europe through a range of low hills. Many major European rivers flowed into the North Sea, unable to cross the natural barrier this stretch of hills created. During periods of glaciation, however, two huge ice sheets, the British and the Fennoscandian, trapped water between the glacier to the north and the land barrier to the south. As the rivers continued to pour into this huge glacial lake, it overflowed like a bath, breaching the land barrier between Britain and France and sending its contents crashing into the Channel, then a wide river valley. Two such flooding events carved through the bridge so significantly that when the ice eventually melted and the sea rose, water covered the area, cutting Britain off.
Like a huge conveyor belt, the Fleuve Manche carried sediment from northern Europe towards the sea. As it met the ocean itself, however, the conveyor stopped and its energy was lost, leaving the perfectly-preserved layers of sediment behind on the ocean floor. As a result, the team were able to test their samples for points at which they contained sediment from the super-river and for the intervening periods, when any deposits were left as a result of normal sedimentation, since the Channel was submerged.
The study revealed conclusively that the Fleuve Manche existed during three different ice ages, 450,000, 160,000 and 90 to 30,000 years ago. In each case, the volume of the sedimentary material increased significantly - the result of surges of debris pouring into the Bay of Biscay. The implications for British prehistory of knowing exactly when the ice and the river were at their height are profound.
During glacial periods, the water level fell significantly enough to allow plants, animals and humans to cross into Britain. In temperate times, however, Britain would have been cut off, as it is now.
Military expert surveys some of the evidence!
Just do not ask about 9/11....
"It's as simple as asking; which way was it moving before it came to a stop? Was the flow pushed from behind by pressure? Or was it pulled from the front by gravity? Where did it flow from?"
"The Great Depression happened largely because policy-makers imagined that austerity was the way to fight a recession; the not-so-great depression that has enveloped much of Asia has been worsened by the same instinct."
How did Paul Krugman qualify for the Nobel Prize? Note his even handed method of letting people know that those who say "excessive credit is always a bad thing"
are moralizers who do not realize that in Krugman's world liberality, with OPM!, is the solution!
It's all so simple!
on December 28, 2009 7:32 AM
The Center does Not Hold...
But Neither Does the Floor
IntroductionThere are always disagreements in a society, differences of opinion, and contested ideas, but I don't remember any period in my own longish life, even the Vietnam uproar, when the collective sense of purpose, intent, and self-confidence was so muddled in this country, so detached from reality. Obviously, in saying this I'm assuming that I have some reliable notion of what's real. I admit the possibility that I'm as mistaken as anyone else. But for the purpose of this exercise I'll ask you to regard me as a reliable narrator. Forecasting is a nasty job, usually thankless, often disappointing - but somebody's got to do it. There are so many variables in motion, and so much of that motion is driven by randomness, and the best one can do in forecasting amounts to offering up some guesses for whatever they are worth.
If you want more check him out! http://kunstler.com
Friday, January 1, 2010
Verbatim report from mlive!
Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell: 'I was visited by the FBI'
December 31, 2009, 9:41AMCourtesy photo
Following up on a visit from FBI officials about an eyewitness account first described to MLive.com, Michigan attorney Kurt Haskell described the visit in comment sections across MLive on Wednesday.
Haskell and his wife, Lori, were aboard Flight 253 when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to destroy the plane. They say another man tried to help Abdulmutallab board the plane in Amsterdam.
Haskell had two detailed posts in two different stories. Here is Part One, originally posted here (Nothing below in the indent has been changed. Only links have been added.):
Today is the second worst day of my life after 12-25-09. Today is the day that I realized that my own country is lying to me and all of my fellow Americans. Let me explain.
Ever since I got off of Flight 253 I have been repeating what I saw in US Customs. Specifically, 1 hour after we left the plane, bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Up to this point, all of the passengers on Flight 253 stood in a small area in an evacuated luggage claim area of an airport terminal. During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called "Sharp Dressed" man. I will refer to this man as "The man in orange". The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away. At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) "You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out." We were then marched out of the baggage claim area and into a long hallway. This entire time period and until we left customs, no person that wasn't a law enforcement personnel or a passenger on our flight was allowed anywhere on our floor of the terminal (or possibly the entire terminal) The FBI was so concerned during this time, that we were not allowed to use the bathroom unless we went alone with an FBI agent, we were not allowed to eat or drink, or text or call anyone. I have been repeating this same story over the last 5 days. The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for "immigration reasons." Notice that this man was "being held" and not "arrested", which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie.
Just a question, could that mean that the man in orange had no passport?
However, a few hours later, Customs changed its story again. This time, Mr. Ron Smith of Customs, says the man that was detained "had been taken into custody, but today tells the news the person was a passenger on a different flight." Mr. Ron Smith, you are playing the American public for a fool. Lets take a look at how plausible this story is (After you've already changed it twice). For the story to be true, you have to believe, that:
1. FBI/Customs let passengers from another flight co-mingle with the passengers of flight 253 while the most important investigation in 8 years was pending. I have already stated that not one person who wasn't a passenger or law enforcement personnal was in our area the entire time we were detained by Customs.
2. FBI/Customs while detaining the flight 253 passengers in perhaps the most important investigation since the last terrorist attack, and despite not letting any flight 253 passenger drink, eat, make a call, or use the bathroom, let those of other flights trample through the area and possibly contaminate evidence.
3. You have to believe the above (1 and 2) despite the fact that no flights during this time allowed passengers to exit off of the planes at all and were detained on the runway during at least the first hour of our detention period.
4. You have to believe that the man that stood 20 feet from me since we entered customs came from a mysterious plane that never landed, let its passengers off the plane and let this man sneak into our passenger group despite having extremely tight security at this time (i.e. no drinking even).
5. FBI/Customs was hauling mysterious passengers from other flights through the area we were being held to possibly comtaminate evidence and allow discussions with suspects on Flight 253 or to possibly allow the exchange of bombs, weapons or other devices between the mysterious passengers from other flights and those on flight 253.
Seriously Mr. Ron Smith, how stupid do you think the American public is?
Mr. Ron Smith's third version of the story is an absolute inplausible joke. I encourage you, Mr. Ron Smith, to debate me anytime, anywhere, and anyplace in public to let the American people see who is credible and who is not.
I ask, isn't this the more plausible story:
1. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don't want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers on a flight with a live bomb on the runway for 20 minutes.
2. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don't want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers in customs for 1 hour with a live bomb in a carry on bag.
3. Customs/FBI realize that the man in orange points to a greater involvement then the lone wolf theory that they have been promoting.
Mr. Ron Smith I encourage you to come out of your cubicle and come up with a more plausible version number 4 of your story.
For the last five days I have been reporting my story of the so called "sharp dressed man." For those of you who haven't read my account, it involves a sharp dressed "Indian man" attempting to talk a ticket agent into letting a supposed "Sudanese refugee" (The terrorist) onto flight 253 without a passport. I have never had any idea how it played out except to note that the so called "Sudanese reefugee" later boarded my flight and attempted to blow it up and kill me. At no time did my story involve, or even find important whether the terrorist actually had a passport. The importance of my story was and always will be, the attempt with an accomplice (apparently succesful) of a terrorist with all sorts of prior terrorist warning signs to skirt the normal passport boarding procedures in Amsterdam. By the way, Amsterdam security did come out the other day and admit that the terrorist did not have to "Go through normal passport checking procedures".
Amsterdam security, please define to the American public "Normal passport boarding procedures".
You see the FBI would have the American public believe that what was important was whether the terrorist in fact had a passport.
Seriously think about this people. You have a suicide bomber who had recently been to Yemen to but a bomb, whose father had reported him as a terrorist, who supposedly was on some kind of U.S. terror watchlist, and most likely knew the U.S. was aware of these red flags. Yet, he didn't go through "Normal passport checking procedures." What does that mean? Maybe that he flashed a passport to some sort of sympathetic security manager in a backroom to avoid a closer look at the terrorist's "red flags"? What is important is that the terrorist avoided using normal passport checking procedures (apparently successfully) in order to avoid a closer look into his red flags. Who cares if he had a passport. The important thing is that he didn't want to show it and somehow avoided a closer inspection and "normal passport checking procedures." Each passport comes with a bar code on it that can be scanned to provide a wealth of information about the individual. I would bet that the passport checking procedures for the terrorist did not include a bar code scan of his passport (which could have revealed damning information about the terrorist).
Please note that there is a very easy way to verify the veracity of my prior "sharp dressed man" account. Dutch police have admitted that they have reviewed the video of the "sharp dressed man" that I referenced. Note that it has not been released anywhere, You see, if my eye witness account is false, it could easily be proven by releasing the video. However, the proof of my eyewitness account would also be verified if I am telling the truth and I am. There is a reason we have only heard of the video and not seen it. dutch authorities, "RELEASE THE VIDEO!" This is the most important video in 8 years and may be all of two minutes long. Show the entire video and "DO NOT EDIT IT"! The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web.
Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior "sharp dressed man" account. The importance being that the man "Tried to board the plane with an accomplice and without a passort". The other significance is that only the airport security video can verify my eyewitness account and that it is not being released.
Who has the agenda here and who doesn't? Think about that for a minute.