Giza Death Star

A Website of Alternative Thinkers & Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

18 Comments

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST 5G? AND LLOYDS’ WON’T ...

A few months ago I blogged about a story from The Netherlands about a 5G test there, and the apparent deaths of a flock of birds it allegedly caused. And while 5G is not a topic I cover very often here, I do follow it occasionally, since like many people I believe it's another one of those corporate crapitalism-sponsored disasters  in the making. It's bad enough in the modern USSA that we're forced to be jabbed, prodded, taxed to death, spied upon, our privacy invaded, our data bought and sold, our DNA collected, told what pronouns we can and cannot use, forced to pay for the slaughter of the unborn and to subsidize the corporation doing it, subsidize Marxism in the schools and the academies, be regaled with ugly modern art and music at every turn(think the Obama library or portrait), while the neighbor down the street keeps everyone awake at 2AM by playing his jungle music through the sub-woofers in his pickup truck or home stereo - Boom Boom Boom! - now, on top of that, they want to bake everyone's noodle - literally - by beaming even more microwaves at us, and, surprise surprise, they haven't even really studied any of the effects yet.

Every time I think of 5G, I think of GMOs, and "substantial equivalence." Remember that one? In case you forgot, "substantial equivalence" was that nifty doctrine that Mon(ster)santo and other "agribusiness giants" of the agribusiness "community" brewed up in their bubbling cauldrons and served to the FDA in the late 1980s (that's the Food and Drug Administration; you know, the agency of the same goobernment that says its ok to put aluminum and mercury and all sorts of stuff in vaccines and while outlawing a plant and making it a crime for people who want to smoke it). The doctrine said, in effect, that (1) extensive inter-generational testing of GMO crops - corn, or as they call it in Europe, maize for example - was unnecessary since it looked like ordinary corn and tasted like ordinary corn, so voila, for the consumer, it was substantially equivalent to ordinary corn, except that when it came to (2) the patent for said corn, then the corporations had every right to sue the daylights out of farmers if one little sprout of their substantially equivalent plant was found on their land if they didn't purchase the license for it, and in fact, even if they had never planted it. Thus, so far as I am concerned, the words Substantial Equivalence are a fitting symbol for a Great Big Crock Full of Steaming Bull Puckey.

As far as I can tell with my very cursory familiarity with the whole 5G rollout, it looks to me as if we're being served another steaming crock full of Substantial Equivalence; it's more or less the same as cell phone towers, only "better" somehow. Well, we know the story of how well Substantial Equivalence is working out now - decades later - for Bayer with the recent lawsuits. And that appears to be behind the thinking in this article, shared by V.T.:

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=120705

Class action suit, huh? Well, why stop at a mere trillion? Let's bump it up a bit.

It was while reading that article this week, that I bumped into this one, and this, I suspect, tells the whole story about this latest bit of Substantial Equivalence oozing toward us from corporate crapitalism: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=120870

And in case you missed it:

The FCC and other government regulatory bodies, in collusion with the big telecomm industries, are ferociously pushing smart meters, 5G and the Internet of Things.

This roll-out is not only happening in the US, but all over the world. The giant telecomms gush enthusiastically about how EVERYTHING will be connected

OMG!! We’re gonna have Incredibly high-speed connectivity so your little girls and teens can, at supersonic speed, upload pix of their latest nail-polish jobs or cute puppy videos to FaceBook, Pinterest, etc., etc., for their friends to gasp and giggle…..and, of course, click “like” and forward these to their friends…. again, all at warp speed.

...

BUT WAIT!! …. There’s a tiny but growing wrinkle in this rosy scenario of sugar plums dancing in the heads of these telecomm leaders. Specifically, Lloyds of London, one of the world’s premier insurance groups, is refusing to insure health claims made against wireless technologies. And, other insurance companies are following Lloyd’s lead in this.

If you follow the money, this is HUGE. After all, if these wi-fi techno-toys are so safe, why is Lloyds leaving all this additional money on the table?

Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. (Emphasis in the original)

Bingo. And for me, this story has some added bitterness, as I lost my youngest sister Jeannie to a glioblastoma multiform brain tumor in 2000. The tumor appeared - you guessed it - exactly where she always held her cell phone when answering calls. And people wonder why I don't have a cell phone.

In any case, Lloyds' is saying to the 5G promoters, "proceed at your own risk." Indeed, proceed at your own risk. The problem, of course, is that class-action lawsuits are an after-the-fact strategy, one that will allow the whole thing to be implemented, and which must then wait until the inevitable health problems occur in such numbers as to be actionable at law. So we're back at Substantial Equivalence again, where a corrupt goobernment allowed the agribusiness "community" to sell everyone a bill of goods, reap great profits, pack the bureaucracy with corporate "science" backing their claims. The lawsuits followed thirty years later, and so far as I can tell, have not curbed the planting of GMOs very much.

So I propose a different strategy: just say no to the steaming stream of Substantial Equivalence coming from Swampington, D.C.

See you on the flip side...

 

 

38 Comments

ADAM, EVE, AND THE CIA

This story was seen and passed along by so many people that it went straight into the "finals" folder this week, and it's a fitting way to end this week's blogs, for the implications of this story are rather large, especially if you're one of those people following the "crypto-archeology" story, i.e., the idea that major governments and intelligence agencies have been and are involved in the covert investigation of ancient lore, sites, and traditions.  The story concerns this bit of declassified CIA documents, in this case, having to do with the stories of the Flood, and as it turns out, Adam and Eve:

THE ADAM AND EVE STORY

If one notes the date of declassification of this document, the CIA website states that it was June 24, 2013. When one opens the pdf file, what one has is a book or pamphlet published in 1965. In other words, a publicly available book found its way into the maze of classification of the American intelligence "community."

The question is, why?

A brief read of the document shows that it was concerned with various "floods" the author thought recurred on planet Earth, as well as the Adam and Eve story. And he begins his book/pamphlet with a scenario of catastrophe hitting the west coast of the USA. So from that standpoint, it does make some sense, for any such catastrophe would be viewed as a national security issue and hence of concern to the intelligence "community."

But my high octane speculation motor, as one might suspect, is running in high gear and I am seeing other potential implications here, the first being that no matter how apparently crazy or bizarre a theory concerning ancient history may be, it will be investigated, or at least "passed along to headquarters." It is, in other words, a clear indicator that the "alternative research field" is not only of interest to that "community," but that its productions are being watched, monitored, and no doubt analyzed. Certainly it has been known for some time that the UFO field, for example, is closely watched by intelligence bureaucracies, and at times, "interfered with" and if recent history is any example, that actual "marketing campaigns" are promoted in order to push certain narratives and achieve certain results, such as making that particular research field look ridiculous (and yes, I am talking about the Blue Chickens, folks, among other things). But what this little document release indicates is this this interest in the alternative research field is not confined solely to UFOs.

And that implies something else, namely, that there are dedicated resources in that "community" to do so. That may mean nothing more (or less) than "standing orders" to notice and pass along information such as this. To do so also implies that somewhere in the labyrinth of intelligence bureaucracies, that there is someone reading and analyzing such materials.

One may view this from the standpoint that any cultural trend or phenomenon  - like flood stories, themes of recurrent catastrophe, and so on - are of interest, perhaps for the purposes of social engineering, as I outlined in my recent book Microcosm and Medium.

However, during my presentations at the 2015 Secret Space Program conference in Bastrop. Texas, I also argued a case that the national security "community" would have viewed the UFO problem as a potential problem involving another "Tower of Babel moment of history," and that leaving no stone unturned, it may have investigated ancient lore, traditions, and texts to gain a perspective on the problem it was dealing with in the UFO phenomenon. (Incidentally, many people think I am the one who originated the phrase "Tower of Babel moment of History." I am not. The phrase is actually that of Leonard Bernstein, who used it in his celebrated Harvard Norton Poetry lectures, The Unanswered Question, in 1973.) One may even speculate that perhaps the intelligence "community" was intrigued by this pamphlet precisely because it suspected that recurrent catastrophes were in fact engineered or deliberate interventions in human affairs, and hence constituted "Tower of Babel moments of history."

And that, perhaps, is the real story here, a bit of confirmation (again, perhaps) that my speculations in Bastrop may have some traction. If so, then it leads to a disquieting question, one implied by the question of a "Tower of Babel moment of History" itself, namely, if that be the case, then whose "side" is the intelligence "community" on, and with whom might they be attempting to negotiate (if at all)?

If recent news and cultural trends, not to mention the predominance of various secret society relationships within the intelligence "community" are any indicator(think Skull and Bones, folks), they may have made the wrong choice...

See you on the flip side...

 

MORE STRANGENESS(?) ABOUT ETHIOPIAN FLIGHT 302

Something seems terribly wrong with the story of Ethiopian flight 302. I blogged about this last week, after having a few emails from various people suggesting that perhaps the MCAS artificial intelligence system on the craft was either deficient, or perhaps had even been hacked. Thus far, the consensus on the story seems to be that this system is opaque and not intuitive, and that there are deficiencies in the pilot's manual.

What concerns me however are the strangeness of airline accidents lately. The disappearance of Malaysia Air flight 370 continues to daunt any explanation (and search), and was followed by the apparent downing of Malaysia air flight 17 over the Ukraine. Then came the crash of Lyon Air flight 610 in Indonesia, the first of the Boeing 737-Max 8's to crash, followed now by Ethiopian Air's flight 302. As most readers here are probably aware, the aircraft has now been grounded, and reportedly Boeing is working on a "fix" to its MCAS system, which is supposed to automatically adjust the trim of the aircraft due to unusually forward-mounted engines on its wings... or... something like that.

But there's two articles that make me wonder if we're getting the full story. I'm not a pilot, of course, and I know nothing about flying (other than that I don't like it and won't do it), however these two articles, taken together, give me pause and make me wonder if there is something more going on than meets the eye. This is one of those "you tell me stories," because to my amateur's eye, something is quite amiss. The first article was sent by Mr. E.G., and the graphs alone make one rather sick to the stomach, imagining what those poor people on that doomed flight were experiencing:

"Something Was Extraordinarily Wrong": Doomed Boeing Swung Up And Down Hundreds Of Feet

If one looks at the graphs of the vertical speed of the Lyon flight and the Ethiopian Air flight, they are quite similar in that the speed increases and decreases seem all out of whack. But what's interesting is that we're not being shown the data for the last half of Ethtiopian flight 302's short flight into disaster. The flight appears to have been on some kind of roller coaster ride:

According to officials with Ethiopian Airlines, the crew of flight 302 told air traffic control they they were experiencing "flight control" problems just a few minutes before contact was lost. Pilot Yared Getachew - who had more than 8,000 hours of flying experience, reported the initial "flight control" problem in a calm voice within one minute of departure. 

According to the radar, the aircraft was flying far below the minimum safe altitude recommended during takeoff. Within two minutes, the plane had climbed to a safer altitude, and the pilot reported that he wanted to remain on a straight course to 14,000 feet.

The plane then proceeded to rapidly climb and fall by hundreds of feet while flying unusually fast, according to the Times. Air traffic controllers "started wondering out loud what the flight was doing."

The plane's trajectory was so erratic that two other Ethiopian flights - 613 and 629, where ordered to remain at higher altitudes.

While the controllers were instructing the other planes to keep their distance, a panicked Captain Getachew interrupted just three minutes into their flight and requested to turn back as the plane accelerated to even higher speeds well beyond the plane's safety limits.

So far, so bad. As the story goes, all of this information seems to support the "problems-in-the-AI-MCAS" system hypothesis. But then there's this tidbit of information:

A minute later, it disappeared from the radar while flying over a restricted military zone.

Ordinarily this bit of information wouldn't make me think twice. But then one turns to the second article, shared by Mr. S.D.:

Army captain killed in Ethiopia plane crash

In this article, there is reference to a statement by an eyewitness, who shortly before the actual crash saw something very strange:

The Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft went down in clear weather just minutes after takeoff. It “rotated two times in the air” with smoke coming from the back before crashing, said witness Tamrat Abera. (Emphasis added)

What's interesting here is the implication that this witness may have seen something very strange during that portion of the flight about which we otherwise seem to have a curious lack of information. What this witness describes is itself something very odd: the aircraft apparently rotated two times... the problem here is what this language actually means: did the aircraft do loops in the air like a looping rollercoaster? That's rather difficult to believe if indeed the witness saw this just before the crash. Or did it do a spiraling corkscrew? or was it in a spiraling nosedive? Or worse, was the fuselage being twisted back and forth along its central axis in some sort of torsion effect? Ordinarily I'd opt for "spiraling nosedive", but the language is ambiguous enough to allow for other, more disturbing possibilities.

Then there's the matter of the smoke "coming from the back," meaning, perhaps, from the back of the fuselage, which would again be rather odd since the engines are mounted on the wings; so it sounds as if something else might have been on fire other than the engines. Thus, if there's smoke coming from the fuselage, what might be burning? Hydraulics from the control systems for flaps and so on? If so, then that means there might be another culprit than the MCAS system, and it is obvious that one could not rule out foul play. In any case, all this "rotating" and "smoking" is taking place while the aircraft "disappears from the radar while flying over a restricted military zone", making me wonder if the strange behavior described by the witness might be the result of some technology being employed against the aircraft, or if indeed a bomb or some other method of destruction had been placed on it. Who knows?

I certainly do not know, but it seems to me that something smells here, and it has my suspicion meter in the orange-to-red zone. My guess is that this witness, cited in the second article, may have an important key, if not the key to it. And accordingly my guess is we'll hear very little - if anything at all - from that witness by way of clarifying those strange remarks in the future. I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But in the meantime, we're in the presence of a mystery, and I want very much to hear more detail from that witness, as I do from recovered black boxes.

See you on the flip side...

 

OF GOLD AND WARGAMES: TWO SEEMINGLY UNRELATED ARTICLES

When Mr. V.T. and Mr. E.G sent along the following article about wargames, my ears perked up, because as some readers here might or might not be aware, playing wargames has been a hobby of mine since I was young. When time permits (and it usually doesn't) I still enjoy playing them. By wargames, I don't mean the roll-playing stuff that kids play nowadays. I mean the actual thing; there are commercial versions of the types of game systems that were developed by various general staffs prior to World War One, and they're very sophisticated and, back then, used to take forever to play as one had to do endless calculations, roll dice and so on. They came with real maps printed out with an overlaid hex grid, and small cardboard square pieces with the standard NATO symbols printed on them to represent various units, divisions, corps, armor, infantry, artillery and so on. If nothing else, it was a way to "relive" military campaigns one read about in books, and the maps were an education in where places were and what the topography was. Well-known, and not so-well-known, places - Moscow or Leningrad or Novi Sad or Cluj - became part of the landscape. Today the large maps and cardboard unit counters and dice have been replaced by computerized games, automatic calculations of battle resolutions, and so on, and take lots less time to play. In fact, in the picture accompanying this article, you can see what one of those old wargames with its hexgrid map and cardboard unit counters looked like. They're still enjoyable, and they make you think.

And needless to say, this story made me think:

U.S. "Gets Its Ass Handed To It" In World War III Simulation: RAND

This little excerpt from the article says it all: the U.S. would not prevail in a general confrontation with Russia and China:

We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary," he warned.

In the next military conflict, which some believe may come as soon as the mid-2020s, all five battlefield domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, will be heavily contested, suggesting the U.S. could have a difficult time in achieving superiority as it has in prior conflicts.

The simulated war games showed, the "red" aggressor force often destroys U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters on the runway, sends several Naval fleets to the depths, destroys US military bases, and through electronic warfare, takes control of critical military communication systems. In short, a gruesome, if simulated, annihilation of some of the most modern of US forces.

“In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with years of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

So, as Russia and China develop fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic missiles, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructures like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”

"That’s why the 2020 budget coming out next week retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported. It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question," said Breaking Defense.

Reading between the lines a bit, the article is highlighting a problem I've mentioned before, namely, that with so much money chasing high tech military weapons systems, the US military is actually getting much bang for the buck than its major potential enemies, who spend far less, but get greater returns on what they do buy. Or to put it differently, the USA has invested in the wrong systems.

Now tuck that wargame story in the back of your mind, with the added insight that, if RAND's wargames are showing these types of results, the likelihood is that similar wargames in Moscow and Beijing are probably showing more or less the same results. With that in mind, now consider this "completely different" story shared by Mr. H.B.:

Romania Introduces a Bill to Repatriate its Gold Reserves

With that, you can add Romania to the list of countries that are trying or in part have succeeded in repatriating its gold reserves: Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Venezuela. And if one adds in stories about other nations concerned about their gold, you can include Italy and Australia.

So what's the connection between the stories? It's simple: the backing of the US dollar as a reserve currency is the US military, and in particular, the US Navy, though as we move into the space age, that would also include the air force and now the space force. Wargames such as this - and virtually every major power plays them periodically - are showing acute vulnerabilities in the US military, and hence in the US dollar, and countries are moving accordingly into gold until such time as a new reserve currency (or currencies) emerges.

See you on the flip side...

 

THE OPACITY OF AI AND THOSE BOEING PLANE CRASHES

Many people have been trying to warn of the dangers of artificial intelligence, my own small voice among them. And now, there is a strange article from Zero Hedge that draws attention to the dangers in connection with those Boeing 737 Max 8 airplanes, two of which have crashed - with fatalities - in recent months, prompting several airlines either to ground their fleets, or to cancel orders. Mr. E.G. and Ms. K.M. spotted this article, and as one might expect, it prompts some high octane speculation, or rather, perhaps a revisit to some of my earlier warnings about the increasing reliance on AI:

Is The Boeing 737 Max Crisis An Artificial Intelligence Event?

The problem, according to the article, is an "MCAS patch", a safety anti-stall program on the aircraft, and it's worth noting what this article says about it:

I think the problem is that the Boeing anti-stall patch MCAS is poorly configured for pilot use: it is not intuitive, and opaque in its consequences.

By the way of full disclosure, I have held my opinion since the first Lion Air crash in October, and ran it past a test pilot who, while not responsible for a single word here, did not argue against it. He suggested that MCAS characteristics should have been in a special directive and drawn to the attention of pilots.

And there's another problem:

Boeing had a problem with fitting larger and heavier engines to their tried and trusted 737 configuration, meaning that the engines had to be higher on the wing and a little forwards, and that made the 737 Max have different performance characteristics, which in turn led to the need for an anti-stall patch to be put into the control systems.

So the patch was put into the system. But then there's this at the end of the article:

After Lion Air I believed that pilots had been warned about the system, but had not paid sufficient attention to its admittedly complicated characteristics, but now it is claimed that the system was not in the training manual anyway. It was deemed a safety system that pilots did not need to know about.

This farrago has an unintended consequence, in that it may be a warning about artificial intelligence. Boeing may have rated the correction factor as too simple to merit human attention, something required mainly to correct a small difference in pitch characteristics unlikely to be encountered in most commercial flying, which is kept as smooth as possible for passenger comfort.

It would be terrible if an apparently small change in automated safety systems designed to avoid a stall turned out have given us a rogue plane, killing us to make us safe.

I don't know about you, but I find all this profoundly disturbing, because what is being alleged in the article is something like the following:

1) The MCAS "patch" was "too opaque" for humans; it was "not intuitive";

2) It was therefore kept out of the pilots' training manuals because of this; and

3) The cumulative effect of these decisions means pilots were essentially not in control of their aircraft, and the system itself may have crashed them

Most people are aware that I don't fly at all. I used to, but even then I was never comfortable doing so. These days, I just simply flatly refuse, and in part it's because of stories like this. And we've already seen similar stories with "self-driving cars". Automated semi-trucks are reportedly already on the road, though we've yet to hear of any accidents involving them or failures of their AI. But whether or not it's true that automated AI trucks are driving down the road, I can say that there's something else that has happened. Not too far from where I live, the local Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad does run freight trains with no engineer in the cab of the locomotives. There's even a little sign to this effect at a prominent railroad crossing that I often cross, or rather, used to cross until the impact of the sign warning about the automated train finally sank in. Now I drive a block or two out of my way to cross over the tracks on a bridge.

As I've written before about this increasing distance between humans and the machine society, I'd like to employ the article's author's template to a completely different area that I've written about before in conjunction with artificial intelligence: computer trading. I've blogged about this phenomenon, and talked about it occasionally on Catherine Austin Fitts' Solari Report quarterly wrap ups. My concern there has always been that with computers doing most of the trading - often in mere fractions of a second - that commodities, equities, and securities markets are no longer genuinely reflective of human trading activity. Apply that template to currency speculation and trading and one has in my opinion a recipe for disaster. Here too, the author of the article's template of the lack of intuitive human characteristics, the opacity of the system, and so on, would seem to apply. The occasional "flash crashes" in markets are a testament of the fact that price no longer functions adequately as a measure by which to evaluate and make decisions, since that can literally crash or spike in a matter of mere second, and in this regard, I cannot help but wonder if the article's author is not on to something, namely, flash crashes of a very different, literal sort.

See you on the flip side...

HACKING DNA SYNTHESIZERS… WITH SOUND

Mr. P.J. spotted this one, and it's in the "whopper doozie" category, and you can file it right up there with the various mind manipulation technologies I've blogged and written about, including such things like "electro-encephalographic dictionaries" and "voice of God" technologies. In a way, I suppose, we could all predict this one coming, for if one can read another individual's thoughts remotely via ultra-sensitive signals equipment and compile "dictionaries of brain waves", then inevitably someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to steal DNA sequences remotely by hacking into networks...

Well, as I said, Mr. P.J. spotted this one, and while most of it is so technical it's totally beyond me, I did manage to catch a few nuggets from the abstract of this paper, and the implications are both profound and chilling:

Here's the paper:

Oligo-Snoop: A Non-Invasive Side Channel AttackAgainst DNA Synthesis Machines

The abstract, in spite of the technicality of the paper, gives the story:

Abstract—Synthetic biology is developing into a promising science and engineering field. One of the enabling technologies for this field is the DNA synthesizer. It allows researchers to custom-build sequences of oligonucleotides (short DNA strands)using the nucleo bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C),and Thymine (T). Incorporating these sequences into organisms can result in improved disease resistance and lifespan for plants,animals, and humans. Hence, many laboratories spend large amounts of capital researching and developing unique sequences of oligonucleotides. However, these DNA synthesizers are fully automated systems with cyber-domain processes and physical domain components. Hence, they may be prone to security breaches like any other computing system. In our work, we present a novel acoustic side-channel attack methodology which can be used on DNA synthesizers to breach their confidentiality and steal valuable oligonucleotide sequences. Our proposed attack methodology achieves an average accuracy of 88.07% in predicting each base and is able to reconstruct short sequences with 100% accuracy by making less than 21 guesses out of 415 possibilities. We evaluate our attack against the effects of the microphone’s distance from the DNA synthesizer and show that our attack methodology can achieve over 80% accuracy when the microphone is placed as far as 0.7 meters from the DNA synthesizer despite the presence of common room noise. In addition, we reconstruct DNA sequences to show how effectively an attacker with biomedical-domain knowledge would be able to derive the intended functionality of the sequence using the proposed attack methodology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first methodology that highlights the possibility of such an attack on systems used to synthesize DNA molecules. (Emphasis added)

Ponder that one for a moment: a method has apparently been developed to hack into the sequencing of a genome by listening to the noise it makes while in operation.  As one might imagine, this launched me on a bit of high octane speculation, and here it is.

In the 1970s, Soviet Russia embarked on a series of highly classified research projects into what we would call the "paranormal" and one of the results of that research is the now relatively well-known Kirlian photography which was developed to photograph the so-called "aura" or "light body" of living organisms. Perhaps you've seen those photographs of a leaf which has had a portion of it cut away by scissors. Under Kirlian photography, some sort of electromagnetic field or residue of the original leaf remains, and shows up. Extending this idea, Soviet researchers did a great deal of investigation of bio-physics, and came to the conclusion that there were species-specific electromagnetic "templates" for that species, unique to it. They even discovered that diseases versus healthy cells gave off different electromagnetic signatures, and that one could manipulate health or disease by immersing cultures in those signals.

So here comes the high octane speculation: what if it becomes possible to read an individual's electromagnetic signature, i.e., that signature given off by his or her DNA? If that were possible, then it would be possible to reconstruct or "hack" it by electromagnetic means. This may sound like a wild and woolly idea, but the reason I mention it here publicly is because some time ago, this question came up in one of our members' vidchats, and the individual who raised the issue outlined a process of reasoning such as I have outlined above.

And if it is possible to accurately reassemble a genome sequence merely by listening to a sequencer, I suspect it's also possible to interfere with that sequencer remotely through eletcromagnetic means. Either way, it seems to me that the implication is that we may just have taken a small step on the technology tree toward hacking an individual's DNA directly, and remotely.

In fact, technology is moving so fast that I wouldn't be a bit surprised that someone somewhere has already done a preliminary study.

See you on the flip side...

TIDBIT: THIS WEEK’S HONORABLE MENTIONS

Last week there was no "honorable mentions" list of articles, and someone emailed me and asked where they were. Well, it's a good question and I thought I'd try to answer it before listing some of the other articles that came close to the finals blogs list this week, articles that were shared by a lot of people. The problem this last week was, as I said, the overwhelming amount of articles on the theme of money.  Anyway, the reasons for last week's lack of an honorable mentions are manifold: (1) the "honorable mentions" is not meant to be a regular feature, merely a feature that when I do get articles on topics that are not blogged about, but which came close to being blogged about, I mention them in an "honorable" mention; and (2) If I have the time to compile an honorable mentions list I do so. Last week it was a bit of both: there were not enough articles on various topics to gather together, and I was far behind schedule-wise to do so anyway, as I'm burning the candle at both ends trying to get a book done.

But this week there are some honorable mentions, in some cases a few people sent articles, and in some, just one or two people (and as usual I'll try to mention them). Again, thanks to everyone who spot and send articles:

Ms. M.W. spotted these two articles:

Human Mind Control of Rat Cyborg’s Continuous Locomotion with Wireless Brain-to-Brain Interface

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Unleashes USMCA Coalition for North American Integration

Mr. N. spotted this article about a suppsoed Nazi u-boat in Antarctica (and I'm skeptical, if for no other reason than the "u-boat" does not look like the majority of boats in service with the German navy, except perhaps the Type 21):

German U-Boat Allegedly Spotted in Antarctica on Google Maps (PHOTO)

Mr. T.M. spotted this update about the gold mergers:

Barrick CEO Vows to Press On With Bid for Newmont After Rebuff

And Ms. K.M. spotted this on giving infrared vision to mice:

Incredible Experiment Gives Infrared Vision to Mice—and Humans Could Be Next

JFK AND THE 1963 ANTARCTIC NUCLEAR EXPLOSION

If you're an "Antarctic strangeness" follower like me, you'll be very interested and intrigued by this story shared by Mr. S.D.  And this time the story does not involve a list of strange people going to visit the continent, but rather, that recurrent story that there were nuclear weapons tested over Antarctica in 1958. There are various versions of this story, and little corroboration. But if one takes the time to watch the little video accompanying the article, it appears that something strange was going on down there in the late 1950s and early 1960s:

WW3: US secretly launched THREE nuclear rockets from Antarctica ‘to test EMP on Russia'

Now, what I found intriguing about this story was the video itself, and more specifically, the photos of newspaper articles alleging that something very strange was going on down there, something so strange that it had scientists baffled, and that was that there appeared to have been a nuclear explosion either above the ground, or below it. As the articles indicate, at first the story was denied, then more or less affirmed, and President Kennedy ordered the Antarctic treaty's provisions to allow nations with bases there to inspect each other; the inference being that the Soviets had tested some sort of nuclear bomb. According to the video narrative accompanying the shots of the newspaper articles, the explosion occurred sometime in August, 1963, only months before President Kennedy's assassination. Indeed, the fact that the articles about this explosion occurred in the same context as the press coverage of President Kennedy's assassination makes one wonder if that was a subtle way of signaling some kind of connection between the two events.

What is equally intriguing, according to the video, is that the explosion, which was first denied, was later admitted, and the story came out in the days immediately following the President's murder.

So as one might imagine, this has my high octane speculation transmission once again running in overdrive, for there are several possibilities. One, which the short video itself mentions, is that the explosion did indeed occur, and since no fallout was detected, this is the reason to conclude it was either an upper atmospheric explosion, or one underground. As the video states, this may have been a secret test conducted by many nations, in conjunction with certain articles in the Antarctic treaty. That's certainly possible, though to my mind not very plausible. There would seem to be no good reason to keep such a test secret. Of course, this story has played into the version that such a test was conducted, only that it was a "test" with a target, namely, that Nazi base that was down there according to some.

But there is another and more disturbing possibility, one which, given all the other high strangeness we've seen concerning Antarctica lately, needs to be mentioned: what if it was a nuclear explosion, but not one made by any of the then nuclear powers (the USA, the USSR, Great Britain, or France)? If that were the case, then there would be very good reason to keep the whole thing secret.

In this respect, I return to a speculation I offered back when former Secretary of State John Kerry visited the continent during the 2016 presidential election, and during was was, for him, a globe-trotting diplomatic junket. We were told at the time that he was interested in seeing the evidence of that wonderfully vague "climate change" up close and personal, which at the time I thought was nonsense. I still think it's nonsense. For one thing, "climate change" doesn't produce perfectly rectilinear blocks of ice breaking off from the ice shelf. Thus, at the time, I suggested that perhaps Secretary Kerry was really in Antarctica to conduct diplomacy... with someone...

... and perhaps that "someone" had nuclear weapons back in 1963.

And then of course, there was Buzz Aldrin, and his tweet made shortly after he left the southern polar continent that what he had seen was pure evil.

You get the idea.

See you on the flip side...

 

THOSE STRANGE “APOCALYPTIC”(?) SOUNDS

When this story first came in, I read about it, and then quickly thought, "well that will probably not make the finals cut this week," but boy, was I wrong, as more and more people sent this story in, and offered comments in some cases. When one is in the high octane speculation business, one is wrong about 99% of the time and right a mere fraction of that (that would be the other one percent, for those of you who suffered under Common Core). So what's the problem? Apparently, people all over the country are hearing loud "booms" or "explosions", and there's no known source for them.  And this wouldn't be the first time strange noises have been heard. A few years ago, they were hearing them in Russia and Canada. And no one seems to have a clue as to what is causing them:

Apocalyptic Sounds In The Sky: No Explanation For "Mysterious Booms And Flashes Of Light" All Across America

As one might expect, my antennae are pulsing with suspicion, and I've a little high octane speculation to add to the mix, and it concerns the following statements:

For weeks, Americans all over the country have been rattled by extremely loud booming sounds that seem to have no explanation, and they are often accompanied by “mysterious flashes of light”. 

These strange booms are shaking homes and rattling windows, and some witnesses say that they sound like cannons being fired.  And even though the “mystery booms” and accompanying flashes of light have been captured on camera all across the nation, so far the authorities do not have a reasonable explanation for why they are happening.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that this strange phenomenon is going to go away any time soon.  In fact, the Sun is reporting that the frequency of these “mystery booms” appears “to have gathered pace over the past week”…

To make matters more even incomprehensible, as the article also notes, there is no accompanying seismic activity, which would seem to rule out geophysical explanations, but I'm going to take the plunge anyway. But before I do, the article also notes that the "booms" heave been heard in Rhode Island, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, New Orleans, and Tuscon, Arizona. Beyond this, we don't have much information upon which to speculate. Yet, in spite of the fact there's no reported seismic activity accompanying these booms, people are apparently experiencing some sort of physical shock wave from them.

To my mind, all these things are clues, and if there is (1) no seismic shock  and yet (2) physically experienced shock wave  phenomena, and (3) flashes of light, then I can think of a few mechanisms that might account for it, the first being very shallow ground shock waves, which might not necessarily show or, or be recognized, as seismic events, which might show up if peizoelectric rock is suddenly stressed, released energy in the form of the shock wave and a flash of light.  OK, I know all of that is reaching, so that brings me to the following. The second possibility might be something happening in the air, such as a sudden release of lightning which anyone who has experienced a thunderstorm can attest, these events can send powerful shockwaves through the air and shallow ground shock waves.

So what might be causing such unusual events as lightning with no thunderstorms around? Here the problem in my speculative hack-from-South-Dakota opinion is just about anyone's guess. Are we looking at natural phenomena that are the result of new stresses and strains in the ecosphere, things like HAARP, the rapidly shifting magnetic pole, resonance effects from all the electromagnetic soup we live in? Who knows.  But there could just be the outside possibility we might be looking at something deliberate, along the lines of Tom Bearden's speculations on interferometry loading energy into certain areas which is suddenly released, which could account for both the shock wave and flashes of light.

To put all this country simple: it's the shallowness of the shock waves (registering no seismic effect, or no recognizable seismic effect), plus the sound and light, that suggests to me that this might be something deliberate, and that "someone" is playing with "something," all the better to get people thinking in terms of something "apocalyptic."

See you on the flip side...

MORE CONCERNS ABOUT CERN: THEIR NEW PROPOSED COLLIDER’S MAGNETIC ...

Last week, you'll recall, I blogged about CERN's plans for an even bigger particle collider, one with an enormous 100km (60 miles) circumference. At the time I posted, I pointed out that the energies such a collider would be operating that would be... well, to use the late Art Bell's expression, "gimongous", dwarfing even the enormous energies and magnetic field strengths of the current Large Hadron Collider.

Mr. P.J. spotted this article, and shared it:

Designing Magnets for the World’s Largest Particle Collider

Now, the subtitle of this article says it all: "To produce a field of 16 teslas for CERN's Future Circular Collider, scientists must invent a new class of magnets." But wait, there's more:

At the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland, man-made magnetic fields—roughly 200,000 times stronger than the Earth’s—accelerate particles into one another at nearly the speed of light. Experiments by this world-renowned particle accelerator have provided critical data supporting the Standard Model, a theory describing how particles in our universe behave and interact. But physicists are keen to know whether the model holds up for particles at even higher energies.

More experiments must also be done to extend the Standard Model, to answer questions such as why the universe has so much matter compared to antimatter, what exactly is dark matter, and why neutrinos have mass. CERN, the research organization behind the LHC, hopes to explore these mysteries with its proposed next-generation facility, the Future Circular Collider (FCC).

On 15 January, CERN released its first report outlining potential designs for the FCC, with input from more than 130 institutions. The facility would come with an estimated price tag between €9 billion (US $10.2 billion) and €21 billion, and part of the facility could open as soon as 2040.

If realized, the FCC will produce magnetic fields nearly twice as strong as the LHC, and accelerate particles to unprecedented energies of 100 tera-electron volts, compared to the LHC’s energies of 13 TeV. Whereas the magnetic system at the LHC can achieve strengths of 8.3 teslas, the FCC system would be able to achieve 16 T. (Emphasis added)

To achieve this feat, superconducting magnets of niobium tin will have to be used:

More than 4,500 magnets will be required for the FCC, and those magnets must rely on new designs and materials. The magnets currently used in the LHC are made of niobium titanium (NbTi)—but for the FCC, scientists will switch to the more powerful superconducting material niobium tin (Nb3Sn).

“The only superconducting material suitable in producing accelerator magnets achieving 16 T is Nb3Sn,” says Arnaud Marsollier, head of media relations at CERN. However, this material is sensitive to the tiniest deformation. This is problematic considering the extreme changes the material will undergo, which could degrade its superconducting properties. Therefore, scientists need new designs to minimize stress on these systems.

Now, most readers of my books, and in particular, The Third Way, and of my various blogs on the subject of conCERNs about CERN, will be familiar with one of my high octane speculations about the device: with magnetic field strengths several magnitudes stronger than the local field strength of the planet itself, I've always thought it possible that planetary effects could ensue from using the device, via resonance, and that these effects could affect everything from weather to aggregate human behavior, and possibly even, via the magnetic coupling between the Earth and the Sun, have affects on the Sun itself. I've even entertained the speculation that with such strong magnetic fields buried under the Earth, that such effects might even extend to the dynamo operating in the interior of the planet, which in turn would affect the magnetosphere itself. Perhaps the strange sudden shifting of the magnetic north pole is somehow related to these hypothesized effects.

Now, if you're wondering just how strong a tesla is, this article is helpful:

What is Magnetic Field Strength?

Take note of what is stated at the beginning of this article:

Magnetic field strength is a measure of the intensity of a magnetic field, given in teslas (T), the standard unit. One tesla is equal to one weber per square meter, where one weber is the equivalent per second that is required to induce an electromotive force of one volt. Another way to define a tesla is that a magnetic field of 1 tesla must exert force of 1 newton on a wire of 1 meter carrying 1 ampere of current. This is a lot of force for a magnetic field to exert, as a newton is the force necessary to accelerate a 1 kg weight at 1 meter per second squared.

If all that sounds complicated, people can just think of magnetic field strength in teslas by reference to known field strengths. For instance, the Earth's magnetic field is equivalent to 1/30,000th of a tesla. Still, this is enough for birds to navigate by and to keep a compass hand pointed north. The magnetic field of Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar system, is about ten times stronger than Earth's, or 1/3,000th of a tesla. This is caused by charge circulating through metallic hydrogen in its interior.

Those very small magnetic strengths may seem to be nothing, but note for a moment that birds migrate - it is thought - by using magnetic field lines through the magnetite in their beaks and brains. In the presence of field strengths several orders of magnitude larger than that, what happens? Short answer: we don't really know. The article tries to reassure us with this:

A typical loudspeaker magnetic generates a strength of 1 to 2.4 teslas.

But then it follows that statement with this:

The magnetic field necessary to levitate a frog is about 17 teslas. The strongest electromagnets, which make use of superconductors, measure approximately 20 teslas. The strongest continuous magnetic field yet generated is 45 teslas, at Florida State University's National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, while the strongest pulsed magnetic field obtained non-destructively was 100 teslas at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

And now CERN wants to double those field strengths(perhaps they plan experiments in frog levitation). So, while these magnets may not be the 100 teslas at Los Alamos, I suspect that interesting things might "begin to happen" when one adds rotation, and maybe the odd magnetic precessional wobble or two... And add all these systems and their enormous magnetic fields together, and my high octane speculations about (un?)intended resonance effects on other systems gets very murky indeed. And then there's that curious wording of the last phrase of the sentence quoted above: "..while the strongest pulsed magnetic field obtained non-destructively was 100 teslas at the Los Alamos National Laboratory." You don't say. What about the destructive ones?

But, as I say, it's all high octane speculation, a fantastic "yea, but what if...?".

See you on the flip side...

 

TEST YOUR DNA AT HOME, SHARE IT WITH THE FBI

This story was spotted by many people, but I want to zero in on one particular individual who shared it, Mr. K.L., who, when sharing it, asked a very significant question in his email. But first a little background. In the 2015 Secret Space Program Conference in Bastrop, Texas, I offered the speculation that (1) if one suspected that humanity had, or has, "genetic cousins" that are "out there somewhere", and (2) if one suspected that this group interacted with humanity not only in the past but also is doing so in the present, and thus (3) that "they" may be here and walking among us, then one was presented with the "nightmare contact scenario," one explored countless times in science fiction books, short stories, and even television series. The famous series from the 1970s, The Invaders, starring Roy Thinnes, was predicated around precisely this theme. If "they" look like us and walk like us and more or less talk and act like us, how would one detect them?

The only way, I averred at the conference, would be through genetic sequencing.

Well, with that in mind, ponder the following story which Mr. K.L. and many others shared:

One Of The Biggest At-Home DNA Testing Companies Is Secretly Sharing Data With The FBI

Just one week ago, we warned that the government — helped by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget) — was embarking on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

As it turns out we were right, but we forgot one key spoke of the government's campaign to collect genetic information from as many individuals as possible: "innocent", commercial companies, who not only collect DNA from willing clients, but are also paid for it.

FamilyTreeDNA, one of the pioneers of the growing market for "at home", consumer genetic testing, confirmed a report from BuzzFeed that it has quietly granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to its vast trove of nearly 2 million genetic profiles.

While concerns about unrestricted access to genetic information gathered by testing companies had swelled since April, when police used a genealogy website to ensnare a suspect in the decades-old case of the Golden State Killer, that site, GEDmatch, was open-source, meaning police were able to upload crime-scene DNA data to the site without permission. However, the latest arrangement marks the first time a commercial testing company has voluntarily given law enforcement access to user data.

Worse, it did so secretly, without obtaining prior permission from its users

And the concluding paragraph:

And, of course, if every person's DNA is in one giant genetic database, there would be no mistakes. Now if only the risk of abuse of this information was also nil, then everything would be great. Alas, as Snowden revealed when he exposed the flagrant abuses at the NSA years ago, this will never be the case especially when the "objective and impartial" FBI is involved.

Now, before we get to today's high octane speculation courtesy of Mr. K.L.'s question, let's first dispatch with the obvious. A national DNA database, as the article strongly implies, is the natural outgrowth not only of the value of such genetic technologies as forensic evidence, but also the natural outgrowth of the FBI's mandate to investigate crime, particularly interstate crime, and to run national criminal databases. In other words, there may be nothing more to this than just that (though, as the reader might have guessed, I strongly suspect this is not the case, and that much more is involved). This alone should give one pause, for a national database of everyone's DNA, while providing a great forensic tool, could - in my imagination - also be used to plant evidence and to frame people for crimes they did not commit. If that sounds fanciful, consider only the double standards we've seen in the past few years, along with galloping abuses of power in the Department of (In)Justice. With DNA samples of individuals ready to hand, and with appropriate cloning techniques, evidence could perhaps be fabricated implicating virtually anyone for anything. And at this juncture, I wouldn't put anything past the kind of Gestapo Meullerism we've seen lately.

But I suspect there's a much deeper level to all of this, as implied by my introduction to this article, and by Mr. K.L.'s very important question: "Why the FBI?" Beyond the reasons cited thus far, there is one other very interesting and to my mind compelling reason, the reason laying behind the High Octane Speculation that I am going to entertain. The other mandate of the FBI is counter-intelligence within the territory of the USA. Thus, if one suspected that those genetic cousins really do exist, and that they resemble us strongly, the way to uncover potential infiltration is precisely through genetics, and to do so in terms of a national database. And of course, the interesting thing is, one can make the whole operation do "double duty", and one need never acknowledge "deeper reasons" for the accumulation of such a database, such as I am suggesting.

It's just a crime fighting tool. Nothing else to see here. Move along...

See you on the flip side...

 

MORE ON MALAYSIA AIR FLIGHT 370: ACOUSTIC RECORDINGS, AND DRILLS

I've been fascinated by the story of the disappearance (and presumed crash) of Malaysia Air Flight 370 ever since it disappeared (and presumably crashed) on March 8, 2014. The mere fact that this story remains unresolved is an indicator, perhaps, that something is very amiss, and that something very strange might be going on with the story. Within a week or so of the story breaking, I interviewed with the late George Ann Hughes on The Byte Show, and outline the emerging theories, and came to my first hypothesis that the aircraft had simply gone "poof" and that it may have been the victim of a "Bermuda triangle" like phenomenon, or the victim of some sort of exotic energy technology. That may seem like quite a stretch, until one considers the other theories being floated at the time: it was shot down by missiles (which would have left radar and other clues), it was crashed deliberately by a crazy pilot (or copilot). These were quickly shunted aside, as character witnesses came forward to dispute that the pilot was either depressed or of low character. Missile shootdowns would have left debris.

Then came the stories that the aircraft had diverted from its flight path, flew back over the Malay Peninsula, heading roughly in the south westerly direction. Some eyewitnesses seemed to corroborate this story. Thus arose more theories that made the rounds on television and the internet. There was the "Diego Garcia" theory, that the plane had been diverted and actually landed at the super-secret US-UK base on the island. Then an American general - I forget his name - appeared on a major American lamestream media network and advanced an even kookier theory that he had "inside information" to the effect that the flight had been diverted to Iran, with the help of the always-byzantine-never-to-be-trusted-Russians and their evil-criminal-super-genius-mastermind Vladimir Putin, where it would be repainted and used in a subsequent terrorist act. Supposedly, in the general's scenario, the aircraft flew through Indian airspace, and avoided detection by Indian air defense radar by flying closely behind another civilian airliner.

It was in that context of nuttiness that I advanced my own "outrageous" theory.  Then came the stories of it flying more or less due south, and crashing in the Indian Ocean somewhere off the coast of western Australia, and searches immediately commenced, and found... nothing. When I interviewed with George Ann Hughes, I cautioned - long before the Indian Ocean crash theory emerged - that if a crash site was advanced in the Indian Ocean, to be suspicious, because that ocean is very deep, and only a few countries possessed the technology to do deep sea searches. I even warned, in that interview, against the possibility of "salting" a debris field.

Then alleged debris began to wash up in French colonial islands off the east coast of Africa. Case settled, and I moved to the position that the flight might indeed, after all, have crashed in the Indian Ocean. But then one of the regular readers of this site in Australia, and a pilot, began to email me pointing out discrepancies in some of the alleged debris. I'm not a pilot, and as most people know, I don't go anywhere near airplanes. So I'm not in a position to evaluate those claims. But shortly after this, the Malaysian ambassador, who was tasked with collecting this debris and returning it to Malaysia, was murdered. Had he seen something to suggest a hostile takedown? or a takedown by exotic means? Or conversely, had he seen something to suggest that the alleged debris really was not debris from the flight? Again, we don't know. But with those additional "facts" added to the story, I moved back to entertaining my "it just went 'poof'" hypothesis, by the above-mentioned means.

So now we come to the most recent twist in this strange saga, in the following shared by Mr. D.W.:

’Missing’ data foils new MH370 lead

Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was ‘shot down in military training exercise’ claims first book released about lost jet

The first article seems to account for the discovery of alleged debris off of Madagascar and other French islands in the western Indian Ocean:

WHEN you drop a pebble in a pond, you hear a 'plop' and see ripples begin to expand across its surface. If you were beneath the surface of the pond, you'd hear a slightly different 'plop'. All involve waves. And all radiate outwards from the source. So if you can hear it, you can learn a lot about the rock that dropped.

It's a technique used by the world's militaries to track and identify submarines and warships over great distances. It's also a key component in sensing nuclear weapons tests, which is why a worldwide network of hydroacoustic (under water microphones) has been in operation for decades.

Two of these ocean acoustics recorders were in a position to pick up MH370's impact with the Indian Ocean. But only one, based in Australia, has supplied reliable data.

The other was positioned at the secret US defence facility at Diego Garcia, in the heart of the Indian Ocean. Much of its data from the relevant time frame is distorted. And 25 minutes of it is inexplicably missing.

What emerges from these recordings is something intriguing in and of itself, for they pinpoint not one, but two potential crash zones:

Writing in The Conversation , Kadri explains an attempt was made to use recordings of underwater acoustic waves to locate the aircraft in 2017. Noises potentially associated with the crash were detected by hydrophones off Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia, and another at the secret US military facility at Diego Garcia, in the central Indian Ocean.

...

One puts the crash site further north in the Indian Ocean than previously believed.

The other points to a flight course taking MH370 closer to Madegascar(sic).

The second article linked above outlines yet another theory that the aircraft may have been downed during a military exercise, to crash in the Gulf of Thailand.

So where are we now? More or less where we were in the first weeks after the flight's disappearance: We don't know where it went down, we don't know why it went down, and we don't know the motivation (if any) of those who brought it down. .

What I do suspect, however, is that someone knows what happened to Flight 370, and they seem eager to avoid any resolution of the story. It is perhaps even possible, to extend my speculations, that this latest round of evidence is another attempt at obfuscation.

See you on the slip side...