Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Did Mossad cause 9/11?

Quoted from http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11




As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...Click for full size image
...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.


A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.
The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towersprior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)
Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)
"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)
Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)
One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here's the transcript from NBC News:
Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8)
(*Writer's note: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these "Arabs" were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not "sheikh uniforms")
Based on that phone call, police then issued a "Be-on-the-Lookout" alert for a white mini-van heading for the city's bridges and tunnels from New Jersey.
White, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals. (9)
When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious "middle-easterners" were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:
"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (10)
Why did he feel Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?
The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (11)
The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. (12)
The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (13)
"...two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge ... The FBI ... says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge."WMV video download (545kB)
It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14).
What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 (15), the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (17) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.
But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (18), and Yediot America, (19) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.
It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.
Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play.
From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks.
The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (20)
A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21).
Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. (22)
The Jewish weekly The Forward reported that the FBI finally concluded that at least two of the detained Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. This was confirmed by two former CIA officers, and they noted that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. (23). The Israelis were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. (24)
"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11." (25)
Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (26)
How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:
1. The Israeli "movers" cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest spy operation ever pulled off in history.2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.
3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.
4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis' misdirection play and leads to their own capture and 40 day torture.
5. To cover up this story, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.
6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department "higher-ups" are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.
Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1
CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (27)
The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, "experts", and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.
We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ass all over the place!
But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the
9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." (28)
You never heard that quote on your nightly newscast did you?
[A] number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved. (29)
Bin Laden is not named as the perpetrator of 9/11 by the FBI:
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” (31)
"So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming" - Dick Cheney. (32)
To date, the only shred of “evidence” to be uncovered against bin Laden is a barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. How very convenient, and how very fake. (33)
There is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of terror, but there is a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America.
"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now" - Senator Bob Graham. (34)
If the sovereign foreign government mentioned by Senator Graham was an enemy of the United States the "compelling evidence" would not be kept secret for 20+ years.
One final point; at 09:40 on 9-11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks (35). This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed "terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories." (36)
Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people (37) make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?
Sharon and the other Israeli leaders aspire to fulfil what the goals of the political Zionist movement have been since its origin a century ago: to turn all of historic Palestine into an exclusively Jewish state. A central tenet of the Zionist ideology is expressed in the racist slogan, "A land without people for a people without a land." (38)
The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.
Mossad Logo
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Motto of the Mossad

See also:


Friday, November 09, 2012

Murray Energy Corp. CEO Enters 'Survival Mode' After Obama Reelection, Announces Layoffs


This is really good news, thank you for reporting. It's far past time we stopped subsidizing carbon-fuel industries and started shutting them down. As we switch over to a fully renewable energy economy, millions of new jobs will be created, and we can only hope that we see more carbon-fuel fat cats throwing in the towel. People are beginning to realize the effects of global warming and ocean acidification are going to affect them in their lifetime, and we need to work together to limit the suffering. http://www.sdsustainablefuture.com
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Friday, October 19, 2012

The real costs of the Bush recession

Most people don't understand that BUSH's TARP Bank Bailout was the tip of the iceberg, as the Federal reseve made $27-TRILION in revolving "Emergency Loans" to it's same member banks between 2007-2009. "To Big to Fail" went on a gluttonous binge and got obese, buying up smaller banks while small banks went bankrupt and were closed by the FDIC.

Bloomberg filed F.O.I.A. record requests and eventually, after the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, got the records from the Federal Reserve, but two years after the damage was done. The Fed. argued that if the 'emergency loans' were revealed in 'real-time' that such information would cause a national security risk as people would make a run on their member banks if they knew how bad the crisis truly was. (more)

Lean more about the Feds Secret Lifelines - including loans to FOREIGN banks

http://bloom.bg/o6GTTL

If you don't understand fractional reserve banking: when a bank get's free money made out of thin-air from the Federal Reserve, it can loan out 90% of that new money at interest. Then as their customers use that money it returns to the banks where they again loan out 90% at interest. This creates a multiplier effect, making ever dollar in new created money into $10 (at interest). 

At just 5% interest rates, it only takes two years for the banks to repay the initial 'emergency loan' (interest free), using income generated out of thin-air. Yet, the newly created currency, 9 times the original loans, remains in the economy, devaluating the existing currency (inflation). The great thing is that all the CEO's got bonuses based upon the new volume of transactions. In this way the entire economy absorbs the paper losses on home mortgages, while the banks that should have failed, survive. The hidden tax is the inflation, which hits those with savings hardest, those who own homes lose either equity or the value of their currency, eliminating any gains in the value of their property. 
Use this link to get the raw data spreadsheet of Federal Reseve Loans: http://bit.ly/Bloomberg-Fed-Data

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Breaking Rank with Police

Given the history of criminal behavior on the job for personal gain by the San Diego Police we need an active group of public citizens to keep them honest. San Diego has a history as a corrupt city by any measure, it's owned by the developers, who use public officials, like Jerry Sanders, to do their bidding. Exposing the fundamental flaws in the power of authority is the job of every citizen journalist.

Norm Stamper, author of Breaking Rank, established 'anti-corruption' task forces to investigate cops, and set them up with sting opérations. We need to do the same thing with our other public officials, and expose their willingness to sell their influence for personal gain.

If you know of criminal misconduct by the San Diego Police please report it to:
Office of Internal Affairs
Citizens Review Board

If you are afraid of retaliation, and wish to remain anonymous, contact your local professional journalist to help them publish a story on the issues.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

David Suzuki on Economics

READ THIS, IT'S IMPORTANT:


"Economists say, if you clearcut the forests and put [the money] in the bank, you could make 6 or 7 percent. If you cut down the forests and put it into Malaysia or Papua New Guinea, you could make 30 or 40 perc
ent. So, who cares whether you keep the forest, cut it down [and] put the money somewhere else! When those forests are gone, put it in fish; when the fish are gone, put it in computers. Money doesn't stand for anything, and money now grows faster than the real world.

Economics is so fundamentally disconnected from the real world, it is destructive. If you take an introductory course in economics, the professor—in the first lecture—will show a slide of the economy, and it looks very impressive. They try and impress you, because they know damn well that economics is not a science, but they're trying to fool us into thinking that it's a real science; it's not.

Economics is [just] a set of values, and [they] use mathematical equations and pretend that it's a science. But, if you ask the economist, 'in that equation, where do you put the ozone layer? Where do you put the deep, underground aquifers? Where do you put top soil or biodiversity?', their answer is 'oh, those are externalities.' Well, then you might as well be on Mars! That economy's not based [on] anything like the real world. It's life, the web of life, that filters water, it's microorganisms in the soil that create the soil we can grow our food in…insects fertilize all of the flowering plants…nature performs all kinds of services…these services are vital to the health of the planet. Economists call these externalities; that's NUTS."

David Suzuki

(★★★★) Must Watch Video ft. above quote:
http://vimeo.com/49953262

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Black Atheists in America

It is a sad statement, that I am so deprived of good journalism and ethical media in the United States, that my only true outlet for intellectual conversation is the BBC World Service from Brittan on my local NPR Radio Station or off the interweb.

This morning I woke to a particularly good episode of the BBC World about the issue of Black Atheism. Atheist in the US have the same problems as in most nations, alienated by the communities of faith, and ostracized for their lack of shared beliefs in the supernatural, American Atheists suffer the same social and economic bigotry, even attacks, that non-believers have always suffered. But for African-Americans, facing the double issue of American Slavery and Atheist Bigotry, they risk loosing their already marginalized Black Christian or Muslim communities for pursuit of their intellectual maturity.

What really surprised me was the quality of this radio program, and the fact that the BBC had employed an American Journalist to cover this subject on BBC World, when the BBC has regular programs about religion.

This particular episode of BBC World was quite well done. I would like to reference it when I write upon the subject of 'Faith in Reason', and the uniquely complex intellectual and emotional dilemma of Black Atheists in the USA, given our history of slavery and Christian involvement in the Civil Rights movements. I think I would very much like to meet and befriend Black American Atheists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xm849

The fact is that Europeans in General and the British Broadcasting Corporation in particular are far ahead of the US in terms of intellectual progress, and they do not shy from difficult and obscure subjects, and the excellence of their work is well beyond anything we now have in the USA. I "thank god" there is are still progressive minds somewhere upon the Earth, but even in Brittian the complex issues of faith are under pressure and controversy as public media resources are used for religion and the question of atheism rases new conflict.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200593/Keep-faith-BBC-resists-calls-atheists-Radio-4s-Thought-Day-God-Slot.html

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Revisit Kent State Massacre Murders


Reprinted without permission from - 

Kent State: Was It about Civil Rights or 
Murdering Student Protesters?


This article is from our forthcoming book Censored 2013: Dispatches from the Media Revolution and intends to expose the lies of the state in order to uncensor the “unhistory” of the Kent State massacre, while also aiming toward justice and healing, as censoring the past impacts our perspectives in the present.
by Laurel Krause with Mickey Huff
When Ohio National Guardsmen fired sixty-seven gun shots in thirteen seconds at Kent State University (KSU) on May 4, 1970, they murdered four unarmed, protesting college students and wounded nine others. For forty-two years, the United States government has held the position that Kent State was a tragic and unfortunate incident occurring at a noontime antiwar rally on an American college campus. In 2010, compelling forensic evidence emerged showing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) were the lead agencies in managing Kent State government operations, including the cover-up. At Kent State, lawful protest was pushed into the realm of massacre as the US federal government, the state of Ohio, and the Ohio National Guard (ONG) executed their plans to silence antiwar protest in America.
The new evidence threatens much more than the accuracy of accounts of the Kent State massacre in history books. As a result of this successful, ongoing Kent State government cover-up, American protesters today are at much greater risk than they realize, with no real guarantees or protections offered by the US First Amendment rights to protest and assemble. This chapter intends to expose the lies of the state in order to uncensor the “unhistory” of the Kent State massacre, while also aiming toward justice and healing, as censoring the past impacts our perspectives in the present.
The killing of protesters at Kent State changed the minds of many Americans about the role of the US in the Vietnam War. Following this massacre, there was an unparalleled national response: hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools closed across America in a student strike of more than four million. Young people across the nation had strong suspicions the Kent State massacre was planned to subvert any further protests arising from the announcement that the already controversial war in Vietnam had expanded into Cambodia.
Yet instead of attempting to learn the truth at Kent State, the US government took complete control of the narrative in the press and ensuing lawsuits. Over the next ten years, authorities claimed there had not been a command-to-fire at Kent State, that the ONG had been under attack, and that their gunfire had been prompted by the “sound of sniper fire.” Instead of investigating Kent State, the American leadership obstructed justice, obscured accountability, tampered with evidence, and buried the truth. The result of these efforts has been a very complicated government cover-up that has remained intact for more than forty years.1
The hidden truth finally began to emerge at the fortieth anniversary of the Kent State massacre in May 2010, through the investigative journalism of John Mangels, science writer at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, whose findings supported the long-held suspicion that the four dead in Ohio were intentionally murdered at Kent State University by the US government.
Mangels commissioned forensic evidence expert Stuart Allen to professionally analyze a tape recording made from a Kent State student’s dormitory window ledge on May 4, 1970, forever capturing the crowd and battle sounds from before, during, and after the fusillade.2 For the first time since that fateful day, journalists and concerned Americans were finally able to hear the devastating soundtrack of the US government murdering Kent State students as they protested against the Vietnam War.
The cassette tape—provided to Mangels by the Yale University Library, Kent State Collection, and housed all these years in a box of evidence admitted into lawsuits led by attorney Joseph Kelner in his representation of the Kent State victims—was called the “Strubbe tape” after Terry Strubbe, the student who made the recording by placing a microphone attached to a personal recorder on his dormitory window ledge. This tape surfaced when Alan Canfora, a student protester wounded at Kent State, and researcher Bob Johnson dug through Yale library’s collection and found a CD copy of the tape recording from the day of the shootings. Paying ten dollars for a duplicate, Canfora then listened to it and immediately knew he probably held the only recording that might provide proof of an order to shoot. Three years after the tape was found, the Plain Dealer commendably hired two qualified forensic audio scientists to examine the tape.
But it is really the two pieces of groundbreaking evidence Allen uncovered that illuminate and provide a completely new perspective into the Kent State massacre.
First, Allen heard and verified the Kent State command-to-fire spoken at noon on May 4, 1970. The command-to-fire has been a point of contention, with authorities stating under oath and to media for forty years that “no order to fire was given at Kent State,” that “the Guard felt under attack from the students,” and that “the Guard reacted to sniper fire.”3 Yet Allen’s verified forensic evidence of the Kent State command-to-fire directly conflicts with guardsmen testimony that they acted in self-defense
The government claim—that guardsmen were under attack at the time of the ONG barrage of bullets—has long been suspect, as there is nothing in photographic or video records to support the “under attack” excuse. Rather, from more than a football field away, the Kent State student protesters swore, raised their middle fingers, and threw pebbles and stones and empty tear gas canisters, mostly as a response to their campus being turned into a battlefield with over 2,000 troops and military equipment strewn across the Kent State University campus.
Then at 12:24 p.m., the ONG fired armor-piercing bullets at scattering students in a parking lot—again, from more than a football field away. Responding with armor-piercing bullets, as Kent State students held a peaceful rally and protested unarmed on their campus, was the US government’s choice of action.
The identification of the “commander” responsible for the Kent State command-to-fire on unarmed students has not yet been ascertained. This key question will be answered when American leadership decides to share the truth of what happened, especially as the Kent State battle was under US government direction. Until then, the voice ordering the command-to-fire in the Kent State Strubbe tape will remain unknown.
The other major piece of Kent State evidence identified in Allen’s analysis was the “sound of sniper fire” recorded on the tape. These sounds point to Terry Norman, FBI informant and provocateur, who was believed to have fired his low-caliber pistol four times, just seventy seconds before the command-to-fire.
Mangels wrote in the Plain Dealer, “Norman was photographing protestors that day for the FBI and carried a loaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model . . . five-shot revolver in a holster under his coat for protection. Though he denied discharging his pistol, he previously has been accused of triggering the Guard shootings by firing to warn away angry demonstrators, which the soldiers mistook for sniper fire.”4
Video footage and still photography have recorded the minutes following the “sound of sniper fire,” showing Terry Norman sprinting across the Kent State commons, meeting up with Kent Police and the ONG. In this visual evidence, Norman immediately yet casually hands off his pistol to authorities and the recipients of the pistol show no surprise as Norman hands them his gun.5
The “sound of sniper fire” is a key element of the Kent State cover-up and is also referred to by authorities in the Nation editorial, “Kent State: The Politics of Manslaughter,” from May 18, 1970:
The murders occurred on May 4. Two days earlier, [Ohio National Guard Adjutant General] Del Corso had issued a statement that sniper fire would be met by gunfire from his men. After the massacre, Del Corso and his subordinates declared that sniper fire had triggered the fusillade.6
Yet the Kent State “sound of sniper fire” remains key, according to White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, who noted President Richard Nixon’s reaction to Kent State in the Oval Office on May 4, 1970:
Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman told him [of the killings] late in the afternoon. But at two o’clock Haldeman jotted on his ever-present legal pad “keep P. filled in on Kent State.” In his daily journal Haldeman expanded on the President’s reaction: “He very disturbed. Afraid his decision set it off . . . then kept after meall day for more facts. Hoping rioters had provoked the shootings—but no real evidence that they did.” Even after he had left for the day, Nixon called Haldeman back and among others issued one ringing command: “need to get out story of sniper.”7
In a May 5, 1970, article in the New York Times, President Nixon commented on violence at Kent State:
This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy. It is my hope that this tragic and unfortunate incident will strengthen the determination of all the nation’s campuses, administrators, faculty and students alike to stand firmly for the right which exists in this country of peaceful dissent and just as strong against the resort to violence as a means of such expression.8

President Nixon’s comment regarding dissent turning to violence obfuscated and laid full blame on student protesters for creating violence at Kent State. Yet at the rally occurring on May 4th, student protester violence amounted to swearing, throwing small rocks, and volleying back tear gas canisters, while the gun-toting soldiers of the ONG declared the peace rally illegal, brutally herded the students over large distances on campus, filled the air with tear gas, and even threw rocks at students. Twenty minutes into the protest demonstration, a troop of National Guard marched up a hill away from the students, turned to face the students in unison, and fired.
The violence at Kent State came from the National Guardsmen, not protesting students. On May 4, 1970, the US government delivered its deadly message to Kent State students and the world: if you protest in America against the wars of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, the US government will stop at nothing to silence you.
Participating American militia colluded at Kent State to organize and fight this battle against American student protesters, most of them too young to vote but old enough to fight in the Vietnam War.9 And from new evidence exposed forty years after the massacre, numerous elements point directly to the FBI and COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) as lead agencies managing the government operation of the Kent State massacre, including the cover-up, but also with a firm hand in some of the lead-up.
Prior to the announcement of the Cambodian incursion, the ONG arrived in the Kent area acting in a federalized role as the Cleveland-Akron labor wildcat strikes were winding down. The ONG continued in the federalized role at Kent State, ostensibly to protect the campus and as a reaction to the burning of a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) building. Ohio Governor James “Jim” Rhodes claimed the burning of the ROTC building on the Kent State University campus was his reason for “calling in the guard,” yet in this picture of the burning building, the ONG are clearly standing before the flames as the building burns.10
From eyewitness accounts, the burning of the ROTC building at Kent State was completed by undercover law enforcement determined to make sure it could become the symbol needed to support the Kent State war on student protest.11
According to Dr. Elaine Wellin, an eyewitness to the many events at Kent State leading up to and including May 4th, there were uniformed and plain-clothes officers potentially involved in managing the burning of the ROTC building. Wellin was in close proximity to the building just prior to the burning and saw a person with a walkie-talkie about three feet from her telling someone on the other end of the communication that they should not send down the fire truck as the ROTC building was not on fire yet.12
A memo to COINTELPRO director William C. Sullivan ordered a full investigation into the “fire bombing of the ROTC building.” But only days after the Kent State massacre, every weapon that was fired was destroyed, and all other weapons used at Kent State were gathered by top ONG officers, placed with other weapons and shipped to Europe for use by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), so no weapons used at Kent could be traced.
From these pieces of evidence, it becomes clearer that the US government coordinated this battle against student protest on the Kent State campus. Using the playbook from the Huston Plan, which refers to protesting students as the “New Left,” the US government employed provocateurs, staged incidents, and enlisted political leaders to attack and lay full blame on the students. On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, the US government fully negated every student response as they criminalized the First Amendment rights to protest and assemble.13
The cover-up adds tremendous complexity to an already complicated event, making it nearly impossible to fairly try the Kent State massacre in the American justice system. This imposed “establishment” view that Kent State was about “civil rights”—and not about murder or attempted murder—led to a legal settlement on the basis of civil rights lost, with the US government consistently refusing to address the death of four students and the wounding of nine.14
Even more disheartening, efforts to maintain the US government cover-up at Kent State recently went into overdrive in April 2012, when President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) formally announced a refusal to open a new probe into the wrongs of Kent State, continuing the tired 1970 tactic of referring to Kent State as a civil rights matter.15
The April 2012 DOJ letters of response also included a full admission that, in 1979, after reaching the Kent State civil rights settlement, the FBI Cleveland office destroyed what they considered a key piece of evidence: the original tape recording made by Terry Strubbe on his dormitory window ledge. In a case involving homicides, the FBI’s illegal destruction of evidence exposes their belief to be “above the law,” ignoring the obvious fact that four students were killed on May 4, 1970. As the statute of limitations never lapses for murder, the FBI’s actions went against every law of evidence. The laws clearly state that evidence may not be destroyed in homicides, even when the murders are perpetrated by the US government.
The destruction of the original Strubbe tape also shows the FBI’s intention to obstruct justice: the 2012 DOJ letters on Kent State claim that, because the original Strubbe tape was intentionally destroyed, the copy examined by Allen cannot be compared to the original or authenticated. However the original Strubbe tape, destroyed by the DOJ, was never admitted into evidence.
The tape examined by Stuart Allen, however, is a one-to-one copy of the Kent State Strubbe tape admitted into evidence in Kent State legal proceedings by Joseph Kelner, the lawyer representing the victims of Kent State. Once an article has been admitted into evidence, the article is considered authentic evidentiary material.
Worse than this new smokescreen on the provenance of the Kent State Strubbe tape and FBI efforts to destroy evidence is that the DOJ has wholly ignored or refuted the tremendous body of forensic evidence work accomplished by Allen, and verified by forensic expert Tom Owen.16 If the US Department of Justice really wanted to learn the truth about what happened at Kent State and was open to understanding the new evidence, DOJ efforts would include organizing an impartial examination of Allen’s analysis and contacting him to present his examination of the Kent State Strubbe tape. None of this has happened.
Instead, those seeking justice through a reexamination of the Kent State historical record based on new evidence have been left out in the cold. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, involved in Kent State from the very beginning as a Cleveland city council person, asked important questions in a letter to the DOJ on April 24, 2012, titled, “Analysis of Audio Record of Kent State Shooting Leaves Discrepancies and Key Questions Unaddressed”:
While I appreciate the response from the Justice Department, ultimately, they fail to examine key questions and discrepancies. It is well known that an FBI informant, Terry Norman, was on the campus. That FBI informant was carrying a gun. Eyewitnesses testified that they saw Mr. Norman brandish that weapon. Two experts in forensic audio, who have previously testified in court regarding audio forensics, found gunshots in their analysis of the audio recording. Did an FBI informant discharge a firearm at Kent State? Did an FBI informant precipitate the shootings?
Who and what events led to the violent encounter that resulted in four students dead and nine others injured? What do the FBI files show about their informant? Was he ever debriefed? Has he been questioned to compare his statement of events with new analysis? How, specifically, did the DOJ analyze the tape? How does this compare to previous analysis conducted by independent sources that reached a different conclusion? The DOJ suggested noises heard in the recording resulted from a door opening and closing. What tests were used to make that determination? Was an independent agency consulted in the process?
For more than a year, I have pushed for an analysis of the Strubbe tape because Kent State represented a tragedy of immense proportions. The Kent State shooting challenged the sensibilities of an entire generation of Americans. This issue is too important to ignore. We must demand a full explanation of the events.17
Concerned Americans may join Congressman Kucinich in demanding answers to these questions and in insisting on an independent, impartial organization—in other words, not the FBI—to get to the bottom of this.
The FBI’s cloudy involvement includes questions about Terry Norman’s relationship to the FBI, addressed in Mangels’s article, “Kent State Shootings: Does Former Informant Hold the Key to the May 4th Mystery?”:
Whether due to miscommunication, embarrassment or an attempted cover-up, the FBI initially denied any involvement with Norman as an informant.
“Mr. Norman was not working for the FBI on May 4, 1970, nor has he ever been in any way connected with this Bureau,” director J. Edgar Hoover declared to Ohio Congressman John Ashbrook in an August 1970 letter.
Three years later, Hoover’s successor, Clarence Kelley, was forced to correct the record. The director acknowledged that the FBI had paid Norman $125 for expenses incurred when, at the bureau’s encouragement, Norman infiltrated a meeting of Nazi and white power sympathizers in Virginia a month before the Kent State shootings.18
Even more telling, Norman’s pistol disappeared from a police evidence locker and was completely retooled to make sure that the weapon—used to create the “sound of sniper fire” on May 4—would not show signs of use. Indeed, every “investigation” into Kent State shows that the FBI tampered, withheld, and destroyed evidence, bringing into question government involvement in both the premeditated and post-massacre efforts at Kent State. In examining all inquiries into Kent State, an accurate investigation has never occurred, as the groups involved in the wrongs of Kent State have been investigating themselves.19
The Kent State students never had a chance against the armed will of the US government in its aim to fight wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos back in 1970. Further, the First Amendment rights to protest and assemble have shown to be only vacuous platitudes. Forty-two years later, the Obama administration echoes the original drone of the US government denying the murder of protesters, pointing only to civil rights lost. When bullets were fired on May 4th at Kent State, US government military action against antiwar protesters on domestic soil changed from a civil rights breach to acts of murder and attempted murder.
Congressman Kucinich, in an interview with Pacifica Radio after his exchanges with DOJ by May of 2012, said,
There are some lingering questions that could change the way that history looks at what happened at Kent State. And I think that we owe it to the present generation of Americans, the generation of Americans that came of age during Kent, the students on campus, we owe it to the Guardsmen, who it was said opened fire without any provocation what so ever . . . we have to get to the truth.20
As long as American leadership fails to consider killing protesters a homicidal action and not just about civil rights lost, there is little safety for American protesters today, leaving the door wide open for more needless and unnecessary bloodshed and possibly the killing of American protesters again. This forty-two-year refusal to acknowledge the death of four students relates to current US government practices toward protest and protesters in America, as witnessed at Occupy Wall Street over the past year. When will it ever become legal to protest and assemble in America again? Will American leadership cross the line to kill American protesters again?21
In a rare editorial addressing this issue, journalist Stephen Rosenfeld ofAlterNet wrote,
History never exactly repeats itself. But its currents are never far from the present. As today’s protesters and police employ bolder tactics, the Kent State and Jackson State anniversaries should remind us that deadly mistakes can and do happen. It is the government’s responsibility to wield proportionate force, not to over-arm police and place them in a position where they could panic with deadly results.22
Though forty-two years have passed, the lessons of Kent State have not yet been learned.
No More Kent States23
In 2010, the United Kingdom acknowledged the wrongs of Bloody Sunday, also setting an example for the US government to learn the important lessons of protest and the First Amendment. In January 1972, during “Bloody Sunday,” British paratroopers shot and killed fourteen protesters; most of the demonstrators were shot in the back as they ran to save themselves.24
Thirty-eight years after the Bloody Sunday protest, British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized before Parliament, formally acknowledging the wrongful murder of protesters and apologized for the government.25 The healing in Britain has begun. Considering the striking similarity in events where protesters were murdered by the state, let’s examine the wrongs of Kent State, begin to heal this core American wound, and make a very important, humane course correction for America. When will it become legal to protest in America?
President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the US government as a whole must take a fresh look at Stuart Allen’s findings in the Kent State Strubbe tape. The new Kent State evidence is compelling, clearly showing how US covert intelligence took the lead in creating this massacre and in putting together the ensuing cover-up.
As the United States has refused to examine the new evidence or consider the plight of American protest in 2012, the Kent State Truth Tribunal formally requested the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague consider justice at Kent State.26
Who benefited the most from the murder of student protesters at Kent State? Who was really behind the Kent State massacre? There is really only one US agency that clearly benefited from killing student antiwar protesters at Kent State: the Department of Defense.
Since 1970 through 2012, the military-industrial-cyber complex strongly associated with the Department of Defense and covert US government agencies have actively promoted never-ending wars with enormous unaccounted-for budgets as they increase restrictions on American protest. These aims of the Pentagon are evidenced today in the USA PATRIOT Act, the further civil rights–limiting National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and new war technologies like CIA drones.
Probing the dark and buried questions of the Kent State massacre is only a beginning step to shine much-needed light on the United States military and to illuminate how the Pentagon has subverted American trust and safety, as it endeavors to quell domestic protest against war at any cost since at least 1970.
laurel krause is a writer and truth seeker dedicated to raising awareness about ocean protection, safe renewable energy, and truth at Kent State. She publishes a blog on these topics at Mendo Coast Current. She is the cofounder and director of the Kent State Truth Tribunal. Before spearheading efforts for justice for her sister Allison Krause, who was killed at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, Laurel worked at technology start-ups in Silicon Valley.
mickey huff is the director of Project Censored and professor of social science and history at Diablo Valley College.  He did his graduate work in history on historical interpretations of the Kent State shootings and has been actively researching the topic more since his testimony to the Kent State Truth Tribunal in New York City in 2010.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

The Name Is a Paradox

I alway encourage questioning, but sometimes you need to question your questioning.

I've put up with idiots questioning President Obama's heritage, I realize that most of them are racists who can't stand an African man having sex with a white woman to produce the President of the USA, but as there are requirements fot run for President the question itself is legitimate.

When we question everything, yet fail to question WHY we are questioning, we fail.

So, for those who can't stop hating Obama, but still want a rational end to the question. See the Snopes.com answer to the birthers.

Obama was born in Hawaii, 1963, and in 2012 he is 50 years old, the year 2000 was an extra year.

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests


He next, let's ban free speech at all military bases, and all military contractors corporate offices. Then we can ban free speech at all the broadcast media corporations and ... what ... oh, they already do that. Hm...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Saturday, March 31, 2012

How Privacy Has Become an Antitrust Issue


Al, I agree with you about Anti-Trust Laws, and I spoke out against AT&T's attempted acquisition of T-Mobil here in CA, but if you think having just THREE cell phone companies is better than having ONE, your kidding yourself. For real competition we need dozens, and the opportunity for new start-ups to enter their market should they fail to provide cost effective services. AT&T bought back the baby-Bells and owns both the fiber-optic back-bone infrastructure and all the networking patents, they own the internet, and the US Government (i.e. YOU) work with them to spy on American citizens via the NSA.



"But wouldn't we feel a lot more comfortable about that if we knew that market forces would act to stop such an egregious abuse of our privacy?"



On the issue of privacy, you're just plain wrong. We have no privacy, we never did. "Privacy" is the term that rich people use when they want to hide their evil deeds. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.



Information is power. Privacy issues are about an imbalance of power, the government has the power to see all our information, knows our address, our phone number, how much money we make, where our family is, but we citizens don't have the same power over our government. The government has official secrets, but shouldn't, people shouldn't do things they don't want others to see.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Singularity Problem


What about the Singularity?


But wait. If man leaves scarcity behind, and thus the need for money, what about our earlier assertion that “Money…is essential to any society that we would call civil”? If society leaves money behind, won’t it thereby render society uncivil? Of course not. For when society succeeds in evolving beyond money, it will merely be doing what it did when it evolved beyond barter, only vastly more so. That is, society will increase its co-operative powers by orders of magnitude and thereby vastly increase its ability to civilize itself. No more “Getting and spending,” in other words, that “lay waste our powers.” Instead, we will be empowered to not only boldly go where no man has gone before but to become what no man has ever been before.

When will this singular event take place and “cascading technological progress” begin? It will begin when the computing power of a typical laptop today surpasses that of “One Human Brain” – roughly 2030, according to the graph below, which, ironically, is precisely when Keynes (getting virtually everything else wrong) predicted that “the economic problem” will be solved:

If so, then one has to wonder if Stephen Crane didn’t get it backwards and that his poem should therefore read as follows:

The universe said to a man,
“Sir, I exist!”
“And that fact,” replied the man,
“Has created in me
A sense of obligation.”

An obligation to what? To merely do what comes natural to him, based on his intuitive knowledge that insofar as being is, it is good, and that more being is therefore better, his own being standing at the forefront of a process of becoming that he has barely begun to grasp. Yet having dwelled long enough in that convivium – that “living together” – that he can now look back on whence he came with keen eyes, so too can he look forward, with ever keener eyes, to where he is going.

Will he in fact transcend his earthly nature and suffuse the universe with his ever-expanding intelligence? He does not know. What he does know, or at least is finally beginning to know, is that whatever transformation awaits him, it cannot happen as long as he is shackled in body and mind by the forces of nonbeing – i.e., by that which serves no other purpose than to tie him down, hold him back, and otherwise deprive him of his humanity.

And when he is ready, he will put an end to it.*

* Note to himself: mark 2030 on calendar.



Answer to the Matrix Singularity Conflict.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Bill Moers always makes me question myself

I believe the 'liberal' American values are correct. Care (empathy), Liberty (freedom), Fairness (justice), are more valuable than Loyalty (to people), Authority (power), and Sanctity (tradition), they are not equal as 'conservative' Americans would want. What is more, I think Haidt is trapped in his data, unable to see outside his own paradigm and recognize the limits of science in human psychology.

Is my rational faith in reason as the best path to truth unfounded simply because I myself am fallible? Even if I am sometimes irrational, or unreasonable, does that undermine the argument that reason is sacred? If reason is not essential to our human nature, if it is not what is essential to separate human being from all other animals, then I've been wrong all along. Even if on average, 'human nature' is basically animal nature, and the group consciousness we call democracy is subject to the vagaries of inter-subjective irrational behaviors, does that make it wrong to hold reason itself as sacred? If we fail to hold reason as the goal, as the ultimate form for which we strive, even if we are individually incompetent and only barley adequate in groups using the scientific method, then we give up on our humanism and our freedom of will. If so, we will revert to tribalism, to religion, to the darkness before the enlightenment, and we will kill our planet and its species of life by nuclear war. If social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is right, and our 'human (animal, social) nature is evolved to support war, and yet our rational consciousness is unable to reflect upon itself and adapt to the new technological reality, then we and our planet are doomed to Armageddon. The definition of heroism is to strive in the face of certain doom. Even Haidt would admit that the irrational hope that stems from our belief in our individual ability to achieve far beyond what we should reasonably expect is what gives us the psychological edge to attempt the impossible, so our goal must be to ignore the 'facts' of his social psychology and create a form of social cognitive-dissonance that ignores the cynicism, the data, and seeks to transcend our very nature and achieve the epic win, freeing ourselves from the matrix individually, and ultimately as a species. Perhaps this means evolving socially away from traditional cultures of religious fundamentalism and conservative foolishness, or just building technological safeguards and safety nets to avoid extinction. The war has begun.

Both liberals and conservatives may be insane, but liberals are less insane, because their moral views are based in rational consequences of human action rather than a supernatural religious jingoism. Liberals are crazy, but conservatives are crazy and blind.

We have rejected a reality based political system in favor of ideological faith. The end is nigh

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Magnetic Generators


Magnetic Generator To Power Your Home - Lutec Australian Proprietary Limited, Patented Model, Six-Times energy out as energy in (1250 volts out vs. 210 volts in)? Claims energy is amplified by a factor of five (20% input = 100% output, i.e. 80% free energy)? Said that they had been on a 10 year journey in 2008, and they were raising money from 'sophisticated' investors to put them on the market by 2010. They seem to be just an electric motor spinning up a balanced magnet, perhaps with gearing. What is odd is that you have to put 'energy in' constantly. If it makes more energy than it uses, then surely you could store the output in a battery for a while, then use that batter to supply the input, thus creating a perpetual motion machine. Also it seems to be working in a disk but not a vacuum.

MAGNET MOTOR L ENERGIA INFINITA GRATIS ESISTE!!!!LEGGI !! - this is a basic magnetic ramp, doesn't seem to accelerate perceptibly.

Bedini's gates - this is an example of a balanced magnet, similar to the one I first built in 2003. Here is another example of a Zero PMG that fails in English.


http://youtu.be/0D_qdbLmxqk

Magnetic Motor, Free Energy Test 1 - this is one of the first YouTube videos I came across testing the same concept, note that this uses a balanced magnetic wheel, so it doesn't generate energy. Hover this demonstrates the same learning curve I was on.

This guy actually goes through multiple models on YouTube:


Here are a couple of examples of small toy magnetic-cone motors.
a) selfrunning working permanent magnet motor
b) V Gate Perpetual Motion Toy - this is a computer model from JKGdesign.co.uk


Then there are a series of VGATE motors that inspired my design.
VGATE#04a - I can't tell if there is much accelleration from the magnets or how the target is aligned, but it seems to be more than the energy from the finger push, so why does he stop it from spinning each revolution?

V-GATE#05d_Test01 - this Austrian engineer, Dietmar Hohl, is building heavy quality gear. Doing a lot of work on his Stratoplatte, with 12mm gap, so why does it stop every rotations? MagnetMotor.at

MAGNETMOTOR DMT-01a - all his designs seem unbalanced and forced. He can't seem to stop touching them every turn.




-------------------------------------------------

Interviews with John Searl


Searl Electric Generator - (anti gravity?)
This computer model of a Seral Effect Generator is a more advanced Magnetic Generator apparently using electromagnetic coils wrapped around various circular permanent magnets in a pattern. I am unsure how it produces any electric energy or force since it seems balanced. Note Links: SeralEffect.com SearlSolution.com SwallowCommand.com



Here is another Searl Video - where the SEG Technology is explained.






According to the information I can find online, the machine somehow uses scaler waves and guage energy to induce electomagnetic phase conjugation in a combination diode/transformer with a monopole magnet set that somehow self powers using the Lorenz Force (Right Hand Rule) like a Faraday Disk, and this pattern can be nested to increase power, as boson pairs of electron waves are emitted. The 'Hull Effect' and magnetic bearings are used to create a set of magnetic gears floating upon the eddy currents. This system somehow converts random quantum energy of the ambient environment, the machine itself is cooled, as chaotic patterns are captured unified and ordered automatically by the device. The temperature energy is turned into the ordered movement of electrons (i.e. electricity). Once the machine super-cools it becomes a superconductor, and this changes its properties in respect to the gravitational field, effectively reducing its inertia, and perhaps creating a field around it that somehow acts as inverse gravity (anti-gravity)? It is not clear weather the superconductive machine actually produces an anti-gravity field, or simply negates the existing gravity field?


Searl was an untrained scientist, nearly deaf from birth, he had learning disabilities but was apprenticed at age 14 as an electrical engineer, and may have independently developed a form of matrix algebra, and applied it to physical relationships such as magnetic fields. At 83 years old he seems to have forgotten how to build his device, but is working with others to re-discover it. To those who say you can't get energy from the ether, due to the second law of thermodynamics, John replies simply, that works only in a closed system, but this is an open system. Among some of the interesting concepts is the explanation of magnetism as a twist in two dimensions of space, and of light as electron-waves at an angle. Light (EM waves) and Magnetism are two parts of the same energy, so we might somehow separate magnetic fields into 'wavelengths' the same way we polarize light through a crystal to make a laser. It seems plausible that that a series of magnetic fields might organize quantum energy, shifting its phase and transforming it, or organizing it into a train of electrons, thus supercooling one thing to provide electric current to another. And the effects of superconducting materials are not well understood, the fourth state of matter has strange properties, and quantum effects at the macro scale might take effect?

Friday, January 06, 2012

Tesla's Little Secret

Here is a guy who claims that we can tap the "radiant energy in the atmosphere" by setting up a lighting rod with metal ball on the end, then tapping the current between the sky and the earth. Seems quite plausible. He says we can get about 50-volts per foot in terms of the height of the pole. More importantly, he describes a basic circuit that will create an alternating current, allowing the energy captured to be transmitted to storage or for work.

Also, he says Russell Athletic was founded in 1902?