“We’re Firing Trillion Watt Lasers into the Sky”: Top Scientist Admits to Weather Modification on CBS


In the aftermath of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Jose brewing in the Atlantic, many people are looking for answers as to the increasingly volatile weather being witnessed.

And while climate change is one potential cause, there are other lesser known activities that could potentially be playing a role in the manifestation of these weather anomalies.

While weather modification and geo-engineering are still somewhat taboo subjects to the mainstream, often considered to be in the realm of conspiracy theory, there is a significant body of academic research and science that confirms that these technologies not only exist but are being operationalized.

No, the Free Thought Project is not claiming the government, nor anyone else is making hurricanes or actively controlling the weather. We are only presenting this information because it exists and people should be aware that it exists.

In a segment aired on CBS in 2013, respected scientist Dr. Michio Kaku, a physics professor at City College of New York, discussed – with Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell – the science of weather manipulation.

During the interview Kaku, in discussing the experiments with weather modification notes that “We’re shooting trillion watt lasers into the sky,” referencing the use of lasers to induce changes to naturally occurring weather phenomena.

Later in the conversation, Kaku briefly touches on the history of weather modification that has been carried out for decades by the government – with the CBS hosts quickly interrupting him to note these programs were only “alleged.”

Of course, these hosts must be ignorant of the declassified history of “Operation Popeye,” which was a weather manipulation program enacted during the Vietnam War as a means of creating ongoing monsoon conditions in an effort to impeded the Viet Cong’s mobility in the region.

This is no “conspiracy theory.”

In fact, research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences specifically notes that laser beams create plasma channels in air, which in turn, cause ice to form.

Professor Jean-Pierre Wolf and Dr. Jerome Kasparian, both biophotonics experts at the University of Geneva, actually organized a conference at the World Meteorological Organization to discuss how powerful laser pulses can be used to generate changes in the atmosphere that influence the weather.

Wolf and Kasparian said:

“Under the conditions of a typical storm cloud, in which ice and supercooled water coexist, no direct influence of the plasma channels on ice formation or precipitation processes could be detected.

“Under conditions typical for thin cirrus ice clouds, however, the plasma channels induced a surprisingly strong effect of ice multiplication.

“Within a few minutes, the laser action led to a strong enhancement of the total ice particle number density in the chamber by up to a factor of 100, even though only a 10−9 fraction of the chamber volume was exposed to the plasma channels.

“The newly formed ice particles quickly reduced the water vapour pressure to ice saturation, thereby increasing the cloud optical thickness by up to three orders of magnitude.”

Adding credence to the idea of scientists using geo-engineering technology to manipulate the weather, according to the MIT Technology Review:

A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.

Another top American climate researcher – Professor Alan Robock from Rutgers – says that the CIA is looking into weather modification as a form of warfare.

As reported in The Independent:

A senior American climate scientist has spoken of the fear he experienced when US intelligence services apparently asked him about the possibility of weaponising the weather as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week.

Professor Alan Robock stated that three years ago, two men claiming to be from the CIA had called him to ask whether experts would be able to tell if hostile forces had begun manipulating the US’s weather, though he suspected the purpose of the call was to find out if American forces could meddle with other countries’ climates instead.

During a debate on the use of geo-engineering to combat climate change, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Prof Robock said: “I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?

“I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there.

“At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?”

Professor Robock, who has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions, said he felt “scared” when the approach was made.

“I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and international so there isn’t any question of it being used for hostile purposes.”

Professor Robock’s concerns come as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week by the US National Academy of Sciences. Among the report’s list of sponsors is the “US intelligence community”, which includes Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy.

The professor alleges that the CIA told a colleague of his that it wanted to fund the report, but claimed that it did not want this fact to be too obvious – he added that the CIA is “a major funder” of the report which “makes me really worried about who is going to be in control”.

He claimed the US government had a proven history of using the weather in a hostile way, citing the action of seeding clouds during the Vietnam War to muddy the Ho Chi Minh foot-trail and attempt to cut it off, as it was used as a supply route but the north Vietnamese.

He claimed the CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”.

While certain powerful constituencies are well aware of the extremely powerful forces that can be unleased through weather modification technology, these same groups would like to keep the general public unaware of these technologies and programs.

Whether these recent weather phenomena may, or may not, have anything to do with weather manipulation technology, make no mistake that weather modification is a real and practiced science – and is no conspiracy theory.

Listen to Dr. Michio Kaku briefly explain the reality of scientific weather manipulation below:

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cbs-weather-modification-scientist/

Scientist-in-charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory steps down, packs bags, leaves park

This week I’m stepping down as the Scientist-in-Charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO). I’ve held this role since 2002, and it’s been an incredibly rewarding 15 years. Recently, I was offered the opportunity to lead the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP), where I’ll work with my USGS colleagues to assist volcano observatories in developing countries that face daunting volcanic risk. VDAP is a vibrant program created 31 years ago, and is arguably the premier team of volcano scientists on the globe.

It’s not without sadness, though, that I will move on from my work at Yellowstone. I’ve cherished my many visits to the park, starting with trips as a child and young adult, and later, as a geologist. I’ve worked with outstanding scientists from our YVO partners and indeed from around the world. I’ve had the incredible good fortune to travel to remote areas around the park to research the variations in gases that can inform our understanding of the subsurface beneath Yellowstone. Our work has gone smoothly, largely due to the staff of Yellowstone National Park, which is incredibly dedicated to ensuring that visitors and researchers alike get the most of their visits and leave Wonderland without incident. For the many Yellowstone lovers out there in the world, I wanted to take a little time to say a proper goodbye, to recount how we got to the present day, and to reflect on some of what’s been learned.

Though I’m sad to be moving on, I’m delighted that the observatory will be in excellent hands.Mike Poland will take over as Scientist-in-Charge. Mike has been with the USGS for fifteen years, and is a veteran of both the Cascades and Hawaiian Volcano Observatories. He is an expert in volcano deformation, and in using satellites to track the subtle ups and downs of volcanic terrain that can indicate magma movement below. That’s a very useful expertise at Yellowstone, where earthquakes and ground deformation are the dominant monitored signals. Speaking of earthquakes, Jamie Farrell, at the University of Utah has taken over much of the responsibility for the Yellowstone Seismic Network. After many years working with his mentor Bob Smith, Jamie has gained unparalleled experience in studying Yellowstone earthquakes and the deep magma below. In fact, Jamie was responsible for most of the colorful images of the Yellowstone magma reservoir that you’ve probably seen on the internet. Jefferson Hungerford is the brand new Park Geologist at Yellowstone. His expertise in volcano science, industrious nature, and remarkable good cheer will serve him well as the park focal point for all things geological.

Now a bit of the history…In 2002, during my first weekend as Scientist-in-Charge, the Denali Earthquake struck in Alaska. Surprisingly, when the surface waves hit Yellowstone, some 2000 miles away, it induced hundreds of local earthquakes, many of which were felt around Yellowstone Lake. Fortunately, University of Utah Professor Bob Smith already had worked at Yellowstone for ~30 years and was able to put the activity in context and to help explain the activity to the staff of Yellowstone National Park, to me, and to Hank Heasler, who was also new in his role as the Park Geologist. This notable event threw me “in the deep end,” and prepared me for the many earthquake swarms, uplift episodes, and thermal changes that followed over the next decade and a half.

In addition to Bob, I and my colleagues had the good fortune to be mentored by the generation of geologists who did the key research on Yellowstone’s geologic past. Bob Christiansen of the USGS spent his summers in the 1960s and 1970s traipsing hill and dale to map out scores of lava flows and ash flow tuffs. He worked with colleagues using K-Ar dating techniques to reveal the age relations of these many events. Chris, as he’s known, recognized that there were three massive explosive eruptions at Yellowstone that formed three separate calderas. He published the authoritative geologic map of Yellowstone, and served as the first Scientist-in-Charge of YVO in 2001 until he retired a year later. His contemporaries included the USGS’s Ken Pierce, who deciphered much of the glacial history at Yellowstone and with Lisa Morgan traced the older volcanic systems of the Snake River Plain that preceded Yellowstone. Don White and his USGS protégées, Bob Fournier and Patrick Muffler, undertook the ambitious scientific drilling program in Yellowstone’s thermal areas, mapping out the temperature and pressure gradients in the subsurface, and collecting core samples of the hydrothermal minerals that we still use as the basis for research projects today. Fournier continued his work at Yellowstone for decades, becoming one of the world’s preeminent geochemists. Muffler wrote the first paper on Yellowstone’s notorious hydrothermal explosion craters, which represent one of the more common hazards in the park. And of course Bob Smith of the University of Utah, is responsible for a wide swath of geophysical research ranging from Yellowstone earthquakes, to the depth and size of the subsurface magma reservoir, to heat flow and hydrothermal activity beneath Yellowstone Lake. I was incredibly fortunate to be able to learn from all these legends of Yellowstone, and to work with them to further our knowledge of the geologic history, current dynamic behavior, and potential for future activity.

The stage was set by the work of these USGS and academic researchers, as well as by fantastic park geologists such as George Marler, Wayne Hamilton and Rick Hutchinson. Though geologists were well acquainted with the Yellowstone story by the mid 1980s, it was another fifteen years before the public got wind of this amazing story. A 1999 BBC documentary, Supervolcano, interviewed Christiansen, Smith, and others, and captured the imagination of the public. In 2005, BBC and Discovery Channel combined efforts to create a docudrama of the same name. Over the following five years, a series of documentaries thoroughly saturated the market for Yellowstone Volcano, and set the stage for a decade of hyperbole and misinformation with the growth of the internet. One irony of this expansion of the Yellowstone geologic story, is that the work of the pioneering scientists has been lost from the public’s mind. Most recent news stories present a simplified, and misunderstood summary of Yellowstone, without any mention of how we got our present knowledge. And the less people know about Yellowstone, or earth science, the more they tend to question the expertise of those who know it best.

Nevertheless, working at Yellowstone has been a tremendous pleasure, and we can take great pride in our accomplishments. Since 2002, we developed a monitoring plan, a hazards assessment, two successive response plans, an exercise to test our response plan, and numerous information statements and web articles to explain ongoing activity such as earthquake swarms and ground uplift. We installed borehole strainmeters and associated downhole seismometers thanks to the Plate Boundary Observatory. We spent almost $1M to expand the seismic and other networks through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We installed miniature, radio-relayed temperature sensors at the Norris Geyser Basin. We expanded the observatory in 2013 to include eight partners, including the geological surveys of the three states that encompass Yellowstone. And we built a website and social media presence that provides detailed explanations of our work and current research efforts. And in our spare time, YVO researchers published well over 50 new research papers in the past 15 years that extend our understanding of the volcanic and hydrothermal system at Yellowstone.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for their generosity and friendship over an exceptional fifteen years. Most notable is Peter Cervelli, who has acted as Deputy Scientist-in-Charge for the past five years, but there are many, many others. Together, we’ve explored the volcano, discovered new phenomena, challenged each other’s ideas, and reveled in our good fortune to be able to work at such an amazing place.

Source Article from https://www.intellihub.com/scientist-in-charge-of-yellowstone-volcano-observatory-steps-down-packs-bags-leaves-park/

Mainstream scientist exposes the dangerous reality of chemtrails and geoengineering

Over the past few years, the issue of geoengineering has been popularized. Mainstream media, academia, and government almost unanimously support the idea of geoengineering as a perceived solution to climate change while suppressing the evidence that it has actually been in use for some time without our consent.

On the other hand, there is a growing number of people who are slowly beginning to understand the reality surrounding chemtrail geoengineering, and opposition is slowly growing.

In a bold move against the establishment, Kate Marvel, a mainstream scientist who specializes in “climate change,” spoke out at a Ted Talk against the onset of climate engineering with chemtrails, also known as Solar Radiation Management or “SRM.”

“Problematic and Terrifying”

Firstly, computer theorist and founding partner of tech company Applied Invention, Danny Hillis, came on stage and proposed a number of geoengineering concepts which could theoretically, “turn down the temperature of the earth.” These included sending giant parasols into space, putting fizzy water into the ocean, and sending chalk into the atmosphere at a rate of 10 teragrams per year to reflect sunlight and in theory slow the effects of climate change.

Now enters Kate Marvel with the opening line, “Danny, you seem so nice, and I hope we can be friends, and you terrify me.”

“Geoengineering is like going to a doctor who says ‘You have a fever, I know exactly why you have a fever, and we’re not going to treat that. We’re going to give you ibuprofen, and also your nose is going to fall off.” – Kate Marvel

Marvel also noted that atmospheric spraying would not do anything to effect other environmental problems such as ocean acidification.

“Reducing the amount of sunlight we get is really problematic…it won’t do anything about [other climate effects like] ocean acidification” – Kate Marvel

Evidence Mounts Exposing The Dangers Of Cloud Seeding

GeoEngineering refers to technologies which are used with the intention of interfering with the earth’s atmosphere in order to alter temperatures and climate. Most of these technologies are still in theoretical stages, however a growing body of evidence suggests that some weather modification technologies such as aerosol spraying or “cloud seeding” have been in production for many decades.

Almost no studies have been done which assess the effect that cloud seeding has on environmental safety or human health, which shows that the government has been using untested technologies on the population without our consent.

In 2016, CIA Director John O. Brennan spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations conference about the benefits of geoengineering. However, any mention of potential negative impacts as a result of cloud seeding was conveniently left out.

“Another example is the array of technologies, often referred to collectively as GeoEngineering, that could potentially help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or “SAI;” a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat.” – John O. Brennan

Although we are all hearing from establishment figures like Brennan that climate engineering is a new technology which we all have the option to accept or decline before it is implemented, that is simply not the case. Evidence going as far back as the early 1920’s shows a push to develop the technology needed to control the weather and has been implemented in some form since at least the 1970’s. This information has been uncovered in various forms, one of those being patents which range from April 27th of 1920 to May of 2003 showing interest in the development of various forms of weather modification technologies. Documents have also been uncovered which show government involvement in SRM since 1947.

“The Federal Government has been involved for over 30 years in a number of aspects of weather modification, through activities of both the Congress and the executive branch. Since 1947, weather modification bills pertaining to research support, operations, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, establishment of panels and committees, and international concerns have been introduced in the Congress. There have been hearings on many of these proposed measures, and oversight hearings have also been conducted on pertinent ongoing programs.”

Climate Change Alarmism Opens The Door To Reactionary Solutions Such As SRM

The geoengineering debate can be summed up in three words: “Problem, Reaction, Solution.” First, the dire problem of Climate Change is presented by figures like Al Gore, then a reaction is generated from the public in the form of “Climate Can’t Wait!” slogans and public unrest, then the solution of GeoEngineering is presented which gives more power to the powerful and hurts the people in the form of environmental degradation and potential health implications which the document from earlier lists as:

“1. Cloud seeding has been responsible for the great 5-year drought in the Northeast United States.
2. Isolated sections in the Northeast have experienced 18 years of drought due to cloud seeding.
3. Weather disturbances in the South Atlantic [sic] have been eliminated and has reduced [sic] the east coast’s rainfall by 30 percent – rain that is needed if agriculture is to be successful.
4. The average dairy farmer on the east coast, living in an area of cloud seeding, has averaged a net financial loss because of cloud seeding.
5. Crop production losses in Franklin County, Pa., alone have amounted to $50 Million.
6. When effects of seeding wear off, cloudbursts occur, causing floods, destroying crops, buildings, and drowning people as well as livestock.
7. Seeding has been responsible for the serious air pollution problems.
8. Mental retardation and insanity are traceable to cloud seeding chemicals.
9. Poisoning of all living matter is directly related to cloud seeding.
10. Emphysema is three times higher in areas of heavy cloud seeding.
11. Cancer is virulently out of proportion.
12. Financial losses to agriculture and related industries run into the billions.
13. Forest trees as well as cultivated orchards are dying from chemical reactions taking place in the air due to the addition of cloud seeding agents.”

We often hear predictions surrounding climate change by so-called “experts” like Al Gore who claimed that the Arctic would become “ice-free” by 2013. Ironically, in 2016 a global warming expedition to the Arctic was forced to turn around due to record ice.

There are real solutions to environmental problems which don’t end up harming us or the environment further. It is time for people to stand up for themselves and reject dangerous and untested technologies like these.

Via Waking Times

Featured Image: nimbus186/Flickr

Source Article from https://www.intellihub.com/mainstream-scientist-exposes-the-dangerous-reality-of-chemtrails/

Former NASA Scientist Claims Alien Ships Are Hiding in Saturn’s Rings


Dr. Norman Bergrun, a former NASA Engineer, has claimed “giant” alien spacecraft are to be found in Earth’s solar system around ringed planets such as Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus – not the first time the alien enthusiast has made such fantastical claims.

UFO hunter Dr. Bergrun claimed the ships are “sucking” energy from the planet via the rings in order to “proliferate” — a situation he describes as critical.

His statements stem from a 17-minute-long video uploaded by YouTube conspiracy theory channel SecureTeam 10, which has almost 900,000 subscribers, and describes itself as a source for “the best” in new UFO sighting, information on the “space cover-up” and all “strange activity” happening on and off the Earth.

While the assertions of Dr. Bergrun, a distinguished Medical Engineer during his time at NASA’s Ames Research Center, will likely be novel to many, he has in fact repeatedly made roughly the same declaration frequently over a 30-year span.

​In the clip, Dr. Bergrun speaks of “long cylindrical objects” in the rings that appear to have “exhaust systems” among other apparently amazing findings.

In 1986, he penned the book Ringmakers of Saturn, which in addition to stating planetary rings were rife with alien craft, suggested such rings may ben in fact created by UFOs.

Nonetheless, he previously made headlines on the same basis in 2016.

At the time, he likewise said “these things” inhabit Saturn, Uranus and Jupiter, and that wherever planetary rings were found, “that’s where I see the aircrafts… I call them a ringmaker.”

“I say it is electromagnetic because I can identify streamline patterns with respect to it I knew were what we called ‘potential lines’ — and that says it was electrical. I could tell that those lines demarked the outside of an object,” he added.

Claims of sightings of alien craft in pictures of planets are nothing new — in 2012, Leonid Ksanfomaliti of the Space Research Institute of Russia’s Academy of Sciences published research analyzing the photos from a mission made by Soviet landing probe Venus-13 in 1982, which claimed several objects resembling living beings could be detected in the photos.

The objects were said to resemble “a disk,” “black flap” and “scorpion” — and change location between photos. However, NASA was quick to dismiss Ksanfomaliti’s sensational suggestions, saying the “disk” was in fact a lens cap, and the “scorpion” mere noise in the digital image.

Moreover, in 2007, an individual allegedly named William Rutledge, who identified himself as a retired NASA astronaut living in exile in Rwanda, took to YouTube to claim he took part in a secret Apollo mission to explore the dark side of the moon.

The voyage, which he claimed was jointly manned by US and Soviet astronauts, was said to have taken place in August 1976 — and was aimed at the exploration of a vast ancient city and a huge crashed spacecraft.

His claims were supported by photographs of the lunar surface taken by Apollo 15 in 1971, which do appear to show strange anomalies in the Delporte-Izsak region in the southern region of the Moon’s dark side, including an unusual cigar-shaped object situated on the edge of a crater.

However, Dr. Bergrun’s claims may be slightly more difficult to dismiss, given his CV suggests he is a gifted, decorated scientist.

In addition to his time with NASA, he served on the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and an engineer with Lockheed Martin working on some of the US’ most critical top secret projects.

Still, grainy images of strange shapes in distorted pictures of planets are perhaps not the weightiest evidence to offer in support of the existence of alien craft within the Earth’s solar system — yet that’s just what Dr. Bergrun has to offer.

​Surely less sensational alternative explanations can be found for the alleged phenomenon.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/GOWESITPVcU/

Julie Payette, engineer, scientist and astronaut, to become Governor General of Canada

Because we all need role models and she is the living embodiment of the term.

Justin Trudeau may be Prime Minister of Canada and run the country, but under the parliamentary system the country inherited from Great Britain, the Queen is the head of state and the Governor General is her representative, her boots on the ground. And as of September, those boots will be filled by Julie Payette.

It’s an interesting choice when you consider that in the UK Conservative politicians say that “people in this country have had enough of experts.” In America, the President claims that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by greedy scientists. Joel Achenbach writes in National Geographic that “empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts.“

Julie Payette wanted to be an astronaut when there were no women in the corps, so she studied engineering and then got a Masters in computer engineering. She was one of four Canadian astronauts chosen among 5,330 applicants in 1992, and went into space twice.

Julie Payette in space© NASA via Getty Images

Oh, she is also an accomplished musician who plays the piano and has sung with the Montreal Symphony Orchestra. She speaks six languages and is a terrific athlete, and has 27 honorary degrees. She has 1300 hours of flight time, has 311 hours in space and is a deep-sea diving suit operator. The list is endless.

Some said that it makes sense that an astronaut got the gig because Justin Trudeau is such a space cadet, but ignoring that, just about everyone thinks this was a very good choice. Even the opposition parties are supportive.

And why is this on TreeHugger? Because we need scientists as role models, we need to respect them and listen to them instead of criticizing them if we are going to deal with our climate and other environmental crises. She is the definition, embodiment of role model.

Source Article from http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/julie-payette-engineer-scientist-and-astronaut-become-governor-general-canada.html

MIT/IPCC Scientist Shares The Truth About Global Warming/Climate Change Science

We have reached a dangerous state of scientific tyranny. People are ridiculed and even vilified for questioning the prevailing narratives about the nature of our world, but this counters the true meaning of science. At its core, science is about questioning what we think we know.

“A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.”

Today, many scientific assumptions have transformed into scientific dogmas. In almost every field of science, from the study of consciousness, to modern day medicine, to food and drugs, controversy and corruption exist. As many whistleblowers have revealed, big corporations have a monopoly on science and control what gets published and enters the public domain.

Dr. Diane Harper,  for example, one of a mere handful of experts on the human papillomavirus (HPV) and one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, has pointed to this fact a number of times, specifically with regards to Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. She has spent her life studying vaccines; she was the principle investigator of both HPV vaccines — Gardasil manufactured by Merck, and Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. In multiple interviews she’s stated how the vaccine was approved and fast-tracked before all of the science had been completed.

You can check out this FDA document to verify that for yourself, as it’s no secret. Here’s another interesting publication you can check out published in the Journal of Medical Ethics about its fast-tracking. We’ve also written about Gardasil/HPV extensively, so you can find out more here.

Investigations have also discovered that the FDA manipulates science press, and multiple whistleblowers have brought this to light. Take Dr. Richard Horton, the Editor in Chief of one of the largest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. He says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)

It can be truly overwhelming to see just how many of these scientists, who have such distinguished positions and backgrounds, are making statements like these. There are countless examples to choose from.

As with medical science, climate science is fraught with corruption. Questioning climate science is just as scary for some people as questioning vaccine science. This is because the mainstream ridicules people who ask questions. They do this through clever marketing, constantly pushing the idea that vaccines save lives and carry no risks, which entirely contradicts the science that continues to emerge showing otherwise.

When there are so many scientists with distinguished backgrounds, who come directly from the fields in question, making statements that are completely ridiculed by mainstream media, we should be taking notice. Why aren’t any of these scientists given a voice in corporate media? And why does corporate media make people feel stupid and even scared to look into or even contemplate what they have to say?

In the interview below, Richard Lindzen mentions the monopolization of science, arguing that science has become a tool to push forth political, economic, and financial agendas.

Lindzen is one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a  dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In many of his lectures, he has pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications.

You can learn more about him and view his publications and CV here.

It’s great how he mentions Eisenhower’s warning, which was referring to the military industrial complex and the potential for the rise of misplaced power, which unfortunately is our reality today. JFK also spoke about this hidden hand:

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. (source)

Here is a full lecture given by Lindzen in 2009 that explores this issue further.

He’s Not the Only One

The most intriguing part about this whole thing is the fact that he’s not the only one saying this. Although mainstream media continues to push the narrative that the majority of scientists in the world agree on our impact on climate change, there are hundreds around the world who don’t, and are quite firm in their belief. One of them is Lindzen.

We need to have open discussions without judgement, fear, and hysteria. Clearly, there are some extremely intelligent people out there who do not agree with the popular narrative.

A few politicians have also been making this argument. One example is the Australian Prime Minister’s chief business adviser, who believes that climate change is a “ruse” led by the United Nations to create a New World Order. He claims that the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases in order to impose authoritarian rules. You can read more about that here.

That being said, it’s important to recognize that this “politicization of science” has also been used to brainwash scientists. A classic example comes in the form of a federal lawsuit that was initiated by Steven Druker, who is the  Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity. The lawsuit forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. Druker exposed how the agency covered up the warnings of its own scientists about the risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered these foods onto the market, in violation of federal law. As a result of this approval, a number of scientists have now been brainwashed into believing that the “science is solid”

You can read more about that and look into his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public for more information.

The most important point here is that we must not shut out these viewpoints. We need to have open discussions, where all of the information on each side is presented, without corporate, political, or social interests getting involved. We cannot continue to shun questioning, especially in the face of scientific dogma.

Yes, we are destroying our environment and polluting our world, and there is a great need to implement clean green energy technologies.

Our organization (CE) is involved in clean green energy initiatives and doing our best to help push them forward. Check out www.nce.energy.

What we need is a body or an organization that is more concerned with these issues than the furtherance of their own political/economic agendas.

Below is a 12 minute segment of him at the Cato Institute speaking about the corruption and politicization of science.

Get Your In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/nXw5La6nT9s/

First ever time-lapse of white blood cell dying helps scientist discover new immune alert system (VIDEO)

Reuters / Manuel Balce Ceneta

Reuters / Manuel Balce Ceneta

Australian and American scientists have recorded for the first time ever the death of a human white blood cell, ascertaining that the dying cell tries to warn the immune system of a pathogen’s presence.

Scientists now have a
better understanding of the immune system’s mechanism and have
made several significant findings.

The discovery was made by a group of scientists from La Trobe
University, Melbourne, Australia, led by Georgia Atkin-Smith, a
cell biologist and PhD candidate, in co-operation with
researchers from the University of Virginia in the US.

The results of their study were published in the Nature Communications

White blood cells are “guardians of human health –
immune system cells that fight bacterial, fungal and viral

The process of a human white blood cell’s death has never been
captured on video before. Up to now, scientists have only worked
with dead cells.

The group used a microscope and time-lapse photography, which
allowed them to capture very fast events by taking hundreds of
photographs per second. They viewed images at high speed and
managed to record every stage of the white blood cell’s demise.

As a result they discovered that a white blood cell always goes
through three regulated stages in its death: bulging, exploding
and breaking apart, thus showing that the cell death is highly
controlled as well as disproving an earlier hypothesis, according
to which the cells fall apart randomly.

MORE: MERS death toll reaches 16 among 150 confirmed S. Korea
outbreak victims

“After the cells bulge they go through this spectacular
explosion where they push out large-beaded necklaces up to eight
times the size of the cell,”
said Georgia Atkin-Smith, the
leader of the team.

The scientists also discovered that the dying cell ejects
molecular chains described as “beaded necklaces,” which,
according to the scientists, may possibly contain molecules that
help the cell to communicate a warning signal to the immune
system that a pathogen is present.

“So when the cell starts to die it forms these lumps which
push outwards and when the cell then explodes, it shoots out long
‘beaded’ protrusions which look like a necklace, which then
breaks apart into individual ‘beads’,”
Georgia Atkin-Smith

“The cells around them can easily engulf these smaller
pieces. But we also think there are certain molecules in the
beads that, when eaten by a live cell, can signal back a warning
to other white blood cells to say, ‘Look out, there may be a
pathogen coming to get you’,”
she added.

READ MORE: ‘Huge paradigm shift’: Biggest cancer
breakthrough in 40 years sees tumors disappear

This discovery gives scientists an insight both into how the
immune system works and how pathogens facilitate disease spread.

“It could be that we’ve identified the mechanics of how dying
white blood cells go about alerting neighboring cells to the
presence of disease or infection,”
said Dr Ivan Poon, the
co-leader of the study.

“Alternatively, we may have discovered the transportation
mechanism for a virus to infect other parts of the body,”

READ MORE: Virus as medicine: Genetically
engineered virus can cure cancer, scientist learn

Ms Atkin-Smith also confirmed this. She told the Australian
Associated Press: “When bacteria and viruses invade our
bodies we think they may be able to take control of this process
and hide in the beaded necklaces and move throughout the

By gaining a deeper understanding of the newly discovered
processes, the scientists hope to better adapt human healing
mechanisms to different diseases and improve medical treatment.

“Importantly, we’ve also discovered drugs that affect this
process so, once we know more, we may be able to either suppress
or enhance this action,”
said Dr Ivan Poon.

“We found that a commonly used antidepressant can block this
whole process and an antibiotic can promote this event,”

said Ms Atkin-Smith.

Source Article from http://rt.com/news/267310-white-blood-cells-death/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Can Scientists Think?

On the Unz Review I find a piece by Razib Khan, Can a Religious Person be a Good Scientist? His answer, yes, is inarguable since, as he points out, many good scientists are religious (Newton, a Christian, by most accounts did pretty fair work.) But why should it be necessary to ask such a luminously foolish question?

Because we live in luminously foolish times. Mr. Khan cites, not approvingly, a scientist who wanted to have another dismissed from his position for being an evangelical Christian. Why? Well, you see, the manner of thinking of religious people renders them incapable of science.

This makes sense only in terms of bitter hostility to religion. Why can a Christian scientist not study, say, the possibilities of rotaxanes as bistable devices in molecular computers as well as can an atheist or agnostic?

While Christians can think about science, I wonder whether scientists, as scientists, can think about anything else. Are their mental capacities not grossly limited in comparison with those of other people?

It is a question of blinkers. They think inside a box containing only a part of reality.

Logical systems, such as those to which scientists are tightly wed, depend on assumptions and undefined primitives. Their conclusions cannot go beyond results derivable from their assumptions.

Consider plane geometry, a field encompassing the behavior of planes, lines, points, and angles. Like many branches of science and mathematics, it produces interesting and useful results. Yet it rests on things that cannot really be defined. (What is a point? “An infinitely localized whereness” perhaps?) It cannot explain things not contained in its premises. For example, it has nothing to say about mass, energy, volume, or chili dogs.  Yet these things exist. If a plane geometer thinks only within the postultes of his field (which of course no plane gemoteter does), he cannot understand the greater part of reality.

The silences as a whole enjoy the same strengths and suffer the same limitations. They deal with matter, energy, space, and time, however hyphenated, and nothing else. These are undefined. (Dorm-room definition: “Space is what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”)

Science enjoys great prestige as it has led to great results, such as iPhones. Perhaps bccause of this scientists, for some reason thought to be smarter than the rest of humanity, are seen as oracles and almost as priests. Yet they have nothing to say, and can have nothing to say, about meaning, purpose, origins, destiny, consciousness, beauty, right and wrong, Good and Evil, death, love or loathing.

These are matters of some importance to normal people whose thinking is not crippled by strict adherence to the Laws of Motion. A scientist, as a scientist, must dismiss them as empty abstractions, simply ignore them, or provide unsatisfactory answers and quickly change the subject.  A physicist may speak solemnly of the Big Bang, but it has no more explanatory power than Genesis. A child of six years will ask, “But where did God come from?” Or the Big Bang.

A man whose thinking has not been shackled by the restrictions of science can say, “This sunset is beautiful.” A scientist cannot not, not if he is thinking as a scientist. Beauty has no physical definition, the only kind allowable in the sciences. (I confess that in my ancient chemistry classes we accepted as the unit of beauty the millihelen, defined as “that amount of beauty necessary to launch one ship.”)

Trouble begins when one tries to stretch a system beyond its premises. Here we come to scientism, as distinct from science. A great many people, some of them scientists, want science to explain everything whatever. This of course is the function of a religion.

Scientism, like other varieties of political correctness, is de rigueur among much of the cognitive or approximately cognitive elite, and has been inculcated in the populace by endless repetition. The credo runs roughly Big Bang, stars form, planets, oceans, life, evolution, Manhattan. Acceptance—unexamined acceptance—of scientism is now regarded as evidence of right thinking. Most who accept it have no idea what they are accepting, but they know that it is the proper thing to do.

For much of the public, this is a sort of religion by Disney, the Force Be With You, with an origin of of the universe that, well, you know, the scientists understand it, and we are evolving upward and onward into like, better beings and all. And death? Let us speak of other things.

Here we come to Mr. Khan’s scientist who (as distinct from Mr. Khan) wants to remove Christians from the practice of science. A religion, however manqué, cannot brook any doubt whatever. A Christian cannot say, well, maybe Jesus was the son of God, but maybe Mary wasn’t a virgin after all. If he does, his faith no longer serves its function of providing certainty.  Any doubt threatens the whole edifice.

So with scientism.  Serious believers cannot abide heresy. The need to believe, to protect the edifice, is most commonly seen regarding the theory of evolution, any questioning of which results not in answers, but in fury.

The acolytes of scientism invariably see the enemy as Creationism, which they correctly if not consciously recognize as a competing religion. Thus the desire to remove believers in any religion from scientific posts. Thus the pathological outrage that arises if the schools of Kansas want to mention Biblical Creation. Why? Obviously doing so would not result in the burning of laboratories or crucifixion of chemists, and would be unlikely to discourage a kid from going into the sciences. This doesn’t matter. Heresy cannot be allowed.

Scientism is part of the curious culture-wide campaign to remove any trace of religion from public life. It is the equivalent of the Christian iconoclasm of the late Roman times: we must tear down the statues of those pagan gods. The purposes are identical.

Scientism requires a willful ignoring of undeniable aspects of reality, such as death. To a scientist, (again, thinking as a scientist), death means only the cessation of certain chemical processes. He says after the funeral, “John is gone,” but never, “Where has John gone?” But do not even atheists wake up at three a.m. and think, “Where are we? What is this all about?” And, ominously, “What comes next, if anything?” The atheist might reply, “Nothing”—but what if he is wrong? How does he know? Except to the religious, who don’t have the answers either, even to mention these questions seems slightly obscene.

Note that the premises of the sciences, if accepted other than provisionally for a paraticular investigation, lead to paradoxes, as for example the Aquarium Effect. Scientists view the universe as if it were an isolated system in a vast aquarium. They can look at it, poke at it with sticks and instruments, but they are apart from it. If they regard themselves as being within the system, problems arise.

For example, the brain is an electrochemical mechanism, all parts of which follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Successive states of a physical mechanism are completely determined by preceding states, just as they are in a computer. Physical systems cannot choose their behavior: a rock when dropped cannot decide to fall sideways. Our thoughts are therefore predestined. Are they then still thoughts?

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that one cannot simultaneously be part of a physical system and fully understand it. Like conjugate variables or something. But we are part of the universe.

Note that all science is physics. Chemistry is the physics of the interaction of atoms and molecules, biochemistry of particular classes of molecules. Consequently evolution is a subset of physics. (How is it not? Everything that happens in an organism from metabolism to mutation obeys the laws of physics. If this is not true, then physical behavior is affected by Something Outside of Physics—eeeeeeeeeek!)

Part of physics is the requirement of causality. Every physical event, which means every event, must have prior physical causes.  Anything that doesn’t can’t happen. But do we really know this? A normal person can wonder. A scientist cannot.

To amuse ourselves, let us assume that something physically inexplicable actually happened. Let us suppose that the shade of Elvis appeared in my living room, sang Blue Moon over Kentucky, and disappeared in a flash of green light. Remember, for the moment we assume that it really happened. How could a scientist, or the science, handle this?

I could tell my friend the astrophysicist about it, but he would assume that I was joking, lying, or delusional. I could tell him that my neighbors heard it, but he would say that it was a recording. I could say that people walking in the street saw it though my window, but he would say that it was an Elvis impersonator. The event not being reproducible, I could not possibly convince him—even though it had actually happened.

Scientism appears at its most desperate in matters of evolution, where things clearly explicable in physical terms (astronomy, electronics, combustion) bump up against things not nearly so explicable (life, consciousness, motivations).  Scientism always finds a way, however strained, to avoid the ravages of doubt. Conceding or even considering anything outside of that small scientific box would open up a Whole Lot of Doubt.

Consider Cochran’s Virus. Evolutionary theory of course says that traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population. This makes sense and can be observed in many things. It fails badly in the case of homosexual men. As these produce no or few children, the selective pressure to eliminate them from the population would seem to be great. Yet they are not eliminated. Scientism cannot say that here perhaps is something not explained by the theory. That would shake the whole edifice. How does it manage this difficulty?

Desperatelly. The biologist Greg Cochran says that homosexuality is a disease caused by a virus. Which virus is that? We don’t know because it has not been discovered. What is the evidence for it? Why, homosexuality. Round and round….

Source Article from https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/fred-reed/can-scientists-think/