Tuesday, November 30, 2010

WikiLeaks or does it?

There seems to be a huge furor over the revelations of documents by the website, WikiLeaks. They are saying the thousands of revealing items are placing people in jeopardy of their jobs, soldiers at risk, secret identities exposed or even war plans!

But so far, all we have seen are documents which show that diplomats, and people in government or military sending things to each other are simply human. Is calling Angela Merkel 'teflon' an insult or a compliment? I would suspect the 'Teflon Don', John Gotti considered it a badge. Hilary Clinton is aghast that people in the State Department have nicknames for their counterparts.
Are they revealing troop movements? Isn't that WWII stuff? Seems to me when the US invaded Iraq there were reporters already waiting on the shores to film the Marine landings! It was on the Six O'Clock news and no one bitched then. Now America has a carrier heading for the Yellow Sea off Korea. We all know it. Stealth no longer applies.

So here comes my raison d'etre - there might be someone out here in blogland, who believes there is a stealthy movement afoot to take control of the internet. Not just to destroy WikiLeaks, but control of ALL the internet. There is entirely TOO MUCH freedom going on there. Anyone with an opinion can now blog it. And put wicked ideas that politicians are corrupt into the heads of the people. And anyone with a cell phone cam can prove it! Dangerous people!
So is there too much reaction to WikiLeaks?
Will there be a sudden move to take complete control of the internet entirely? The Patriot Act ensured that Homeland Security would be able to monitor everything you do anyway. How much further can they go? Some would like this wild freedom of expression ended.

And here's the trick; to limit your communication in the first place. Rather than wait for the ethereal product to go whizzing through the sky and then defend against it with a midnight raid to your home by men in black. Why not just stop it at its source . . . you.
Someone's idea might be that you can send an email to your neighbor down the street, but not to a cousin from Seattle to Miami. Way too far. Across the seas out of the question. Mohammed to Mustafa? No way. Criticize the government? No way too.

As for leaders calling other leaders names, wasn't it Canada's Jean Chretien who publically called George Bush a moron? No need for stealth there either. Just saying it like it is (was) (still is) Is it new info that we think Muammar Khadafi is a jerk? That the Saudis are sponsoring Al Qaeda? That the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is crazy?

Oh, by the way, speaking of putting people in jeopardy, wasn't it the Bush/Cheney cadre that outed a CIA asset/spy Valerie Plame? By instructions to the treasonous 'journalist puppet', Robert Novak.

Seems to me WikiLeaks can't do worse than that.

addenda - the following day a massive 'denial of service' cyber attack took place against the WikiLeaks website. Thwarted for the time being because they anticipated it and had arrangements in place for temporary service if need be. They also released an encrypted file, called insurance.aes256, and encouraged people to download this file, where it could be made public at any time by with the release of the password by WikiLeaks! Already there are 61 seed sites available. The inner war is on.

update: The war against WikiLeaks seems to be heating up. As if the CIA is changing into high gear. Someone, somewhere is pulling out all the stops. Freedom of speech needs to be quashed. Ebay was influenced to stop renting WikiLeaks any bandwidth on its servers. Sweden is going to arrest Assange because two prostitutes have suddenly complained. Twitter has been threatened. PayPal forced to stop collecting donations. And now Mastercard too. Is this legal? Even a university forum had the warning to students from officials that anyone twittering or suggesting facebook contacts between WikiLeaks and humans could result in compromising future employment! Something ominous about the reaction to WikiLeaks from the powers that be, isn't there?

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Today in History - - - November 24

Lee Harvey Oswald.
While the world was still reeling at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we saw the alleged perpetrator of the crime, caught and killed only two days later, and on national TV!
And these many years on we can only marvel at the speed with which his apprehension for the crimes happened. And the positive assertion that Oswald was undoubtedly the lone killer of Officer Tippit and Kennedy.
All these instant conclusions would be astounding even in todays era of nanosecond web communication. Yet over these years so many nagging doubts still evoke questions.

Oswald was supposed to have shot Kennedy from a 6th floor coign of vantage in the Texas Schoolbook Depository, with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. But first it was identified as a 7.65 Italian Mauser, by sherrifs and FBI Special Agents. Affidavits were signed. Then it became a 6.5 Carcano rifle. Why? Because the FBI discovered that Oswald HAD purchased a Carcano, but NOT a Mauser. And even other rifles are now mentioned. And it took a world class marksman from the Army to nearly duplicate the 3 shots in 4.5 second feat! Other trained US Marine snipers said it could not be done.
And an almost perfect bullet 'appeared' on the stretcher bearing the President's body. A bullet that went through TWO bodies. That looks as if the Lone Ranger put it there!

Oswald was even identified by someone who SAW him up there from across the street! Is that believeable today?

Oswald was supposedly seen being questioned by Tippit shortly after leaving his job and taking to the streets. Witnesses said they saw him shoot Tippit. They even saw him REloading his handgun while fleeing! Does that sound like a frightened killer? Yet other witnesses said another car pulled up, a man got out and shot Tippit and then roared away! Someone else saw two men who were NOT Oswald. Witnesses even identified a different assailant as heavy set, wearing a long overcoat. Many witnesses claimed intimidations and threats about their testimonys. Several eye-witnesses died soon after.
The Warren Commission ignored most of it.

And what was Officer Tippit up to on the hour before he died? Why was he far out of his patrol area? Why did he suddenly rush to 10th Street and stop to make a phone call in a cafe but only listened and said nothing? Why did he seem panicked when he made the call? He left his car radio at a crucial time. Then he was seen cruising very slowly. Why was Tippit known in the area he died in? Some witnesses thought he lived nearby. But it was miles from his patrol area and his home?

How did anyone know Oswald's path of exit? Was it coincidence? Happenstance? Or enemy action? Officer Tippit was directed exactly where to go, minutes after the murder. Then radioed back when he was in position. Why was Tippit directed to 10th St? Was he? The Dallas police lieutenant who may have directed Tippit that day, Harry Dean Thomas, married his widow three years later.
The shells from the shooting were gathered by policeman, J.M. Poe, and he marked them with his initials, however the shell casings eventually entered into evidence had no such markings.

Oswald went to his rooming house first. Who were the two policemen who stopped in front, gave two horn honks and went away? Then he went to a movie theatre. Why did he go there instead of staying on a bus and getting far away? Was he under a prearranged instruction to go to that theatre? Part of a plan to have him where someone wanted him? Did someone give him a revolver there? Perhaps the very revolver just used to kill Tippit? Perhaps by the very person who DID kill Tippit? The revolver in his possession was fully loaded with no empty chambers. And he had no additional ammunition with him. So if Oswald shot Tippit four times, and REloaded, then he must have had only had four extra bullets with him? Seems too odd, doesn't it?

Oswald was constant in his claim that he was a patsy. He was innocent. He never shot anybody. And more than one scholar who has gone through the whole case has said the Mexico and Soviet Union implications could have easily pointed to Oswald being a CIA spy.
Alas, all these years later we are still suspicious, yet nowhere near advanced in our factuals about how it happened. The circumstances seem just too complex. The evidence now too scattered. Diffused. Lost. Misinformation and disinformation. Indeed, but we have more questions than ever.
His actions seem to be a response to suddenly realizing he had been set up. Confusion, desperation, the compounding of events leading him to take a predetermined escape route as his only hope. A route designed by who?

Lee Harvey Oswald was never actually charged with killing the Presdient.

CHEMtrails vs CONtrails vs Missiles

Many of us chemtrail believers are in a constant argument with the disbelievers.
Those are Contrails, they shout, you guys are wearing tin hats! Who would spray stuff in the shy?
So we shout back, Chemtrails! The mix lingers in the sky for hours! And on and on.

Then along comes an entirely different trail billowing up into the sky. The video recorded this time by a Sky2 News helicopter in Los Angeles. Even the glowing engine of the rocket can seen.

The Pentagon has since declared it as simply a CONtrail. Perhaps a jet on its way to Disneyland, er, okaaay.
The US Navy denies any knowledge. The Air Force says it doesn't know what it was. Vandenberg AFB denies any launchings.
One thing we might be sure of, if the Pentagon is telling us stuff about things like this, then we can be pretty sure they are lying, by their recent history of explaining how a 767 vanished into their own concrete building.
And if NORAD is reassuring us, then we can be pretty sure we should be afraid because of their history of being unable to scramble F18s against a threatening aircraft in the air for 40 minutes AFTER the WTC buildings 'collapsed'.

One thing all of us skywatchers on opposing sides of the CON/CHEMtrail debate do know, is what a missile launch looks like.
And that is a missile.

The scary part is if they REALLY don't know.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Conspiracy theorists. Where from?

The argument that many people who believe a certain conspiracy idea start out thinking in paranoic terms is not so. Those arguments are often convoluted and stretched to fit their premise. Some twisted minds automatically believe anything against a government, or corporation, or political party because of some pain they have been inflicted with.
Yet others begin with a simple, seemingly innocent question. A seed of an idea that begins to grow and bloom with either suspicious answers or a telling silence.

Conspiracies are born when someone tries to hide or distort the truth amid a series of obvious lies or through so many omissions that the prevarication becomes evident. When the simple seeking of information becomes purposely clouded in disinformation the red flags go up.

To name just a few suspicions that fuel these kinds of ideas;
The JFK conspiracy was born from just too many incidents: like when a pristine undeformed bullet appeared on JFK's stretcher carrying his body. AND when witnesses to the murder of officer Tippet conflicted yet only those who said they saw Oswald were used. AND when Oswald was shot within one day. AND, when the powers that be had to enlist the best army sharpshooter to duplicate shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Schoolbook Depository. AND when the people who heard and saw actions from the 'grassy knoll' were ignored. AND when 10 eyewitnesses 'mysteriously' died in the 6 months immediately after. And when Jack Ruby suddenly died. AND when the Warren Commission ignored or did NOT include many pertinent facts in their summery report. And even years later the fire was stoked again when George HW Bush lied about his presence in Dallas that day until it was proven he was there. Etc etc.
Is there a valid reason that people would NOT start to believe something was afoul?

The 9-11 conspiracy has been born because simple questions and what should be obvious evidence is being withheld from the public knowledge.
Like of the 214 surveillance camera sequences that were confiscated near the Pentagon by the FBI on the day, we only get 4 FRAMES to 'show' it was an airliner. AND when NORAD and the US military in charge of protecting America from terrorism is totally useless in that they don't scramble masses of F15s. AND when the First Responders, firemen and police all swear there were explosions in the basements of WTC 1 and 2. AND when a steel structured high rise building falls down from fire for the first time in history. AND when airliners crash into the earth and the Pentagon but leave NO trace when every previous crash in history does leave tail and fusilage. AND when the steel is immediately shipped off to China before the NTSB can even do a single test of that steel. AND when President George W Bush is called to testify it is behind closed doors with an agreement that nothing will be recorded and he brings his 'handler', Dick Cheney with him.

Other conspiracies form from a history of stealth and manipulation, from the first denials of friendly fire incidents to `false flag` operations. Like when it is PROVEN that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked. And that Agent Orange WAS sprayed over innocent people. And when the CIA actually have the resources to start their own secret airline. And when the US Government admits to having 83,000 employees doing nothing but adding misinformation, counteracting negative publicity and conspiracy theories in newspapers, web forums etc, thereby spreading DISinformation.

Conspiracy theorists are not the paranoids who would shout about the voices they hear in their heads, even though those sufferers jump onto the theories right away, no, conspiracy theorists are those who only want a simple answer that they KNOW is easily given but withheld for whatever reason. They are the ones who, only through the process of elimination of the spin stories, see that the truth, whatever it may be, is being manipulated and fed to the people.
Accepting that manufactured truth is something certain people cannot do. In spite of the shadow of fear and threat cast with it. It defies their logic, reason and intelligence.

Call them what you will, but they are willing to face the ridicule in searching for the truth.
Kind of a brave thing to do, actually.

Keep asking questions.