I’m on a turn out on a California two-lane blacktop at the base of Mount Shasta, directly to my east. I’ll spend the night here doing a time lapse of the mountain.
Okay, that’s where I am.
A question: So what? After a month and a half of silence, why am I writing you now? Or, rather, what’s with all these silences? I mean, am I a ‘blogger’ or not?
One reason I’m writing now is that lately people have been inviting me to do podcast interviews, which resulted in my making a list of stuff I might want to talk about; the list surprised me. I use 5 x 7 cards for notes and lists. What I’ll do here is subject you to the list, once I collect the cards, which are scattered all over. This stuff comes in no particular order except for number one, which really is number one. Oh, and try to picture the notes in a schizophrenic scrawl; I’ll put my clarifications in italics:
1) ‘100 year lie – relativity – how Krauss etc are fooled – Crothers.Thornhill.’
Addendum: I’m having trouble with hyperlink visibility. I’ll put ‘(link)’ after each link so you know it’s there. Use your cursor. Sorry!
All of modern physics – for the last hundred years – is based on false premises. (video) Utterly, deeply false. I mention Krauss (Lawrence Krauss) in my note because of his big mouth and wide presence on Youtube. You must understand: every word out of his mouth is in some way fallacious. I’m not sure whether Krauss is lying with his blabbing and his books and papers, meaning he’s a conscious agent of disinformation, or a (very) useful idiot for the PTB. Like the rest of the science gatekeepers, deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Bill Nye (the ‘Science Guy’), etc., his rabid enthusiasm could be drug, money, or mind control-fueled…
‘Crothers’ (in my note) refers to Steve Crothers. He, plus Wal Thornhill (and others) have shown that relativity (both of them, special and general) is junk science that has held true progress (except in ‘communications’) for a century. (If you ever get to ask one of these scumbags a question, try something like this: ‘If Einstein and his theories are so profound, how come our sources of energy and locomotion are the same as before him?’ Remind the prick it’s been over a century.
The significant aspect of the above about Einstein is that I know it! This is how utterly obvious it is, once the real science is pointed out. Crothers is especially important here. (video) All you need in order to comprehend the falsity of virtually all of modern physics is to think clearly and critically and a capacity to see through massive misdirection. You don’t need math (or much of it) or complex/abstruse concepts. Crothers especially exposes the nonsense (link) clearly and concisely. Although you may not much care for physics per se, the implications of the lie are truly staggering. More on this to come.
A related question would be how they chose the scientists who work on the ‘black’ projects wherein real physics is the base.
A reminder: Aside from the above, these notes are in no particular order. Also, often one word or name is a reminder of a very complex issue…
2) ‘Jan Irvin – Jay Dyer humor’
While on the road a few days ago, just for laughs I listened to Jay Dyer’s interview with Jan Irvin, wherein Dyer actually makes Irvin look like a bigger fool than he is (which I didn’t think was possible). Here’s a side observation (not mentioned in the podcast) that I think you can expand to a generalization that may be helpful in deciding who to take seriously: I noticed (or re-noticed) that Irvin pronounced the economist John Maynard Keynes’s name as if it had two syllables), i.e., ‘Kee-neze’ (it’s correctly pronounced ‘Keens’); I recalled that in other podcasts he likewise makes this mistake. Worse, Irvin habitually pronounces ‘origin’ as ‘or-RE-gin,’ with a big accent in the middle. If you heard him non-contextually (not in a sentence, for meaning) you might not even understand him. He often mispronounces words and names, but ‘origin’ is especially revelatory about his mental processing. ‘Origin’ is a common word. How do you go through 30-something years of life (a lot of it talking into a microphone) not noticing this error? Implied answer: This is someone who doesn’t listen to other people. (Need I mention his constant interruptions or his loudness and annoying bluster?)
The point being: People who do not listen to other people are not worth listening to.
My apologies to those who don’t know who Jan Irvin is. (Or Jay Dyer, for that matter.) I can only suggest you keep it that way. (Another humorous aspect of their conflict is that they are likely both limited hangouts.)
3) ‘Miles Mathis — MLK’
I’m still paying attention to MM’s essays, for two reasons. One, he used to occasionally provide useful, sometimes blockbusterly information (like his Tate/Manson essay), between his limited hangout nonsense (these days, not so much). Two, it’s fun to spot giveaways.
Lately: In the two weeks (close enough) between April 28 and May 14, MM posted six new essays (plus some updates), totaling just under 30,000 words. Not only words, but words involving deep and complex research… Look, if MM were writing fiction, short stories say, good ones, I might concede his output as being possible. I’d call him brilliant, maybe a genius. But deep research ‘nonfiction’? Not unlikely. Preposterous. Miles Mathis is a limited hangout committee. (See my recent posts.)
MM’s JFK-faked-his-assassination essay is balderdash and offensive, as I’ve proved. But in a more limited, smaller, way, he goes even further (in offensiveness) in his recent MLK essay claiming MLK was still another spook who faked his own death. It’s aggravating enough to warrant a few words (as opposed to my just explaining why ‘MLK’ is in my note). Let’s look a few quotes:
‘Get ready for this. Hold on tight. On his father’s side, [Billy] Graham’s aunt was Ida Parks Graham. You now see why Billy Graham is mentioned on MLK’s page, I guess? MLK was also a Parks. So Billy Graham may have been related to MLK and Rosa Parks.’ …
MM used to be fairly good at misdirection, but over the last few months he’s gone over the top in telegraphing it. The thousands of words (almost all the MLK essay) is pure, transparent misdirection, aside from offensive, obvious prevarications. The above is an example, although it gets worse: further down he burns 500 words proving that the ‘comedian’ Bill Mayer’s mother was Jewish! What does this have to do with MLK? I actually forget… Then:
…OK, let’s move ahead to the “assassination”. We will start with the alleged assassin, James Earl Ray. Very few people know or have pointed out what is most important here: Ray’s mother was a Maher. [Yes, he’s actually saying that this is the ‘most’ important clue in the case!] Guess what that means? Ray was Jewish. [Oh, okay. That explains that.] See comedian Bill Maher, Jewish. I will be told that they admit Bill Maher is Jewish through his mother, Julie Berman, not his father, William Aloysius Maher. But that is crap. He is Jewish on both sides, since Maher is also a common Jewish name. Also notice the middle name Aloysius. We saw that in my paper on Hitler, didn’t we? It is a variant spelling of Alois, and we saw dozens of Alois there, including Hitler’s brother and father. I would bet Bill Maher’s middle name is also Aloysius, making him a Junior. Notice that they give you no middle name for Bill at Wikipedia…. [and so forth, on and on]
Here’s more inadvertent humor from MM, and which (I think) sums up his agenda:
…all these events begin to “fit”. Your old world crumbles and a newer, more rational world is created. Though at first it is hard to believe, later it will be hard to believe you didn’t see it yourself. [My emphasis] ‘…
….a newer, more rational world’!!!!
Back to genealogy:
‘In 1850, George Ray married Alicia Judith Coghill, daughter of the Vice Admiral Coghill, 3rd Baronet. They were related to the Bushes. Also to the Butlers, Viscounts Lanesborough. His mother was Judith Jones. So it looks like James Earl Ray was related to MLK. Not that distantly, either…’
If you think it can’t get more ridiculous:
‘You can click back in a direct line from James Earl Ray to Henry IV. ‘[Hilarious, I know, but on the other hand, as I’ve shown, once you go back enough generations, we all tend to be related.]
But when is MM going to get to the meat of it, the ‘details’ of the MLK ‘op’? Here we go:
‘After the alleged murder, Ray dumped his rifle and binoculars near the murder site, without even bothering to bury them. He also didn’t bother to wipe them down. They had his fingerprints all over them. He then pled guilty. This doesn’t happen. It also conflicts with the prior story, since we are supposed to believe Ray was smart and clever enough to escape a maximum security penitentiary and avoid capture for almost a year, but not smart enough to wear gloves, wipe fingerprints, or hide a gun. One minute he is a genius and the next minute he is an imbecile.’
Anyone who has looked into the matter knows that Ray was nowhere near the Loraine Motel crime scene at the time of the shooting. We also know he was ‘allowed’ to escape from prison via a bribe from J Edgar himself, as part of the plot to kill MLK, using Ray as the patsy. William Pepper proved this in court with several layers of witnesses and documents. That MM doesn’t even mention the 1999 trial is a dead giveaway that ‘he’s’ a lying sack of shit. Calling MLK a government agent…
To further misdirect us we are then subjected to 500 words tracing back the genealogy of… Gorgeous George (the famous wrestler)! The connection? One of James Earl Ray’s aliases was an anagram of Gorgeous George’s name! I’m not kidding.
After a couple thousand words of dense nonsense — but nonsense that should have taken weeks to uncover (his impossible output), assuming it isn’t made up from whole cloth:
‘But back to Ray. He could not have “acquired” a Canadian passport under a fake name, since security is not that sloppy. He might have “manufactured” one, but that would make him a genius again. Or an agent. William Pepper later proved that the passport was issued by Kennedy Travel Bureau in Toronto.…’ [and so forth and on and on, but Pepper also proved that Ray was ‘handled’ by the FBI in all he did since his aided ‘escape’ from prison…]
From the beginning I was mildly curious to see if William Pepper would referenced. And aside from the above, he is:
‘[Addendum May 10: Pepper tells us Sneyd was a Toronto policeman, but why would a Toronto policeman be on an international criminal watchlist? That is just more indication this whole thing is a fake. Another clue in that direction is the name Pepper. No one has ever asked if William Pepper is related to Maj. John Pepper, head of the BSC. You remember the BSC, right, from my paper on John Lennon? It was the US arm of MI6, operating out of Rockefeller Center in New York. William Pepper went to Columbia, in New York. He has no parents at Wikipedia. No page at Geni. Born from the old test tube, I guess. In support of his relationship to John Pepper, we find William has connections to England, being a barrister in the UK. Not many US attorneys can say that. Pepper wrote for Ramparts back in the 1960s, which I have previously outed as a CIA front.]’
This is the only other mention of William Pepper. (I was curious to see if/how MM would deal with Pepper’s decades-long investigation of King’s assassination. I’ve read two of the three books Pepper has written (link) about the matter (they are impeccably written and sourced). To put it simply: Pepper proves that King was in fact murdered by a conspiracy involving the FBI, CIA, a special forces sniper team, the Memphis cops, and the Dixie Mafia. Zero doubt. MM casually mentioning Pepper in the original text of his essay was a mistake – it proves that MM is aware of Pepper’s work. Since Pepper destroys MM thesis (that King was a spook and his killing was faked), MM had to discredit Pepper. Absolutely had to. But the best he could come up with is a question: ‘No one has ever asked if William Pepper is related to Maj. John Pepper, head of the BSC. You remember the BSC, right, from my paper on John Lennon?’ In other words, is Pepper related to the historical figure used in the title ‘Sargent Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band’? Notice that MM only asks the question. This is… nothing short of pitiful… what MM should have done was to avoid mentioning Pepper at all, and just hope that no one would notice…
Also notice that the above is an addendum. It was added two days after the posting of the main text. I suspect that too many of MM ‘fans’ had pointed out the ‘Pepper problem,’ i.e., the fact that William Pepper did a life’s worth of research on who killed MLK, so MM decided to blackwash Pepper; this was the best he could do.
Bottom line: The MMP (Miles Mathis Project) is getting so sloppy that ‘they’ may be purposely discrediting ‘himself.’ The Why of this may or may not be worth pursuing. Maybe they realized that some of their early limited hangout truths weren’t smart (too much truth) and had to be blackwashed retrospectively.
Addendum: A week later and I’m waiting to hear from an evolutionary biologist I’ve been having an email thing with. You’ll come to the email exchange below. Aside from that, this sumbitch is getting long. I don’t know whether to apologize or not.
Peter Levenda, author of the Sinister Forces books, is likely another limited hangout. One big piece of evidence is that he wrote the preface to The Most Dangerous Book in the World, which I’ve recommended a few times. Again, it’s the most important limited hangout since 9/11. I have suspicions about Levenda for other reasons too. (As with all major LHs, much of Levenda’s information is of value.) I’m not sure why Levenda popped onto my list at all, by the way. Just did.
5) ‘Star visibility’ Boy, this is another biggie, presumably related to ‘the 100 year lie’ note/issue, since it’s in turn a vital aspect of cosmology. Briefly: you all may remember my video titled ‘Why are the Astronauts (still) Lying? (link) In it I show many astronauts saying that from above the atmosphere (low earth orbit and so forth) the sky is black, meaning no visible stars. I accuse them of lying (either about what they saw or, often, even being up there). A problem with this is the many high altitude balloon photos and videos (many from amateurs), that show the heavens dead black – no stars. Like the Felix Baumgarden jump (link) from 100,000 or so feet. Since I never bought the ‘camera exposure’ excuse (which would mean that we could see the stars if we were actually there), I had to assume that the photos were altered. I know, this is problematical for several reasons. It’s always bothered me. (That astronauts lie about the subject is inarguable since they contradict each other.)
I’ve since been in touch with a fellow who likewise sees (link) a conundrum here. The long and short of it is that he’s done some photo analysis and it appears that stars are indeed not visible from high altitude. (They do not appear in digitally enhanced images. If there were ‘little points of light’ in the black sky, you’d see them in the tweaked images.)
The implication: our whole perception of space/physics/you-name-it may have to be re-thought.
Think about it. (I may go in on a balloon photo experiment.)
6) ‘The LHC’
Related to note numbers 1 and 5, but my angle on this one is the occult. Something very weird is going on with the Large Hadron Collider. I don’t know what it is. The sheer volume of occult references and images at or around or about the LHC and its supposed goals rules out coincidence, but I can tell you that ‘the search for the God Particle’ (the Higgs boson) is misdirection, since the whole Standard Model of particle physics is built upon the false premise of relativity (expanding space, etc).
Do some creative googling if this is of interest… but be careful: disinformation is everywhere on this subject, especially embedded in New Age crapola.
Lemme know if you have any thoughts. (Ditto any of these.)
This little note relates to my video of my friend Walter Iooss (link), which, in turn relates to many of my notes, principally having to do with how and why people believe utterly obvious untruths, plus blurt these untruths to whomever is near them. It’s really a fucking problem. Bugs the hell out of me.
8) ‘Saturn – child abuse’
A lot going on here, actually, with these few words. Saturn may have been Earth’s original sun, until we were accidentally ‘captured’ by our current sun. This may indirectly explain the Saturn cults and why ‘the god’ Saturn ‘ate his children,’ and why many of the most powerful elites are into pedophilia and child murder. Also see number 16.
9) ‘E.U. re dating’
This doesn’t refer to how to score with astronomical women, but rather the ‘dating’ part is a reminder that according to the Electric Universe paradigm, (link) all the dating methods based on nuclear decay are lose to useless, since we don’t know how many times or when ‘the clock’ was reset via plasma-based earth-catastrophes. (Wal Thornhill has shown that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon; the ‘force’ of it on any celestial body can change drastically via these events. That the dinosaurs could not live in our present gravity is just one proof of this.) This problem also applies to the DNA mutation rate, which is assumed to be have been constant since life began, an absurd assumption. Hence the DNA-based chronology of human evolution and travel is unreliable, maybe extremely so. (This on top of my note on ‘Human Origins.’)
Also: Electric Universe isn’t ‘just another paradigm’ to be put on a list with ‘theories’ that may or may not be worthwhile. These guys have used empirical science (inductive, experimental method shit) in a way that has been missing from science for more than a century. Take them seriously, please. If you haven’t yet gone to thunderbolts.info, I frankly dunno why you’re reading this.
10) ‘Water Time’
Been thinking about my film (link) and wondering why I don’t have it in me (so far) to do the follow up. I have more than enough footage and stuff to say. Way more than enough. Even aside from my age, there is something wrong with my energy level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ViRJ1jgjA
I can’t rule out that dinosaurs are a hoax, perpetrated by the same folks who gave us relativity and Neo-Darwinian evolution (random mutation as driver). A muddying of the waters, maybe just for the hell of it. (Anyone who’s been on an actual dino dig, please be in touch.) This is an example of ‘The more I know, the less sure I am… about anything.’
However, after looking into Crrow777’s podcast claiming that dinosaurs are a hoax, and finding that he pretty much lied or misdirected about… well, everything, I’m leaning in the direction of the (basic) mainstream view… (Yes, they were real but no, they couldn’t live in present-earth’s gravity – go to 18 min in.) (link) More about this when I post on Crrow777 and Greg Carlwood.
12) ‘Alt media’
This is related to most of these notes (like #11 above, and #12 below) but for now: Jesus, where do I even start? (See my recent posts.)
Jim Fetzer invited me to be on his The Real Deal show to talk about the alt media but – partly for personal reasons – I bowed out at the last minute. I may still do it but if so, it’s going to get ugly. Via pre-election email I pointed out to JIm that his unequivocal support for Trump means he – and virtually all the rest of the alt media – is either a moron or a disinformation agent; I will have to repeat this on air.
13) ‘Flat Earth’
Anyone (alt media types, etc.) who promotes it (via videos, etc.) is a government disinfo agent, or seriously cognitively impaired. The catch 22 is that anyone competent enough to make a video or do a podcast must know better about FE, hence would not make a video or podcast promoting it.
(My knowledge that the earth is a sphere is based on my time at sea, not on Youtubes or some asshole’s podcasts. See the photos in my past blogs before you annoy me on this subject. Start by explaining the freighter and lake photos.)
I was thinking about evolution, the ‘random mutation’ as driver of change part, and recalled that Darwin himself (In The Origin of Species) pointed out that all evolutionary changes must occur in tiny, discrete steps, with each step having positive survival/reproduction effects.
Keep in mind that negating ‘random mutation’ from the evolutionary equation (as the root/route cause, paired with natural selection) does not rule out ‘Common ancestry’ or ‘Change over time,’ the other aspects of Darwin’s theory, and which may (or may not be) be correct.
It’s well accepted that dam building is imprinted on beavers’ genome (epigenetically), i.e., it’s evolved behavior in the same way as their tails physically evolved for swimming — via tiny incremental steps. This is very complex behavior, involving true ‘engineering’ principals, which in turn require many steps, each of which has to be of selective advantage, for Darwin’s theory to stand up.
Behavior that results in energy expended with no survival advantage – say, a beaver chopping down a tree and dragging it to a stream (this involves many steps, actually, each of which must be selectively advantageous) – would be actively selected against (according to Darwin). Chopping and dragging saplings around the forest is also noisy work, which would attract predators.
In building a dam, beavers have to somehow ‘know’ (unconsciously or genetically or whatever) what the end result of their complex behavior will be (a comfy, safe house in the middle of a pond). In Darwinian theory, this is impossible.
To rephrase: I feel safe in saying that none of the steps involved in beaver damn building, not one, is of selective advantage. In fact, not one of them appears to be anything but ‘negatively selective.’ (Since Beavers eat bark, not pith, even cutting down a tree expends more calories than it takes in.) Beavers expend energy and expose themselves to predators for weeks or months and do not gain anything until the job is done.
‘Beavers!’ was in my notes because I thought of the above while being actively annoyed by Richard Dawkins. I extensively searched the Net for a reasonable Neo-Darwinian explanation for dam building behavior in beavers and came up empty. I did this because of the implications of refuting the ‘random mutation’ aspect of evolution, which are quite profound.
(Also: I saw a beaver dam in Montana last summer and was blown away by the ‘intelligence’ implied by the design and execution. The question occurred to me: Whence did this intelligence come?)
The PTB have gone to extreme lengths to get us to believe in Neo-Darwinism and Einstein’s relativity theories, in spite of their obvious falsities. These are what we might term ‘Deep Lies,’ lies which contain – nestled inside them like those Russian dolls – other lies that ‘follow logically’ from the deep ones and which are necessary for us to stay dumbed down.
I highly recommend the movie Expelled, (link) notwithstanding its holocaust bullshit and emotionally misleading intercutting to Nazi imagery. I also recommend the books by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Axe, all scientists who have exposed the fatal flaws in Neo-Darwinism. (None take real issue with the ‘change over time’ aspect of ‘Darwin’s Theory’.)
15) ‘Crrow and Carlwood’
I was considering putting my opinion of these two (Crrow777 and Greg Carlwood’s popular thehighersidechats.com podcast) as a post script to this post but will instead offer it as a separate post.
16) ‘Hostel, Part 2’
I heard about this movie on a blog and decided to watch part of it – it was described as ‘slasher porn’ with occult overtones. (I believe we can learn more about HTWRW from H-wood than anywhere else.) I ended up sitting through it all, mostly because Quentin Tarantino has his name on it (as Exec Producer); not that I like his work, but I believe he is part of the H-wood elite, one giveaway being his winning Best Screenplay Oscar for Django Unchained; this felt like a reward of some sort from the Elite who control the Oscars, which means Tarantino is likely a Revelation of the Method ‘agent.’
Hostel Part 2 is a slick piece of production-value work and truly nauseating to watch; for me the real horror of it is based on my surety that it’s meant to show us what’s really happening now – as opposed to ‘predictive programming,’ which tells us what we are in for in the future.
The plot: Young travelers in Slovakia are kidnapped and auctioned off to the elite, who torture and kill them. The most… significant… scene is when one of the three female leads is hung nude and bound over a large tile tub (lit with ceremonial candles); she is then sliced up to bleed out onto a woman lying (nude) in the tube, who writhes in ecstasy as she is drenched in the terrified girl’s blood. Some research reveals that the woman character (who only appears in this scene) is named ‘Mrs. Bathory.’ Wikipedia tells us that an historical figure (16th century) named ‘Elizabeth Bathony’ tortured and murdered hundreds of young women: ‘Stories describing her vampire-like tendencies (most famously the tale that she bathed in the blood of virgins to retain her youth)…’
There is no doubt in my mind that this sort of thing is occurring today, with one exception: The victims are more likely to be young (pre-pubescent) children (which wasn’t ‘sexy’ enough for the sick fucks who made this film). That certain of the elite believe that the blood of terrified children gives them power and ‘keeps them young’ is historically undeniable. The ‘Pizzagate’ affair is the tip of this modern day iceberg. Even the ‘spirit cooking’ (a euphemism for cannibalism) in Pizzagate is dealt with in the movie, in a harrowing throwaway scene of an Elite chowing down on a steak he just cut from a writhing human’s leg.
You might compare some of the imagery from Hostel Part 2 to the art John Podesta has hanging in his house. Notice the bondage and the tiles in the horrific child ‘art’. Tub/tiles are to drain the excess blood, as in the movie. The children in Podesta’s paintings are about to be slaughtered, hence their haunted looks. And remember that John Podesta was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, possibly the most powerful non-elected position in the U.S. government. These are the ‘people’ who wield power over us.
The volume of circumstantial evidence that satanism with human sacrifice is practiced by those in power is too much to go into here but you might consider that the yearly Bohemian Grove opening ‘Cremation of Care’ ceremony involves a ‘mock’ child sacrifice in honor of the Canaanite god Moloch (link), another Saturn/child killing reference.
I actually recommend that you watch this travesty, so you understand in a visceral way what we’re up against. The Revelation of the Method is now right in our stupid faces.
A note from Wikipedia: ‘Statistics on missing persons in the Unites States are difficult to find, but are appalling. The following missing persons estimates are from the Kyle Fleischman Foundation: 2,300 American people are reported missing on a DAILY basis.’
17) ‘Fake nukes’
Watch this archival U.S. government (link) film of an early atomic test. Notice how the puffy cumulous clouds are not disturbed by the shock wave of the blast (they should be disintegrated by the 300 mph wind). The film is impossible. Ergo it is a fraud. Do some googling and watching and you’ll find that all the atomic test images are likewise tampered with, at the very least. Good old ‘Miles Mathis’ will get you started, if this subject interests you, in one of his honey pot LH dangles.
(At about 40 seconds in in this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTk0IH_Y0iY it’s particularly obvious that the clouds are not affected by the blast.)
I can think of only one reason to fake these images: Nuclear weapons are on some level a hoax, part of the means to keep us afraid and in line.
Still, I seem to live my life under the assumption that nuclear weapons are real. Make of this what you will.
I’ve been wondering why my Veterans Today essay on Edward Snowden (exposing him as limited hangout) has been scrubbed from the Net.
One of the reasons I know he’s a fraud is via his references to 9/11 as being perpetrated by Osama bin Laden. Ditto Julian Assange, by the way, who has said he’s ‘annoyed by 9/11 conspiracy theorists’; it’s also significant that of the millions of documents Wikileaks has published, not a single one reveals anything about 9/11 (if I’ve missed something here, please shoot me a link.)
I’m quite sure the PTB don’t all agree with each other, in terms of both goals and methods; the occult may be a point of division. The faction that did 9/11 is deeply into this shit (as proved by The Most Dangerous Book in the World…), but there may be a more ‘reasonable’ opposition, psychopaths who still want to kill most of us, but differ on how and why it should be done.
Remember that the real power is in knowledge. To oversimplify a bit: The faction that ends up with the most extensive database and the best algorithms (of control) will ultimately win out.
20) ‘Them & Us’
I’ve mentioned this book by Danny Vendramini. (link) Our ancestors shared the same habitat with Neanderthals for over 50,000 years. What if they didn’t get along? How would that have gone? What does our species’ behavior since then suggest?
(On the other hand, Vendramini accepts the basic mainstream dating account of our origins…)
(On the other hand of the other hand, mainstream science reviews of Them & Us are so chock full of red herrings, straw mans, and ad hominems, with no real debunking, that I assume Danny is on to something.)
‘The more I learn, etc…’
Refers to Richard Andrew Grove, about whom I’ve had recurring thoughts since I spent a week with him and (his now wife) Lisa Arbecheski in Connecticut just as I hit the road in the summer of 2014. I had corresponded with them since coming across their Tragedyandhope.com website, which I found to be a valuable asset in figuring out HTWRW. One reason I was so interested in Grove is his history as a ‘9/11 Whistle Blower.’ I was so impressed by Grove’s story that not only did I go out of my way to meet him, but contributed to his ‘truth’ efforts over $1,000 in cash and equipment.
I was suckered again. You want to really experience the extent to which I was suckered, go back to my first post of this blog (link), in July of 2014. I did a search for Rich’s name on this blog and found my condition was even worse than I remembered. I couldn’t seem to keep my trap shut about how great Rich is (plus his now wife Lisa).
There is something very wrong with Richard Grove.
To those who are big fans of Tragedyandhope.com I have two things to say: I understand why you’re angry right now, and please bear with me.
First, as it turns out, Grove is not a ‘9/11 whistleblower.’ In response, Grove would no doubt say that he never claimed to be one, which may be true, but he’s also never corrected anyone who labels him thusly (and there are dozens). James Corbett, for instance. Grove is near the top of Corbett’s list (link) of 9/11 whistleblowers.Oh, but it also says ‘Wall Street whistleblower,’ which – they both would say – gets them off the lying hook. I say, Nahhhh.
Grove has a harrowing 9/11 story (link) (which I’ve read, heard on podcasts and videos, and which he told to me over dinner at his house). It describes how he survived 9/11 only because he got caught in traffic on his way to a meeting on the 96th floor of WTC 1, and watched from his Porsche heading downtown as his colleagues died, the first explosion coming from on or near their floor. The meeting he was to attend was to ‘blow the whistle’ on financial shenanigans by the corporate giant he was working for. Thing is, nothing whatever came of his attempted whistleblowing, although he claims to still possess the documents that prove his ‘case,’ and which he was bringing to the ‘meeting’ (the scare quotes mean I think the whole story is bullshit).
Why has he never made these documents public? This question becomes more urgent when taken in context: Grove strongly hints that he was lured to the WTC on 9/11 so he – along with his colleagues – would be killed, presumably for the information he possessed – the documents he’s never made public.
He also refuses to name the ‘executive’ who apparently saw to it that he would be in the WTC when it was destroyed, which means the exec had foreknowledge of the attacks.
Does this sound like a whistleblower? He sure sounds like one in this documentary, made by a buddy of his. (link)
This is how it works: Grove has a harrowing 9/11 story to tell and in fact has been in court on a whistleblowing case. So the ‘9/11 Whistleblower’ label sounds sort of right, if you don’t think about it.
No, his ‘official whistleblowing’ comes later, in a completely separate incident, having nothing to do with 9/11. (In spite of his harrowing, near death experience on 9/11, and his critical thinking skills, Grove went right back to corporate America for work, as if he hadn’t learned anything from 9/11. I guess he’s slow on the uptake…. Does R Grove seem like he’s slow on the uptake? Watch how he out-blabs me in this interview at his studio (link)
Here’s the story, the second one: In 2003, Richard Grove became a ‘Wall Street whistleblower,’ exposing still another major financial conspiracy, one that could cause – in his words – ‘a financial collapse.’ Wow, lots of whistles. The problem is that someone looked into Grove’s claims, which did go to court, as he claims in the documentary film (made by a buddy) 20/20 Hindsight; Censorship on the Frontline.
Quoting extensively from the court records, the exposé shows that virtually nothing Grove claims about his ‘whistleblowing’ is true, and the above film is pure crapola. (In case of a problem, here’s the URL: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/spin-job-the-odd-case-of-richard-andrew-grove/)
I might also add that Grove claims that his behavior in the following court case events was ‘extremely naïve,’ re what to expect from corporate executives. Given his 9/11 story – how one exec tried to murder him (and did murder his ‘colleagues’) how could this be? Really. Think about this, especially if you’re a big fan of his. Given what (he says) happened to him on 9/11, how he be shocked when the Wall Street scumbags (in 2003) involved behaved badly?
I was tempted to paste a slew of passages here, but there was too much of an embarrassment of riches, so to speak. I didn’t know whether to quote Grove’s lies or the judge’s exposure of them. And besides, the only people who’d be interested in this stuff will be Grove fans – and these folks will want to read all of the above exposé. (Don’t give me shit until you’ve done so.)
A compromise. Two quotes from the judge, summing up what I learned about the actual ‘case’ of Grove’s whistleblowing:
‘There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.”’ (page 25) [emphasis added]
So no whistleblowing, except in the story Grove tells, which is rife with his selfless motives of ‘doing the right thing,’ even adding, ‘Mother would be proud of me.’ (These quotes are from the interview linked above. (link) You can go to 1:51:30. Or listen to the whole thing, to understand how I was suckered by this very smart, very eloquent, very dishonest ‘truther.’)
His real motive was reflected here, in the judges words:
…it is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws.
Yeah, it was about money, not ‘doing the right thing.’ What the fuck else is new?
The above actually should not have come as a surprise to me, given a ‘tell’ that Grove exhibited within minutes of my arrival at his house in Connecticut. We went to his office/studio and sat down, whereupon I put a $100 bill on the table, saying words to the effect of ‘Keep up the good work.’ This was the 4th or 5th time I’d contributed, usually $100, via Paypal.
Grove quickly, reflexively (it appeared to me), snatched the bill from the table and stuffed it into his front jeans pocket. I don’t remember him thanking me; maybe he did, or maybe Lisa Arbecheski did; she was there too. I was in a state of minor shock at the subtext of his quick move — which shock I immediately repressed (but did not forget). After all, this was the guy who’d given up a promising Wall Street career to tell us all the truth, about 9/11, and especially, about critical thinking and ‘intellectual self defense.’ I didn’t want to think about the way he’d grabbed the money — as if instinctively preventing me from taking it back.
But back to Grove’s catastrophic loss in his court case (for big bucks based on wrongful termination): ‘Sure,’ you might say, as Grove himself surely would, ‘he was screwed by the ‘system.’ The easiest way to debunk this one is to quote Grove himself, when asked why he didn’t appeal the judge’s total rejection of his complaint:
(from the 20/20 Hindsight film)… ‘they’re not going to decide against a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose founder is the ambassador of Ireland to Ireland for president Bush at that time. Right? Or, I believe he might have stepped down at that time as an ambassador at that point, but he was still Bush buddies, and Bush was still in office, so… ‘(raises hands in air in defeat).” (part 6 – 5:46 – 6:11)
Notice that Grove says nothing about the evidence, nor does he accuse the judge of lying, which would have to be the case if Grove was a true ‘whistleblower.’ Instead, he inserts a red herring about some vague conflict of interest involving George Bush. He doesn’t even use money as an excuse (he represented himself, so there were no legal fees).
The judge’s written decision is so adamant (that Grove is in effect a huckster) that by not appealing or at the very least by not being outraged, Grove gives the game away. He gave it a shot – suing for big bucks for wrongful termination — and blew it.
But let me get to the real point of how I know there is something… wrong… with Richard Grove. Those of you who have not read my ‘Open Letter to James Corbett’ (link) will not ‘get’ my outrage. When I forwarded Grove my Letter, the response I got was this:
I just want to point out, that James Corbett has covered both Sandy Hook and the Bean Town false flag…
(that link above is just a good example of his work on false flags)
Also, on another subject…
Hope that helps clear things up further. [smiley face]
This is a guy who goes on and on about logical fallacies and critical thinking and intellectual self defense? Talk about red herrings! (None of the links is remotely relevant to the issue at hand; nothing even about 9/11, let alone the Pentagon) So I emailed this:
…You do all these podcasts on critical thinking and truth then claim to not understand my essays?…
If he doesn’t have any idea what hit the Pentagon then why did his video repeat TWENTY THREE times (including Mineta) that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
When I pointed this out, I got this:
I understood your post. You took James out of context, and now even with his clarifying what he believes about the Pentagon and 9/11, you choose to ignore his own statement [his ‘statement’ was that he ‘doesn’t know what hit the Pentagon’] and continue to misinterpret his words at some random event. [The ‘random event’ was his first appearance at a major ‘9/11 Truth’ symposium — in Kuala Lumpur. Meaning he carefully crafted his speech]
Frankly, it makes me wonder about your critical thinking skills… perhaps you should take a break from this and re-visit with a clear hear and new perspective… not one that is angry and (seemingly) vindictive. [emphasis in the original]
… so sell crazy someplace else cause i’m all stocked up here.
‘Crazy,’ huh? Okay. This is what’s known as ‘gaslighting’: trying to make someone doubt his sanity with deceit. About as low as you can go. But I merely repeated:
Please try again. Critical thinking. What does it MEAN that a truther repeats a monumental lie [Fl 77 hit the Pentagon] over and over for a half hour at a ‘truther’ conference. help me out here.
I reminded him of my contributions, which total over $1,000. So I get:
If you would like, I will refund your past contributions… just let me know what paypal account to send it to. [ditto]
I replied Yes, I want my money and my camera back, and gave the address and Paypal account. I never heard a word after that, no money, no camera. (When I gave him the Gopro camera I warned him that I’d need it back if something happened to the other two I have. This is in the interview we did.)
This of course further demonstrates a lack of character (money is more important than one’s word), but given the way he swiped up my $100 and stuffed it down his pants, I’m not surprised.
It gets worse: When I recently went to tragedyandhope.com to download something, I found I was banned from the site. Wait. My contributions were way more than what I needed for a lifetime membership to the ‘community.’ Why would I be banned? This is why: Grove didn’t want me posting anything embarrassing on the T&H forum; something like what I’ve written here. (Jay Dyer and Dr. Joseph Farrell have done the same thing, banning me from their sites. But at least they refunded my money. Funny thing about Dyer: He refunded my money even though he has no forum for me to embarrass him on. He just didn’t want me reading his stuff! (Jan Irvin and Simon Shack both banned me, too.)
Hey, I must be doing something right.
By the way, I originally emailed the Open Letter to James Corbett (link) to Richard Grove, with a cc to Lisa Arbecheski. All the answers came from her, with the assurance that ‘Rich agrees’ (with whatever she says). What does this mean? This: Grove didn’t want to put the utter horseshit in the emails in his name, so he told Arbecheski to answer. Another giveaway of a lack of character and balls, and disrespect towards his wife.
But what’s behind all this? My Open Letter plus Corbett’s reply means that Corbett is almost certainly a disinformation/limited hangout (LH) shill. That Grove replied as above – defending Corbett even with transparent logical fallacies — means he is one also. Corbett and Grove are thick as thieves on the Internet.
More evidence: Up until about 2013, Jan Irvin and Richard Grove were close associates, then something happened. Now they never mention each other. Before my Open Letter to Jan Irvin, Irvin emailed me that Grove was ‘a thief’ and ‘no good.’ Adding ‘no good’ to ‘a thief’… I wonder what that means? How much worse can someone get?
Still more. (link)
And one more, from none other than Simon Shack! (link) (Yeah, I know, I ‘outed’ Simon as disinfo but, actually, the way he suddenly dropped accusing Grove himself as a disinfo agent… Notice how he had Grove on the ropes re his supposedly murdered colleagues, then suddenly shut up.)
Folks, the alt media is absolutely riddled with LH shills. With the possible exception of the murderous pedophiles they work for, there is nothing lower than this manner of hypocrite.
You can go back to my blog posts (link) on my visit to the ‘Secret Space Program Conference’ in 2015, and my doubts about the presenters (link). In the ensuing couple of years since then I’ve become more certain that most of them were on some level disinfo agents.
24) ‘Civil War.’ This is a truly weird one, and a good example of how the deeper I go, the more I learn, the less I really know. My doubts about what we’ve been told about the American Civil War is in this context: I brought Ken Burns’s epic (something like 15 hours) documentary The Civil War along when I hit the road three years ago and watched it early on. (In general, by the way, Burns is a master of the subtle lie-by-omission.) A couple or so weeks ago I re-viewed it. As is often the case, I noticed something new, and extremely puzzling, while viewing images I’d seen before (in total, this was actually my third viewing).
The Civil War represented breakthroughs in many areas, such as technology, ‘the ‘art’ of war, journalism, etc. It was the first major conflict that was photographed extensively; it also represented the birth of war journalism, especially with the North; newspaper writers and photographers followed the various armies closely (the photogs making a buck doing portraits of the soldiers). Keep in mind that Ken Burns spent many years on this project and no doubt reviewed virtually every surviving photograph of the conflict.
The War was also the bloodiest by far, up until that time. Single battles often left thousands of slaughtered soldiers, with corpses frequently piled up on open ground. The infamous ‘Pickets Charge’ at Gettysburg alone killed something like 5,000 men in twenty minutes. The aftermath of the Battle of Little Round Top left so many dead that one reporter claimed you could walk from one end of the battle site to the other without stepping on bare ground.
Yet not one of Burns’s photographs showed more than about a score of corpses. In fact, the vast majority of the ‘carnage’ images were of less than six – and often these were lined up, obviously having been dragged from elsewhere. This bothered me so much that I actually kept count of how many corpses were shown in each photograph. No more than a dozen images involved more than six corpses. None, not one, showed the sort of mind-bending numbers described in the narration. (In fact, Burns sometimes ‘cheated’ by cropping corpse photos and re-presenting them later, supposedly at other battles.)
I was reminded of other historical events wherein the death tolls have been greatly exaggerated; the supposed Jewish Holocaust of WW 2 comes to mind, and of course 9/11. (The 9/11 ‘Vicsim’ phenomenon is pretty much inarguable. I myself have found that more than 90% of the victims listed in various memorial sites are apparently fraudulent. An educated guess: two or three hundred max died that day in NYC; among other proofs, the Social Security Death Index verifies this.)
I have to ask myself: Did 600,000 Americans really die in the Civil War? How deep and far back does historical disinformation go? And by the way, why, WHY would ‘normal’ Americans want to celebrate these (purported) slaughters every year with their dumb-ass battle re-enactments? Is it to further imprint upon our consciousness still another Big Lie? The motive in part being to persuade the citizenry that charging into a hail of flying lead for one’s country is somehow ‘noble.’ The end-slavery-as-motive for the War has long been debunked; could the re-enactments, and indeed, the textbooks (plus Burns’s work) be a psychological debunking of the debunking? If recent history tells us anything, there is no limit to the magnitude of the lies we’re being told.
There really is no rational excuse for the total lack of horrendous slaughter imagery in Burns’s film (and elsewhere). If you have one, I’m all ears.
25) ‘Why no one else?’ Looking at my notes, I’m idly wondering why I tend to notice details that it appears no one else notices (of they do notice, they keep their traps shut). I’ve mentioned the Sikh Temple shooting (link) of the summer of 2012 – still another example of a ‘lone nut’ — how I noticed that not one media story (MSM or alt media) dealt with how the single shooter got to the scene of the crime. No mention of his car. So how did he get there and how did he plan on leaving?
The answer: He was part of a black ops team that traveled together. I made a video on this one.
‘MH 17 ‘shoot down’ (another example of the above, I think)
Over the Ukraine an airplane blows up at 33,000 feet (which is all anyone knew for over 48 hours) and no one, not one media outlet mentions the possibility (at that altitude, the likelihood) that it was bomb? The word ‘bomb’ was a media no-no. Why?
Since from the beginning the PTB wanted to blame Russia, it had to be a missile. No one could mention a bomb because a forensic investigation would delay the propaganda blitz. It follows that the media knew of the disaster ahead of time, and what to say. Therefore the West, NATO, shot the plane down. How come no one in the alt media noticed any of this?
25a) ‘Hep B’
Children born in hospitals in the U.S., Britain, and Australia are subjected to a Hepatitis B vaccine injection within 12 hours after birth. They don’t ask. They just do it. Hep B is a ‘life style’ disease, caught through unprotected sex and dirty needles. Subjecting a newborn’s nascent immune system to foreign substances on this basis is flat out insane.
A past girlfriend is a doctor. When she got pregnant with her present husband I asked her about the insanity of the Hep B vaccine and if she planned on allowing her newborn to be injected. After research she agreed it’s indeed insane – but Australia (where she is) demands the inoculation, the penalties for refusal being the abrogation of all social services during the child’s lifetime. Her career as a doctor would also likely have been over had she made a fuss.
I have a couple theories about the Hep B for newborns issue, the most benign being that they are trying to get you used to causing harm to your children for no rational reason.
26) ‘Human origins’
Aside from Michael Cremo (Forbidden Archaeology) (link), there are several other researchers who have showed that the mainstream story of our biological origins is a fairy tale. The problem is that some of Cremo’s evidence is so astounding, and so paradigm busting that – assuming you truly follow the evidence where it leads – you have to completely rethink what it means to be human. Cremo’s evidence seems to take humans out of any interpretation of biological evolution. Since I don’t want to go this far and since there is a lot of evidence that we are part of evolution of life on earth… yet the very weight of Cremo’s evidence is so inarguable… since I can’t have both, this is another example of ‘The more I learn the less I know.’
At the very least, though, check out Cremo’s Youtube presentations. If nothing else, you’ll learn about the process by which ‘honest’ scientists are misled, leading to their misleading you. You will also learn about what Cremo terms ‘knowledge filtration,’ which is what this note is actually meant to refer to (Cremo limits himself to academic/scientific ‘filtration’ and doesn’t go nearly far enough re the extent of the planning behind it).
One of Cremo’s anecdotal examples involves a 1960s archaeological dig by a credible archaeologist named Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who found human tools and artifacts at Hueyatlaco, Mexico dating from over 250,000 years before the present (ybp). The date, by any mainstream discipline involving human origins, is flat out ‘impossible.’ The problem: Four scientifically accepted dating methods gave the same result for the age of the dig, over 250k years. (Mainstream geneticists, archaeologists and paleontologists all claim or imply that homo sapiens did not even exist before 100 – 200k ybp.)
For making this scientifically-sound claim, Virginia Steen-McIntyre (link) was stripped of her academic credentials and her career was ruined. This is the way ‘science’ works. But aside from that, and given the agreement of the four dating methods used at Hueyatlaco, it’s safe to say, as summation: Everything you think you know (at least about our ancient history) is wrong (EYKIW). I say this because: If the 250k age is true, EYKIW. If the age is wildly off then the dating methods the mainstream counts on is wildly off, which likely results in EYKIW. See?
While we’re on the subject of human origins and everything you know being wrong, you might give the late Lloyd Pye a look – his ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong’ video (link) is well worthwhile, as is his ‘Starchild Project’ (link) — it really looks like Pye (his associates since Lloyd passed away) had/have possession of the skull of a human/alien hybrid. I’m not kidding.
A reminder: The big bang is based on Einstein’s relativity theories, which can be shown to be false (link). Hence expanding space, along with the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc., etc. are false; they are ‘just so’ fairy tales. That 90% of all scientists of whatever discipline believe in these utterly obvious falsities, so obvious that someone of my back ground can easily see them, is a true and profound Sign of the Times. This state of affairs, in my view, cannot be ‘an accident,’ based on ‘mistaken’ notions. As I’ve said or implied many times, we live in a ‘Matrix-like’ environment that may be as surreal as the movie of the same name.
26) ‘Chromosome issue’
This note refers to my research into how and why we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the ‘other’ great primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc.) have 24 pairs. As a partial explanation of where I’m going with this, I’ll paste below an email exchange I just had with a well-credentialed evolutionary biologist.
Here’s most of my email (minus my intro):
Full disclosure: I have mixed feelings about the Discovery Institute [which promotes ‘Inteligent Design’ (ID)], which I know you don’t share (yours being wholly negative, I think). I’ve read books by Behe, Meyer, and Axe and believe they are correct about one thing: ‘random’ mutations don’t account for the diversity of life (or its appearance on earth). [This is actually crucial. I highly recommend these books.]
On the other hand, I’m annoyed by the implications they posit regarding this. (I’m as far from being a creationist as you can get — the evidence for common descent is strong enough that I accept it, for example.)
Okay, my question. I’ll try to make it brief; you’re a busy guy.
It seems to me that the fusion ‘event’ was one-off. It did not occur ‘over time’ in the evolutionary process. Being such a rare event, the mutation must have occurred to one individual (male or female) who then somehow passed it to the rest of us. He/she must have been a common ancestor. (The bottleneck must have been extreme.)
Even with a lot of (mainstream) reading I have trouble picturing the specific process by which this mutation became part of our genome. (Just because something is physically, theoretically possible does not make it the answer, in the ‘inference to the best explanation’ sense.)
The simplest (in the Occam’s razor sense) explanation for our 23 pair condition would be genetic engineering. I’m trying to eliminate this but am having a hard time. (Yes, I consider the Sumerian ‘myths’ to be possible evidence.)
Indirect evidence would result from knowing the number of chromosomes in the Neanderthal genome. If it’s 23 pairs, like us, it would tell us that the fusion was more likely ‘natural’ (if unlikely), since it would have been relatively long ago, maybe more than a million years. If engineering was involved it would more likely have been 100 – 200k years ago, in which case the Neanderthal number would be 24 pairs. (I believe the Sumerian translations say it was 200k ybp that we were ‘created.)
I assumed the Neanderthal number would be easily available, since their genome has been mapped. Not the case, it seems. Already I was wondering, What? How could they have the whole genome and not know how many pairs?
Can you make sense of this for me?
Is your mind made up on the issue of engineering (in the negative)? If so, can you explain why?
I much appreciate your time!
This came back:
Dear Mr. Weisbecker:
Thank you for your email. The question you ask applies not only to chromosome fusions, but to all mutations. All mutations start off in one person. All of us are born with several dozen new mutations that were not present in our parents. These mutations may alter a single base of DNA, delete or copy a small segment, or make a larger change. People who have children may pass down some of those mutations to their offspring. The science of population genetics is all about how some of those mutations become spread through an entire population–fixed, in the language of the scientists. Some mutations get fixed by chance (genetic drift), while others get fixed by natural selection. [This is space-filling misdirection, in the duhhhhh! sense] Just because a particular mutation becomes fixed doesn’t mean that a single person was the sole ancestor of all people who carry it many generations later. [Straw man] Since this process is so well understood, both through experiments, studies on living populations, and through mathematical theory, it’s hard to see why genetic engineering is a better explanation. [Too many fallacies to list]
This is the sort of crapola I get from mainstream scientists, no matter the discipline or subject matter. He completely evades my main question, then subjects me to party-line platitudes that mean nothing: ‘Since this process is so well understood, both through experiments, studies on living populations…’ etc. How we came to have a whole pair less chromosomes than our closest ‘relatives’ is NOT UNDERSTOOD AT ALL, let alone ‘well understood.’ (This is un-admitted but true.)
Also: ‘Just because a particular mutation becomes fixed doesn’t mean that a single person was the sole ancestor of all people who carry it many generations later.’
I’m being straw manned here, since I did not say ‘sole’ ancestor. I said ‘common ancestor,’ which must be the case. So he’s again avoiding the issue. The other responses I got (months ago) were along the lines of the above.
No one seems to make a big deal out of this (the chromosome issue) but I tend to think it’s a very big deal. Neo-Darwinians claim that during the course of evolution our 2nd and 3rd chromosomes got ‘fused’, accounting for our one less pair. They have good evidence of this yet don’t go any further, like explaining how this happened.
27) ‘Mind Control’ This is written diagonally on one of my 5 x 7 cards, with Magic Marker, so I’m sticking it down here and am not going to go into detail here. (My past posts should suffice.) It’s just too much. Plus, most of the notes listed here are actually subheadings under Mind Control.
Addendum: There was more to the chromosome story but I have research to do before I blab further on the subject. if you happen to be interested, hang in, and contact me with anything good you come up with.
Last addendum: I just found another stack of cards – I’m actually only two-thirds of the way into my list. Meaning: Enough!
If any of my notes so far… strikes a note with you, let me know. Notes on my notes from you all might help. I frankly don’t know what’s most important.
Allan Yes, I know how long this is, so thanks for hanging in; please excuse the errors (esp re the hyperlinks) I didn’t find but I’m done. Time to hit Send.