Dave Greer

I haven't had chance to fully research the bio-technology and it's implications... but for some reason, on a visceral level the whole idea makes me feel squirmingly uncomfortable. How I balance this up with things like animal experimentation, animal organ transplants, human foetal research, what the heck, let's even throw in eating meat, I don't really know. I just know that from a position of relative ignorance on the subject, it just feels wrong. I may change my mind if there are genuine benefits to be had, but there comes a time when you just have to draw a line in the sand. Is this it?

Very valid points David. I've often suspected Sepp Blatter of being of having Pie in the Sky ideas, so his name equating to Apple Pie is very telling.

Obviously, he kept his bottle of perpetual Absolut vodka stashed under said headgear.... Your brother would know all about the mystical qualities of Absolut because of his astral travels in ancient Egypt where the brand drink was first invented 3,500 years ago in the reign of Cheops the Lisper (son of the legendary drinker God, Amon Tilado): I'm glad you guys are finally coming to your senses on this one. Much more evidence to follow. Let's continue with... The Russian Linesman Tofik Bakhramov is the Russian linesman who is supposed to have given England's controversial 3rd goal. (Fancy, having a Russian linesman in the final of the World Cup in 1966, just 21 years after England and Russia conspired to defeat Germany in the Second World War! ROFLMHAO!!!) So what does the mysterious Tofik have to say about the World Cup? Taken from his Wiki article:- This is a clear case of whistle-blowing – he admitting to being a magician, i.e. it was all a big illusion! HES NOT EVEN RUSSIAN!!!! He’s from Azerbaijan! Why did the authorities say he was Russian? Further evidence of whistle-blowing. The Azerbaijan national stadium is named the Tofik Bakhramov Stadium in his honour. When England were drawn in the same group as Azerbaijan in qualifying for the 2006 World Cup, a ceremony was held prior to the meeting at the Tofik Bakhramov Stadium to honour his memory, with attendees including Geoff Hurst, and FIFA president Sepp Blatter. A statue of him was also unveiled at the ceremony. NEED I SAY MORE!!! Well, yes actually, I need say more. Anagrams. Why are anagrams important? They offer very reliable whistle-blowing clues. With anagrams, you can almost feel the hand of truth reaching out from behind the curtain of history, providing you're open-minded enough to want to know the truth, rather than the state-sponsored LIES we've been spoon-fed all these years. An anagram of TOFIK BAKHRAMOV is.... "A FOB OHM VAT KIRK" Now, A = A FOB = Fresh Off the Boat = Foreign(er) OHM = Resistance Unit VAT = Taxes KIRK = Captain (off Star Trek which began broadcasting in... 1966!) Putting it all together, you get "A FOB OHM VAT KIRK" = "A foreign resistance unit taxes the captain!!!!!" Tofik Bakhramov = A foreign resistance unit taxes the captain!!! Which is exactly what he did to the German captain in the 1966 World Cup - allegedly. The odds of this happening by chance are astronomical. It could not happen by chance. One word, people. WHISTLEBLOWING.

Here in the UK, the MOD has been running a TV campaign which purports to show ordinary people giving their thanks and appreciation to veterans of the ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. What is the reason of spending money on this kind of publicity campaign? Is it really to enable the citizens of this country to say "Thank you" to the troops for implementing an unpopular Government foreign policy? Or is it simply an attempt to condition the British public to think that since most people agree that our troops are doing such a fine job, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be just? I have no problem with members of the armed forces following orders ultimately handed down by politicians (except where execution of those orders spills over into torture and abuse, and breaches of human rights and international conventions). No blame can be laid at their door for the failure of government intelligence (at best), or (at worse) the suppression and falsification of intelligence in order to justify a war to the British public. What I do have a problem with, is British taxpayers money being spent on a publicity campaign to send out the subliminal message that the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is a good thing, under the guise of Joe Public praising the Average Tommy for his sterling service. I find it doubly ironic that the Government is currently appealing a decision that troops sent to Iraqistan (sic) without the correct equipment may have had their own human rights breached. But which is worse? Spending money so that the Government can use the Great British Public to slap our troops on the back for a job well done, or spending money to allow the Government to continue to send troops into war-zones without being properly equipped? Personally I think they both stink.

IMO he's put you in a no-win situation through no fault of yours John. I sympathise with his predicament if it was a genuine oversight, but for all you know he could have passed off an entire essay as his own, and has been caught with his pants down. As you're already aware, removing it won't help him anyway. I predict a future flipping burgers for a living.

I can imagine the roasting Labour would have (rightly) given the Tories if Thatcher had done something like this 20 years ago. At least a few back-bench MPs seem to be standing up to the Government over this issue. Don't expect a climb-down anytime soon though.

Blue capitalists may well replace pink capitalists at the next election. Sorry, but what does that mean? I'm woefully ignorant of UK politics. Blue capitalists = Conservative Party (Tories) Pink capitalists = (New) Labour I think the point Andy was making is that the Labour Party of today bears little resemblance to the Labour Party of 20 years ago. A change of Government won't make a huge amount of difference to Mr and Mrs Joe Average. In the 1980's Conservatives and the Labour Party were poles apart on just about every issue: nowadays there's so much overlap it's difficult to distinguish the 2. As Pete Townsend of The Who would have said "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".

I can see many things wrong with your image Stephen, but I want to concentrate on a different image for the time being. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE Our dedicated team of football connoisseurs (well, me and my mate Bob from the pub), stayed up well past our bedtime examining the photographic record. Aided by nought but my Grandad's old Sherlock Holmes' style magnifying glass, a keen and discerning eye, and several pots of strong, black coffee, we were able to determine beyond any doubt that the photographic record of the 1966 World Cup, was indeed fabricated. Check some of these bad boys out. This photo was supposedly taken when Geoff Hurst scored England's controversial 3rd goal. It is riddled with anomalies!!! So many that I've had to analyse 2 different photos from a similar angle just to be able to highlight a small number of the inconsistencies in this photo. Clearly, this is a deliberate act of whistle-blowing by someone in the English FA's propaganda department. Look at this! Would you really have thought that the golden boy of English football, Bobby Charlton, would really have a wooden leg and run like a girl?

The "Theft" of the Jules Rimet Trophy Just a few weeks before the World Cup, 1966, the Jules Rimet Trophy was allegedly stolen from a guarded STAMP exhibition. From the BBC News archives:- "1966: Football's World Cup stolen The football World Cup has been stolen while on exhibition at Central Hall in Westminster, London. The £30,000 solid gold Jules Rimet trophy disappeared while a church service was taking place in another part of the building. Thieves removed the cup from the "Sport with Stamps" display at the Stampex exhibition, but stamps worth £3m were left behind. At least two guards were in the hall at the time of the theft. Alsa-Guard, the security firm at the exhibition, was not available for comment." This story has more holes than a Lithuanian prostitute's fishnets. It screams "false flag operation". Let's examine the evidence. 1. The Jules Rimet trophy, made out of solid gold and then worth £30,000, was stolen from an exhibition from Central Hall in Westminster, London - right from under the noses two security guards who were being paid to guard it! 2. While the trophy was stolen, thieves inexplicably decided to leave behind a stamp collection worth £3,000,000. Simple maths means that the stamps were worth 100x more than the trophy. Why take the instantly recognisable trophy worth just 1% that of a stamp collection that would have been far easier to break up and sell on? What would you do? Look at this picture. It shows two people with $1,000,000, and very happy they look too. Imagine having THREE TIMES that amount. Now imagine that in a real currency, Pounds Sterling, rather than US dollars. Now imagine what that is worth in today's terms. Would you be happy stealing a poxy £30,000 trophy that you'd have to go to the trouble of melting down when you could have a cool £3,000,000 instead, in handy, manageable stamps? No, neither would I. 3. Though the FA had allegedly received demands for money for the safe return of the trophy, it was found a week later by a dog called Pickles, hidden under a bush in Beulah Hill, South London. Does anyone of sound mind really believe that an enterprising thief would risk being spotted or arrested by two security guards when stealing the trophy, make demands for cash to the FA for a week, then simply leave £30,000 of solid gold underneath a bush for some hapless dog to sniff out? This story beggars belief, and quite frankly I'm not buying it. Neither should you, gentle reader. This story smells worse than a lift full of Plutarkian lawyers, stuck between floors on a holiday weekend. Here's what actually happened. The FA faked the theft of the trophy in order to raise interest in a competition that had failed to capture the imagination of the English public (ticket sales were negligible prior to the theft). They also wanted to instill a sense of national indignation and pride in the trophy. This would engender feelings of ownership among England fans. They would consider the trophy theirs before they even kicked a ball in anger. It was all part of pre-conditioning to make the gullible English think they already owned the trophy. What does the innocent little dog Pickles think of this whole sordid affair? TOTALLY BORED!!! If he really had found the Jules Rimet Trophy, he would have been very excited, engaged in ostentatious displays of tail-wagging, perhaps licked the odd passer-by while hoping for a well-earned doggy treat. Even the damned HOUND is whistleblowing!!! http://www.thefa.com/England/SeniorTeam/Ne...and_Pickles.htm Incidentally, the Jules Rimet trophy WAS stolen in 1983, from the headquarters of the Brazilian Football Confederation. Are we really to believe that Brazilians are better trophy thieves than the English? Oh, there's more. What do we get when we anagrammize "Jules Rimet Trophy"? "Their Polymer Just". Which equates to "Their plastic truth". How very apt! Or try this one for size. "Ripe Motherly Juts". I don't know what that means, but I think it's important.

History would have you believe that on July 30, 1966, Englad beat West Germany 4-2 after extra time to win the World Cup. I have been analysing the evidence for this so-called historic event and believe there are serious inconsistencies in the record which lead me to the only possible conclusion: not only did England did NOT win the World Cup, but there wasn't even a World Cup in that year. The evidence, o dear and most gentle of readers, speaks for itself. Faked photographic record Jules Rimet trophy stolen - found by dog called Pickles Destruction of evidence Copies of documentation proving complicity within the FA And much, much more. In forthcoming posts, we'll look at the evidence together, and come to the inevitable and shocking conclusion that it was all a complete sham. ENGLAND DID NOT WIN THE WORLD CUP IN 1966!!!!

A very interesting read here David. My bolding. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/bt_phorm_lies/ BT has admitted that it secretly used customer data to test Phorm's advertising targeting technology last summer, and that it covered it up when customers and The Register raised questions over the suspicious redirects. The national telecoms provider now faces legal action from customers who are angry their web traffic was compromised. Stephen Mainwaring, a BT Business customer in Weston-super-Mare, believes sensitive banking data relating to his online horse racing business was press-ganged into a trial of an unproven technology. He suffered sleepless nights after detecting the dodgy DNS requests, and said today: "It is very likely that I and others will take legal action against BT for what they did last summer." In a statement, BT said: "We conducted a very small scale technical test of a prototype advertising platform on one exchange in June 2007. The test was specifically conducted to evaluate the functional and technical performance of the platform. "Absolutely no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed during this trial. As with all service providers, it is important for BT to ensure that, before any potential new technologies are employed, they are robust and fit for purpose." Speaking to El Reg on Friday, Stephen agreed: "Absolutely, new technologies should be stringently tested, but not using mine and my customers' data. If they wanted to run a trial, they should have asked. I would have told them I did not want to be part of it. "I note the statement, 'absolutely no personally identifiable information was processed, stored or disclosed'. That means that all my information was processed, stored or disclosed but the personal bits were filtered out. Clearly that was unlawful." Stephen has already filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office and is consulting on how to proceed through the courts with other BT subscribers who believe their connection was subject to illegal Phorm tests. Today, he and a fellow BT customer also disputed the claim that only one exchange was involved in the covert testing. Spike, a Reg reader based in Brighton and Hove, also noticed dodgy redirects of his web traffic last July to sysip.net, a domain owned by Phorm. He wrote about the mystery here at the time. Spike and Stephen urged other BT customers who believe they may have been co-opted into last summer's secret trials to speak out. We first asked BT about its relationship with Phorm in July 2007, when it was widely known as 121Media, a firm deeply involved in spyware. BT denied any testing and said customers whose DNS requests were being redirected must have a malware problem. It wasn't until 14 February this year, when the deals between BT, Virgin Media and Carphone Warehouse to pimp customer web browsing were announced, that a cover-up was revealed. You can read the original story here. BT's belated confession that it secretly used its customers' traffic to test the safety of ad targeting technology can only add to the distrust around Phorm, whose executive team includes a former BT Retail CTO. Several security firms have confirmed plans to classify Phorm's cookies - both for opting in and opting out of Webwise - as adware. As part of its admission to the secret 2007 trials, BT also said it will follow Carphone Warehouse's lead and develop an opt-out that does not involve cookies and means no data will be mirrored to a profiling server, even if it is ignored. It follows serious concerns raised by experts on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) that Phorm's plan to use cookies to exclude people who opt-out is illegal. BT repeated its insistence that the technology is legal, however. It said: "We are already developing an opt-out solution that would remove the need for opt-out cookies altogether. We have carried out significant due diligence in this area, and informed consent from our customers will satisfy the necessary legal requirements." Yet some authorities on RIPA have argued that ISPs would also need permission from website owners to profile the content of their pages. BT has not responded to our questions on this point. ISP data pimping has also invoked the ire of the Greatest Living Briton™. Today the BBC reports that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the web, has spoken out against ISP ad targeting. He summed up public opposition to the system: "It's [web traffic] mine - you can't have it. If you want to use it for something, then you have to negotiate with me. I have to agree, I have to understand what I'm getting in return." Meanwhile, the Downing Street petition against Phorm has now garnered almost 5,000 signatures. Carphone Warehouse has said it will ensure that its subscribers are opted out of Phorm and Webwise by default. BT and Virgin Media have made no such promise. You can follow all our reporting of Phorm over the last three weeks here.

All somewhat murky. According to the Phorm website:- "What makes the technology behind OIX and Webwise truly groundbreaking is that it takes consumer privacy protection to a new level. Our technology doesn't store any personally identifiable information or IP addresses, and we don't retain information on user browsing behaviour. So we never know - and can't record - who's browsing, or where they've browsed." http://www.phorm.com/ I'll take that with a pinch of salt. I'm always wary of information gathering services that claim to not store IP addresses or other information that could identify someone. They have been audited by Ernst and Young apparently. http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/EY_Phorm_Exam.pdf I remain skeptical: since I use one of the ISPs mentioned I at least have the option of opting out. I agree with you David, that schemes like these should be opt in, not opt out.

And therein lies the problem. The only people they're accountable to are themselves. They write their own paychecks. They set the level of their own expenses. Up until now there have been insufficient checks and balances. The signs are that the trough will continue to be filled, and the "John Lewis" list will be done away with, and replaced with an increased salary or a "cover-all" allowance. The gravy-train won't stop - it will just come under a new guise. And another thing - why is the true cost of living being pulled over the eyes of the British people with an unrealistic and misrepresetative inflation measurement? Hello? Housing costs? Fuel costs? Water? Electricity? No... the cost of hiring a wallpaper stripper is a much more important economic indicator. Rant over - for now.

Publication of the so-called "John Lewis" list is just a continuation of the sleaze that has become manifest in British politics over the last few years. MPs are allowed to claim up to £23,000 per year to furnish a second home near Westminster to allow them to spend more time in the House of Commons... all very worthy. What disgusts me is the total amount they can claim, and the amounts deemed acceptable for individual items. Does an MPs crash-pad really need a £10,000 kitchen? Mine cost 1/4 that and looks mighty fine thanks. (The 10K doesn't include white goods either.) Do MPs really need a £100 coffee machine in their second home? Whats wrong with a £20 kettle, and a teaspoon for crying out loud? Carpets... £35 per square metre? What are they doing, eating off them? £1000 for a bed? I suppose it would need to be fairly sturdy to withstand some Major / Currie action. And as for £300 for an air-conditioning unit... I know global warming is upon us, but have a word. All joking aside, with the impending publishing of expenses details for each and every MP over the last few years, there are going to be some rather ruddy faces on display soon. Good job we're footing the bill for all those air-con units then... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7295150.stm

You may have some joy if you install Real Player. It works OK for me in IE7. Haven't had chance to listen to the entire interview yet. http://uk.real.com/player/win/

Earth from the moon does appear about four times as big, doesn't it? The example you use offers no clues as to the size of it. Jack The answer to your question is, the Earth does appear to be about four times as large from the moon as the moon does from the Earth. As you know, this is borne out from the Apollo photos taken from the surface. All you need to know is the film format of the camera, and the focal length of the lens used to take the photo. You can then calculate the field of view of the camera, and how large the Earth should appear in an image of a given size. The Earth as seen in photos taken on the moon is the size it should be given the technical specs of the camera and lens used. Or if you're bored of maths, look at some photos of the moon as taken from Earth that demonstrate quite clearly the size of the moon can vary dramatically from one image to tghe next: its apparent size is a function of the film format and focal length.

The Skeptics Dictionary is a government disinformation site? The guy who runs it isn't doing a very good job! "George W. Bush continues to argue that thousands more soldiers and billions more dollars be committed to the war on Iraq, despite the fact that the majority of his generals, his senators and congressmen, and the American public do not think the U.S. should invest any more in that war." Source Lots of interesting eye-witness accounts, but I didn't read anything to convince me that they must be of ET origin. I'll remain open-minded as to the possible explanations. I did find one that had similarities to my own UFO experience. Nov. 4, 1952; Vineland, New Jersey (BBU 2206) 5:40 p.m. Housewife Mrs. Sprague saw 2 groups of 2-3 whirling discs of light fly toward the SE. 30 secs. (Berliner) Whether any of these sightings are actual ET/UFOs is anyone's guess, but I think it's fairly safe to say that not all the sightings will have the same explanation.

Timeslip huh ? .. Now I see what you watched on the telly when you were a little kid... Or was that before you were born and they're now playing the reruns ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeslip Hadn't actually heard of that series! I was more of a "Tomorrow People" or "Time Tunnel" kid. Arse ... I guess so ! I meant neck, but @rse works almost as well. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor doesn't allow for any of your own brain interpretation ... Just go with the most mundane explaination .. It's always safer that way. It is indeed.

Grey's have developed "timeslip technology" to compensate for that. Lucky you! It's a right royal pain in the .... Maybe it was! I'm assuming the red lights were at the end of the blades, and it appeared to be rotating slowly due to a strobe effect, similar to how wagon wheels on those old Westerns look like they're spinning backwards. At the time however, my brain interpreted what I saw as a spinning disk. Maybe my brain was right (first time for everything)... we'll never know! (All I could see was the rotating red lights. I couldn't see an outline of a craft, either terrestrial or otherwise).

What were your initial thoughts as to what it was? Do you rule anything in or out? Ah, but how do you know? I've had one or two "sleep paralysis" episodes myself, and in my case that's all it was, scary as it was at the time (although I subsequently developed a mysterious lump in my neck that started beeping...) The more bizarre the better! Occam's Razor isn't really an explanation for anything. Stated very simply, if you have two competing theories, then the simplest theory is most likely to be the correct one (acording to Occam's Razor). That doesn't mean that the most simple theory must be correct. You're welcome to hypothesise about what you think I saw: I'll stick with boring, old helicopter as being the most likely explanation.

When I saw the footage on MOTD at normal speed I just thought it was a badly timed tackle with much worse than usual consequences. Seeing the photo linked below I'm not so sure. Taylor was worse than careless - this was "reckless endangerment" IMO. I agree that the FA need to have the ability to extend a ban to more than three days for such cases. This image isn't graphic as it is "pre-injury" - others on the same page aren't for the faint-hearted. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_0...MOS_468x278.jpg

Did any of the firemen give accounts of what they saw and did? Why was the photographer so far away from the scene and his fellow firefighters? Good questions. The NFPA publishes a newsletter where the photos and firemen's stories appeared. I just tried to access the original article, and got this message: Jack It may be something to do with your browser. I can access the page with no problems using Internet Explorer. I just downloaded the latest version of Safari (v3 Beta) and the page loads fine too. You could try upgrading your browser by downloading the latest versio of the Safari browser below. Notice this is a beta version, so there may be some bugs. http://www.apple.com/downloads/

Does anyone have any UFO related experiences, or have they spoken to anyone else who's had such an experience? I only have two that I can recall. A friend of mine saw what he was convinced was an ET/UFO a few years ago, when he saw what he perceived to be a thin bright disc flying at speed at night. As it got closer to him, he was able to resolve individual portholes, and came to the conclusion it was just an aircraft. He was convinced it couldn't have been a plane until he saw the individual windows after a few seconds. He was on the way to the pub at the time, not the on the way back, so I can't put his initial reaction down to the influence of Jungle Juice. I only have one such experience, which admittedly was a few years ago so the passing of time may have clouded the memory somewhat. I was around 8 or 9 years old, while living in the Middle East. One night, I saw what I perceived to be a slowly rotating disc with small red lights on the edge. It looked completely bizarre to see this disc flying across a busy city at night. At the time I had no idea what it was: my best guess is that is was nothing less earthly than a helicopter, with the blades appearing to be rotating slowly due to a strobe effect. I will, of course, never know for certain... but the helicopter explanation fits the data although I didn't recognize it as such at the time. One of those times when Occam's razor comes in handy. So I'd say that this was definitely a UFO since I didn't know what it was... although almost certainly not of ET origin. Anyone else have any first-hand experiences they'd care to relate, either explained or otherwise?

The arrogant omniscience of some founts of all knowledge is incredible to behold. All should bow down in humble submission before the almighty. As he says, some never admit they are wrong, even if they are. Behold! An example for us all! Jack Ability to admit error shows humility, or strength of character. How about retracting your claim about conduction as opposed to radiation being the only means of heat transference in the vacuum of space? After all this is the Education Forum. On the moon, ROCK C is heated by radiated heat from the sun; however such radiated heat PASSES THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE WITHOUT HEATING THE VACUUM, because there are no molecules in the vacuum to be heated. ROCK C can transfer that heat only by conduction to ROCK D which is 100 feet away, because of molecular matter connecting the two rocks. Any heat radiating from ROCK C is puny compared to the sun's radiation. Jack There you go, wasn't too painful clearing that up. Might be hope for you yet Jack Why do you think I cleared something up? I know nothing about the properties, if any, of REFLECTED RADIATION in a vacuum. But I believe it would be negligible depending on the albedo. I remember reading that the albedo of lunar geology is very LOW. Jack You cleared up what you said on the second page of this thread.

The arrogant omniscience of some founts of all knowledge is incredible to behold. All should bow down in humble submission before the almighty. As he says, some never admit they are wrong, even if they are. Behold! An example for us all! Jack Ability to admit error shows humility, or strength of character. How about retracting your claim about conduction as opposed to radiation being the only means of heat transference in the vacuum of space? After all this is the Education Forum. On the moon, ROCK C is heated by radiated heat from the sun; however such radiated heat PASSES THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE WITHOUT HEATING THE VACUUM, because there are no molecules in the vacuum to be heated. ROCK C can transfer that heat only by conduction to ROCK D which is 100 feet away, because of molecular matter connecting the two rocks. Any heat radiating from ROCK C is puny compared to the sun's radiation. Jack There you go, wasn't too painful clearing that up. Might be hope for you yet Jack