Greg Burnham

The only thing left to discount a conspiracy would be something almost beyond belief. I mean, you'd almost need a magic bullet!

Jon, I retract my earlier statement in its entirety. I absolutely believe that you are incapable of grasping this concept or you are going out of your way to make it appear so. Either way, I have had enough of it.

So is this just another sensationalist trying to sell a book or a theory or a political agenda? The presentation leaves much to be desired, IMO. However, there is a "fight fire with fire" strategy that might be in play. I don't care for it though. Alarmism is alarmism. It usually serves no one better than he who sounded it.

John’s persistence is finally paying off. A small movement is starting . . . one that I am proud to be a part of, and one that I will invite you to join in a moment. Helping fuel this movement has been the series of cold winters and cool summers that John predicted would come. The media no longer could ignore the irony in front of them. Here is what they have reported recently. And now, a small but distinguished group of scientists and researchers are publically aligning themselves with John Casey and his organization. One such organization recently named John . . . Perhaps that is because unlike some of the “global warming” darlings and proponents — NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC — John’s research has consistently predicted weather patterns correctly. John has spoken at conferences across the United States . . . making 11 accurate predictions. Since he first began sharing this work in 2007, John’s 11 predictions have come true (mind you, these are MAJOR events, not predicting that tomorrow will be slightly cloudy with a chance of rain). I could walk you through all 11, but they are very extensive and heavy on the science. John has accurately predicted everything from a drop in solar activity (NASA later adjusted their own projections to fall in line with his) to a rise in historic earthquake activity (10 months before the earthquake that hit Japan and caused the Fukushima meltdown). Please know, all 11 of his predictions of have been verified — by myself and other third parties. All of them have been attacked by government-funded scientists, only for those same scientists to eat their words later. Each and every one of John’s predictions have been made publicly and shared with top government officials and the mainstream media for the last seven years. John has made every effort to share this information. But instead of listening, the media and the left treated him like a leper and have done their best to smear his name. Science and politics have worked this way for hundreds of years. Galileo was ridiculed by scientists invested in the idea the sun revolves around the Earth. Robert Goddard — the man who ushered in the Space Age and rocket ships — was ridiculed endlessly during his life for proposing . . . traveling to the moon. William Harvey was ostracized for proposing the theory of blood circulation . . . Opponents could never refute the science — they could only attack the man behind it. Just like they do with John today. But there is a small group of scientists that are starting to listen, and take action! Unlike the “scientists” who want to present information that has been twisted to fit a political agenda, and slam anyone who rebels against the accepted dogma . . . John has done nothing but put his research up to public scrutiny for the last few years. And now some of the top scientific minds in the world are rallying to him. Here’s what they have to say . . . Dr. Fumio Tsunoda, professor emeritus of geology at Japan’s Saitama University, testified, “ [John’s] work is quite a revelation that marks a step toward a new scientific civilization ” and his findings “add a brilliant page to the history of science.” Dr. Natarajan Venkatanathan, professor of physics, SASTRA University, said, “ [John’s] ideas may be opposed by conventional scientists, but they will have to accept his theory because the truth prevails. ” Dr. Boris Komitov, one of Europe’s top solar physicists and a professor at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, was so impressed with John’s work, he reached out to John and joined the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). Here’s what Dr. Komitov had to say: “These problems brought on by this next climate change that Casey ably discusses . . . are more important than ever. ” Dr. Ole Humlum, professor of physical geography at the University of Oslo, said, “The history of science is filled with examples of individuals with new ideas being met by the current scientific establishment not with enthusiasm, but rather with disregard and sometimes, even ridicule. These hypotheses were considered outrageous by many contemporary scientists, but today they represent the very foundation for much of our present understanding of planet Earth’s dynamics. New hypotheses based on empirical observations should always be welcomed warmly. This also applies very much to [the work] by John Casey.” Dr. Giovanni Gregori, who has served on the National Research Council of Italy since 1963 and serves on multiple astronomical councils and in several societies, went so far as to say that John Casey is the modern day Leonardo da Vinci. He also said: “[John Casey’s work] is an important contribution for understanding and facing the environmental challenge, in its multifaceted and often disquieting manifestations.” Dr. Dong Choi, editor-in-chief of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, calls John’s work “earth-shattering.” Each of these scientists has reviewed John’s work and had no choice but to agree with his conclusion after seeing the evidence, just as I did. John even confided in me that several other scientists secretly support his work. They agree with his conclusions. They think “global warming” and the accepted climate science is hogwash. But they can’t say anything about it. In John’s words: “If you work for the government and you stand up and say, ‘Man-made climate change is all nonsense’ you can kiss your government job goodbye. They’ll either make it hell to work there, or fire you outright.” It’s easy to get upset with these scientists, and we should be, but in reality, they are just trying to keep their jobs. We should put the bulk of the blame on our government. We have a government that prefers comfortable delusion to uncomfortable truth.

After accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions, President Obama made sure to include his “global warming” plans in his victory speech: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” You are likely familiar with the story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that. But here’s a little-known side of the Solyndra story I bet you haven’t heard: Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra. You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million. It doesn’t stop there. In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right? There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign. First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns. GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011. There are a host of other examples of liberals getting wealthy off “global warming” initiatives just like these. You can see why green energy is such a profitable business — CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns . . . and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going . . . all on your dime. But here’s the cherry on top . . . While $22 billion of our money is being redistributed every year to greedy scientists, politicians, and corporations . . . $22 billion is just what is spent on these “global warming” initiatives. The reality is, these initiatives have ripple effects . . . mainly the regulations (from government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency) that shackle free enterprise and force us to rely on foreign energy. According to Forbes, the total cost of these ripple effects is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually. I want you to really think about that for a moment. We’re watching $1.75 trillion per year . . . $3,329,528 per minute . . . go to waste. It’s worse when you note that the U.S. Energy Information Administration says these regulations could ultimately cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections . . . send 3 million Americans to the welfare line . . . and reduce average household income by a whopping $4,000 each year. Washington knows all of this . . . and is still barreling forward with its nonsense policies! They’re just letting you foot the bill, while they pocket the benefits. Fact is, organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency have handcuffed capitalism . . . based on a theory even its staunchest supporters (like the aforementioned Dr. Allegre) have already renounced. The result: reduced business, higher energy and food costs, higher taxes, lost jobs, and more money going overseas. With $1.75 trillion in annual costs, you would think someone out there would listen to John and his research, but . . . When John discovered that the world was indeed cooling, he urgently shared his findings, only to get lambasted. Al Gore himself specifically called John a “pseudo-scientist” and discarded his findings. “Global warming” advocate Dr. Benjamin Kirtman simply dismissed John’s warnings as the “usual nonsense.” Media Matters has published two personal attacks against John — saying he has “no background in climate science” (which isn’t true) and calling him a “scam artist.” But think about something for a moment. Why would John take on this mission to expose the truth about “global warming” if he didn’t fully know that his evidence was fact? Why would he risk his reputation, his retirement, and his way of life? It would have been much easier to walk away. But John isn’t the type to walk away from the truth . . . especially when it would put his family, country, and even the world at risk. That is why John has taken on this mission, even if it means doing it alone. It is why he has exhausted his savings and retirement funds to spread the word about his research through his organization, Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC). He will let nothing stop him.

You probably already knew somewhere deep inside that something wasn’t right about the “global warming” theory. Sure, during the 1990s, we all noticed it getting warmer. But, to say that it is directly tied what humans are doing seemed to be a stretch, and, we have all noticed it getting a LOT cooler lately. So it might not come as a surprise to say that “global warming” is a sham. But what does come as a surprise to many is the evidence of outright lying that is now leaking out of trustworthy scientific agencies. Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried. For example: One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding. In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature. And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.” There are several other documents just like these. More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs! In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published . . . will say exactly what they want it to say. Now, everyone knows from their high school education that the No. 1 rule of doing scientific research is that it cannot be undertaken with an end goal in mind because you will only use the data points that support your end goal. That’s not real science. But that’s exactly what “global warming” scientists are doing! They are only using partial data . . . the data the supports their end goal . . . to make their point that there is man-made “global warming.” So, we’re being told that the survival of our planet, of the human race, relies on tackling “global warming” . . . yet the whole thing is a sham. Why would this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists do such a thing? Well, think about it. Our federal government spends $22 billion on “global warming” research each and every year (twice as much as we spend on protecting our border!). Again, that is $41,856 every minute. If government-funded scientists came out and said “global warming” didn’t exist, their funding would be cut immediately. But “global warming” has been kept on life support for another crucial reason: It has been a practical ATM for every in-the-know political figure. The media is catching on to Al Gore’slies, but he is not going down without a fight. Al Gore, for example, has been one of the most vocally aggressive crusaders for “global warming.” In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration. The Telegraph reports Al Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies . . . all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming.” And he’s not alone.

NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change. In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time. When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival. Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”? Of course not. And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change. Remember: Temperatures have only risen .36 degrees since 1979 . . . and the bulk of that happened during the 1990s! We haven’t seen any warming for the last 17 years . . . in fact we have seen a drop in temperatures. Well, think about it. Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle. The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes. Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle. These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles. So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun. Well, here’s the breaking news. And you must pay close attention . . . because what I’m about to tell you has been deemed a “forbidden theme” in the scientific community. Talking about it gets you a black mark at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the World Meteorological Society. You see, there are larger cycles of the sun . . . “solar cycles.” This may not seem earthshattering, but solar cycles are — bar none — the most devastating argument against man-made “global warming.” Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth. The thing about these cycles is that they are predictable, and therefore it’s not difficult to see what is coming in the years ahead. Indeed, if scientists were paying attention to these “solar cycles” years ago, they could have told you that the Earth would get warmer during the 1990s, and then it would cool . . . just like it has. In fact, this climate cycle, along with several other cycles, has allowed John to make 11 accurate predictions about the Earth’s climate over the past few years, and it has allowed him to make a catastrophic prediction which I will share with you in a moment. Ironically, as John released his data on these solar cycles, the ugly lie about man-made “global warming” started leaking out.

“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans. This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water. In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . . “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.” The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%. It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%. Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.” I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame. Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming. Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here. You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you! Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown. Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit. Shame on you, right? Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average. Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth. Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.” President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

When John retired, he had many allies and supporters in the government. However, when he turned that same analytical approach Washington loved so much on Washington itself . . . He became, in essence, their “public enemy No. 1.” Let me explain. As mentioned, in April of 2007, already into a comfortable retirement, John began examining some solar and environmental physics research (these are his hobbies). The “unfortunate” discovery he made would make any honest American sick to the stomach. John immediately took the evidence and called his colleagues and fellow government insiders to alert them to the situation. He even sent notices to the White House warning them of the crisis. The response? Silence. Silence, and then rejection. And every year since, John has continued to notify every state governor, every U.S. senator, the House of Representatives, state attorneys general, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, then head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You see, all of John’s “friends” suddenly “forgot” his name and number when he revealed the inconvenient truth about Uncle Sam’s most expensive sacred cow . . . and showed them solid, scientifically sound research that obliterates the idea of “global warming.” You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem. For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast. But how much has the world really warmed? Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979). I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about. Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right? The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since! The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998. Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations. If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense. We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters. Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next. But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.

John Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs. For example: In 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After the testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed. Now, keep that in mind for a moment: Capitol Hill and NASA trusted John’s detailed analytical approach and his engineering credentials so much they asked him to investigate the cause of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies. After 35 years of serving his country, John quietly retired in Florida. He planned on living peacefully, spending time with his wife, children, and grandkids. But on one April afternoon in 2007, John made an “unfortunate” discovery that changed everything. When the space shuttle Challenger crashed in 1986, the U.S. government asked John Casey to investigate. The discovery would ultimately lead him to abandon his plans for retirement in order to support a cause that was bigger than himself . . . that was bigger than anything he had done in his 35-year career. In fact, this discovery would result in him becoming hated by all those who once heralded him as their friend and adviser. After this outright rejection, John realized that despite his science not changing, despite the thousands of pages of irrefutable data, and despite millions of lives at risk . . . he was alone. The responsibility of letting the world know about this discovery rested solely on his shoulders, and those who would listen to him. Indeed, what he has to say goes contrary to everything you have been told about “climate change.” I initially rejected what John had to tell me. But when he showed me what was in his 164-page document, I couldn’t argue with him. Facts are facts. What John discovered that fateful afternoon was . . . You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that destroys their argument for “global warming.” Using their own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history. A sham that our government spends $22 billion a year financing. Think about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming” initiatives. Again, that’s almost double what the government spends on securing our borders. Or, to break it down to real numbers . . . But this is just the tip of the iceberg. John’s research also uncovered a different looming cataclysm that will ruin every nation that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . and brewing for over 200 years. This impending catastrophe is as natural as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And just as unstoppable. I’m talking about a tectonic shift in the world’s economies that will . . . Send oil to over $300 a barrel Cause food prices to triple and in some places make food completely unavailable Lead to violence erupting in the streets of your suburban neighborhood Cause governments to topple, nations to descend into chaos, and international wars to break out. In the 164-page document John handed me, he went to great lengths to explain exactly how serious this crisis will be. It’s going to be worsened by the fact our politicians are bullheadedly ignoring it. The result will be every American being blindsided . . . unable to see it coming because of Al Gore and his cronies preaching false dogma. As I said before, I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence in John’s dossier. And even then, it took me hours of talking to John afterward to digest it. John’s research has now been corroborated by 17 independent scientific individuals and organizations. These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world.

Posted for your consideration. Please choose to ignore the "melodramatic" rhetoric if and when it appears in the article below. Rather, choose to focus on fact-checking the data sets referenced as source material in the article. And then, if verified, decide for yourself what impact this information should have, if any, on your view of the validity of the current state of "climate change science." Date: 11/12/2014 Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more. And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House. In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs. You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table. This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists. The motive: $22 billion per year. To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic. That comes out to $41,856 every minute. Or, to put it in perspective, that is twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders. Then, imagine this top U.S. intelligence agent turning to you, and asking for you to join him on a mission to out those involved in the “global warming” lie. Doing so would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and could cost you your reputation. But, pretending you never saw the document, and carrying on with your life, would allow the scandal to continue and actually put lives at risk. So, imagine if you were at that table, and the scenario I just described happened to you. My name is Tom Luongo. I am a former scientist with the University of Florida and currently run the Resolute Wealth Letterprogram. My name is Tom Luongo, and I’ve recently had this exact experience. In the following few pages, I am going to show you the alarming research in the document that was laid before me that night in Palm Beach. I will tell you why this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists tried to hide this research . . . and how you can be part of a newly formed initiative with the aim of getting this research into the hands of every American. This research proves, once and for all, that “global warming” is a sham . . . a sham perpetuated by a network of dirty government officials, greedy corporations, and bought-off “scientific” organizations. How you respond will be up to you. I can guarantee you one thing: After reading the next few pages, you will never look at government officials the same way . . . you will never trust what you hear in the media again . . . in fact, you will become skeptical of any and all authority figures going forward. It’s unfortunate, but the betrayal you’re going to discover today runs very deep, and revealing the truthabout “global warming” comes with great risk. As a scientist for over 20 years, I’ve always upheld the truth. I’ve worked with the University of Florida to do some amazing things . . . I’ve helped make crop yields more productive for third world countries . . . I helped create an intermetallic coating for gun barrels that dropped maintenance requirements on firearms by half . . . and I’ve helped cure diseases. I have seen a lot of research go across my desk. But none of it can compare to the 164-page document that landed in front of me that night in Palm Beach. That’s why I’m going to lay the facts from this document before you today, and then I’m going to ask that you join me, and the man who composed this document, on our mission to defund the “global warming” sham . . . All it will take is a click of your mouse. With one click, you’re going to put more momentum behind what I hope to be the largest effort . . . ever . . . to annihilate the “global warming” lie and defund the government’s multibillion-dollar spending frenzy to keep it alive. Now, before we begin, I ask that you excuse any “rough” elements in this letter. What I’m sharing with you today is so urgent that I’ve made a huge effort to get the research in this 164-page document available to you as quickly as possible . . . With President Obama’s recent speech about getting tougher on “global warming” issues I think it’s critical that we don’t waste a minute in getting this information out. The sooner we get this information into the hands of the public . . . your hands . . . the more informed voters will be when they cast their ballots. First, you should know who put this document in my hands — a man whom Al Gore is personally attacking . . . [continued...]

Psychologist Steve Kossor's excellent article: Emotional Memories is now posted on my website. I highly recommend it. [Author’s note: I’m offering this essay about the practical and psychological roots of the 11/22/63 coup that gave us the government and corporate-intelligence establishment that has continued to exploit and despoil worldwide human and material resources with relentless vigor. I suggest that we have an obligation to future generations to offer advice and potential solutions that may enable them to recover from the institutionalization of corporate and intelligence interests within the American government. I’m offering my suggestions to help find a way out of the climate of fear that has been nurtured in us by those entities. If we don’t move beyond the search for truth in the Kennedy assassination and also do whatever we can to encourage future generations to hope for and work toward a future free of covert NSA, CIA and corporate-intelligence manipulations, we will expire without having accomplished more than documenting the horror that has befallen us. — Steve Kossor]

Jon, I fail to believe that you cannot grasp this concept. Your interpretation of Occam's Razor is flawed. Occam's Razor does not require simplicity for its own sake. Rather, Occam's Razor rejects the addition of complexity beyond that which is necessary to satisfy all of the evidence. If a complex explanation is required to account for all of the available evidence then such an explanation is NOT "too complex." Provided the complexity of the explanation is limited to what is required to satisfy the evidence--and no more--it does not violate Occam's Razor. ================= As for "Reservoir Dogs" -- Of course "What went wrong?" (as in: "Why did it fail?") would not be relevant to the prosecution's case. However, "planned and attempted criminal activity, complex or otherwise" could be part of the complaint (even if the plan's execution failed for whatever reasons).

FOR THE REORD: In all due respect, nothing in my post should be construed as me "welcoming a LN" to the forum. I was responding to the post in which you stated that you wanted to create a website to list 10 to 15 of what you consider to be the strongest evidence of conspiracy. In the "50 Reasons for 50 Years" program we have evidence not only of conspiracy to commit murder, but also evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Hey Cliff, 49 out of 50 ain't bad. 35 out of 50 ain't bad. 5 out of 50 ain't even bad. It only takes ONE item of reasonable doubt to dismantle their case. Our job isn't to prove that EVERY item creates reasonable doubt. But it is their job to prove that EVERY item falls short.

Try this for starters:

Although I already believe it's Lansdale, the amateurish "photographic study" you posted does not persuade. damn, Greg - "amateurish"? what an amateurish comment... I'm not sure I'm following you, Glenn. By way of explanation, in my opinion, not all evidence carries the same weight. As an example: A photographic study that is often used by professional photographic analysts employing methods generally accepted as producing accurate results would carry more weight than one conducted by someone who is simply "eyeballing" it. The former's expectancy for yielding reliable results exceeds the latter's by a long shot and is therefore more persuasive. In this thread I did not direct my comment at the "person" who conducted the "study," but rather at the imprecision of the methodology he chose to employ. However, to be fair, it might be the only methodology available to him. But even so, IMO, it does not persuade. While I personally find the identification offered by both Colonel Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak to be persuasive, others who knew neither of these close associates of Lansdale, may not. But, in my opinion, their positive identification of the man in the photo as being one and the same as Landsdale--a man with whom both were very familiar and with whom both had worked closely for more than a decade--is more persuasive than is the "facial feature" alignment study. But, that's just me.

FYI: A post like this could invite a visit from the Secret Service.

The application of Occam's Razor is appropriate to any scenario proffered to be the "most likely" explanation. Its application is not necessarily inappropriate to the discussion of conspiracies or to other "events controlled by humans" as you have claimed. Let me extrapolate: I think you would agree that an explanation that truly accounts for all of the available evidence is preferable to an explanation that fails to account for all of the available evidence. If an explanation is too simple it may fail to explain an adequate amount of the evidence and be rejected on those grounds. So Occam's Razor does not suggest that "simple is always better" -- Rather it suggests that "The simplest explanation (least assumptions) that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to a complex explanation that contains more assumptions than are required to satisfy the evidence." So in the case of conspiracy investigations the principle still applies. After all, if we suspend Occam's Razor, allowing "more assumptions than necessary to explain the evidence" we could conclude that the reason the trajectory of the back wound's entrance appears to be at 45 to 60 degrees is because a sniper in a helicopter fired the shot. That is certainly an explanation that would account for the evidence of a 45 to 60 degree trajectory--and it would support a conspiracy scenario--but it is terribly complex. By applying Occam's Razor to this conspiracy theory we see that--notwithstanding the fact that this "event is entirely controlled by humans" and it adequately accounts for the evidence--still the explanation adds too many assumptions. It violates Occam's Razor. The explanation--even of a conspiracy--should be adequate to all of the evidence without adding more than what is necessary.

My only agenda here is to discuss JFK's Vietnam Policy in the context of this thread. Jon titled this thread: "What is your theory?" While I view that which I have offered as not so much "my theory" as it is my informed opinion, I don't claim that it is the last word. It is an interpretation of the evidence. I have attempted to keep the explanation simple, yet adequate to account for as much of the evidence as possible. I admit that reconciling some of RFK's statements (for the JFK Library in 1964), as well as some statements made by JFK (to the media) with OFFICIAL TOP SECRET POLICY DOCUMENTATION is difficult. However, that is what we are challenged to do if we are to gain an understanding of our Vietnam history. I find the proper application of Occam's Razor, the preference of the simple explanation to the overly complex, to be in order. Therefore, discounting the "non-official" highly politicized public statements is a much less complex exercise than is attempting to explain away as insignificant the TOP SECRET OFFICIAL RECORDS. The former has a simple "politically based" motive that, under the circumstances, is quite understandable. However, how does one "discount the significance" of TOP SECRET National Security Action Memorandums without introducing an inordinate degree of complexity?

I'm not running. I'm suggesting we take this outside so I don't damage the furniture in this fine establishment. The War Room

Let's pull this one offline, Mark. I don't want to taint the integrity of this forum by engaging you here. I do this out of respect for the other members and out of a sense of appreciation to the administrators for having me. While I am making an argument, you are picking a fight. That is not appropriate. But, make no mistake, I am quite capable of a rumble. I have no authority here, but I do on my own forum. I have a section called: The War Room -- dedicated to verbal combat where the normal rule prohibiting ad hominem attack is relaxed. Feel free to go talk to yourself there. Maybe I'll stop by and knock you out in the first round.

This is an example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. You have substituted an argument that is much weaker that the one originally offered in order to knock it down. I am open to the probability that you would "twist Ron's meaning five minutes after he wrote it for the sake of avoiding the real issue." Burn ham, your boring, melodramatic lip-quivering tear-stained fanboy idol-worship (and your horrendous Frank Gorshin JFK imitation) sets you up as a xxxxx in any JFK-related matter. Your utterly predictable revisionist views are bad enough on your own gasping, moribund web site - the equivalent of cyber JFK-death cosplay - but you traipse over here now and then to inflict your holier-than-thou views that amount to little more than a schoolyard taunt. The only weak argument is yours. Cling to something JFK said NINE YEARS before he died, because that appears to be your only comfort. That and hair dye. Mark, While you may not agree with my views, I invite you to share your own. I encourage you to make good, logical, arguments to support your assertions even if they conflict with my own. I would prefer to keep it "on point" and I respectfully ask that you refrain from employing fallacious or "less than well reasoned" rebuttals. They do not persuade. However we may disagree on the interpretation of evidence, the manner in which we present our arguments will either assist or hinder us to get closer to the truth.

This is an example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. You have substituted an argument that is much weaker than the one originally offered in order to more easily knock it down. "I am open to the probability that you would twist Ron's meaning five minutes after he wrote it for the sake of avoiding the real issue."

While I believe you are correct that the situation in Vietnam was far less optimistic than what was being projected in this document (the McNamara/Taylor Report) I also believe you are missing the boat as to the larger ramifications. As he stated in 1954, [paraphrased in my wording]: "If things don't change within the hearts and minds of the indigenous people of South Vietnam that would lead the United States to believe that they are ready, willing, and able to FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES then there is NOTHING that the United States or anyone else can do to effect the situation. It is their war to win or lose, not ours. Moreover, short of employing the use of nuclear weapons, the preponderance of evidence is persuasive that the United States would, in any event, fail in pursuing a course that was designed to impose OUR will on the people of Indochina. The great danger is to ourselves as well as to the People of South Vietnam. Not only would we fail to meet our objectives under the circumstances, but it would be very expensive. The struggle would change nothing, but at the cost of 100's of thousands of lives lost--a significant number of them being American lives. It would be a lethal exercise in futility. The worse scenario, still, would be the potential for this conflict to escalate to all out war between ourselves and the Soviet Union. We've already seen how these types of regional conflicts can grow into much more dangerous altercations as was the case in Korea." So what had changed for the better by the early 1960's Jon? Nothing. Indeed, as you have pointed out, by 1963 it was even worse than before. History proves that LBJ's course to escalate the war, as well as Nixon's expanded bombing campaigns and all the rest, DID NOT WORK. We lost the war. Why? Because we did not have the support of the indigenous people. JFK was right. Without that support it was a lost cause no matter what we did. Here's the deep political part: JFK's analysis from 1954 until the day he died was spot on correct, as HISTORY proved. By deviating from JFK's OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES and offering nearly unlimited assistance to the GOV of SVN, the new president, Johnson, FAILED TO MEET ANY OF THE OBJECTIVES that he set out to accomplish, as did Nixon--just as JFK predicted would happen. Without support of the People, South Vietnam was going to fall to communism NO MATTER WHAT WE DID--short of employing nuclear weapons. It was an un-winnable war from the start and JFK knew it. But he could not get away with taking such a stance in public prior to an election. So he decided to postpone public exposure to his policy for as long as possible. He wasn't stupid. He knew that eventually his policy would become apparent. So he positioned NSAM 263 in a manner that allowed him to claim that he was following the "Recommendations" of his TOP military advisors: SECDEF McNamara and CJCS Taylor as laid out in their McNamara/Taylor Trip Report. So Jon, I'm not arguing that the situation was "good" in Vietnam--or that the war effort was succeeding--or that the SVN Army was capable of taking over the tasks then carried out by the US military. What I am saying is that the situation was NEVER GOING TO GET ANY BETTER without the support of the people of SVN, just as JFK predicted. What I am saying is that JFK knew that this was the case. What I am saying is that JFK was doing his best to extricate us from a hopeless situation, while risking as little as possible politically. Jon, is it possible that "JFK saw what LBJ and Nixon failed to see?" Where LBJ and Nixon thought an exercise of extreme force and commitment of "US military might" would succeed, JFK knew it would fail. And, as history has shown, he was correct. It did fail, exactly as JFK predicted it would (in his 1954 speech). The assassination made a big difference, just not to the outcome of the war effort. That was to fail anyway. The difference is the 58,000+ American lives lost, over ONE MILLION dead Vietnamese, and a tax payer burden exceeding a HALF TRILLION US DOLLARS.