Steven Gaal

They were checking several "Earl Perrys"......another case of Armstrong trying to show a "coverup". . // Parnell -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THEY DIDNT NEED TO CHECK SEVERAL EARL PERRYS , gaal The FBI avoided contacting Earl Eugene Perry from El Paso, who was mentioned as an acquaintance of Oswald and L'eandes (the actor) by James Rizzuto, and instead collected information on Earl Sheldon Perry, a former chaplain's assistant in the US Army. The FBI's coverup relating to L'eandes (the actor) and Oswald continued. (H & L site) OR he did show cover up >>>>>>>> since they had info for (TEXAS) El Paso and cant FBI get Military reserve location data ?? OR just ask military for Earl Perry TEXAS files ?? NO ?? YES !!! gaal

One-Third Of All Americans Are On The Edge Of Financial Ruin = http://www.blacklistednews.com/One-Third_Of_All_Americans_Are_On_The_Edge_Of_Financial_Ruin/44715/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Monsanto Protection Act Part 2? New Bill Introduced Spells Bad News For GMO Activists --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.blacklistednews.com/Monsanto_Protection_Act_Part_2%3F_New_Bill_Introduced_Spells_Bad_News_For_GMO_Activists/44698/0/38/38/Y/M.html Source: Collective Evolution = A couple of years ago, a bill was introduced (H.R. 933) allowing big biotech corporations, like Monsanto, to override United States federal courts on the issue of planting experimental genetically engineered crops all across the US. This rendered the government powerless when it came to stopping other biotechnology corporations from planting and harvesting. The measure shields sellers of genetically modified seeds from lawsuits, even if the resulting crops cause harm. As a result, the public labelled this bill “The Monsanto Protection Act.” This time, a bill has been introduced, dubbed the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act Of 2015.” Proposed by United States Congressman Mike Pompeo, the bill is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such. “Activists in nearly 30 states are considering legislation that would require government warning labels on food products containing ingredients derived from biotechnology. These common ingredients, which include corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, are safe to eat. Unfortunately, activists are demanding an official notice that food may contain these ingredients. If consumers are misled to believe the food supply isn’t safe, there is little incentive to innovate or grow these important crops.” (source) He goes on to state that: “More than 100 research projects over 25 years involving dozens of independent research groups have affirmed and reaffirmed the safety of genetically modified ingredients. We’re seeking a common sense, science-based solution that will protect consumers, facilitate informed consumer choices, as well as guard against a costly, unnecessary and inefficient state-by-state food labeling system.” (source) The Other Side Of The Coin And Why This Bill Is Ridiculous “As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe.” –Jane Goodall (source) Sure, as the congressman points out, there have been many publications outlining the supposed safety of genetically modified foods. At the same time, there have been just as many publications outlining their potential danger, which makes it clear that they should not be approved completely safe for consumption. The science alone warrants a label, why is this research constantly ignored? “The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.” – David Suzuki, geneticist, academic, environmental activist (source) For example, here is a study, published by Environmental Sciences Europe, linking GMOs to cancer and liver/kidney damage, as well as severe hormonal disruption. You can read more about that story here. (( SEE TOP LINK )) Here is a study a study recently published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September that found a “very strong correlation” between GMOs and two dozen diseases. You can read more about that story here. I could probably post 100 studies, but I’m not going to do your research for you. Feel free to browse through our site or do some research on your own. Numerous concerns have been raised with GMOs that deserve serious attention, and, as Suzuki states in the quote above, should have our food industry/governments labeling these products so consumers know what they are eating. There are so many problems associated with consumption of these crops, and that doesn’t even include the pesticides that go hand in and with GMOs. These have been linked to cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and much more. Here are some studies showing what happens to your body when you switch to organic food. A worldwide movement is currently taking place that has seen millions of activists gather from all over the world, voicing their desire to have a mandatory GMO label on all food. This would provide consumers with an option, a choice, and the awareness that their food was genetically modified. Seems harmless, doesn’t it? After all, nobody can really argue against the fact that we should have a right to know what is in our food, so why not just label it? More than 60 countries across the globe already require mandatory GMO labeling, and it’s time for Canada and the United States to catch up, but it’s not an easy process. I’m going to leave you with this: “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.” – Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario You can learn more about that book and what it’s about, HERE. ((SEE TOP LINK))

http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/oswald_lee_h_pre_russian_period_6_military_service_nov-dec_1963/oswald_lee_h_pre_russian_period_6_military_service_nov-dec_1963.pdf (see page 153 pdf above RE EUGENE PERRY) = On Nov 25 SA J. Richard Nichols contacted Major Robert C. Whitebread of the USMC in an attempt to locate Earl Perry, who knew L'eandes (the actor) and Oswald. Nichols learned that the only Earl Perry on active duty was assigned to the Marine Supply Center in Barstow, CA., and was from El Paso, TX. But on Nov 26, instead of requesting the military file for Earl Eugene Perry (El Paso, TX), SA Leonard Lewis obtained the file for Earl Sheldon Perry from the Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Earl Sheldon Perry was from Casper, Wyoming, joined the US Army in 1954, and was discharged in 1956. The FBI avoided contacting Earl Eugene Perry from El Paso, who was mentioned as an acquaintance of Oswald and L'eandes (the actor) by James Rizzuto, and instead collected information on Earl Sheldon Perry, a former chaplain's assistant in the US Army. The FBI's coverup relating to L'eandes (the actor) and Oswald continued. (H & L site) =============================================================================== In late 1961 and early 1962 Stephen Harris Landesberg, Earl Perry, and (LEE) Oswald were involved in demonstrations in New York City (ARRB Rec. Nos. 124-10058-10262 and 124-10164-10225 and 180-10015-10389). H & L site ,GAAL ---------------------------------------------------

100,000 March in London - Media Covers It Up Here’s how the media works: as thousands march against austerity, the BBC focuses instead on new-age rituals ============== http://russia-insider.com/en/london-protests-covered-british-media/ri8209

Semesters don't end cause YOU want them to Greg. They end when they're done. They usually run from Sept thru Jan - and Feb thru June for a total of 180-190 days. Nothing here is me versus you Gerg... it's a calendar for pete's sake. It's a standard school year. You can't get 127 days into the SPRING 1953 semester. End of story. that these records exactly match the FBI's terrible report is no coincidence Greg. WAKE UP ALREADY !!!! the problem is your inability to find yourself incorrect about anything and even worse, that you can't admit it if you finally do. These years are only critical to the H&L switch and have ZERO to do with the JFK assassination investigation... There are no mistaken identities prior to this time and nothing but conflicts since... As I said before Greg... that you are "Playing Dumb" and refuse to show you can add is only a reflection on who you are mate.... The rest of us know how to count... Apparently you also confuse Mr Tidd. The figures add up. End of story. You and your crowd are the only ones who are trying to force the square peg into the round hole. What you are really saying is that "everyone else, the school and the FBI, should have done the figures the same way I do" Get over it, They didn't. Edit to add: the reason they didn't do "your" way may well be because the not taken in Dec was taken as being his last day there. The fact that he didn't register in NO until later in January is neither here nor nor there. In short, you are trying to add days to PS 44 when as far as the school knew, he had left. There are only 70 days of school available from 3/23 to 6/26 - the remainder of the SPRING 1953 7th grade semester. The above record is a forgery as no school administrator would keep attendance in this manner... after the transfer to PS44 (Manhattan and/or the Bronx) the records go off the rails and are returned to normal starting in Sept 1953... ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] PAUSE AND REFLECT Pause and reflect Pause and reflect THE FBI loses original documents in the MURDER OF THE POTUS......not possible see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306404

Here we go again - relying on clearly faulty memory in preference to all the evidence that states otherwise. Why? Because it suits the agenda. And that agenda has nil to do with "the truth the truth the truth always". Answer in GREEN // its not faulty memory as PARKER STATE but military records which conflict !!! gaal Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun." Really? But you just said "Lee Oswald working at Tujaque from July '55 through August/September '56 (before he joined the Marines in October) created an unexplainable timeline (problem,GAAL)" It certainly is a problem, Gaal, when you can't make up your mind where the conflicts are. Lee Oswald working at Tujaque from July '55 through August/September '56 (before he joined the Marines in October) created an unexplainable timeline (problem,GAAL) for the Warren Commission's version of "Lee Harvey Oswald" because the WC claimed that "Oswald" worked at Tujaques for two months, one week at J.R. Michels, and a few months at the Pfisterer Dental Lab before moving to Ft. Worth in June 1956. // FULL gaal quote >>> no conflict It certainly is a problem, Gaal Parker, when you can't make up your mind where the conflicts facts are ,gaal

Here we go again - relying on clearly faulty memory in preference to all the evidence that states otherwise. Why? Because it suits the agenda. And that agenda has nil to do with "the truth the truth the truth always". Answer in GREEN // its not faulty memory as PARKER STATE but military records which conflict !!! gaal Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun."

Please give us a clue as to which foreign intelligence agents might have wanted Lyndon Johnson to be President, and why. GAAL ANSWER TO RAYMOND CLUE www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256718.pdf (search with coup word and see Khrushchev) Nikita Khrushchev and a fellow with the initials JFK wanted to talk about ending cold war. The USA MIC and LBJ didn't want to end cold war. Russian military didn't want to end cold war. Marina went to Moscow to be a teenage prostitute, caught, turned by intell uncle into Russian honey trap. ( I write this if you want to counter argue - if you say >> "well why didn't they say LHO was a USA spy." (made up RAYMOND QUESTION, gaal) Because the BACK AT YOU GAME THE RUSSIAN INTEL PLAYED BY HOOKING UP MARINA/LHO HAD GONE TO A NEW AND MORE DANGEROUS LEVEL WITH THE ASSASSINATION. gaal

Well, I don't agree with Armstrong's Harvey and Lee analysis, or his theory, or his methodology---and I'm certainly not a lone nutter. DSL Gee DAVID ..Why are you not H & L man ??? THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH always ......gaal ================================== First the H&L excerpt, from p. 128: The duration of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's was established by his former supervisor, Frank DiBenedetto, a long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerard F. Tujague. Frank was not interviewed by the Warren Commission but in 1978 told HSCA investigators, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." NOTE: Frank's memory clearly conflicted with the Wa1Ten Commission, who reported that Oswald worked at Tujague's only two months from November 10, 1955 thru January 14, 1956. In 1995, after reading Frank's statement, I telephoned him in New Orleans and introduced myself. Frank repeated the same story to me that he told to the HSCA years earlier-that Oswald worked at Tujague's for "a year, maybe longer." He also remembered that Oswald quit Tujague's in the summer, when it was hot, so that he could join the Marines. I made an appointment to meet with Frank, and then traveled to New Orleans. When I met Frank he told me that Mr. Tujague died many years ago, and he had taken over the company after his death. T he company office was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and on the same floor where Lee Oswald worked under Frank's supervision 40 years earlier. Frank remembered that (Lee) Oswald lived a couple of blocks away, on Exchange Place, and described him as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. Frank's description was very different from the thin, 4-foot-1 0 inch Harvey Oswald who worked with Maury Goodman, Rita Paveur, and Louis Marzialle at Dolly Shoe only three months earlier. Frank also suggested that I talk to former employee Jimmy Hudnell, who worked at Tujague's at the time of the assassination. When I located Jimmy he told me that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, shortly after the assassination, Mr. Tujague told employees in the office, "The FBI will probably be here soon, so you all can take the rest of the day off. ========================= QUOTE OFF ====================== Then John said (TO JIM HARGROVE) this (approximately... I'm (HARGROVE) not very good at dictation): Frank's memory that Oswald began work at Tujaque's a year before he quit to join the Marines was confirmed by Robert Oswald. In July 1955, Robert Oswald lived for one week with his mother and brother on Exchange St. in New Orleans. Robert wrote in his book, Lee, that his brother was working for an import/export firm at the time. Lee Oswald working at Tujaque from July '55 through August/September '56 (before he joined the Marines in October) created an unexplainable timeline (problem,GAAL) for the Warren Commission's version of "Lee Harvey Oswald" because the WC claimed that "Oswald" worked at Tujaques for two months, one week at J.R. Michels, and a few months at the Pfisterer Dental Lab before moving to Ft. Worth in June 1956. ################################### ###################################}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} ################################### from H & L site ============================ After HARVEY Oswald departed Iwakuni he returned to the United States and was assigned to the Marine Corps Air Facility--MACS 9--near the city of Santa Ana, California (HARVEY was always assigned to Sana Ana, CA; LEE was always assigned to El Toro, CA). HARVEY worked in a radar bubble with Sergeant Nelson Delgado, 5 enlisted men, and 3 officers. Sergeant Erwin Lewis remembered that Oswald transferred to MACS 9 in either October or November, 1958. Lewis said, "It was a matter of common knowledge that Oswald could read, write, and speak Russian. Marine Corps medical records confirm that HARVEY Oswald was at the Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, CA on October 29. But on October 29 LEE Oswald was still in Japan. Four days later, on November 2, LEE Oswald boarded the USS Barrett in Yokoska, Japan for a 13-day voyage to San Francisco. Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun."

meanwhile, 150+ years of data says there is no pause at all, and temperatures are increasing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/ STEVE KNIGHT >>> > PLEASE NOTE YOUR SOURCE A DISCREDITED MAN EVEN COLBY WOULDNT QUOTE. THEN BELOW AN ESSAY ABOUT INCORRECT SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGERS gaal (Steve KNIGHT and Hillary Clinton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G !!) ################################################################## Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents - Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/.../peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-... Loading... Feb 21, 2012 - In a written statement, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, and vocal ... the climate debate in more depth, without once using the words “scam” or ...• Fakegate Illustrates Global Warming Alarmists ... - Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/.../fakegate-illustrates-global-warming-alar... Loading... Feb 22, 2012 - Alarmist scientist Peter Gleick has admitted that the latter two were one and the same ... a fake “2012 Climate Strategy,” that he claims he did not write. ... climate realism message is largely funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever. .... and fundraising documents” on their Web site, your DeSperate dolts ... • The Climate Wars' Damage to Science | Watts Up With That? wattsupwiththat.com/.../the-climate-wars-damage-to... Watts Up With That? Loading... 3 days ago - Nina Teicholz's book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how .... There was the occasion in 2012 when the climate scientist Peter Gleick stole the identity ... landing therefore [climate] science is a hoax”, from which readers might have ..... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2011/12/21/m-i-t-game- • Study: Skeptics reject charity appeals which blame disasters ... wattsupwiththat.com/.../study-skeptics-reject-charity... •Cached Watts Up With That? Loading... 5 days ago - http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/25/washington-is-encouraging-the-..... That is simply why, even if big-name Climate Scientists stood up today and said ..... They tried to add Peter “The Thief and Fraud” Gleick in 2012, but saw the ... ################################################################################################# ################################################################################################# The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science June 19, 2015 They are behaving like sixteenth-century priests who do not think the Bible should be translated into English. essay by Matt Ridley (Note: due to the length of this essay, I am only including paragraph excerpts here. See the link at the end for the full essay. – Anthony) The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested — or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff. Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science. Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas. This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly. What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest. What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press. Cheerleaders for alarm This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. In the 1970s, when global temperatures were cooling, some scientists could not resist the lure of press attention by arguing that a new ice age was imminent. Others called this nonsense and the World Meteorological Organisation rightly refused to endorse the alarm. That’s science working as it should. In the 1980s, as temperatures began to rise again, some of the same scientists dusted off the greenhouse effect and began to argue that runaway warming was now likely. At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate. Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked. These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous. Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral. Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report. Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover. Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem? Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous? Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely. I find that very few people even know of this. Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it’s not happening or it’s dangerous. This suits those with vested interests in renewable energy, since it implies that the only way you would be against their boondoggles is if you “didn’t believe” in climate change. Scandal after scandal The Cook paper is one of many scandals and blunders in climate science. There was the occasion in 2012 when the climate scientist Peter Gleick stole the identity of a member of the (sceptical) Heartland Institute’s board of directors, leaked confidential documents, and included also a “strategy memo” purporting to describe Heartland’s plans, which was a straight forgery. Gleick apologised but continues to be a respected climate scientist. There was Stephan Lewandowsky, then at the University of Western Australia, who published a paper titled “NASA faked the moon landing therefore [climate] science is a hoax”, from which readers might have deduced, in the words of a Guardian headline, that “new research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked”. Yet in fact in the survey for the paper, only ten respondents out of 1145 thought that the moon landing was a hoax, and seven of those did not think climate change was a hoax. A particular irony here is that two of the men who have actually been to the moon are vocal climate sceptics: Harrison Schmitt and Buzz Aldrin. It took years of persistence before physicist Jonathan Jones and political scientist Ruth Dixon even managed to get into print (in March this year) a detailed and devastating critique of the Lewandowsky article’s methodological flaws and bizarre reasoning, with one journal allowing Lewandowsky himself to oppose the publication of their riposte. Lewandowsky published a later paper claiming that the reactions to his previous paper proved he was right, but it was so flawed it had to be retracted. If these examples of odd scientific practice sound too obscure, try Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC for thirteen years and often described as the “world’s top climate scientist”. He once dismissed as “voodoo science” an official report by India’s leading glaciologist, Vijay Raina, because it had challenged a bizarre claim in an IPCC report (citing a WWF report which cited an article in New Scientist), that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The claim originated with Syed Hasnain, who subsequently took a job at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general, and there his glacier claim enabled TERI to win a share of a three-million-euro grant from the European Union. No wonder Dr Pachauri might well not have wanted the 2035 claim challenged. Yet Raina was right, it proved to be the IPCC’s most high-profile blunder, and Dr Pachauri had to withdraw both it and his “voodoo” remark. The scandal led to a highly critical report into the IPCC by several of the world’s top science academics, which recommended among other things that the IPCC chair stand down after one term. Dr Pachauri ignored this, kept his job, toured the world while urging others not to, and published a novel, with steamy scenes of seduction of an older man by young women. (He resigned this year following criminal allegations of sexual misconduct with a twenty-nine-year-old female employee, which he denies, and which are subject to police investigation.) Yet the climate bloggers who constantly smear sceptics managed to avoid even reporting most of this. If you want to follow Dr Pachauri’s career you have to rely on a tireless but self-funded investigative journalist: the Canadian Donna Laframboise. In her chapter in The Facts, Laframboise details how Dr Pachauri has managed to get the world to describe him as a Nobel laureate, even though this is simply not true. Notice, by the way, how many of these fearless free-thinkers prepared to tell emperors they are naked are women. Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, has steadfastly exposed the myth-making that goes into polar bear alarmism, to the obvious discomfort of the doyens of that field. Jennifer Marohasy of Central Queensland University, by persistently asking why cooling trends recorded at Australian weather stations with no recorded moves were being altered to warming trends, has embarrassed the Bureau of Meteorology into a review of their procedures. Her chapter in The Facts underlines the failure of computer models to predict rainfall. But male sceptics have scored successes too. There was the case of the paper the IPCC relied upon to show that urban heat islands (the fact that cities are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside, so urbanisation causes local, but not global, warming) had not exaggerated recent warming. This paper turned out—as the sceptic Doug Keenan proved—to be based partly on non-existent data on forty-nine weather stations in China. When corrected, it emerged that the urban heat island effect actually accounted for 40 per cent of the warming in China. There was the Scandinavian lake sediment core that was cited as evidence of sudden recent warming, when it was actually being used “upside down”—the opposite way the authors of the study thought it should be used: so if anything it showed cooling. There was the graph showing unprecedented recent warming that turned out to depend on just one larch tree in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. There was the southern hemisphere hockey-stick that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series. There was the infamous “hide the decline” incident when a tree-ring-derived graph had been truncated to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling. And of course there was the mother of all scandals, the “hockey stick” itself: a graph that purported to show the warming of the last three decades of the twentieth century as unprecedented in a millennium, a graph that the IPCC was so thrilled with that it published it six times in its third assessment report and displayed it behind the IPCC chairman at his press conference. It was a graph that persuaded me to abandon my scepticism (until I found out about its flaws), because I thought Nature magazine would never have published it without checking. And it is a graph that was systematically shown by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to be wholly misleading, as McKitrick recounts in glorious detail in his chapter in The Facts. Its hockey-stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south-west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey-stick shaped graph. Yet bristlecone tree-rings do not, according to those who collected the data, reflect temperature at all. What is more, the scientist behind the original paper, Michael Mann, had known all along that his data depended heavily on these inappropriate trees and a few other series, because when finally prevailed upon to release his data he accidentally included a file called “censored” that proved as much: he had tested the effect of removing the bristlecone pine series and one other, and found that the hockey-stick shape disappeared. In March this year Dr Mann published a paper claiming the Gulf Stream was slowing down. This garnered headlines all across the world. Astonishingly, his evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down came not from the Gulf Stream, but from “proxies” which included—yes—bristlecone pine trees in Arizona, upside-down lake sediments in Scandinavia and larch trees in Siberia. The democratisation of science Any one of these scandals in, say, medicine might result in suspensions, inquiries or retractions. Yet the climate scientific establishment repeatedly reacts as if nothing is wrong. It calls out any errors on the lukewarming end, but ignores those on the exaggeration end. That complacency has shocked me, and done more than anything else to weaken my long-standing support for science as an institution. I repeat that I am not a full sceptic of climate change, let alone a “denier”. I think carbon-dioxide-induced warming during this century is likely, though I think it is unlikely to prove rapid and dangerous. So I don’t agree with those who say the warming is all natural, or all driven by the sun, or only an artefact of bad measurement, but nor do I think anything excuses bad scientific practice in support of the carbon dioxide theory, and every time one of these scandals erupts and the scientific establishment asks us to ignore it, I wonder if the extreme sceptics are not on to something. I feel genuinely betrayed by the profession that I have spent so much of my career championing. There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. It is no accident that sceptic sites keep winning the “Bloggies” awards. There is nothing quite like them for massive traffic, rich debate and genuinely open peer review. Following Steven McIntyre on tree rings, Anthony Watts or Paul Homewood on temperature records, Judith Curry on uncertainty, Willis Eschenbach on clouds or ice cores, or Andrew Montford on media coverage has been one of the delights of recent years for those interested in science. Papers that had passed formal peer review and been published in journals have nonetheless been torn apart in minutes on the blogs. There was the time Steven McIntyre found that an Antarctic temperature trend arose “entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together”. Or when Willis Eschenbach showed a published chart had “cut the modern end of the ice core carbon dioxide record short, right at the time when carbon dioxide started to rise again” about 8000 years ago, thus omitting the startling but inconvenient fact that carbon dioxide levels rose while temperatures fell over the following millennia. Scientists don’t like this lèse majesté, of course. But it’s the citizen science that the internet has long promised. This is what eavesdropping on science should be like—following the twists and turns of each story, the ripostes and counter-ripostes, making up your own mind based on the evidence. And that is precisely what the non-sceptical side just does not get. Its bloggers are almost universally wearily condescending. They are behaving like sixteenth-century priests who do not think the Bible should be translated into English. Renegade heretics in science itself are especially targeted. The BBC was subjected to torrents of abuse for even interviewing Bob Carter, a distinguished geologist and climate science expert who does not toe the alarmed line and who is one of the editors of Climate Change Reconsidered, a serious and comprehensive survey of the state of climate science organised by the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change and ignored by the mainstream media. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech moved from alarm to mild scepticism and has endured vitriolic criticism for it. She recently wrote: There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. The closing of minds on the climate change issue is a tragedy for both science and society. The distinguished Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson was so frightened for his own family and his health after he announced last year that he was joining the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that he withdrew, saying, “It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” The astrophysicist Willie Soon was falsely accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal, an accusation widely repeated by mainstream media. … The harm to science I dread to think what harm this episode will have done to the reputation of science in general when the dust has settled. Science will need a reformation. Garth Paltridge is a distinguished Australian climate scientist, who, in The Facts, pens a wise paragraph that I fear will be the epitaph of climate science: We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour. And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago, while the number who worry “not at all” has doubled from 12 per cent to 24 per cent—and now exceeds the number who worry “only a little” or “a fair amount”. All that fear-mongering has achieved less than nothing: if anything it has hardened scepticism. None of this would matter if it was just scientific inquiry, though that rarely comes cheap in itself. The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods. They want us to spend a fortune getting emissions down as soon as possible. And they want us to do that even if it hurts poor people today, because, they say, their grandchildren (who, as Nigel Lawson points out, in The Facts, and their models assume, are going to be very wealthy) matter more. Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern. That seems wrong to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Ridley is an English science journalist whose books include The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. A member of the House of Lords, he has a website at == http://www.mattridley.co.uk. He declares an interest in coal through the leasing of land for mining. == Read the full essay here: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/

Obama Wants Regime Change In Ecuador http://www.rense.com/general96/obwantsreg.html By Stephen Lendman 6-21-15 Obama is no man of the people. He never was throughout his political career. He serves powerful monied interests exclusively. As an Illinois state senator, he represented Chicago real estate interests at the expense of Black communities they wanted gentrified. He disgraces the office he holds. He remains a front man for wealth, power and privilege. Earlier, Partnership for Civil Justice Fund executive director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the "defining feature of (his presidency) the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs. He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals." His agenda mocks democratic values, rule of law principles and social justice. It includes endless wars, corporate favoritism, anti-populism, harsh crackdowns on nonbelievers and replacing all sovereign independent governments with ones Washington controls. Ecuador is one of many targeted countries. Previous articles discussed ongoing street protests on the phony pretext of inheritance and capital tax increases solely affecting the nation's wealthy - about 2% of the population. If not this issue, another would have been invented. What's happening on Ecuadorean streets is a US-orchestrated right-wing rebellion by the nation's privileged few against everyone else in the country. Whenever instability erupts almost anywhere, especially in the Americas, the Middle East or related to Russia and China, chances are America's dirty hands are involved. Ecuador is the latest example - and not for the first time. It's easy understanding why President Raphael Correa is targeted for regime change. He partly opposes Western-style neoliberal harshness but not entirely. Diverging even somewhat from Washington orthodoxy makes him a marked man. Like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, he represents the threat of a good example. He's a University of Illinois educated economist - receiving his doctorate in 2001. He taught economics at the University of San Francisco in Quito, served as an Ecuadorean economic advisor to state and international agencies, then economy and finance minister in 2005. In 2006, he was elected president. His tenure began in January 2007. He's been reelected twice. Like Hugo Chavez, he calls himself an advocate of "socialism of the 21st century." James Petras explains he "combine(s) ‘nationalist populist’ and neo-liberal policies more than" the socialism he proclaims. In February 2013, a Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) paper prepared by Mark Weisbrot, Jake Johnston and Stephan Lefebvre examined financial and regulatory reforms during his first five years in office. They called them "perhaps the most comprehensive of any country in the 21st century" - including controlling the nations central bank, regulating capital outflows, taxing financial interests, encouraging domestic investment and cooperatives, as well as instituting consumer protections. CEPR analysts called it "Ecuador's New Deal," saying it played a major role in stimulating economic growth, increasing government revenue, substantially reducing poverty and unemployment, as well as achieving other economic and social indicator improvements. Weisbrot said "Ecuador has gone against the conventional wisdom and shown that there are alternatives." "By pursuing policies that have prioritized economic development, employment, and poverty reduction over financial and foreign interests, Ecuador has surmounted some of the problems that had previously held it back, and that have hampered progress in other countries. (Correa's) tenacity and courage served (Ecuador) well." Large spending increases in housing, healthcare and other social areas were instituted. Education funding as a percent of GDP more than doubled. An important redistributive cash-transfer program increased by one-fourth. A democratically elected Constituent Assembly new constitution was adopted by national referendum. Measures introduced included citizen-initiated referendums, increased access to healthcare and education, improved worker rights, more equitable distribution of income, fair as opposed to so-called "free" trade, and environmental protections. Things are far from perfect in Ecuador. Business interests retain considerable power. Revolutionary change has a long way to go for greater equity. Yet overall conditions improved greatly under Correa. How much further he may shift from destructive neoliberal policies remains to be seen. CEPR analysts concluded the following: "What is most remarkable is that many of (Correa's) reforms were unorthodox or against the prevailing wisdom of what governments are supposed to do in order to promote economic progress." "Taking executive control over the central bank, defaulting on one-third of the foreign debt, increasing regulation and taxation of the financial sector, increasing restrictions on international capital flows, greatly expanding the size and role of government - these are measures that are supposed to lead to economic ruin." "The conventional wisdom is also that it is most important to please investors, including foreign creditors, which this government clearly did not do." "While not all of Ecuador’s reforms went against orthodox policy advice, many of them did - and they succeeded. It should be no surprise that Correa" remains hugely popular. He showed "that a government committed to reform of the financial system, can - with popular support - confront an alliance of powerful, entrenched financial, political, and media interests and win." "The government also took on powerful international interests as well, in its foreign debt default, its renegotiation of oil contracts, and its refusal to renew the concession for one of the United States' few remaining military bases in South America." It shows doing the right thing works. It bears repeating. It's why Washington wants Correa ousted. It tolerates no government diverging from so-called free market economics - prioritizing gross inequality, everything for elite interests, crumbs for all others. US-orchestrated destabilizing anti-Correa protests continue - a revolt of wealth and privilege against populism. A week ago, opposition caravans tried blocking his return from a European CELAC-EU summit. He temporarily suspended his announced capital gains and inheritance tax increases, called for national dialogue, and said he'll call for rescinding them if popular sentiment disapproves. Opposition elements refused his outreach. They want him replaced. Protests continue. Planning and Development Secretary Pabel Munoz said "(w)e are opening a national debate about what type of country we want to have." "There are two models that are being disputed that we need to see. A model where people agree that a few families should accumulate a lot of wealth, but maybe also we will see a lot of Ecuadoreans who want want to work towards a more just society." Pro-government supporters along with Ecuadorean social movements welcomed a national debate. Forums and door-to-door community campaigns are planned. Secretary General of Ecuador's Communist Party Paul Almeida Pozo said "(w)e have decided to join this national dialogue, but we believe that (it) should not just be focused on these two laws, but we believe that the Citizen's Revolution has to assume a new historic moment." "We need to make this dialogue into an evaluation of what the Citizen's Revolution is, and the advances it has had." Ecuador's business community opposes national dialogue. Its members won't participate. They want wealth redistribution measures rescinded. They want beneficial social and economic change entirely abandoned - with full support from Washington.

The Fukushima Cover-Up ----------------------------------------------- http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Fukushima_Cover-Up/44657/0/38/38/Y/M.html ====== Robert Hunziker writes at CounterPunch: === Fukushima will likely go down in history as the biggest cover-up of the 21st Century. Governments and corporations are not leveling with citizens about the risks and dangers; similarly, truth itself, as an ethical standard, is at risk of going to shambles as the glue that holds together the trust and belief in society’s institutions. Ultimately, this is an example of how societies fail. Tens of thousands of Fukushima residents remain in temporary housing more than four years after the horrific disaster of March 2011. Some areas on the outskirts of Fukushima have officially reopened to former residents, but many of those former residents are reluctant to return home because of widespread distrust of government claims that it is okay and safe. Part of this reluctance has to do with radiation’s symptoms. It is insidious because it cannot be detected by human senses. People are not biologically equipped to feel its power, or see, or hear, touch or smell it (Caldicott). Not only that, it slowly accumulates over time in a dastardly fashion that serves to hide its effects until it is too late. … In late 2014, Helen Caldicott, M.D. gave a speech about Fukushima at Seattle Town Hall (9/28/14). Pirate Television recorded her speech; here’s the link: Dr. Helen Caldicott is co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and she is author/editor of Crisis Without End: The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, The New Press, September 2014. For over four decades Dr. Caldicott has been the embodiment of the anti-nuclear banner, and as such, many people around the world classify her as a “national treasure”. She’s truthful and honest and knowledgeable. Fukushima is literally a time bomb in quiescence. Another powerful quake and all hell could break loose. Also, it is not even close to being under control. Rather, it is totally out of control. According to Dr. Caldicott, “It’s still possible that Tokyo may have to be evacuated, depending upon how things go.” Imagine that! According to Japan Times as of March 11, 2015: “There have been quite a few accidents and problems at the Fukushima plant in the past year, and we need to face the reality that they are causing anxiety and anger among people in Fukushima, as explained by Shunichi Tanaka at the Nuclear Regulation Authority. Furthermore, Mr. Tanaka said, there are numerous risks that could cause various accidents and problems.” Even more ominously, Seiichi Mizuno, a former member of Japan’s House of Councillors (Upper House of Parliament, 1995-2001) in March 2015 said: “The biggest problem is the melt-through of reactor cores… We have groundwater contamination… The idea that the contaminated water is somehow blocked in the harbor is especially absurd. It is leaking directly into the ocean. There’s evidence of more than 40 known hotspot areas where extremely contaminated water is flowing directly into the ocean… We face huge problems with no prospect of solution.” (Source: Nuclear Hotseat #194: Fukushima 4th Anniversary – Voices from Japan, March 10, 2015, http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/2468/) At Fukushima, each reactor required one million gallons of water per minute for cooling, but when the tsunami hit, the backup diesel generators were drowned. Units 1, 2, and 3 had meltdowns within days. There were four hydrogen explosions. Thereafter, the melting cores burrowed into the container vessels, maybe into the earth. According to Dr. Caldicott, “One hundred tons of terribly hot radioactive lava has already gone into the earth or somewhere within the container vessels, which are all cracked and broken.” Nobody really knows for sure where the hot radioactive lava resides. The scary unanswered question: Is it the China Syndrome? Following the meltdown, the Japanese government did not inform people of the ambient levels of radiation that blew back onto the island. Unfortunately and mistakenly, people fled away from the reactors to the highest radiation levels on the island at the time. As the disaster happened, enormous levels of radiation hit Tokyo. The highest radiation detected in the Tokyo Metro area was in Saitama with cesium radiation levels detected at 919,000 becquerel (Bq) per square meter, a level almost twice as high as Chernobyl’s “permanent dead zone evacuation limit of 500,000 Bq” (source: Radiation Defense Project). For that reason, Dr. Caldicott strongly advises against travel to Japan and recommends avoiding Japanese food. Even so, post the Fukushima disaster, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed an agreement with Japan that the U.S. would continue importing Japanese foodstuff. Therefore, Dr. Caldicott suggests people not vote for Hillary Clinton. One reckless dangerous precedent is enough for her. According to Arnie Gundersen, an energy advisor with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, as reported in The Canadian on August 15, 2011: “The US government has come up with a decision at the highest levels of the State Department, as well as other departments who made a decision to downplay Fukushima. In April, the month after the powerful tsunami and earthquake crippled Japan including its nuclear power plant, Hillary Clinton signed a pact with Japan that she agreed there is no problem with Japanese food supply and we will continue to buy them. So, we are not sampling food coming in from Japan.” However, in stark contrast to the United States, in Europe Angela Merkel, PhD physics, University of Leipzig and current chancellor of Germany is shutting down all nuclear reactors because of Fukushima. Maybe an advanced degree in physics makes the difference in how a leader approaches the nuclear power issue. It certainly looks that way when comparing/contrasting the two pantsuit-wearing leaders, Chancellor Merkel and former secretary of state Clinton. After the Fukushima blow up, ambient levels of radiation in Washington State went up 40,000 times above normal, but according to Dr. Caldicott, the U.S. media does not cover the “ongoing Fukushima mess.” So, who would really know? Dr. Caldicott ended her speech on Sept. 2014 by saying: “In Fukushima, it is not over. Everyday, four hundred tons of highly radioactive water pours into the Pacific and heads towards the U.S. Because the radiation accumulates in fish, we get that too. The U.S. government is not testing the water, not testing the fish, and not testing the ambient air. Also, people in Japan are eating radiation every day.” Furthermore, according to Dr. Caldicott: “Rainwater washes over the nuclear cores into the Pacific. There is no way they can get to those cores, men die, robots get fried. Fukushima will never be solved. Meanwhile, people are still living in highly radioactive areas.” Fukushima will never be solved because “men die” and “robots get fried.” By the sounds of it, Fukushima is a perpetual radiation meltdown scenario that literally sets on the edge of a bottomless doomsday pit, in waiting to be nudged over. UN All-Clear Report A UN (UNSCEAR) report on April 2, 2014 on health impacts of the Fukushima accident concluded that any radiation-induced effects would be too small to identify. People were well protected and received “low or very low” radiation doses. UNSCEAR gave an all-clear report. Rebuttal of the UNSCEAR report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War d/d July 18, 2014 takes a defiant stance in opposition to the UN report, to wit: “The Fukushima nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite the declaration of ‘cold shutdown’ by the Japanese government in December 2011, the crippled reactors have not yet achieved a stable status and even UNSCEAR admits that emissions of radioisotopes are continuing unabated. 188 TEPCO is struggling with an enormous amount of contaminated water, which continues to leak into the surrounding soil and sea. Large quantities of contaminated cooling water are accumulating at the site. Failures in the makeshift cooling systems are occurring repeatedly. The discharge of radioactive waste will most likely continue for a long time.” “Both the damaged nuclear reactors and the spent fuel ponds contain vast amounts of radioactivity and are highly vulnerable to further earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and human error. Catastrophic releases of radioactivity could occur at any time and eliminating this risk will take many decades… It is impossible at this point in time to come up with an exact prognosis of the effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster will have on the population in Japan… the UNSCEAR report represents a systematic underestimation and conjures up an illusion of scientific certainty that obscures the true impact of the nuclear catastrophe on health and the environment.” ==== To read the full text of the rejoinder to the UN report, go to: https://japansafety.wordpress.com/tag/saitama/

Larry Hancock, on 21 Jun 2015 - 06:46 AM, said: Steven, that incident, if true, has nothing to do with the CIA, Bureau counter intelligence is a totally different matter and of course speculation is just that. Hosty himself received no such broad orders from his supervisor, according to his own statements and his own book - what he was ordered to do was destroy evidence of certain FBI contact with Oswald and that would be a different matter entirely, having to do with the FBI and certainly not the CIA. It would have nothing to do with a Bureau level effort to destroy Oswald's life records to cover up a secret CIA project. Still if you could name the FBI CI guy who John references and give a source for that exchange with Hosty it would be interesting and we know enough about the FBI figures involved that it might be a lead.// HANCOCK =========================== HANCOCK IS TALKING ABOUT FBI CIA RELATIONSHIPS and coverup. IM POINTING OUT RELATIONS POST ASSASSINATION ARE COMPLEX VIA PAYOFFS and WOULD MOTIVATE A COVERUP gaal The FBI and CIA relationships can be a tricky problem. Belmont went to the HOOVER INSTITUTE in 1965 and sat with John Dulles on the board (and also sat a Tenneco head) // TSBD Elsie Dorman son got job at Tenneco. BELMONT IS GIVEN A POST ASSASSINATION PAYOFF . (ISNT THAT CLEAR KATHY ?? ) THEN I MENTION DORMAN'S SON GIVEN A EXECUTIVE JOB. THE SON IS GIVEN A POST ASSASSINATION PAYOFF. // gaal ####################################################################################### Mr. Hancock WHO STOPS (FOR OFF RECORD) THE ROBERT OSWALD WC INTERVIEW WHEN STRIPLING IS BROUGHT UP BY BROTHER ROBERT ?? ANSWER ALLEN DULLES.

The FBI and CIA relationships can be a tricky problem. Belmont went to the HOOVER INSTITUTE in 1965 and sat with John Dulles on the board (and a Tenneco head // TSBD Elsie Dorman son got job Tenneco) I recall its "The Men Who Kiled Kennedy" (Nigel Turner) Hosty interview as source. GAAL see page 4 Dorman son http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mack%20Gary%20Cover-up/Item%2015.pdf http://www.walkersresearch.com/profilePages/Show_Executive_Title/Executiveprofile/J/James_H_Dorman_100022310.html https://theredpillguide.wordpress.com/tag/occidental-petroleum-and-tenneco/

Ruth Paine & PARKER sitting in a tree K I S S I N G gaal ================================================== cred·i·bil·i·ty /ˌkredəˈbilədē/ noun noun: credibility the quality of being trusted and believed in. "the government's loss of credibility" synonyms: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity; More reputation, status "does he possess the moral credibility the party is looking for?" •the quality of being convincing or believable. "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility" synonyms: plausibility, believability, tenability, probability, feasibility, likelihood, credence; More authority, cogency "the whole tale lacks credibility" •another term for street credibility. ==================================== credibility of CIA assets when the entire reputation/existence of CIA on the line >>>>>>>>>> ZERO gaal

Larry Hancock, on 20 Jun 2015 - 7:27 PM, said: David, your mention of the FBI and records falsification brought something to mind....I have read Armstrong's book, at the moment it is on loan and I surely can't pretend to remember the bulk of its detail. But your remark made me wonder about the following - does John address the issues below: Assuming that there was an intensely secret and covert dual identity project launched by the CIA it would surely be extremely compartmentalized even within the Agency. And I have no doubt any such secret would be even more closely kept after the assassination. We know that on even comparatively minor things such as a relationship with Kostikov, CIA officers lied internally, refusing to acknowledge it - when caught on it later they claimed legal authority given Agency secrecy rules, even to an internal investigation, and that was accepted. Also, we know that generally the CIA was less than likely to share important intel with the FBI, as Hoover well knew. So the question is, why would the FBI care about falsifying records relating to two Oswald's, why, how and when would they even know there were two Oswalds and if they were informed about that following the assassination, are there any indications that they were actually directed to cover up a top secret CIA activity? Hoover had been perfectly ready to bust CIA chops on things like the Roselli/Castro plot, even alerting RFK to it - so did Armstrong find any indication of how the FBI was brought in to cover for the CIA following the assassination? ========================================================================== Gee Mr. Hancock if the FBI used LHO in someway (and the CIA would know it since they are the main people using LHO) Its a standoff via FBI & CIA and thus both cover up & fake/remove evidence to create the LHO patsy legend. GAAL =================== Actually I was looking for something a little deeper than that Steven, and specifically something from John's work - possibly with a bit of detail. Hancock #################### #################### ON PAGE 894 H & L (paraphrase) =================== end LHO 1st interrogation FBI Hosty approached by FBI CI agent who ordered him no further discussion with Oz and conduct no investigation into Oz background. Armstrong speculates Oz was started as PSI when Oz (Harvey) in Soviet Union. GAAL

Gee Mr. Hancock if the FBI used LHO in someway (and the CIA would know it since they are the main people using LHO) Its a standoff via FBI & CIA and thus both cover up & fake/remove evidence to create the LHO patsy legend. GAAL

Huge anti-austerity rallies in England http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_70731.shtml

UK food poverty rising at alarming rate = http://www.sustainweb.org/news/jun15_/ New data shows an alarming increase in food poverty and food bank use in the UK, with proposed benefits cuts threatening to plunge 40,000 more children below the poverty line. Join the Sustainable Food Cities call for urgent action on benefits cuts, sanctions and low wages by signing the food poverty declaration. From 2010-11 to 2013-14 the UK sunk from 12th to 17th position in the European measurement of food poverty. The UK now trails Portugal, Cyprus and Ireland, with more than 5.5 million Britons unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day. This data confirms that food bank visits – which topped 1 million this year – is just the tip of the iceberg in food poverty in the UK. These alarming figures are likely to get significantly worse. A leaked internal memo shows that the government’s plans to lower the benefit cap will plunge 40,000 more children below the official poverty line. Join the Sustainable Food Cities call for urgent action on benefits cuts, sanctions and low wages by signing the food poverty declaration.

NBC: Sea creatures swarming ashore from San Diego to San Fran. — CBS: Millions of dead blanketing miles of coastline, “like a red carpet… 12-16 inches thick… never seen anything like this” — ABC: We wonder if they’re sick, or it’s something in ocean? Scientists don’t have an explanation (PICS & VIDEO) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://enenews.com/nbc-sea-creatures-swarming-ashore-san-diego-san-francisco-cbs-millions-dead-crabs-blanketing-miles-shoreline-like-red-carpet-foot-to16-inches-thick-ive-never-anything-like-abc-wondering-whats-wr

Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination = http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/thousands-of-teenage-girls-enduring-debilitating-illnesses-after-routine-school-cancer-vaccination-10286876.html

Ain't That Amerika: Routine State Terrorism in the Imperial Capital = http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=51290 = by William Norman Grigg = The eleven-year-old girl shrieked in horror as the shower curtain was ripped away, leaving her exposed to the view of a large male stranger. Her sense of violation was compounded by the threat of immediate, violent death: The marauder was wearing body armor and aiming an assault rifle at the naked, terrified child. Downstairs, the offender's comrades were ransacking the house and barking profane orders at the traumatized child's family. Sterling Harrison, her 19-year-old brother, was sitting in front of a game console when three of the invaders burst into his upstairs room, bound him, and shoved him down the stairway. Her terrified siblings – one thirteen years of age, the other seven – were corralled and imprisoned at gunpoint in the living room along with the rest of the family. The invaders were police, of course. Nobody in the home was suspected of committing a criminal offense. No evidence of criminal misconduct was found. The SWAT raid was carried out after 10:00 PM, in violation of municipal ordinances. The rationale for this act of state terrorism was the drug-related arrest, nearly two weeks earlier, of Mordsen Box, the 11-year-old girl's estranged father, who hadn't resided at the address for several months. This after-dark military raid took place at a residence located less than three miles from the White House. Thirteen days before the raid, Mr. Box was arrested by Metro D.C. Police after five ounces of marijuana were found following a pretext traffic stop. Officer Taylor Volpe, who conducted the stop, claimed – falsely, according to the family’s lawsuit against the MPD – that the rear license plate of Box's car was partially obstructed by a plastic cover. Once the stop was underway, Volpe – in keeping with his indoctrination as an opportunistic road pirate – asked if there was “anything illegal” in the vehicle. Like countless others in similar situations, Box made the tragic mistake of answering a question the officer had no right to ask. He stated that he wasn't “aware” of anything illegal in his car, and that Volpe could carry out the search “if you have to.” “OK, so I can look?” Volpe reiterated, inducing the intimidated driver to make his consent explicit. Within seconds the officer had found the marijuana, which was confiscated along with $180 in cash that was found in Box's wallet. His expired driver's license listed 1054 Quebec Place NW as his home address. Both Mr. Box and his domestic situation were well-known to the local police. During the weeks leading up to the April 18, 2013 raid, police had paid two visits to the home while searching for Box. On both occasions family members explained that Box didn't live at the address. Those facts were carefully omitted by Volpe in the search warrant application filed after the traffic stop. Among the falsehoods included in Volpe's affidavit was the claim that a “utility listing” was found for Volpe at that address. In fact, all of the utilities were listed in the name of Shandalyn Harrison, Box's ex-girlfriend. Invoking his “experience,” “knowledge,” and “training,” Volpe insisted that a search of the residence was justified by the supposed likelihood that a large quantity of narcotics and drug proceeds would be found at the residence. For too many judges, the rote recitation of such claims will obviate the need for actual evidence. “In many dozens of other warrant applications sworn by MPD officers to different Superior Court judges in the one-year period, MPD officers similarly claimed under oath, based on the same `training' and `experience,' that a broad category of people referred to as `drug traffickers' attempt to hide the evidence of their criminal activities in other places that are not their own home,” notes the lawsuit filed on behalf of Harrison and her children. “These statements of `training' and `experience' thus purportedly give agents of the District's government the ability to raid and search multiple homes and other locations for every traffic stop or street arrest in which they find contraband.” At the time he filled out his warrant application, Taylor Volpe was a rookie officer with the MPD. He was assimilated into the department’s institutional culture very quickly. In July 2013, just weeks after the home invasion that grew out of Volpe’s affidavit, the officer was given a “Rookie of the Year” award by the 5th District Citizen’s Advisory Council of the MPD. Those to whom that award is given “are acknowledged … by cops who know good police work when they see it (and work alongside it),” observed the Council. Given their standards of behavior, Volpe and his comrades would be suitable for employment in some of the worst Third World despotisms. In fact, they might be a bit over-qualified. Saddam Hussein famously said that “Law consists of two lines above my signature.” For the DC Metro Police, and the pathologically indifferent judges who enable them, “Probable Cause” consists of whatever speculative, unsubstantiated claims an officer makes, as long as they are prefaced with a reference to his “experience and training.” The result is an enforcement regime in which police in the nation's Capital behave in a manner indistinguishable from U.S. soldiers carrying out raids against the families of “suspected militants” in occupied Baghdad. Sexual humiliation of captives during a judicially authorized home invasion appears to be a standard element of the ritual. About three weeks before Ms. Harrison's 11-year-old daughter was dragged naked from the shower by an armored, masked assailant, Michael Pitts was thrown to the floor of his home by SWAT operators who tore off his pants and “probed his naked genitals and anal cavity” in front of his disabled mother. The 37-year old Pitts was in the kitchen cooking for his bedridden mother when the Berserkers kicked open the front door. The rationale for this home invasion was the arrest, three days earlier in a different location, of Pitts' uncle Tyrone, who had been detained on the streets without probable cause by officers who demanded that the 64-year-old man submit to a body search. The pedestrian, who was not suspected of committing a violent crime, was arrested after the officers found a gun. In the subsequent search warrant affidavit, Officer Mark Pugh listed not a single “particularized fact suggesting that guns, ammunition, or other contraband would be present in the Pitts' home,” the family pointed out in its lawsuit against the MPD. It provided only “generic and conclusory claims that, based on their `training' and `experience,' [police] are likely to find guns, ammunition, and other firearms accessories in a person's home after an arrest for gun possession is made away from the home.” Neither firearms, ammunition, nor evidence of criminal wrongdoing were found during the raid – and as Michael Pitts can testify, the search was nothing if not thorough. Neither Officer Pugh nor his comrades bothered to explain how a body cavity search could produce evidence of a weapons-related offense. Presumably, their “training and experience” authorize them to inflict pointless humiliation of that kind, and their “qualified immunity” protects them against civil and criminal liability for such actions. Ella Lane, a 71-year-old woman whose home was raided in October 2012, endured a different variety of sadistic abuse. The elderly woman, who had been watching television when her door was broken down by the SWAT team, was dragged to her front lawn and held, at gunpoint, in view of her neighbors for six hours while occupation troops ransacked the home in which she had lived for 37 years. During that time she was not allowed to eat, drink, or use the restroom. Once again, the invaders failed to find any evidence of criminal activity. As they left the shattered home, one of the Stormtroopers told Lane that if he were ever called back to the house, he would “make sure that she lost her home,” recounts a lawsuit filed against the department. As in the case of Tyrone Pitts and his family, this SWAT raid grew out of a warrantless search in which a gun was discovered. The subject of the earlier arrest – a 28-year-old man named Terrence Crossland – was the victim's grandson. Crossland and two friends were smoking on the sidewalk when they were accosted by officers from an MPD Vice unit. Crossland was arrested for violating the District’s open container law after one of the officers found a gun in a jacket belonging to one of his friends. It was on this basis that Officer John Wright swore out a formulaic and perjurious affidavit claiming that because of his “training and experience” he just knew that “persons involved in illegal activities maintain books, records, documentation and other papers relating to the ordering, sales, and servicing of their firearms.” He didn’t even bother pretending that Crossland’s friend lived in Lane’s house; he simply used the only address he could find. Attorney Alec Karakatsanis, who filed the civil complaint on Lane's behalf, correctly observes that “it was not and is not illegal to possess a firearm at one's home in the District. Nowhere did [Officer] Wright allege … that the residents of the home did not possess valid licenses or that they had been disqualified from lawful firearms ownership.” Nor did he establish a basis for treating Mrs. Lane as a suspect in a crime: Her only involvement in this matter consisted of living in a home near the scene of the arrest. As Karakatsanis points out, Wright's warrant application “sought permission for what amounted to a Colonial Era general warrant, requesting that `a Search Warrant be issued for the entire premises … for any other evidence of a crime that may be found.'” General warrants of the kind routinely used by Washington's Metro PD figured very prominently in the angry letter sent to London by Jefferson and his colleagues explaining the moral basis for the use of lethal defensive force against colonial-era law enforcement officers. That comparison is unfair, given that colonial-era Redcoats tended to be more restrained than contemporary American police officers, and they were also more liable to punishment for any abuses they committed. A more appropriate comparison would be to the behavior and methods employed by the Regime's occupation forces overseas. The MPD's warrant applications adapt the “pattern of life analysis” used in counterinsurgency operations – both Special Forces raids and drone strikes. “Probable cause” isn't necessary to authorize such measures. All that is required to unleash the strike teams or dispatch the drones is for analysts to establish connections of some kind – kinship, known association, a single cell phone conversation or text message – between a potential target and a “suspected militant.” In the fashion of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, anybody who is killed or injured in the operation is classified as either a “militant” or an associate of one. Unlike the residents of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Area, people living in D.C.’s majority-black neighborhoods aren’t terrorized by the Empire’s robotic heralds of mass destruction. They are merely haunted by the knowledge that police can invade their home without cause, strip-search them in front of their families, or drag their naked, screaming grade school-age daughters out of the shower – and then threaten them with the loss of their home if they pay a return visit. The three incidents described above, which are typical of the estimated 80-124 SWAT raids that occur every day in the American Soyuz, took place within a ten-mile radius of the White House. Two of those raids, interestingly, were carried out a few months before Miriam Carey was executed in the streets of Washington, D.C. after inadvertently driving through a traffic barricade near the White House. No other country endures routine state terrorism of this variety. Perhaps we should consider this one facet of “American Exceptionalism.”

Simple hydrogen storage solution is powered by solar energy = http://phys.org/news/2015-06-simple-hydrogen-storage-solution-powered.html Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-simple-hydrogen-storage-solution-powered.html#jCp

READERS PLEASE SCHOOL THIS from H & L site ============================ After HARVEY Oswald departed Iwakuni he returned to the United States and was assigned to the Marine Corps Air Facility--MACS 9--near the city of Santa Ana, California (HARVEY was always assigned to Sana Ana, CA; LEE was always assigned to El Toro, CA). HARVEY worked in a radar bubble with Sergeant Nelson Delgado, 5 enlisted men, and 3 officers. Sergeant Erwin Lewis remembered that Oswald transferred to MACS 9 in either October or November, 1958. Lewis said, "It was a matter of common knowledge that Oswald could read, write, and speak Russian. Marine Corps medical records confirm that HARVEY Oswald was at the Marine Corps Air Facility in Santa Ana, CA on October 29. But on October 29 LEE Oswald was still in Japan. Four days later, on November 2, LEE Oswald boarded the USS Barrett in Yokoska, Japan for a 13-day voyage to San Francisco. Marine corps medical records that show HARVEY Oswald was in California on October 29, 1958, while military records that show that LEE Oswald was in Japan and departed on November 2, 1958--an obvious "smoking gun."