DEPOPULATION - what elites want -

[Len Colby]

I asked you to "get back to us with any qualified experts who say such devices could be used to surreptitiously kill large swaths of humanity and that the symptoms could be mistaken as being of biological origin // COLBY Not simply that they could be potentially dangerous. The rest of your post is disjointed rambling.

[Steven Gaal]

"get back to us with any qualified experts who say such devices could be used to surreptitiously

_{// Colby}

ALERT !! ALERT !! DEPOPULATION WILL NOT BE AN OVERT OPERATION !!

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

GOLLY YOU WANT THE INNER SECRET PAPERS OF THE NWO ????

see

https://docs.google....kyZLerAcpnlNFug

==============

see

http://www.space.com...ce-weapons.html

===============

see

http://www.fas.org/s...ns/ch100309.htm

3.9 DEW-High Power Microwave (HPM)

3.9.1 Warfighter Needs

The DoD requires improved capabilities in countering artillery fire, ship defense against cruise missiles, aircraft self-protection, suppression of enemy integrated air defense systems, space control, security, counter-proliferation, and disruption or destruction of command and control assets. All of these requirements can be addressed by HPM weapon systems which upset or damage the electronics within the target. HPM weapons offer military commanders the option of:

• Speed-of-light, all-weather attack of enemy electronic systems.
  
• Area coverage of multiple targets with minimal prior information on threat characteristics.
  
• Surgical strike (damage, disrupt, degrade) at selected levels of combat.
  
• Minimum collateral damage in politically sensitive environments.
  
• Simplified pointing and tracking.
  
• Deep magazines and low operating costs.
  

Coordinated Army, Navy, Air Force and DNA HPM transition plans are focused on demonstrations of mission-oriented concepts: aircraft self protection, anti-ship missile defense, and counter munitions (EW Electronic Attack - degrade/neutralize enemy defenses); and lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) and C2W/IW (Precision Force, MOUT, and IW). Potential Warfighter payoffs include generic protection against a wide variety of missile/munition threats (IR, EO, RF, laser-guided), improved effectiveness and lower attrition rates of friendly systems, and negation (permanent damage, long-term disruption, and temporary degradation) of enemy command, control, and general information systems. Finally, electronic protection techniques developed under the HPM program are being continuously transitioned to users in order to harden US systems against hostile HPM weapons or inadvertent EMI/EMC. Joint development and test projects demonstrate the maximization of investments to meet individual Service/Agency mission requirements.

3.9.2 Overview

3.9.2.1 Goals and Timeframes. Technology development and demonstration efforts are oriented to establish a mature and comprehensive technology basis to support microwave weapon systems development decisions. In many cases, this requires an integrated demonstration of microwave source, pulsed power and antenna subsystems. Major goals and associated time frames include the following:

Application/Mission Short-term

(1-2 years) Mid-term

(3-5 years) Long-term

(6+ years) HPM System for Point Defense. Demo of compact, high-power UWB source. Demo of high average power narrowband source. Live fire cable-car demo. Field demo of high average power narrowband source. Ship-self-defense demo, Countermunition demo. HPM System for C2W/IW. Effects assessments. Field demo. Airborne demo. HPM System for SEAD. Demo of compact, high-power narrowband source. Explosively-driven single pulse device demo. Multiple-pulse device demo. HPM System for Space Control. Effects assessments. Modeling and simulation for concept development. Field demo.

3.9.2.2 Major Technical Challenges. The major technical challenges for HPM weapons include developing and demonstrating:

• Compact, high peak power and/or high average power HPM sources.
  
• Compact, high gain, ultra-wideband (UWB) antennas.
  
• Compact, efficient, high power, pulse power drivers.
  
• Predictive models for HPM effects and lethality.
  
• Low impact hardening of systems against hostile and self-induced EMI.
  
• Reliable and affordable system integration meeting military platform requirements.
  

3.9.2.3 Related Federal and Private Sector Efforts. DoD organizations have primary responsibility for the development and applications of HPM technology. However, both DOE and private sector efforts complement military HPM programs. Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories have HPM source development and effects programs which directly support Service efforts, while the private sector has evolved both independent and cooperative RF effects programs. CRDAs have been initiated to develop and transition improved techniques for measuring electromagnetic interference. The electronics industry as a whole is working closely with the Services to ensure compliance with new international standards for electromagnetic protection.

3.9.3 S&T Investment Strategy

In executing the DoD HPM Program, focus is maintained on specific technology demonstrations, in order that the technology effort at the component level can also be focused. DoD investments among the various technology demonstration and technology development efforts are allocated in accordance with their potential payoff to warfighting needs and their relative contribution to achieving the HPM goals.

3.9.3.1 Technology Demonstrations. HPM weapons encompass a number of technology demonstrations in the field. Major demonstrations support two DTOs:

• Aircraft Self Protection Demonstration (WE.19)
  
• Command and Control Warfare/Information Warfare Demonstration (WE.22)
  
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) Demonstration (WE.22)
  

3.9.3.2 Technology Development. Coordinated Army, Navy, Air Force, and DNA HPM technology developments are subdivided into a number of major constituent areas, these include:

• Compact, High Power HPM Sources: Includes fourfold increase in UWB output power, six-fold increase in narrow band pulse length, and narrowband tunability up to an octave. Weight should be ~500 lbs and volume ~1.5 cu ft (exclusive of antenna and pulse power).
  
• Compact, High Power, High Gain, Ultra-Wideband Antennas: Requires reduction to 18 inch antenna diameter with approximately 15 - 20 dB of antenna gain.
  
• Compact, Efficient, High Power Pulse Power Drivers: Primary challenge is to develop compact (~500 lbs in less than 10 cu ft), high peak power (>50 GW) packages.
  
• HPM Effects and Lethality: Includes RF testing of a wide range of air, sea, land, and space military assets; RF effects database development; reliable prediction of RF effects to permit extrapolation to other systems, development of innovative countermeasure techniques and incorporation of HPM into accepted military weapon engagement models. Also includes assessment of biological effects necessary to establish safety thresholds for personnel protection.
  
• Systems Integration Meeting Military Platform Requirements: Encompasses integrating pulse power drivers, HPM sources, and output antennas into military platforms such as fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, naval combatants, land vehicles, aircraft pods, unmanned aerial vehicles and munitions.
  
• Low Impact Hardening of Systems Against Hostile and Self-Induced EMI: Includes transitioning EM hardening to users in response to existing EMI/EMC problems and projected threats; identifying susceptibilities in US air, land, sea and space militarily critical systems; and developing hardening countermeasures which minimally impact system performance, cost or maintainability.
  
• Evaluation of Additional Applications: Based on effects assessments and technology development efforts, evaluations are being performed to identify additional militarily useful applications. Applications under consideration include: ASMD, counter-proliferation, counter-munition, and space control. These evaluations will lead, where appropriate, to additional technology demonstrations.
  

3.9.3.3 Basic Research. Basic research efforts for high power microwaves emphasize the fundamental understanding of the limitations of microwave technology and its application, and investigation of promising new approaches and concepts. Efforts are conducted in RF sources, antennas, and pulsed power systems and in RF effects phenomenology.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

"get back to us with any qualified experts who say such devices could be used to surreptitiously

_{// Colby}

ALERT !! ALERT !! DEPOPULATION WILL NOT BE AN OVERT OPERATION !!

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

GOLLY YOU WANT THE INNER SECRET PAPERS OF THE NWO ????

No just evidence that what you propose is feasible. For it to work it have to be blamed on something else. You've yet to post evidence that was the case.

[Steven Gaal]

"get back to us with any qualified experts who say such devices could be used to surreptitiously

_{// Colby}

ALERT !! ALERT !! DEPOPULATION WILL NOT BE AN OVERT OPERATION !!

_{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

GOLLY YOU WANT THE INNER SECRET PAPERS OF THE NWO ????

No just evidence that what you propose is feasible. For it to work it have to be blamed on something else. You've yet to post evidence that was the case.

GEE YOU DIDNT SEE LINK TO US AIRFORCE WAR COLLEGE TO MICROWAVE SPACE WEAPON ??

in post # 197 ??

IS THERE A MORE authoritative/expertise sourcing than that ??? ANSWER NOPE .

#################

EVIDENCE FROM WHERE ?? OH !! THAT WOULD BE INFORMATION FROM COLBY'S BELOVED MSM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The New York Times and "Liberal Media" Helped Sell the Iraq War

Wednesday, 20 March 2013 11:32 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network |

==========================================================

Michael Ratner: The NYT and other "liberal" commentators led the way in selling the WMD myth and justified the Iraq war; their mea culpas ring hollow.

TRANSCRIPT:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Ratner Report with Michael Ratner, who joins us now from New York City.

Michael's president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin, and a board member of The Real News.

Thanks for joining us again, Michael.

MICHEAL RATNER, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Good to be with you, Paul.

So we're coming up on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, March 20, 2003, when it began. In a few days it'll be March 20, 2013. And I think it's really important for everybody out there to know how many people we murdered in Iraq, how we got into that war, and who were some of the liberals, supposed liberals, who led us into that war, so that we don't depend on--we don't make that mistake again.

And, of course, people should know how many people were killed. Nobody knows the real figure. There's numbers that go from 170,000 people killed, including combatants, maybe 120,000 civilians, up to 1 million. The Lancet reports 600,000 people killed with some kind of violence, whether that includes starvation or just plain old murders, but it's a huge number.

And when you think about that number, you have to think: how did we get into this war, which I considered at the time an illegal and unnecessary war, in which I was not alone? It was the biggest demonstrations ever in the world against a war. In fact, they called the demonstration in Rome against the war in February 2003--it was 3 million people in Rome, 36 million people worldwide, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions in the United States as well. And yet we went to war in the United States, or on behalf of the United States, despite this.

And, of course, many of us called it Bush's war, but as I'll explain, it's not just Bush's war. It was The New York Times' war, it was Bill Keller's war, Tom Friedman's war, and a number of other people who I will mention.

The way they sold the war to the American people were two primary things. One was that Iraq was somehow developing weapons of mass destruction, of which they have literally no evidence, none at all. There were weapons inspectors who kept going there, came back with no evidence. The weapons inspectors group said there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Yet they sold us to war based in part on weapons of mass destruction.

The other way--and it's an important lesson going forward--they sold us the war: by claiming that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein, who led Iraq at the time, and al-Qaeda. And of course al-Qaeda was on everyone's minds, because this was just two years after 9/11. And how did they go about getting and achieving and establishing that relationship, which even Colin Powell spoke about when he spoke to the UN in a speech that convinced many people that we had to go to war with Iraq? They did it through torture.

And in particular there was a man named al-Libbi who was waterboarded. And when he was waterboarded, as he said later, I would have said anything to stop being waterboarded. And what he said and what actually Cheney, our vice president at the time, was looking for and why he was actually torturing people--or directing them to be tortured was because he wanted to prove a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. And what al-Libbi said was that members of al-Qaeda were sent to Iraq for training in how to use weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, it was an utterly false story. It was actually a story, in some way, you could say was manufactured, because they tortured people to try and get that story. But it also shows you how bad torture is, in the sense that people will say anything to stop it. And whatever people say about the ticking time bomb scenario and torture and saving a life of someone's here or there, in the end, this torture was a key element in proving something, allegedly proving something that led us into a war that killed well over, probably, a half a million people. So that's one lesson you ought to take out of this, or we ought to all take, is torture is one of the worst things you can use for gaining actual intelligence.

A second thing which has always bothered me is the role of the so-called liberal media, whether that's The New York Times, The New Yorker, New Republic, and the key people who ran all of that media. This is called the liberal media. You know, I don't think, Paul, that there's a war that The New York Times has not supported. But it was a particularly nasty piece of business on the Iraq War.

You had, first of all, Bill Keller--I'm not sure he was executive editor during the beginning, but right around that period the head of The Times, a major reporter, major person at The New York Times. He wrote earlier, after 9/11, a 8,000-word article in The New York Times Magazine about what the effect of one kiloton bomb would be if it went into Times Square, in other words, getting everybody totally fearful of what would happen if Iraq had a weapon of mass destruction. Then The Times published column after column by Judy Miller and others pushing the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, columns that The Times ultimately had to apologize for.

So we have Bill Keller, The New York Times; Tom Friedman, columnist for The New York Times; George Packer, New Yorker writer; Zakaria, Newsweek reporter; Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic; Peter Beinart; Hitchens; Paul Berman; a whole host of what I would have to call almost neoliberal liberals going for this war, going for it either because they thought we were in a war of civilizations or because they accepted [incompr.] there were weapons of mass destruction, etc.

I asked myself at the time, how can these people believe this stuff? Any rational person can see that this is a BS story. This is a Bush war. This is a war in which they want to slap around a country that they can easily topple. This is about continuing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, continuing our hegemony over oil, etc., making sure China and Russia are out there, whatever reasons. But how did these guys buy it?

You know, I came--it's not that they just made a mistake. What I really have come to is that they are part and parcel of a belief in who this country--they really believe that this country is exceptional, it has to rule the world, and they buy into that fact. And therefore they're willing to really suspend their judgment and their reason and go for a war that was just completely fictitious.

Now, I should say, when I have talked to some of these people about it, they say, well, we've done our mea culpas. We agree we were wrong about this war. This was a huge mistake. It's one of the worst wars we could have ever gone into. But when you read their explanations for it, their mea culpas, it's not that they thought the war itself was bad--or most of them didn't think the war itself was bad or that it was a bad idea; they thought it was executed badly, that we went into Iraq expecting or overestimating that the people would welcome us when they didn't, we botched up the post-war, we made lots of mistakes, we allowed the counterinsurgency to move forward, etc., etc. So they don't actually get at what I'm saying, which is they actually believed in this war. And I find mea culpas just completely insufficient, because at the core what these people did was believe in an American aggressive, illegal foreign policy that wound up killing half a million people. And in my view, there's no apologies for that.

The best writer on this, and wrote an incredibly good article, was an intellectual who died, a writer, Professor Tony Judt. He died within the last couple of years. He wrote an article, and what he said in that about all of these so-called liberals who supported the war, what he said was today America's liberal armchair warriors are the, quote, "useful idiots," end quote, of the war on terror. And what he titled his article was "Bush's Useful Idiots".

Now, I wish I could say that things have gotten better among this crowd--maybe a few of them a little better. You know. But a lot of them are still very, very aggressive about supporting the so-called war on terror, what was Bush's policy. Their mea culpas are just not very good.

Bill Keller I want to single out because he still has these incredibly bloated, you know, superficial columns in The New York Times. And they had one recently that was related to my clients, particularly WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, and it was in the context of talking about Bradley Manning. And again he shows his stripes as completely biased and irrelevant.

What he says is--first of all, he says that, well, had Bradley Manning given the documents directly to The New York Times, there probably wouldn't have been as much anger at either Bradley Manning or Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And I must say that's the one thing he got right in the article, because Bill Keller is right, because Bill Keller, like he did in the case of the warrantless wiretap story, he ran to the White House and said, should I expose the warrantless wiretapping story, and they said, no, hold it up, don't do it, and he only did it when James Risen was going to go forward with it in a book. So Bill Keller, this man who brought us into the war in many ways, at least paved the way, is still writing the kind of bunk he was writing in 2001, '02, and '03.

I mean, he did the same thing with Bradley Manning's motives. He said about Bradley Manning's motives, well, I don't think they were necessarily that political; his talk that he gave pleading guilty, which said they were all political, seems to be made up after the fact. And in fact that's not true. In fact, if you go to the early Bradley Manning statements that he made way before he was actually indicted, you would find that he was making political reasons.

So this same core of so-called liberals is still out there. They're still controlling--I mean, another one is David Remnick at The New Yorker. He supported the war. So they just go on and on.

And the question is, for all of us--I mean, just in some way it's an advertisement for you, Paul. But, you know, how do we get an accurate picture out there and how do we get journalists out there who are not just going to lead us into the next war? One of the stories I think you plan on doing is the Pentagon links to the Iraq torture centers. That's, of course, another story about the Iraq War and a story in 2004 and 2005 in which the U.S. sent two people there, a guy named Steele and Kaufmann, to essentially oversee what were set up as many, many detention and torture centers, in which literally tens of thousands of people were tortured.

As a close to that, 'cause I know you're going to cover the story, I just want to point out that it again brings out the importance of WikiLeaks documents. When I talk to the people who did that story, what they did was they combed through the Iraq War Logs, which were revealed by Bradley Manning to WikiLeaks. Those war logs had reports in it of soldiers from the U.S., their daily logs, telling about that they had perceived or seen that there was torture going on at these torture centers, or illegal activity, etc. And those are in the War Logs. And as a result of that, this important story, Guardian-BBC story, came out about the U.S. link to these detention and torture centers, and the link ultimately up the chain of command to Petraeus, and even to Rumsfeld. So, again, it's again about Iraq, it's about WikiLeaks, and it's about really great reporting.

JAY: There's one other thing, I think, one other piece to this, because not all the liberals were in favor of this war--and by liberals, using your terminology, I'm talking about Democrats--and some Republicans, if you want--who believe in projecting American power but thought the Iraq War was stupid and opposed it on that basis 'cause it actually wasn't useful for projecting American power. And one of those people was Barack Obama, who came out against the war not 'cause he's against projecting American power any--this is back pre-Iraq War, and clearly we can see as president he's very gung-ho about projecting American power. But he and a lot of other foreign policy professionals thought this was just a completely dumb move in Iraq. And The New York Times should have known that. You'd think The New York Times would have reflected that.

So there's something--I think there's something else going on other than being useful idiots, which is also the case. There's something about the money that gets made in the lead-up to war. The newspapers it sells, the fervor, the bloodlust, the chauvinism that this section of this kind of supposed liberals, they get excited by all this. And then there was also direct, nefarious connections between Judith Miller and the Bush White House. But The New York Times in theory is at odds with that White House, one would think, politically. There's some interest here.

RATNER: You're making a very interesting point. You know, I talked to some people who were at the Barack Obama speech that he gave against the war--quote, against the war--in Chicago at the time. And what they said was he was careful, as you're sort of implying. What he said is he was against this particular thing, this war, but in fact he wasn't, like, just an antiwar person in general, that there were certain times that you would need to do war, I think. And that's what you're saying, that he'd still believe in the projection of American force.

JAY: Yeah, I watched that very carefully, that speech, and he says, I'm not a pacifist; I'm against this war. But he did a followup interview, more in-depth--I can't remember if it was with 60 Minutes or somewhere else--not too long after that interview. Maybe it was six months or a year. And he was very explicit. He said, I thought this would actually weaken our ability to project power around the world. He said, I'm for projecting American power, I believe in it.

RATNER: I think that's a good point, and I think he certainly illustrated that from the surge, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan and all the wars we're now carrying out in Somalia and Yemen.

One important person I left out of this--and I'd be interested in how you see how she fit in here--is Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's hard to forgive Hillary Clinton for her vote, really hard, because let's assume she's, like, a projection person like you're saying Obama was, a projection of American force. What it seems to is she clearly could never have believed that this war was necessary. You had to be, as Tony Judt said, a useful idiot to believe that this war was actually a weapons of mass destruction war or an al-Qaeda, you know, BS war. You had to be a dummy.

So the only thing I can think about Hillary is that she made a wrong judgment. Barack Obama must have felt this was going to help him be president. Hillary made a judgment that said, I need to vote for the war so I can be president. If I vote against the war, I won't be president. And it's actually what ultimately was her Achilles' heel. So I think she was an opportunist, which is to me almost the worst thing you could be is to actually kill people in the name of opportunism.

JAY: Yeah. I think actually this goes--what you're saying goes to the core of it, because for The New York Times--remember the days. This is post 9/11. This is when there's all this tremendous buildup that we have to defend America and you're a traitor if you even critique the White House. And the way the media succumbed to that, they were--you know, both from the point of view of being worried about being labeled traitors, and even from a straight--and maybe more from a straight business interest, you know, you'd lose some of your market share if you're seen as soft on this stuff.

RATNER: No, I think that's right. I agree. I mean, as I said, when I opened, I think I said, I don't think there's any war The New York Times has ever opposed. You know, I haven't looked back in history before probably the Second World War, but I think it's been right up there with the best of them.

JAY: Alright. Thanks very much, Michael.

RATNER: Thanks for having me, Paul, and I really appreciate what was a very useful discussion, particularly in the end.

JAY: Thank you.

############################

Pleased to be Shutting the Piehole Now: Charles P. Pierce on the NYT and the anniversary of the war

Pleased to be Shutting the Piehole Now

By Charles P. Pierce

Esquire

Tuesday 19 March 2013

The "public editor" of The New York Times tells us today that the paper's coverage of the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War is likely to be less of a hoot than back in the drum-banging days when Judy Miller was standing atop a great pile of stove-piped bullxxxx while Bill Keller threw roses at her feet.

I asked Dean Baquet, a managing editor, about the low-key approach. He said that while a few stories are planned, editors did not see a need for a major project or special section, as they did with the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The war itself has been dissected to a tremendous degree," he told me. "You have to have something new or fresh to say." He would not provide specifics about the articles that are planned, but said there might be one or two that would make their way onto the front page this week...Is The Times's own role in the run-up to the war a part of this relative reticence, as some readers have suggested to me? Is there reluctance to revisit a painful period in the paper's history? Mr. Baquet said that's not a factor. "The Times has probably acknowledged its own mistakes from that period more than anyone," he said. "We certainly haven't been shy about doing that. We're doing the stories that make sense to us and that offer our readers something worthwhile."

That is, of course, all bollocks. Keller still writes a column. The Times is playing this on the downlow precisely because it never truly has atoned for its role in a fiasco. The op-ed page still welcomes submissions from people whose work on this most grotesque foreign-policy blunder should have been as definitive a career-killer as were Joe Hazlewood's navigational abilities.

(snip)

Shut up, all of you. Go away. You are complicit in one way or another in a giant crime containing many great crimes. Atone in secret. Wash the blood off your hands in private. Because there were people who got it right. Anthony Zinni. David Shiseki. Hans Blix. Mohamed ElBaradei. The McClatchy Washington bureau guys. Dozens of liberal academics who got called fifth-columnists and worse. Professional military men whose careers suffered as a result. Hundreds of thousands of people in the streets around the world. The governments of Canada and France. Those people, I will listen to this week. Go to hell, the rest of you, and go there in silence and in shame.

The rest: http://www.esquire.c...ppy_Anniversary

A tour de force. Read it.

##################

ALSO

http://rinf.com/alt-...hypocrisy/30591

Edited April 14, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Evan Burton]

Steven,

Don't forget to write in LARGE LETTERS and COLOURED FONT to show you are serious and have credibility.

[Steven Gaal]

• of note
  
• MICROWAVE SPACE WEAPON WOULD BE WMD and would start to involve international bodies.
  
• ##############################
  
• see pg 16 below
  
• https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PPUxHQMBDZ0J:www.hsdl.org/?view%26did%3D457824+creating+new+wmd+un+laws+microwave&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgjwW0UWxB4sNYTyXUapmwJOr_t-qQq7uNiTpTuMKbsl2fiw-v48WZIOGQxS5-Hfi_-bhAm1Qu2ID0Qt1HgFh5d2CzHUKqRmHkAXzMf0rG0nAnGY2DUCbr6b6ULWJGEnc6Ia93W&sig=AHIEtbR79t_euuZCg0w9SfBIsuxc7-EoUg
  
• ===============
  microwave in IRAQ
  http://www.brusselstribunal.org/WMD.htm
  

[Len Colby]

• of note
  
• MICROWAVE SPACE WEAPON WOULD BE WMD and would start to involve international bodies.
  
• ##############################
  
• see pg 16 below
  
• https://docs.google....9SfBIsuxc7-EoUg
  

The authors did NOT state explicietly that such devices could be WMDs, nor did they say anything about them being based in space nor did they say anything about them being able "to be blamed on something else."

===============

microwave in IRAQ

http://www.brusselst...nal.org/WMD.htm

TL:DR give us the highlights.

[Len Colby]

GEE YOU DIDNT SEE LINK TO US AIRFORCE WAR COLLEGE TO MICROWAVE SPACE WEAPON ??

in post # 197 ??

IS THERE A MORE authoritative/expertise sourcing than that ??? ANSWER NOPE .

You mean the link you added after I started writting my reply? Cite the appropriate passages.

[Steven Gaal]

TL:DR give us the highlights. // COLBY

It would be reasonable to expect new types of weapons to be tested in this war. We as the citizens of the world should stop the endless development and use of these weapons.

(...) I think that weapon that fried the busload of people is a version of the microwave weapon that the US Marines revealed in a press conference 1-2 years ago - they wanted to use it in the US for "crowd control". These are called NLW, non-lethal weapons, but all you do is turn the dial a little more to the right and "oops we fried them"....

Many of the new weapons and the military research has been on "directed energy" - pain beams, heat the enemy up until his skin is burning, fry his brain or scramble it, alter moods, its really really really really wicked. What are the Brits there for? The US is going to ruin their reputation...

(...) There are many types of microwave, EMF and pulsed and shaped energy weapons which have been developed and which we may or may not know about because they are classified. Dai has demonstrated the information it is possible to get from patent applications. (...)

Watch Dr Geert Van Moorter's testimony in the RAI Video: Star Wars in Iraq (16 May 2006) - Read text file

Edited April 12, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

You mean the link you added after I started writting my reply? Cite the appropriate passages. //COLBY

############################

NOPE all three links were there from beginning.

GOLLY YOU WANT THE INNER SECRET PAPERS OF THE NWO ????

see

https://docs.google....kyZLerAcpnlNFug

[Steven Gaal]

http://www.newworldwar.org/hpm.htm

“The space-based high-power microwave (HPM) weapon system is capable of engaging ground, air and space targets with a varying degree of lethality,” declared the US Air Force in 1996. “Its effect is to generate high-electric fields over a target area,” they announced, “thereby disrupting or destroying any electronic components present.” The area which these spaced-based weapons can target can be as small as a couple of meters in diameter, up to hundreds of meters in size.

1996 hundreds of meters .......2040 ?? KILOMETERS ??,Gaal

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

also see

pg 30 below

https://docs.google....dLTV4fE4owbzgsQ

######################

##########0o0#########

######################

Raytheon's "Silent Guardian" Microwave Weapon is LETHAL! Coming Soon ...

To a Protest near You!

Once I read the article on the use of Microwave weapons as crowd control as a "test", I had to do some research. Here is what I have found after a very quick Google search. It is scary beyond belief!

I also noted, yet did not post it here, it seems as though the US has already been using these weapons in Iraq. It is not clear in what manner they have been used, Lethal or non-Lethal as it appears they are perfectly able to be racheted up to the Lethal level easily.

Microwave Weapons for Crowd Control

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...

VIDEO: CLICK TO VIEW

30-second video, with soundtrack

August 9/06 Microwave weapons for crowd control used to be top-secret stuff. No more. Raytheon, which makes them for the military, now promotes its Silent Guardian, a smaller version of its Active Denial system (see MWN, M/A01), on the Web. Silent Guardian is "available now and ready for action," Raytheon promises. The company even discloses its range, which used to be closely held. It can "de-escalate aggression" at 250 yards, Raytheon states in its best defense-speak. To tempt you further, you can also download a 30-second video, with an up-tempo soundtrack.

From http://www.microwavenews.com /

The Silent Guardian™ protection system is a revolutionary less-than-lethal directed energy application that employs millimeter wave technology to repel individuals or crowds without causing injury. The system provides a zone of protection that saves lives, protects assets and minimizes collateral damage. Silent Guardian produces precise effects at longer ranges than current less-than-lethal systems and provides real-time ability to establish intent and de-escalate aggression. Various commercial and military applications include law enforcement, checkpoint security, facility protection, force protection and peacekeeping missions. The system is available now and ready for action.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_Air_Force_We...

Nonlethal(???) weapons touted for use on U.S. citizens

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

The Air Force has funded research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service isn't likely to spend more money on development until injury issues are reviewed by medical experts and resolved. (So we will be Guinea pigs??)

Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.

ARE THESE "NON-LETHAL" WEAPONS IN REALITY "LETHAL"? Let's take a look...

<snip>

AFRL says that the 3-millimetre wavelength radiation penetrates only 0.3 millimetres into the skin, rapidly heating the surface above the 45 °C pain threshold. At 50 °C, they say the pain reflex makes people pull away automatically in less than a second - it's said to feel like fleetingly touching a hot light bulb. Someone would have to stay in the beam for 250 seconds before it burnt the skin, the lab says, giving "ample margin between intolerable pain and causing a burn".

Little data

But critics question the AFRL's claims that the weapon's undisclosed exposure levels are safe. John Pike of think tank Globalsecurity.org fears that the beam power needed to scare people may be too close to the level that would injure them.

Air Force scientists helped set the present skin safety threshold of 10 milliwatts per square centimetre in the early 1990s, when little data was available, says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News.

That limit covers exposure to steady fields for several minutes to an hour - but heating a layer of skin 0.3 mm thick to 50 °C in just one second requires much higher power and may pose risks to the cornea, which is more sensitive than skin. A study published last year in the journal Health Physics showed that exposure to 2 watts per square centimetre for three seconds could damage the corneas of rhesus monkeys.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470

<snip>

Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed

22 July 2005

NewScientist.com news service

David Hambling

VOLUNTEERS taking part in tests of the Pentagon's "less-lethal" microwave weapon were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses due to safety fears. The precautions raise concerns about how safe the Active Denial System (ADS) weapon would be if used in real crowd-control situations.

The ADS fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam, which is supposed to heat skin and to cause pain but no physical damage (New Scientist, 27 October 2001, p 26). Little information about its effects has been released, but details of tests in 2003 and 2004 were revealed after Edward Hammond, director of the US Sunshine Project - an organisation campaigning against the use of biological and non-lethal weapons - requested them under the Freedom of Information Act.

<snip>

The ADS weapon's beam causes pain within 2 to 3 seconds and it becomes intolerable after less than 5 seconds. People's reflex responses to the pain is expected to force them to move out of the beam before their skin can be burnt.

But Neil Davison, co-ordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at the University of Bradford in the UK, says controlling the amount of radiation received may not be that simple. "How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage?" he asks. "What happens if someone in a crowd is unable, for whatever reason, to move away from the beam? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?"

During the experiments, people playing rioters put up their hands when hit and were given a 15-second cooling-down period before being targeted again. One person suffered a burn in a previous test when the beam was accidentally used on the wrong power setting.(!!!!)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.60...

To conclude... Air Force secretary Wynne is INSANE. These weapons are clearly capable of being LETHAL! PLEASE someone tell me they can not do this with out congressional approval. Then please tell me Congress would NEVER DO THIS!!

#################o0o###################

System to vaporize dangerous people asteroids is in the works

Opps !!

System to vaporize dangerous asteroids is in the works

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16977657-system-to-vaporize-dangerous-asteroids-is-in-the-works?lite

Edited April 12, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

The Depopulation Agenda

by MARCO TORRES

(April 8, 2013) What Really Lies At The Heart of Biotech and Medical Technology?

We need not look further than genetically modified foods, our toxic food supply and vaccines to understand that depopulation technology is alive and well. The Earth and its organisms (including humans) have NOT been thriving for last several decades...they have been dying.

We are only now beginning to understand the extent of the scientific dictatorship governing world technologies and the impact on the human race. The good news is the trend is reversing. People are finally waking up to the dangers of depopulation technology and they're are refuting initiatives on all levels.

Overpopulation or Depopulation

Long before now there have been debates as to whether the world was really overpopulated or not, or if overpopulation is even possible. Many argue that Mother Nature knows exactly what to do with the planet and its inhabitants to maintain balance at anytime and I agree with that assertion.

Between 1798 and 1826, an English Demographer and Political Economist, Thomas Malthus published a famous and controversial treatise "An Essay on the Principle of Population."

The thrust of his postulations was that human beings will reproduce at a geometric rate while food production will occur at an arithmetic rate implicitly asserting that the world will be overpopulated.

Let us take a quotation which succinctly captures his views - "The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world?" (Malthus, T.R. 1798 p.61).

He proposed prostitution, abortion, birth control including the use of contraceptives and celibacy as a way of checking the human population so that the world will not degenerate to a level of acute starvation and possibly cannibalism.

Due to technological, agricultural and societal developments largely brought about by the industrial revolution, food supply became abundant thus making the Malthusian theory a colossal failure (Wolfgram, A.).

His infamous "Malthusian Controls" which are taught to every first year sociology student, has become a cornerstone belief for many modern day globalists who advocate population control by any means necessary.

This radical and dangerous idea promotes the unproven notion that the poor deserve to die because there are too many of them for the Earth to adequately support.

Malthus believed that higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem.

Some Scholars sturdily opposed Malthus: Henry Carey, an American economist and thinker opined that food supply will outstrip population growth only in an economy where the government lacked a clear cut public policy and failed to adopt novel technologies.

This was well espoused in his book "The Principles of Social Science."

In Friedrich Engels book "Outline of a Critique of Political Economy 1844," he said that the problem of inadequate food production will be taken care of by advances in science and technology.

Economist Simon Julian implicitly called Malthus a Prophet of Doom as the massive geometric population growth of the 20th century did not lead to a worldwide catastrophe.

Was Malthus entirely wrong? Some of his modern day disciples attribute the problems of Africa and the Middle East where the population doubles repeatedly to food shortages and its concomitant effects which include diseases, water shortage, internal strife, conflict, large migrations (Danaher, G. 2011).

Overpopulation is a radical and dangerous myth promoted by elite and international societies. A problem that exists only in dramatically erroneous theories that are not mathematically based. It is simply one of the most flawed concepts right up there with global warming. The theories are based on myths, not science or accurate statistical correlations or causation principles.

Is the world really over populated or is there an attempt to hoodwink a vast majority of people into getting their support for a depopulation agenda?

According to Stephen Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, the population of the entire world could fit into the American state of Texas. The square miles of Texas is 262,000. Using the old population of 6 billion as at 1999 and a conversion from square miles to square feet, it came to 1,217 square feet per capita. A family of five would occupy that with the status of a mansion. (www.pop.org). The extra 1 billion people may not alter much this calculation.

If we look at Canada which is the second largest nation on earth after Russia, the land mass is 6,198,186 square miles with a population of about 34 million. Most areas are uninhabited and the potentials for it to be tapped are abundant.

Can we honestly say the world is overpopulated when many areas are sparsely uninhabited? What about the creative powers of man which population promotes? What about his problem solving ability?

Dubai which was largely a desert area has been transformed into one of the most attractive tourist hubs in the world because of man’s prowess to turn challenges into opportunities (BBC UK).

That brings to a reiteration of an earlier question, if there’s more than enough room for everyone on earth as seen above, is there any depopulation agenda and if there is what is the real raison d’etre?

Planned Parenthood - Malicious Advocacy

Depopulation agendas have existed from time immemorial as far back as in 1550 BC in Egypt (Time Magazine US). However it gained momentum and became a topic of global discourse when Margaret Sanger surreptitiously propagated the eugenics agenda.

The agenda is hinged on the elimination of 'inferior races.' One of the broad misconceptions across those who blindly follow the advice of Planned Parenthood, is that they are a trusted health care provider and passionate educator who can only serve women in their highest interests when it comes to matters of health, whether sexual or reproductive.

We are living in a delusional society where organizations that promote health damaging vaccines, cancer causing birth control, invasive mammograms and radiation screening are supported and actually praised by our governments and the population at large. The most dramatic irony comes from the fact that all of these services are offered in the guise of the "nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care" whose intention is always health and safety.

The International Statistical Association expressed grave concerns about the World Health Organisation’s inaccurate recording of abortion deaths. It is hard to determine how abortions contribute to maternal mortality and the abortion is hinged on this false data.

WHO has admitted that getting accurate data is an uphill task yet they churn out policies based on the apparently flawed data and passing them off as valid and objective. They then influence other international organisations and member countries on the basis of a flaw. It has lent its support to abortion by equating maternal deaths with unsafe abortions. It has also mounted severe pressure on Sovereign states to change their abortion laws as well as assisting in the management of unsafe abortion cases.

In a special UN session in 1999, when governments collectively agreed that in instances when abortion did not run afoul of the law, healthcare service providers should be trained on how to provide safe and accessible abortion services.

In 2002 after a fact finding mission to China by some officials of the United States Department, it was exposed that women who had unauthorised pregnancies had severe penalties ranging from forced abortions to the payment of outrageous fines and other forms of emotional torture.

Former President George Bush Jr defunded them as a result of their complicity in the barbaric atrocity. However the incumbent, Barack Obama on March 11, 2009 reinstated funding to them and has since approved about $145 million to the murderous cause (Saunders, B. 2011).

The UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation collaboratively drafted a document that provided a framework on sexual and reproductive rights and health. In addition to the infamous Maputo Protocol, they aimed at pressuring the bureaucrats in the health sector and policy makers in different countries to make abortion more widely available. (Singson, S. 2007).

In 1984, a report was written and presented to the controllers of the World Bank. The summary of it was a population reduction plan so as to maintain economic growth for developed economies. It was titled “World Development Report 1984.â€

Poverty and hunger were touted as a consequence of overpopulation. It advocated the elimination of subsidies for large families, incentives for smaller families and the praising of China for its one-child policy and holding them up as a model. It canvassed the availability of male and female sterilisation, IUD's in countries such as India, Indonesia and Thailand. There was also the idea of the creation of concentration camps where people could be taken for sterilisation. (Miranda, L.R 2012)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Save The Third World By Depopulating It Through Vaccines

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been focused on reducing the population of poorer countries through the promotion of killer drugs such as Depo-Provera.

The foundation is partnering with the British government to raise $4 billion to finance their birth control plan by 2020. This is under the guise of family planning.

The foundation is also known to fund an NGO committed to children vaccination known as Gavi. This vaccine has been used on children in Malawi, India and Pakistan. In Malawi, these kids were vaccinated at gunpoint in 2011; Non-polio paralysis struck some of the kids that were vaccinated ( Posel, S. 2012).

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing $10 billion over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the World's most powerful charity. It is funded to the tune of $34.6 in addition to $30 from the investments from Warren Buffet.

In 2000, the foundation founded the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines (GAVI). It is an international collaboration among the Rockefeller foundation, Governments, the World Bank, WHO, International Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Vaccine Makers and UNICEF. (Gale, R; Null, G 2010).

During the World Economic Forum, he promised to make $10 billion available for child vaccine development in poorer nations. With the history of vaccines in Africa and third world countries, has any proven to be the solution to the problems there? Does it not make more sense to clean up the filthy sewages to put a permanent solution to needless ailments rather than provide vaccines which will not solve the fundamental problem? Do these vaccines enhance the quality of lives? Is it a solution to the problem of squalor in the continent?

In a TED conference presentation, his reasons for massive investments in vaccines may have been revealed "The world today has 6.8 billion people... That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." (Adams, M 2010).

Fertility has been declining rapidly since the 1950s in all countries of the world and the start of the change coincided with the introduction of the first mass vaccination programs. For instance, in the UK in 1947, a mass DPT vaccine campaign was initiated and in 1958, the first polio and diphtheria vaccines were brought in on a mass scale for all people under 15 years old.

Vaccines contain many ingredients that are potentially damaging to fertility including detergents like triton X-100, also known as octoxynol 10 which is a known spermicide and has been used in experiments to "strip" sperm so that they are no longer capable of fertilizing an egg.

In a 1977 study in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, triton X-100 was listed in a table of "most potent spermicides" that would produce 100% stripping of human sperm and the dosages needed for such an effect.

Another ingredient that is problematic is polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80) that is in numerous vaccines including the Pediacel five-in-one vaccine given to infants and the gardasil HPV vaccine.

Polysorbate 80 is a known sterility causing agent in rats. It caused changes to the vagina and womb, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles and this impaired the rats' ability to reproduce.

Interestingly enough it is also an emulsifier used in popular brands of ice cream.

Some medical professionals argue that it has only been found to cause infertility in rats, not humans, but the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot also contains polysorbate 80 and it has been added to experimental animal contraceptive injections as one of the ideal sterilizing ingredients.

Baby female rats who were injected with polysorbate 80 at days 4-7 after birth had caused changes to the vagina and womb lining, hormonal changes, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception.

A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is Polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80). As it is a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility.

Far from being mere anecdotal reports, scientists are aware that an ideal sterilizing recipe is polysorbate 80 and squalene oil together, as they demonstrated in this patent for an animal contraceptive vaccine:

"In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80."

This is exactly what some vaccines contain. In fact, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists 25 pages of teenage girls and women who had miscarriages after being injected with Gardasil when pregnant, and that is just for one type of vaccine.

So if you're considering having a vaccine or giving your child one, don't have any if you intend to get pregnant within three months of the vaccine and avoid any vaccines that contain polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) or squalene (known as adjuvant AS04).

According to Professor Iles, of Middlesex University, a new cancer vaccine being developed in conjunction with U.S. firm Celldex Therapeutics will rev up the immune system, directing it to destroy Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) which is made by around half of bladder and pancreatic-cancers.

Perhaps an ulterior motive was the driving force behind such irresponsible research since scientists have known for decades that any attempts to depress or destroy hCG may lead to permanent infertility in women.

Ironically, the hCG hormone the researchers are trying to destroy is actually used during female infertility treatments in order to stimulate the release of eggs from the ovaries. Temporary depression and disruption of hCG causes a range of hormonal imbalances and is considered a leading cause of miscarriages. Consequently, many once infertile women may suddenly conceive with repeated injections of hCG.

One of the primary reasons that women who abuse cocaine can no longer conceive is because of hCG disruption. Cocaine inhibits hCG concentrations in maternal circulation which affects secretion by the placenta required to maintain pregnancy.

GMO Technology and Decreased Fertility

Scientists in Austria recently conducted the first ever long-term multi-generational feeding study of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn (NK 603 x MON 810) in mice.

The study consisted of two groups: an experimental group, which was fed a 33% GM corn (maize) feed, and a control group, which was fed an equivalent non-GM corn feed. The mice were allowed to live a natural life and were monitored for four generations. Scientists recorded organ weight, gene expression, body mass, metabolism, life span and number of offspring of both groups of mice.

The scientists found that mice fed GM corn had significantly less pups per litter than the control group on the third and fourth generation. Furthermore, pups whose parents were fed GM-feed weighed less at birth and at weaning and experienced significantly higher mortality rates than those fed non-GM corn. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek reported that there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet and mice fed non-GM corn reproduced more efficiently.

Using a microarray analysis, the scientists reported that 1016 genes had been differentially expressed in the mice fed GM corn with most being up-regulated. Essentially, the GM-fed mice had hundreds of their proteins, which are encoded by genes, expressed in an increased or decreased quantity, which as a corollary altered certain biological processes in their bodies.

For example, sensory perception, ion transport and the ability to breakdown proteins (proteolysis) were down-regulated or under-expressed, while the ability of the mice to regulate T-cells (a primary immunological response especially in fighting cancer), circadian rhythm regulation and the FAS signalling pathway (which is a major pathway for cell apoptosis and is important in the elimination of cancers) were over-expressed.

This study elucidates the fact that biologic damage from GMOs may not manifest until the third generation and details strong evidence for the mandatory labelling, and even more so for the mass extinction, of these highly dangerous and unnecessary foods.

Alexey V. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died.

This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper also included measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc.

Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.

This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior."

Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties.

The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Chemicals - One of the Biggest Predictors of Depopulaton

One of the biggest predictors of long-term depopulation is a society's endorsement of chemicals in consumer and medical technology.

Edinburgh University researchers claimed a crucial window between eight and 12 weeks of pregnancy determined future reproductive problems. Exposure to chemicals found in products such as cosmetics during this period may affect later sperm production. The research team was led by Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh.

A study by Brunel University, the Universities of Exeter and Reading and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, shows for the first time how a group of testosterone-blocking chemicals is finding its way into UK rivers, affecting wildlife and potentially humans. The research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and is now published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study identified a new group of chemicals that act as "anti-androgens". This means that they inhibit the function of the male hormone, testosterone, reducing male fertility.

Some of these are contained in medicines, including cancer treatments, pharmaceutical treatments, and pesticides used in agriculture. The research suggests that when they get into the water system, these chemicals may play a pivotal role in causing feminising effects.

Lead author on the research paper, Dr Susan Jobling at Brunel University’s Institute for the Environment, said: "We have been working intensively in this field for over ten years. The new research findings illustrate the complexities in unravelling chemical causation of adverse health effects in wildlife populations and re-open the possibility of a human -- wildlife connection in which effects seen in wild fish and in humans are caused by similar combinations of chemicals. We have identified a new group of chemicals in our study on fish, but do not know where they are coming from. A principal aim of our work is now to identify the source of these pollutants and work with regulators and relevant industry to test the effects of a mixture of these chemicals and the already known environmental estrogens and help protect environmental health."

Men exposed to high amounts of pesticides in foods are far more likely than men with less contact to have diluted or deformed and sluggish sperm. Each of the semen problems can reduce the ability of sperm to reach and fertilize an egg and could make conception harder, the researchers say.

The chemicals -- two plant killers and an insecticide -- most likely reach men through the water supply. Drinking water in some areas contains significant levels of the substances.

Exposure to current levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) can affect gene expression and fertility of women just 12 hours after exposure.

BPA is a chemical found in baby bottles, water bottles, canned foods and an array of other consumer products. The potential health effects of BPA are no longer debatable and the evidence of its impaired affect on fertility are now well established.

Human studies have found BPA in many tissues and fluids, including urine, blood, breast milk, the amniotic fluid of pregnant women and the antral fluid of mature follicles. A national survey conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2003-2004 found BPA in 93 percent of the 2,517 people (age 6 and up) who were tested.

Previous research from North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) showed significant reproductive health effects in rats that have been exposed to bisphenol-A (BPA) at levels equivalent to or below the dose that has been thought not to produce any adverse effects.

A study published online in the journal Biology of Reproduction found that exposure of pregnant female mice to the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A may produce adverse reproductive consequences on in fetal ovaries after the mother has first been exposed to the chemical.

The European Science Foundation (ESF) launched a report showing that reduced male fertility may be making it even harder for couples to conceive and be contributing to low birth rates in many countries.

More than 10% of couples worldwide are infertile, contributing to the growing demand for assisted reproduction techniques such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) which itself causes cancer.

Sperm counts have dropped significantly in the last 50 years in developed countries. Today, at least one in five 18-25 year old men in Europe have semen quality in the subfertile range. Testosterone levels are also declining.

This is mirrored by increasing testicular cancer in most industrialised countries and more developmental abnormalities such as undescended testes. All of these factors are linked to reduced fertility and may have common origins during fetal development.

Why Don't We Empower People Instead of Depopulating?

Instead of spending billions of dollars in futile depopulation efforts, why can’t the circumstances for these large families to live a more dignified existence be created?

Why spend billions of dollars to provide vaccines when it can be funnelled for the provision of a healthier environment which will translate into prosperity as health is wealth?

Why can't there be more pressure put on African leaders not to still the commonwealth since the west is bent on playing a big brother role. The rogue behaviour of African leaders has led to the impoverishing of the continent and not large families. The creation of failed states through western conspiracy as evidenced by the fact that as a condition for the receipt of loans from the World Bank and IMF, subsidy on essential items are always asked to be removed in the name of development (Abioje, P.O 2012).

Isn't it hypocrisy for the West to subsidise education, healthcare and other essential citizens for its citizens and tell African leaders to remove them? Isn't the lack of subsidy killing the poor?

The overpopulation hue and cry is all hogwash and an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. If more love can be shown to Africa and other developing economies by meeting the real needs of these people, there would not be any need for a depopulation agenda which is not only counterproductive but a source of misery for both parties.

As an old cliche goes, there is enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone’s greed; the mindless quest for power is the real evil that needs to be rooted out as that is the root cause of the needless depopulation agenda.

The good news is that people are awakening to the depopulation agenda and they're refusing these initiatives at all levels. Rejection of vaccines, GMO, medical technology and chemicals in our consumer goods is taking place at record levels.

Populations worldwide are coming to the realization that we do not need to kill ourselves to save this planet or its inhabitants. The real question is when will the bubble burst and when will we transform technology to benefit the masses rather than a select few?

*** Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED

What Really Lies At The Heart of Biotech and Medical Technology?

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/040913_What-Really-Lies-At-The-Heart-of-Biotech-and-Medical-Technology.shtml

[Len Colby]

The Depopulation Agenda

by MARCO TORRES

[...]

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception.

Poorly documented claims from an obscure kook relegated to teaching at an obscure community college. See if you can come up with a citation for the above.

[Len Colby]

TL:DR give us the highlights. // COLBY

It would be reasonable to expect new types of weapons to be tested in this war. We as the citizens of the world should stop the endless development and use of these weapons.

(...) I think that weapon that fried the busload of people is a version of the microwave weapon that the US Marines revealed in a press conference 1-2 years ago - they wanted to use it in the US for "crowd control". These are called NLW, non-lethal weapons, but all you do is turn the dial a little more to the right and "oops we fried them"....

Many of the new weapons and the military research has been on "directed energy" - pain beams, heat the enemy up until his skin is burning, fry his brain or scramble it, alter moods, its really really really really wicked. What are the Brits there for? The US is going to ruin their reputation...

(...) There are many types of microwave, EMF and pulsed and shaped energy weapons which have been developed and which we may or may not know about because they are classified. Dai has demonstrated the information it is possible to get from patent applications. (...)

Watch Dr Geert Van Moorter's testimony in the RAI Video: Star Wars in Iraq (16 May 2006) - Read text file

He "thinks", what is the basis for his belief? What is his relevant expertise?

[Len Colby]

http://www.newworldwar.org/hpm.htm

“The space-based high-power microwave (HPM) weapon system is capable of engaging ground, air and space targets with a varying degree of lethality,” declared the US Air Force in 1996. “Its effect is to generate high-electric fields over a target area,” they announced, “thereby disrupting or destroying any electronic components present.” The area which these spaced-based weapons can target can be as small as a couple of meters in diameter, up to hundreds of meters in size.

I don't think anyone is willing to weed through reams of spam, see if you can come up with a reliable citation that meets three criteria:

1) from space

2) leathal to large numbers of people AND

3) capable of being used surreptitiously so as to be blamed on something else.