Here is how a tin foil hat person thinks

[Steven Gaal]

Steven,

Creationism seems to be close to your heart so if you like, we can start a separate thread devoted to it rather than have it mixed up with the "tin foil hat" thread discussion.// Burton

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

NO THIS THREAD SHOULD STAY HERE. STOPPING THE SPEECH OF CREATIONISM IS A REAL ISSUE AND THERE ARE CONSPIRATORIAL METHODS USED.....

Worst Conspiracy Ever (Dinosaur Skin and Creationism)

www.patheos.com/.../worst-conspiracy-ever-dinosaur-skin-and-cr...

Patheos

Loading...

May 25, 2013 - I've heard creationists speak of conspiracy in these matters, of scientists actively ... They've found a lot of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. The time ...

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Scientist Fired for Discovering Something and Publishing ...

godfatherpolitics.com/.../scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishin...

Jul 24, 2014 - Armitage's peer review article is not the first soft tissue discovery that casts doubt on the time table of .... A conspiracy against the baby Jebus.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Professor Fired for Reporting on Soft Tissue in a Triceratop's ...

teapartyeconomist.com/.../professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratop...

• Cached

Jul 26, 2014 - When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery ...

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

• University Fires Scientist After Discovery Challenges ...

  conspiracyanalyst.org/.../university-fires-scientist-after-discovery-challen...

  • Cached

  Jul 29, 2014 - But when Armitage examined the horn under a powerful university microscope, ... Attached to the fossilized horn was soft tissue, indicating that the dinosaur in ... I am a conspiracy analyst fighting against global elitists, criminal ...

Is There A Conspiracy Against Creationism? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Evidence for Creation

In the past few weeks, I was able to read Frank Peretti's best-selling Christian novel, This Present Darkness. The supposed fictional account of an entire town, including a local college, most of the churches, and many of the businesses being taken over by a shadowy, New-Age group, struck a familiar chord with me.

The story weaves many threads together, pitting praying Christians against the demonically controlled "Universal Consciousness Society" and its front organization, the "Omni Corporation.'' Before good triumphs over evil, however, we see that those committed to "world peace" through Eastern mysticism will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including harassment, smear campaigns, larceny, violence—even murder. Demon-possessed civic and governmental leaders are in total control at every level, who change laws, alter records, confiscate, and imprison to reach their ends.

"What's the connection?" you are asking. First of all, let me say that until ICR became embroiled in its difficulties with the California State Department of Education and its Superintendent over the right to teach science from a creationist perspective in its graduate school, none of us had ever been involved in lawsuits or political bureaucracies before, to more than a nominal degree. But what an eye opener! It now seems to us that those in political power have excessive, if not near-total, control over anything they desire. We have found ourselves in an adversarial relationship not of our making.

Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control. Already, many laws, policies, and programs are in place whose effects will be more pronounced in the days ahead. Evidently they feel powerful enough to move against ICR, perhaps feeling that if ICR falls, Christian education as a whole will be severely weakened.

These same groups are moving against Christian groups on a number of fronts: tax status, credentials, counseling, use permits, hiring of homosexuals, new-age teaching in public schools, banning Christmas scenes in public, etc., etc. Our religious freedoms are being stripped away, and already our influence in the community, as salt and light, is limited.

In the novel, the ruling officials were bound together in covert Satan worship. Although I haven’t run into widespread occultism in governmental circles yet, there is a dominant anti-Christian flavor to much of what is going on—an effort to totally secularize society. It is becoming more and more obvious that the battle must be fought primarily on a spiritual level.

The Christians "won" in the novel. In our case, the battle has been joined. If ever you prayed for ICR and the truth of God's creation of this world, now is the time.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 1990. Is There A Conspiracy Against Creationism?. Acts & Facts. 19 (6).

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

Creationism and the “conspiracy” of evolution: inside the UK's evangelical schools

Teaching creationism is unquestionably harmful, but should we be trying to ban it? Jonny Scaramanga, a former pupil at an evangelical school, examines how we are failing to hold such institutions to account.

by Jonny Scaramanga Published

5 February, 2014 - 09:02

The pupils at the evangelical school the author attended were taught that believers in evolution were fundamentally dishonest. Photo: Herbert/Getty Images

Should teaching creationism in schools be banned? Professor Alice Roberts has argued that it should be, even in private schools. Her comments come as a shock to those British citizens who assume that creationists, like grizzly bears, are a species local to North America. In fact, two networks of evangelical schools – Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) and the Christian Schools Trust (CST) – teach Genesis’ account as a literal explanation of human origins. That’s around 100 UK schools before we even talk about Muslim and Jewish institutions. I attended an ACE school in the 1990s, and emerging successfully indoctrinated at the end of 1999. I am still recovering from the experience, but I’m not convinced banning them will help.

ACE schools are “teacherless”. Students spend the majority of the week at desks facing the wall, with dividers preventing contact with their neighbours. In silence, they complete workbooks which integrate Bible lessons into each subject. During that time, the only contact with staff comes if a student raises a flag to indicate that they need help. By contrast, most CST schools use a more traditional classroom setup, but with a similarly strong biblical emphasis.

ACE’s UK distributor, Christian Education Europe, does not disclose the locations of all its schools, but in 2009 claimed there were 59 in the UK. They list 29, but these are only the schools which choose to be listed. In 2008, it was reported that 2,000 British children were being educated this way.

In my first week at the ACE school, the principal preached a sermon called “Birds of a Feather Must Flock Together”. This 45 minute rant can be summarised in one sentence: “Don’t be friends with non-Christians”. So began three years in which I learned to view ‘unbelievers’ with a mixture of fear and contempt.

Creationism was central to this understanding. I was taught that evolution was a conspiracy; scientists knew they lacked evidence, but wouldn’t admit it because they hated God. Evolution was equated with atheism;“evolutionists” were fundamentally dishonest. Students in ACE are still taught this. These quotes come from the compulsory course which current students take instead of GCSE science.

From year 11 biology:

No branch of true science would make these kind of impossible claims without proof. Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative—that the universe was created by God – they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof!

From year 10 science:

A person who is not right with God must find reason, or justification, for not believing. So he readily accepts an indefensible theory like evolution – even if it will not hold water. That is his academic justification for unbelief.

There was a second way creationism was used to fend off outsiders. The school claimed that creationism proved the Bible was the Word of God. Biblical authority thus established beyond question, I was forced to live by such Scriptures as Psalm 1:1, “Blessed is he that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly. . .” My only interaction with sinners was for evangelism.

There is a natural human tendency to fear the strange. Attending a school exclusively with other evangelicals turned the rest of the world into strangers. My knowledge of outsiders came from propaganda cartoons depicting non-Christians as evil and stupid. When I left that school at 15, I expected my new classmates to try to corrupt me. I told them to accept Jesus or face hell, and they lived up to my expectations.

Creationists teach that either every word of the Bible is completely true or none of it is. If you have doubts, that is the devil trying to deceive you. I knew if I doubted, I risked losing my faith, and then I would go to hell. This provides a powerful disincentive against thinking critically. In that sense, the education militates against real learning.

The same literal understanding of the Bible taught me that gay people were sinners, women should obey their husbands, and parents had a moral imperative to spank disobedient children. Creationism was the keystone that held these beliefs in place. If that was questioned, the entire edifice might fall. Teaching creationism is unquestionably harmful, but there are other avenues to try before we ban it.

If they are prohibited from teaching creationism, evangelical schools will not suddenly provide high quality instruction on natural selection. More likely, children would be withdrawn into fundamentalist homeschooling. Testimony from America is that this can be somewhat variable.

The scandal is that existing measures for quality assurance are not working. Ofsted inspections of ACE schools do not mention creationism at all, but frequently give generally glowing reports. Between 2007 and 2011, at least six Ofsted inspections of ACE schools were carried out by a Mr Stephen Dennett. At the same time, Dennett had a sideline as a freelance curriculum writer, and his name appears in the metadata of ACE curriculums as an author. He is also listed as a “consultant” to the board of the ACE-based International Certificate of Christian Education. I contacted Christian Education Europe, ACE’s UK distributors, asking them to comment on my concerns that Dennett’s Ofsted role had represented a conflict of interests, but to date they have not responded.

Compared with ACE, the Christian Schools Trust (CST) looks relatively moderate. Unlike ACE’s rigidly standardised curriculum, each CST school has its own policy on creation and evolution. There are still indicators that pupils in such schools are being misled, though. Research published in 2009 declared “the great majority of the schools teach their science from a creationist viewpoint”. The same survey found just 10 per cent of teenage CST pupils accepted the theory of evolution.

Dr Sylvia Baker, the academic who published this research, is a former teacher in a CST school. She insists the teaching of science is rigorous. “If you are seeking to imply that pupils in some CST schools are brainwashed into a simplistic ‘unscientific’ view of origins, you are sadly misinformed as excellent results in science subjects at GCSE have so often demonstrated,” she told me.

Together with the Muslim Schools Association, the CST has its own inspectorate, the BSI. The inspectorate was set up by the schools to “respect their distinctive ethos”. Since this ethos is the most contentious aspect of the schools, this strikes me as a wholly unwarranted privilege.

Organisations that ought to be holding these schools to account failing to protect the childrens’ interests. UK NARIC, the international qualifications comparison body, actually maintains that ACE-based qualifications are the equal of A-levels. The inspectorate ought to send a clear message to parents and staff at these schools that the current standard of instruction is unacceptable. We need scrutiny, not legislation.

[Evan Burton]

Yes - that is why I asked if you want a dedicated thread rather than it being mixed up with numerous "tin foil hat" discussion.

You were asked though, so okay.

[Evan Burton]

The 9 Most Crazy Conspiracy Theories In Pop

http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/the-9-most-batxxxx-crazy-conspiracy-theories-in-pop

[Evan Burton]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

[Steven Gaal]

• Monsanto Company is secretly maneuvering to control the world's food supply using GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
• ================
• Please see DEPOPULATION WHAT ELITES WANT > THREAD THIS ED FORUM SECTION
• LINK >> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19185&p=298306
• ===================
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate CLIMATEGATE > the most authoritative atlas in the world=WRONG thread > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18179
• ==============
• @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

THIS A BURTON SPECIAL

• https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Port_Arthur_Massacre_-_A_sceptical_re-appraisal

  ==

  http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/21453279-the-port-arthur-massacre-was-martin-bryant-framed-

  Conspiracy FACT or FANTASY

  By A.R. (Tony) Pitt -

  EDITOR of the NATIONAL INTEREST NEWSPAPER

  79 Ferry Street, Maryborough Qld 4650

  Phone 07 4122 1412

  BEFORE THE EVENT

  In 1988 NSW Premier, Barry Unsworth said, It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we will be able to introduce gun laws. In March 1996 , less than a month before the massacre at Port Arthur, "the Gun Coalition's Tasmanian coordinator Mr. Rowland Brown, wrote to the Hobart Mercury newspaper warning of a Dunblane-style massacre in Tasmania unless the gun laws were changed" (SOURCE: The Australian Newspaper, 29 th April 1996).

  Howard's Gun Legislation was drafted and printed before the massacre.

  There was a 22-body morgue truck available. (IN TASMANIA?) How many of those are just lying around.

  All of the senior Port Arthur staff members were away at a Work Seminar.

  The Royal Hobart Hospital had put their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre.

  The Hobart Hospital had a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment the shooting started.

  The helicopter pilots were readily available that Sunday. (MOST UNUSUAL)

  The local police were decoyed to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.

  There was a World Press Convention IN HOBART on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand.

  Martin Bryant was an intellectually impaired, registered invalid with an IQ of 66.

  IMMEDIATELY PRIOR

  The killer sat next to the witness, Rebecca McKenna. The vital parts of her statement to the police interviewer were:

  "This male was carrying a tray with his food on it". "His facial skin appeared to be................"

  "When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table" - "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious -" -"The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping - didn't actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria".

  Bryant doesn't have a freckly face.

  That tray was important. It was a personal ID card from the shooter. It contained finger prints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter. That tray contained real physical evidence as to the identity of the shooter.

  WHERE IS THE REPORT?

  THE SHOOTING

  The killer was right handed. Martin Bryant is left handed. The killer shot from the hip (right handed).

  The killer shot 32 people killing 20 and injuring 12

  The killer scored twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! There are only about 20 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the Western World. They are the SPOOKS who work for various governments. The killer stopped shooting after firing 29 shots (of the 30 in a magazine). This leaves a live round in the breech while changing magazines. To count while firing at a rate of 48 rounds per minute is a technique that requires tens of thousands of shots to perfect. It is a military skill-at-arms far beyond a mentally retarded youth who fired at a few tins and bits of cardboard in the bush.

  The "official" police version says the massacre was first reported at 13.35 pm by Port Arthur Security Manager, Ian Kingston. According to police, he went into the café while the shooting was going on, and backed out. Then reported the massacre.

  Wendy Scurr was the lady who held the phone out of the window to convince the police there was shooting in progress. The police don't want to acknowledge Wendy. She doesn't believe the "official" police version. In fact, Wendy tours Australia on speaking tours telling all that the "official" version is fiction. Wendy is pleading for a trial for Bryant.

  FLAWED EVIDENCE

  According to police the Martins were shot at Seascape, while police evidence also proves Bryant was at a service station 57 kilometres away. Police say he arrived at the Historic Site at 1.15pm. The police have proof that he was there at 12.45pm.

  Sally Martin was seen to run around Seascape naked that afternoon. Police say Bryant killed her that morning. Audio tape of the "negotiations" recorded shots from a rifle from upstairs at Seascape while Bryant was downstairs talking to police on the phone. There was no phone upstairs.

  Police were pinned down by fire from the shed and the Seascape Cottage. That is a good trick for a lone gunman.

  Bryant fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.

  There was a suspect black van allowed outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards. It wasn't the federal, state or interstate police. All civilian vehicle traffic was excluded.

  Several suspicious non-locals exited the area via the Mersey Bridge. This bridge was a security shut down point operated by police in case of an emergency.

  All evidence of the shooting was removed from the building to make it a sacred site. This is no coincidence. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE

  Bryant must have had infra red night vision to tell police their sniper was unwelcome and had to move on.

  Police records indicate they were shot at from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.

  DELIBERATELY CHANGED EVIDENCE

  The killer sat next to the witness, Rebecca McKenna. She said -

  "This male was carrying a tray with his food on it". "His facial skin appeared to be............

  "When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table" - "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious -" -"The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping -didn't actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria".

  The statement has been altered to say "The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria". However, Rebecca caught the change and hand wrote into the margin "tipping - didn't actually see it fall".

  So the police, just four weeks after the massacre, were trying to get rid of the tray as evidence. Why hasn't it been mentioned? The disappearance of this vital evidence is not accidental. THEY HAVE GOT RID OF THE TRAY EVIDENCE and there will have been a successful CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE if there is no trial with all evidence put to a jury by a lawyer that is loyal to his client, honest, competent, or at least impartial.

  TOO MUCH COINCIDENCE The rifles were destroyed by BREECH BLASTS so ballistic tests could be carried out to identify the murder weapons. Breech blasts that could destroy a gun are so rare as to be unheard of this century. The one blast pushed fluid brass into the steel breech block. It must have been a nuclear charge. That is just nonsense or planned DEMOLITION to allow false evidence.

  THE ILLEGALITY OF THE TRIAL There was no Coronial Inquiry. There should have been one. A Coronial Inquiry is required -

  (a) When foreign nationals are killed

  ( When there are deaths by fire

  Both requirements were met. Why was the law broken to prohibit the inquiry?

  The Evidence Act requires that ALL evidence be considered. At the Kangaroo Court more evidence was concealed than was presented. There is a difference between presenting a transcript and dealing with specific sections and editing a transcript until there is nothing left by way of evidence the Bryant case the prosecution so gutted the transcript that there was nothing left. Only a few comments favourable to the prosecution case got to the court

  The court transcript shows that more was edited than was presented. REFER: Mr Perks, For the Prosecution, Pages 190-194 "Your Honour, if I could take you to Volume 3 of the Crown papers, a transcript of that interview commences at page 19 and, if I could refer your Honour to the actual page numbers of the interview I will give an indication as to which parts of the interview have been deleted for the present purposes. SEE .

  Pages 1-9 DELETED.

  Page 10 DELETED (except for the last few questions and answers on that page)

  Page 11 - 16 presented

  Page 17 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 18 DELETED

  Page 19-22 PRESENTED

  Page 22-23 DELETED

  Page 24-31 PRESENTED

  Page 32-35 DELETED

  Page 36 Ques. No. 1 DELETED

  Page 37-38 PRESENTED

  Page 39 "from Warren down DELETED"

  Page 40 DELETED

  Page 41 "all above 'pain' DELETED"

  Page 42 PRESENTED

  Page 43 "all below 'Warren' DELETED

  Page 44-46 DELETED

  Page 47 half DELETED

  Page 48-74 PRESENTED

  Page 75-77 PRESENTED

  Page 78 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 79-81 DELETED

  Page 82-90 PRESENTED

  Page 91 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 92-98 DELETED

  Page 99-114 PRESENTED

  Page 115 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 116-141 DELETED

  Page 142 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 143-144 PRESENTED

  Page 145 PARTIALLY DELETED

  Page 146 REST OF INTERVIEW DELETED

  We know that 52 of the first 146 pages of transcript were not presented. The excuse was that the video recorder failed so the transcript had to be reconstructed from the audio tape that was made independently at the same time. The back-up didn't fail. How the hell could the written transcript be in any way affected? This is baloney.

  Many hundreds of pages that followed were not presented. Of those I have read I do not believe any sane police officer would suggest Bryant was the killer. That is why the police didn't get to testify. Bryant was not just one sandwich-short-of-a-picnic; he was obviously not capable of what we would consider normal thought processes.

  Nor did he have a clue about the events at Port Arthur. The killer was heard to use the acronym WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). This term may be familiar to world travellers but Martin wasn't even in the same ball park. AND he wasn't pretending. The transcript revealed so much as to Bryant's mental capacity that it could not be allowed into a court room if the intent was to frame Bryant, and convince the jury that this handicapped individual was the Rambo Class killer who killed 35 in a random shooting spree. THERE WAS NO PROPER TRIAL

  There was torture. That is illegal.

  Bryant was held in solitary confinement for at least ten times the maximum allowable as punishment in war under the Geneva Convention.

  He confessed to get a TV set in his room

  After that much solitary men go mad or confess to anything. Bryant was mentally retarded.

  What happened to the lab report on the tray/cutlery/can/cup/plate?

  Did Bryant's fingerprints and DNA show up on the tray and contents?

  The evidence was tampered with and not presented (withheld). WHY?

  The carry bag also carried samples of the killer's DNA.

  If some vital evidence is given to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor is duty bound, by law, to give that vital evidence to the defence. We know there were heaps of the killer's DNA. Does anyone believe the NSW CIB didn't fingerprint and DNA. The tray/cutlery/can/cup/plate, recorded in witness statements, is clearly visible on the police video and forensic photos.

  Bryant managed to get himself convicted of murder and get life without one witness being called.

  He managed to stay in a heavily burning building, shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.

  MEDIA MISCHIEF OR FRAMING

  The media nationwide display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him.

  Channel Nine fabricated a video showing Bryant running away from the Broad Arrow Café. According to Joe Vialls' analysis - the Bryant head superimposed on the running figure is a still photo, with a fixed angle and facial expression. This is not possible while running. The body running is that of XXXX.

  AFTER

  The Federal Liberals and Nationals (with the approval of the ALP) offered bribes to the States in the form of diesel subsidies and they threatened to cut State funding. It is a crime to offer threats or inducements to influence the votes of elected members in parliament.

  I have a letter signed by Tasmanian Senator Xxx stating ART

  After 8 years, we know where the tray was - it was right next to the "blue bag". It was left exactly where the shooter put it down. All the evidence was preserved for the police investigation. Here is a picture of the fake picture shown on television and the real "blue bag" and the tray in the Café.

  There is enough material for investigators to believe he is innocent and put up a good case. If it was your son in jail you would want him to have a trial.

  Scores of other witnesses can't understand why the media reports differ greatly from what they saw and heard.

  A thirty year embargo was placed on evidence in relation to the Port Arthur massacre. WHY? That smacks of skulduggery. There can be no legitimate excuse.

  It is impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion Bryant was the lone killer.

  It is impossible that others weren't involved.

  It is obvious that a set-up and cover-up has occurred.

  Those who were prepared to leave him to burn to death in Seascape saw Martin Bryant as expendable.

  The eye witnesses can't understand why their testimony recorded by police was not used.

  A thirty year embargo was placed on the evidence - WHY?

  Many honest police can see that the bulk of evidence points to others.

  Bryant is so retarded he might know what guilty means but he would not have a clue as to the implications of a guilty plea.

  There are grounds for a trial. This is not a retrial. This would be a first trial with evidence presented to a jury.

  A faked picture of the bag was shown of TV and put up on the internet. When alert viewers saw the ploy the picture was replaced with a fake tracing. In the digital camera era one must ask - WHY TRACE? What is going on?

  Getting rid of the lab report in regards to the tray is one thing. However, anyone taking a look at that video would immediately ask about the tray and whether there was a lab report - so the tray also had to be "lost"! No tray, no report. Thus the fake picture we all saw on television. BUT WHY?

  THE ETERNAL QUESTION

  Why would anyone fabricate a massacre, kill 35 innocent people, and frame a mentally retarded youth? The real question is can you, the reader; cope with truth too terrible to contemplate? Nobody asks you to blindly believe what I put to you. I do ask that you ask for the results of the DNA tests on clues left by the real killer to be crosschecked with the DNA of Martin Bryant.

  You know, in your heart, that the police and the government will never answer your request or comply with the requirement so you already know their guilt. What are you going to do? You also might think that you are powerless but that feeling of entrapment is only in the mind. You can send this to hundreds of people asking them to keep sending it to hundreds of people until the truth comes out one way or the other.

  WHO GAINS?

  Whenever we are confronted with so called "conspiracy theories", it often helps to ask the question, "Who gains?" In the Port Arthur massacre, it was the desire to bring in onerous gun legislation. They knew we have inherited the right to keep and bear arms from the Bill of Rights 1688 and they can't change it.

  However, they also knew that if they had a good excuse a large number in the population would forego one of our basic rights to try to protect themselves from a similar incident in the future. Without the Port Arthur massacre the people of Australia would never have allowed the governments to take away one of most precious rights.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Evan Burton does not believe the MSM is a controller of the masses for the elites >>>>> THATS LUDACRIS

=

Propaganda Alert: NYT Tries to Make Jeb Bush Look Cool with Puff Piece About Him Meeting Rapper Ludacris (link)

This is not the first time NYT got caught bending over for Jeb Bush and Co. Back in October the outlet wrote the fawning Bush piece, “The Bushes, Led by W., Rally to Make Jeb ‘45’” and, oddly, did not allow comments so no one could rank or comment on the story whatsoever.

Then again, propaganda is one thing, but when it becomes this painfully obvious, it just hurts

Edited March 19, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

MIT doctor reveals link between glyphosate, GMOs and the autism epidemic (LINK)

A major missing link in the search for what's triggering a massive spike in autism rates appears to be the world's best-selling weedkiller, Roundup. Dr. Stephanie Seneff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has been studying the autism issue for several decades, and her copious research has led her to the almost undeniable conclusion that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is a major driver of autism.

What was once an extremely rare health condition now afflicts roughly 1 in 68 children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And if things continue down the current path, says Dr. Seneff, nearly half of all children born in the year 2025 will be born with autism, which can result when the the gut microbiome of humans is destroyed, which depletes the body of needed minerals and can exacerbates the toxicity of other chemicals, including those added to vaccines.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ >>>>>> see below

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

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

Mercury In Vaccines Was Replaced With Something Even ... (LINK)

articles.mercola.com/.../mercury-in-vaccines-was-replaced-with-somethin...

\l "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ztIBfWuyEB8J:articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/27/mercury-in-vaccines-was-replaced-with-something-even-more-toxic.aspx+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

/search?biw=1600&bih=726&q=related:articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/27/mercury-in-vaccines-was-replaced-with-something-even-more-toxic.aspx+thimerosal+toxicity&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=eTIMVaSKN9btoASP2oBw&ved=0CFYQHzAG

Jan 27, 2009 - If a vaccine is mercury-free, does that really mean it's safe? ... FAN keeps you informed about fluoride toxicity, and monitors government actions ...

Edited March 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Scientific study reveals conspiracy theorists the most sane of all (link)

Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Webmaster's Commentary:

Not that I was worried, mind you!

[Steven Gaal]

The Monarch Butterfly - Evolutionary Enigma - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wck0DF4FkRA▶ 13:18

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wck0DF4FkRA

Aug 17, 2007 - Uploaded by Dave FlangThe Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the ..... Monarch Butterfly ...

========000000000000000000000000000000000000======

The Monarch Butterfly - Evolutionary Enigma - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wck0DF4FkRA▶ 13:18

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wck0DF4FkRA

Aug 17, 2007 - Uploaded by Dave FlangThe Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the ..... Monarch Butterfly ...

Edited March 23, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

This brand new 65-minute DVD makes it clear that the complexities of human reproduction demonstrate that life couldn’t possibly have evolved! Dr. Randy Guliuzza shows that biological systems are fully integrated-they have key parts that fit together for an intended purpose and break down when those parts are altered or removed. Approaching the subject in a tastefull manner, Dr. Guliuzza takes his audience through the detailed process of reproductive physiology and microscopic anatomy required for the making of a human baby.

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

https://vimeo.com/79678577 video

Edited March 28, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Heads, Evolution Wins--Tails, Creation Loses? by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › Fossils Reflect Life's Original Diversity

Wouldn't two billion years of mutations and changing environments inevitably produce some effects in an organism? After all, in only a quarter of that supposed time, evolutionary processes are said to have transformed fishes into people. Plus, mutations occur nonstop, so wouldn't enough mutations have accumulated after billions of years to affect some visible body part? Yet, the authors of a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences say that a dramatic lack of change in a certain bacteria somehow proves evolution.¹

Fossilized bacterial mats can be found off the coast of Western Australia. According to the Proceedings report, these sulfur bacteria are conventionally dated at 1.8 billion years old, and yet they perfectly match fossils found in the same area dated to 2.3 billion years.

That represents 500 million supposed years of no evolution in these bacteria. But stunningly, the same bacteria are alive and well today in muds found off the coast of Chile. William Schopf, a UCLA professor and lead author of the report told the UCLA news room, "It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years."²

To what did he attribute this miraculous evolutionary lapse? Schopf explained for UCLA news, "The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years."²

Schopf also said, "Evolution is a fact." His evolutionary logic is plain: Evolution occurs through changes in environments, but these germs did not evolve. Therefore, their environments never changed. Simple logic, right?

This thinking carries a few flaws. For example, it ignores evolutionary teaching that earth history has suffered dozens of horrendous calamities, including several global extinctions. A classic 1982 study of fossils alone identified mass extinctions in Ordovician, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous rock systems.³

Of course, Flood geologists are unencumbered by the dogma that these systems represent great time periods. What secular scientists interpret as a series of extinctions separated by millions of years could actually represent surging watery pulses during the Flood year when God was destroying Earth. If so, that explains why continent-covering sediments rapidly buried sea and sometimes land creatures together all over the world.⁴

Schopf's simple logic also ignores the fact that the bacteria in Chile live almost 8,000 miles from Western Australia. A path along the continental margins between those points would take several times more miles than that. Are we to imagine that these bacteria's ancestors kept to environments "that remained essentially unchanged" as they crept one germ at a time from one identical mud flat to another around the globe for millions of years while sea life everywhere else was dying off during ice ages, asteroids, and volcanoes?⁵

Believing in the Genesis Flood requires less faith than that.

References

1. Schopf, J. W. et al. 2015. Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (7): 2087-2092.
2. Wolpert, S. Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years. UCLA Newsroom. Posted on newsroom.ucla.edu February 2, 2015, accessed February 15, 2015.
3. Raup, D., and J. Sepkoski, Jr. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science. 215 (4539): 1501–1503.
4. Morris, J. 2012. The Global Flood. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
5. Today's living forms represent a mere five percent of what once roamed the seas. According to evolutionary theory, the remaining 95 percent were wiped out by mass extinctions. (Mass Extinction Fact Sheet. American Museum of Natural History. Posted on amnh.org, accessed February 20, 2015.)

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on March 23, 2015.

Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Earth Sciences › Fossils Reflect Life's Original Diversity More Related Articles

[Steven Gaal]

TIN FOIL HAT PEOPLE THINK BANKS ARE NOT THEIR FRIENDS (GAAL)

Bank Deposits No Longer Guaranteed By Austrian Government, Depositors Need To Realise Increasing Risks And Act Accordingly (LINK)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SOME HAVE PUT THERE MONEY IN THEIR MATTRESS AND THEY CANT SLEEP WELL >>> MAKES THEM CRANKY

Edited April 9, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

“Manufacturing Dissent”: The Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites

The People's Movement has been Hijacked

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, April 12, 2015

Global Research 20 September 2010

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

http://www.globalresearch.ca/manufacturing-dissent-the-anti-globalization-movement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110

[Steven Gaal]

>>>>> SCIENCE PROVES BIBLE RIGHT !! <<<<<

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]o]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Survey of 100000 galaxies yields no evidence of alien civilizations (LINK)

UPI.com-Apr 14, 2015

While the analysis turned up no obvious signs of alien empires, it did ... at NASA and elsewhere have suggested hard evidence of alien life, if it ...

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]o]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Does Scripture Refer to Life in Outer Space?

Some people think that the Bible records that spirit beings, both good and evil, are to be found in space. Ephesians 6:12 refers to "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms," and Daniel 10:12-13 gives us a glimpse of the warfare that goes on in high places. Beyond this, selected Scripture verses are sometimes also quoted in support of physical beings in space as distinct from the spirit world:

• "Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you." (Deuteronomy 30:4)
• "And the multitudes of heaven worship you" (Nehemiah 9:6)
• "In that day the Lord will punish the powers in the heavens above" (Isaiah 24:21)
• "And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens" (Mark 13:27)
• "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also" (John 10:16)

It is important to notice that several of these references could well refer to angels. The verses could also describe different groups of people scattered across the earth. Finally, we must note that the term “heaven” is a term whose definition is dependent upon its context. It can mean: outer space, the sky, the general direction of “up,” a paradise, or the abode of God. Therefore, these texts are not evidence of extraterrestrial life. In contrast, Scripture in general indicates the uniqueness of the earth as a sustainer of life.

• "The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man" (Psalm 115:16)
• "He who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45: 18)

Does the Bible teach that there are other alien life forms?

The idea of alien life forms has become very popular today. Unfortunately, many Christian men and women have been caught up in the frenzy as well and have begun to try to find vague allusions in the scripture to alien life forms. The sad truth is that any belief in alien life forms is founded on the assumption that evolution is true. If evolution is not true however, then the hope and belief in alien life forms quickly vanishes.

Some would say that God could have created aliens. Of course God could have done that, but in the Bible it is very clear that he did not. Remember that all of the celestial objects, including the sun, moon, planets, and ALL OF THE STARS in the universe were created for signs, seasons, days and years. The question is this: signs, seasons, days and years for whom? They were created for signs, seasons, days, and years for the inhabitants on Earth. Therefore, any other galaxy, star system, or celestial object which would "harbor life" would be FOR US (humans on earth) and not for any other creature or life form. Two other scriptures really eliminate the idea of alien life:

Psalm 115:16 "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." The heavens belong to God and not to alien life forms.

Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." He created the earth to be inhabited, not other planets.

Someone would then ask, why then did he make the universe so big? The answer again is simple: to declare his glory, to show his power, and to give you a revelation of his love for us. Only when you gain a revelation of the enormity of the universe can you then state what the Psalmist stated:

Psalm 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

The sad truth is that nearly all belief systems in alien life forms ultimately end up undermining the word of God and destroying people's faith.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Are Leading Economists Corrupt, or Just Mind-Blowingly Ignorant?

Apr 23, 2015

Eric Zuesse

Conservative economists favor Republican candidates because it’s the way for them to rise in power themselves, but what about ‘progressive’ economists: are they psychopaths, too; or do they instead blindly favor ‘Democratic’ candidates because of a sincerely oblivious belief that the mere ‘Democratic’ Party-label indicates that the given politician is actually progressive?

Apparently, the answer is the latter, if one is to judge from assertions by the most-famous ‘progressive’ economists. Even so-called ‘progressive’ economists say that corrupt ‘Democratic’ candidates who have clear records of lying should be judged on the basis of what they say they will do, not on what their conservative record shows they’ve actually done and the interests they have actually been serving and paid by.

For example, Joseph Stiglitz is trumpeted by economists and by the newsmedia as being a ‘progressive’ economist, and he was recently asked in a Huffington Post interview, regarding Hillary Clinton, “Some people are skeptical as to whether she is really genuine, … whether or not this is a woman who is too cozy with Wall Street?” and he answered, “Well, she’s clearly much better than the Republican candidates,” and he cited as supposed evidence for that, not just what she is saying to him, but what she is saying to Democratic Party voters in a Democratic Party primary campaign to attract liberal voters and so to win the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. He compares to that, such things as the Republican candidate Marco Rubio’s (who, of course, doesn’t consult with such ‘progressive’ economists) campaign statements, which are aimed to appeal to conservative voters and so to win the Republican nomination — as if the task for either candidate (Clinton or Rubio) at present is actually to win, instead, the general-election campaign and so to appeal to the entire electorate, both conservative and liberal. Is Stiglitz really that stupid? Of course not. He knows the difference between a primary campaign and a general-election campaign.

He simply ignored Hillary Clinton’s already established and lengthy record, which is that of a conservative in ‘Democratic’ rhetorical garb, just like Barack Obama (the continuer of George W. Bush’s Wall Street bailouts and most of his other substantive policies), or, for that matter, her own husband, Bill Clinton, who had ended the great Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s progressive legacy of the Glass-Steagall Act, which placed a firewall between, on the one hand, government taxpayer-insured bank-deposits and checking and savings accounts, versus, on the other hand, Wall Street’s risky gambles and bets to win high profits with proportionally higher risks — and, so, FDR basically blocked any continuation of Wall Street’s then-existing ability to gamble with Regular Joes’ money and so to leave the gambling losses to Regular Joes, while still reaping the outsized gambling profits, which then go to Wall Street’s banksters, alone. The ‘Democratic’ President Bill Clinton in 1999 helped Republicans ram through Congress the Gramm-Leach-Bliley, all-Republican, bill (which is one of the most corrupt laws in U.S. history), to terminate the Glass-Steagall Act in order retroactively to legalize Citibank’s takeover of Travelers Insurance; and his Treasury Secretary (Robert Rubin) was then hired by Citigroup to help to lead this very same Wall Street firm that had lobbied the hardest for this Republican law to legalize that merger, which violated FDR’s progressivism and violated the American public. If this action by Clinton wasn’t corrupt, then nothing is, except perhaps Wall Street’s continuing lavish spending on the Clinton Foundation and on Hillary Clinton’s political career, first as Wall Street’s junior U.S. Senator, and then as an aspiring U.S. President.

A good summary of the reality about Hillary Clinton was Ben White and Maggie Haberman’s Politico article, on 28 April 2014, “Wall Street Republicans’ dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016,” which noted that, “The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton.” It’s not that the fundamentalist Cruz or the populist Paul would fail to treat Wall Street fairly; it’s instead that Hillary Clinton would be even more subservient to that big-money than either Cruz or Paul would be — that she’s more corrupt. And she is.

Here is the list of top career donors to Hillary Clinton:

That’s Wall Street and the firms which serve it. The ‘feminist’ EMILY’s List is also included, of women who still vote for Hillary for the same reason that Blacks still vote for Obama (despite their being pounded the worst by his economic policies), which has to do with gender or racial identifications instead of any progressive (or even practical) ideology at all, but Hillary is almost entirely Wall Street’s property — bought and paid for, and committed to delivering to them what they have paid for (advantages to big international firms at the expense of small firms and at the expense of consumers and of workers and of the environment), which is the types of services that such ‘Democrats’ as she, and her husband, and Barack Obama, have privately promised to them, and delivered to them. (Actually, Obama is the very worst: During his Presidency, the top 1% income share has soared, and he has been President in the years following an economic crash, which is precisely the period in the economic cycle when the norm has instead been for economic inequality to decrease, not increase. In order for a President Hillary Clinton to outperform his lousy record on inequality, she’d need to reject his policies and turn radically against Wall Street, which has financed her own rise. What you’ve just now read is all documented right there, at that link; any intelligent voter will want to examine it.)

America has become a corrupt country in a corrupt world, nothing unusual in this regard. The first step to America’s becoming less corrupt would be for its voters to recognize that they have been and are fooled by the decades-long big-money indoctrination into “the free market” (actually crony capitalism), and that their top priority should thus be to vote against it — to vote against (i.e., in the exact opposite direction from) the advertisements and ‘news’ media that pump what the super-rich want to be pumped into politics and into government, and so pump the popular votes that enable it all to be legal and ‘democratic,’ no mere oligarchy that mocks America’s anti-aristocratic Founders.

Stiglitz wants to be part of the game that Hillary Clinton, as Obama’s Secretary of State, was playing: working for Wall Street while pretending to be their enemy. He wants to be on Hillary’s team, perhaps even inside the White House. (Like President Obama himself told the banksters in secret, at the start of his Presidency, on 27 March 2009: “My Administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you.” And, he fulfilled on that promise. But he doesn’t fulfill on the big ones to the contrary, that he makes in public, and to the public.)

If President Obama were sincere about his opposition to increasing economic inequality, he wouldn’t deceive people by saying that, as The New York Times summed up his propaganda in a headline on 3 February 2014, “In Talk of Economy, Obama Turns to ‘Opportunity’ Over ‘Inequality’.” He would instead acknowledge that equality of opportunity cannot increase while inequality of incomes is increasing, because opportunity depends very largely upon income: the bigger a person’s income is, the more economic opportunities that person tends to have. Instead of acknowledging this basic crucial economic fact, Obama, and the Clintons, and economists, hide it.

The lying permeates not only all of the Republican Party, but also the very top, the national, level of the Democratic Party. Democratic voters were especially deceived by Obama, and by Hillary, and by John Edwards, in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries, to think that their plan (it was all basically the same plan) for health insurance would produce “universal health care,” but all three knew that it couldn’t possibly deliver any such result. The percentage of Americans who had insurance then was 85.4% insured; 14.6% uninsured. Currently, it’s 87.1% insured, 12.9% uninsured. Their plan thus increased the insured rate by 87.1%/85.4%, or merely 2% above what it had been when they all started promising “universal coverage,” something which already exists in all other developed countries (100% of the population having health insurance). That’s how corrupt our country is. And they all promised also a public option, something which would enable anyone to opt out of the for-profit corporate model of provisioning healthcare services. But, Obama never really intended to deliver on that promise, either.

Leading economists are not mind-blowingly ignorant.

Perhaps the main reason why the turnout of Democrats at the polls is so poor is that the Democratic Party has sold out so much to Republican Party values, so that the Democratic Party’s voters are giving up hope and giving up on the Party itself as representing them and their interests. The reality now in the United States, has become that there is, now, a choice only between two conservative parties, with the only differences between them being ethnic and gender preferences in order to keep up the fraud that there exists a real political choice and not just a one-party, actually fascist, government, decorated, around the edges, with differences about how deeply into conservatism this nation ought to go.

And, so: what can be expected of the Democratic Party’s economists, except the hope that their next career-move will be upward, instead of downward?