False flag theater: Boston bombing involves clearly staged carnage

 “Does a compelling description of a terrorist attack, replete with ‘eyewitness accounts’ of the terrifying scene, and official pronouncements, constitute an actual event?” – Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy.

 By Sheila Casey for Veterans Today

Reprinted from Truth and Shadows

—

The mainstream media story of the Boston Marathon bombing is of Chechen terrorists who unleashed weapons of mass destruction, killing four and wounding 264 in an unthinkable scene of “bodies flying into the street”, “so many people without legs” and “blood everywhere.”
A massive police response followed, with 9,000 federal, state, FBI and Department of Homeland Security troops conducting door-to-door searches to find and subdue the “armed and extremely dangerous” suspects. Cops unceremoniously ousted residents from their homes to set up impromptu battle stations, and one aimed a gun at a resident who was snapping his picture from a window.
For the vast majority of the American population, this is the truth and they feel no need to look further. Yet those who are willing to question the narrative we’ve been sold and take a hard look behind the curtain may be in for a surprise. Based on the video and photo record, it seems clear that the lead actor in this production—the most grievously wounded, as well as the man who fingered Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as the bomber—was faking his injuries, as were most of those allegedly hurt by the first bomb.  We were told his name is Jeff Bauman, but since that can’t be verified and his survival is unbelievable to the point of being miraculous, we’ll simply call him Miracle Man.
First let’s see what can be learned from a Boston Globe video on YouTube that starts six seconds prior to the first explosion.  (For this article, I’m focusing solely on the first explosion and its now famous victim, although serious anomalies–such as the curious case of a missing mailbox– have also been reported at the site of the second explosion.)
The cameraman was standing on the finish line, facing the approaching runners, so had a view of both explosions. For 2 min and 42 seconds, he continues filming, as he walks around the area of the first explosion pointing the camera in seemingly random directions.
There is a boom and white smoke rises from the sidewalk. But nothing flies into the street: no debris, no nails or pellets, and certainly no bodies or body parts. None of the flags are knocked down or pierced by shrapnel. Watching this video, it’s easy to understand why some participants believed the explosions to be part of the finish line festivities. All runners except one keep on going: although not hit by anything, an older man falls and rolls on his back, but within 30 seconds he’s on his feet and walking to the finish line.
The second explosion seems similar in intensity to the first, although we don’t see it as clearly.
At 0:53, we get our first good look at the sidewalk behind the fence, in front of Sugar Heaven: there are about seven people there, all standing, and some litter. No blood, no one on the ground. We saw no crowds of people rushing from that area, and usually the finish line of a major race is jammed with spectators. Where did everyone go? Was the area cleared ahead of time?
At 1:17 we get a view of the sidewalk in front of the store next door, Marathon Place, ground zero for the first bomb. We see about five victims on the ground, and perhaps six assisting them. (They may be more, our view is blocked by a fence.)
At 1:53 we see that Carlos Arredondo—who achieved brief fame for rescuing the double amputee, Miracle Man—is still clutching his American flag, even as he tries to get over the fence to help the victims. This is peculiar: who holds onto something unimportant in the face of a mass disaster?
From 2:17 to 2:23 we see an older balding man dressed all in black, gesturing to people off screen to the right to come to him. I say “people,” plural, because he makes the “come to me” gesture continuously for the six seconds we see him, as if bringing in a crowd. He has a lanyard around his neck of the type used by large corporations for employee identification.
Indeed, by 2:35, as the fence is finally pulled away, the sidewalk is much more crowded than it was a minute ago. We also see that Carlos still has not reached Miracle Man.
Although we hear sirens several times, in this video we never see an ambulance or any bodies—living or dead—being carried away. Perhaps all the ambulances went to the second bombing, where people may have really been hurt. At this point the camera aims down at the street and fades out.
The video gives the impression of a bomb much, much smaller than media reports would lead one to believe. The area is swarming with runners, photographers, police and EMTs, but actual victims seem scarce.

The uncropped photo of the poster boy for this event, who allegedly lost both legs in the first blast, raises several questions. He is in the finisher’s chute, about 40 yards from the finish line.
Where are they taking him? Why aren’t he and his severed limbs being rushed to the hospital? He reportedly ends up at Boston Medical Center, 1.5 miles away. Are they planning to get him there via wheelchair?
Why is there so little blood? We can clearly see the road behind them, and there is no blood trail. The one visible tourniquet on his leg is not tight to his skin, so it cannot be properly tied or winched. A second tourniquet is caught under the wheels.
According to this article in Wikipedia, it is possible to bleed to death from a severed femoral artery in as little as three minutes. Although the femoral artery ends above the knee, there is still huge blood flow below the knee, and Miracle Man lost both legs simultaneously just below the knee.  The blood should be gushing from his legs, especially because he is sitting up. Standard protocol for a traumatic amputation of the leg is to lay the patient flat and elevate the leg, using gravity to prevent uncontrolled hemorrhage. We know from other photos that a woman near Miracle Man (she is seen literally on top of him) with no visible injuries was put on a stretcher before Miracle Man. Why did she get the stretcher and not him?
How is he still conscious? Based on real time video evidence , this picture was taken more than six and a half minutes after his calves were blown off. He is not bleeding, he is sitting up with eyes open, and he is still a long way from getting medical attention. How did he survive?

By comparison, consider this video of a hockey accident where goalie Clint Marlachuk got a skate across his neck that cut his jugular vein.  Just a few seconds after the cut, he’s already created a sizable pool of blood on the ice. It is easy to believe that if his bleeding had continued unchecked for a minute or two, he would be dead or close to it.
A swimmer was attacked by a great white shark off Solana Beach, CA with a bite across both legs. Although his fellow triathletes brought him immediately to shore, he died within minutes of the bite—possibly before being pulled from the water. Unlike Miracle Man, the swimmer’s legs were not completely detached.

So what are we to make of these images of Miracle Man immediately after the bombing, taken from a surveillance video? In frame 1 below, the smoke is still thick so the bomb has just detonated. But far from being splayed out on the concrete in a pool of blood, clothes tattered and/or singed from the heat, struggling to comprehend what has just happened, and with multiple smaller injuries in addition to those that took off his legs, we see an odd scene.
Miracle Man is on his back in the “crunch” position often seen in gyms by those trying to tighten their abdominals. It’s not an easy or comfortable position to hold, and certainly not the one I’d choose immediately after suffering a devastating injury like double traumatic amputation. We see no blood, injuries or torn clothing on him or anyone else in the photo. Miracle Man’s thighs, hands and elbows are in the air and a hooded man is between his stumps, in the posture of a midwife. And between the two men is an African-American woman, who appears to be leaning or resting on Miracle Man’s abdomen.

(Frame 2) Amidst the “carnage,” the hooded man takes a moment to don his sunglasses.
In frame 2, the hooded man is putting on his sunglasses. If he truly had before him a mortally wounded man who could expire within minutes, stopping to put on his sunglasses would seem strange. For that matter, wearing a hood on a nice day with temperatures in the high 50s/low 60s is also strange—it’s no fashion statement.
But because we know that this is a faked scene, he is most likely donning the glasses to try to hide his identity. Between the hoodie and the sunglasses it works pretty well.
The black woman is still reclining on Miracle Man, who still has his hands, arms and thighs in the air. Only his lower back and buttocks are touching the pavement. We still see no blood or injuries anywhere in the frame.

In frame 3, the clean, dry bone of Miracle Man’s left calf is raised and is on the black woman’s head, but there is no blood. She is wearing a bright white shirt and it is wholly free of blood. The alleged double amputee is still in the crunch position, his hands now in front of his face. What is he doing? Why is no one attempting to tie a tourniquet or get him help? Why is Miracle Man himself not attending to his own life threatening injuries, as the goalie did by trying to stanch the blood gushing from his neck with his hands?

(Frame 4) At ground zero for the 1st bomb, there is no blood.
In frame 4, the bone of Miracle Man’s left leg is now directly over the black woman’s head, but still there is no blood, on his stump or on the woman. The red that we see is her jacket.
A few minutes later, we see this odd scene (photo below). Miracle Man isn’t visible, although we know he hasn’t left the area yet, because Carlos, his rescuer, is still there, leaning against the fence holding his cowboy hat and flag, as if waiting his cue. The hooded man is now reclining, propped up on one arm, looking very relaxed.

The shop window has been blown out, leaving a pile of broken glass on the sidewalk. The bomb was supposedly on the sidewalk, so why didn’t the glass blow in to the shop, rather than out onto the sidewalk?
Now, finally we see blood—or what could be blood if it were darker.  Below is a photo of the blood from a gruesome motorcycle accident, next to the victim’s arm.  It’s much thicker and darker than the substance on the Boston sidewalk.
In the lower right corner of the photo above is a bottle containing a liquid the same color as the “blood” now on the sidewalk.  Did the red liquid on the sidewalk come out of this bottle? The black woman now has blood on her, although not on her head and shoulders where you’d expect it after having Miracle Man’s freshly severed leg directly over her.


Finally, here is Miracle Man after both the black woman and the hooded man have moved away from him.  There is a discarded surgical glove on the ground, although no first responders have yet responded to the most badly injured victim.  There is clearly no tourniquet on Miracle Man’s left leg, yet no blood flow is seen. Everyone around him seems quite nonplussed by his gruesome injuries and unmoved to help him. His right stump is much shorter than the left one, ending above the knee, and appears to be entirely encased in his pants. In the photo taken later of Jeff in the wheelchair (shown above), which according to Google Images has been published over 1 million times, his right stump has magically grown a knee.
Compare the story told by these images with the complete fantasy reported in the Concord Monitor.

(Miracle Man) was lying on the ground near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, grasping the hands of his girlfriend’s two roommates. Just seconds before, they’d been waiting with a sign to hold up when she completed the race. He wanted the girls to get help before he did. He didn’t realize how bad his own injuries were. But before he knew it he was in a wheelchair, and a man in a cowboy hat was pinching one of Bauman’s severed arteries.

More fiction from the Concord Monitor:

“When the first explosion happened, (Carlos Arredondo) jumped over a fence and ran toward the victims, he told WEEI radio in Boston. He knelt down next to Bauman, whose legs had been blown off and was (sic) bleeding profusely… Arredondo found a sweater on the ground, ripped it and tied it around Bauman’s leg to try to stop the bleeding.”

We know from the surveillance video that none of this happened. There were no young women tenderly holding his hands, no man in a cowboy hat heroically vaulting the fence to put him immediately in a wheelchair, no profuse bleeding and no ripped sweater to stop it.

It’s instructive to see the kind of story the Monitor (and other media outlets) manufactured. It’s a fairy tale, with heroes and villains. There are no shades of grey; the victim is a saint; despite being mortally wounded, “he wanted the girls to get help before he did,” and the villain is pure evil—so evil neither his wife nor mother want to claim his body.
Military propaganda gets the most bang for the buck out of creating intense emotion and a desire for vengeance in the targeted population, which in this case are the American people. By creating stories of wholesome, saintly Americans who have been brutalized by deranged foreigners, the event is reduced to a simplistic story of good against evil. Who would not support the “good” when threatened by “evil?” Thus the authorities are better able to carry out the agenda the attack was created to facilitate, such as shutting down a city under de facto martial law, or amping up racist beliefs that Muslims are not quite human, and their sufferings—such as those inflicted by the US during endless wars—nothing to be concerned about.
Adding to the unanswered questions is this video, a double-time static view of the entire scene, evidently taken from the media deck over the finish line. At 3:12 we see that as Miracle Man is being wheeled down the street, two people bringing in an empty gurney walk right past him and his entourage, going the other way. They pass within 10 feet of each other, so they could not have missed seeing each other. The man in the yellow jacket with Miracle Man has “EMT” on his lapel. Why didn’t this Emergency Medical Tech ask for the gurney, pointing out the dire condition of his patient?
It is 3:17 by the time they exit the frame at the lower left. Since this video is playing back at twice the normal speed, that means that six minutes and 34 seconds (3:17 x 2) had elapsed—just while this video was playing— before Miracle Man started on his journey down Boylston Street, where the wheelchair Bauman shot was taken. The video doesn’t show the bombing or any emergency vehicles, so it begins sometime after the bombings, although there’s no way to know how much after.
Carlos Arrendondo was interviewed about the bombing, but almost everything he says about it is provably false.
At 0:11 he says emphatically “you see people without limbs. Ripped off limbs everywhere, everywhere.” This is patently false. The only sign of a possible lost limb in the photos and video is a part of the sole of a foot and toes seen in the lower left of the frame. But there is no way to know if that foot is still attached to a person.
At 0:25 (although partly inaudible) he makes clear that he ripped either his own or Miracle Man’s clothes to make the tourniquets. Problem is, the tourniquets are bright white, and neither he nor Miracle Man were wearing white. This also contradicts the interview where he said he created a tourniquet out of a sweater, as neither he nor Miracle Man were wearing a sweater.
At 0:35 Carlos says of Miracle Man that “he had a big fire going on, on his shirt.” Miracle Man’s shirt was not at all burned.
At 1:22 he says “there was so many people begging me for help, begging me for help, but I can only help one at a time.” Despite the many photos and videos of Carlos that day, there is no sign of him interacting with any victim other than Miracle Man. At one point he is seen standing against the fence, just waiting.
At another point, with Miracle Man still untended to, Carlos is seen trying to take down a fence. Right behind him are the hooded man and the black woman who were with Miracle Man, so Miracle Man had to have been directly behind Carlos only minutes before. Where is he? I’d guess he’s off getting his makeup applied and his fake bloody prosthesis attached.  The architects of this event knew they needed a poster boy to get the public riled up, and Miracle Man was the guy for the job. His makeup and fake bloody prosthesis had to be good.
At 1:38 he says of Miracle Man “he was unconscious.” This is false, Miracle Man is conscious even in the final photo, taken nearly seven minutes after the bomb.
At 2:01 he unrolls his bloody American flag and shows it to the interviewers. If the interview was taped prior to the event, this may be why he was so determined to hang on to his flag even while trying to climb the fence to get to the victims. He would need to still have it with him, for consistency’s sake, in any other photos and videos after the event.
At 2:28 they start talking about the flags of nations that lined the street just prior to the finish line, and at 2:37 Carlos says emphatically, with a sweeping motion of his hand, “all the flags was gone. All gone.” This again is false: both videos show that not a single flag was knocked over by the blasts.
Carlos’s lies about the scale of the event could be simply a man trying to make himself out to be more of a hero than he was. But, he had to have known that there were many cameras at the finish line and his story would be proven false. In light of the other discrepancies in the story, it seems more likely that Carlos was paid, and this was the story he was told to relate.
***
I know that the evidence I’ve presented here, and the huge charade that it implies, will incite outrage and indignation among those who still believe that the media delivers the unvarnished truth. If this is your first exposure to solid evidence of false flag terrorism, your mind is probably madly sputtering with justifications and defenses that will allow you to go on believing what you have always believed: that your most loved news personality has only the truth as his/her goal. If you identify as liberal, you no doubt believe that there is propaganda aplenty at Fox News, while Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow tell it like it is. Conservatives of course believe the opposite.
Unfortunately both sides are wrong, as there is little truth to be found on either the right or the left, whether “mainstream” or “alternative.” The false left-right paradigm keeps people fighting among themselves and ignoring the real enemy, which is exactly as the real enemy likes it.
Those looking for a quick and painless way to dismiss uncomfortable facts need look no further than any of thousands of pundits and news anchors who have already told you what to think about “conspiracy theorists.” You’ve heard that they start with a conclusion and make the evidence fit their preconceived notions, they find real life too boring so they invent elaborate stories to spice things up, or that the idea of random terror is so, well, terrifying that they need to have a “grand theory” to make the world seem safer and more manageable.
These themes originated with the CIA 47 years ago, when they released a plan to stomp out alternative views about the JFK assassination. The plan includes a recommendation to “employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics”

“Our assets should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.”

Although lacking any grounding in fact, these criticisms of researchers who question the government’s story have been repeated so often by both mainstream and alternative sources, that they are now believed by many gullible people.
Does the idea of the US government using actors to play the role of victims in fake terror attacks seem impossibly far-fetched?
An article from 2003 describes the Department of Homeland Security running exercises with “make-believe victims seeking medical treatment. Volunteers and professional actors will play the roles of victims…”
Consider this Actor Waiver Form for a Homeland Security Exercise. Although I can’t verify its authenticity, if they are using actors in drills, such forms would be standard operating procedure.

DHS has a history of using actors for mass casualty drills.
The U.S. government uses amputees for training exercises. With a specially prepared “bloody” prosthesis, an actor who lost his limb years ago can be made to look as if he lost his limb moments ago.

The government has staged many terror attacks to achieve political goals, and they no doubt learned that one of their biggest headaches after such an attack was the grieving family members who kept pointing out the inconsistencies in the stories they were given about how their loved ones had died. For the citizen mindlessly ingesting standard news pablum, the official story may seem plausible. Not so for the highly motivated mother, husband or daughter of a victim, who latches on a like a bulldog and won’t let go until they get the answers they seek.
But the perpetrators still need graphic images of human suffering to incite the kind of rage that prompts the citizenry to willingly surrender their rights and let the feds ignore the law and do as they please.
The solution was evidently to stage terror attacks with actors, where no one actually gets hurt. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, they were able to achieve all the same goals that a real terror attack would have (such as testing whether it is possible to close down a city over a single teenage “terrorist” on the loose) without the nuisance of grieving, inquisitive family members.
***
Sheila Casey is a journalist whose work has been published by the Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters, The Denver Post, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice and the Rock Creek Free Press. Contact her or read her other political articles here.

51

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=251473
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice

Benghazi Coverup Uncovered

By Clarice Feldman

BBC has apologized for its coverage of the Benghazi murders; ABC has unraveled the mendacious tale of the talking points ' genesis and the Congressional hearings this week have dramatically established the administration's elaborate lies about how our ambassador and his brave defenders were murdered and its failure to protect them. Maybe now the press will feel it's okay to get off their duffs and report how a thoroughly incompetent administration, motivated solely by self-interest, left our ambassador and others to be murdered and then lied about it with consequences to us all.

Were this a trial 's closing moments, counsel for the prosecution would be reminding the jury that if a witness has lied about a substantive matter in the hearing they can assume he's lying about everything.

Here are the relevant timeline features from Doug Ross (time is local D.C. time)

US Time 9.11.12
15:59 Department of Defense orders unmanned surveillance aircraft to reposition overhead Benghazi mission [ed. It appears we sought Libyan permission to do this and received it]
16:05 Department of state email notified White House, Pentagon of attack
16:32 Secretary of defense Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff informed of attack by Department of Defense
17:00 Obama and Biden and Panetta meet at White House
17:06 Third Department of Defense email says Ansar al-Sharia claim attack
17:22 Hillary blames the video [and spontaneous outburst by Libyans]
9.12.12
10:50 Obama meets with Clinton at Department of State
18:50 Obama flies to Las Vegas for fundraiser 

John Podhoretz at the NY Post zeroed in on testimony proving the administration lied in placing the blame on a spontaneous outburst responsive to the Nakoula  Basseley Nakoula video:

...we learned during the hearing that on Sept. 12, State Department official Beth Jones said flatly in an e-mail, "The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."
We can say this because we heard the testimony of the No. 2 US diplomat in Libya, Greg Hicks -- in which he said no one on the ground in Libya had any doubt it was a planned assault by Ansar al-Sharia. The first thing his boss, Ambassador Chris Stevens, told Hicks over the phone was, "We're under attack." Stevens was murdered shortly thereafter.
We can say this because we learned last week that the State Department Operations Center sent out a bulletin on Sept. 11 stating that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.
Hicks said that in his conversations with State Department officials back home, including Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, neither he nor they nor anybody else said anything about a spontaneous demonstration or anything about a YouTube video.

Because you may have forgotten how outrageous was the role played by Hillary Clinton and the White House in this and how the media's defensive blockers have kept the truth hidden from view, let me give you a quick review of some of the most repulsive behavior both before and after the 2012 election.

America Rising PAC has put together an outstanding (and short) video contrasting Clinton's statements earlier with what we learned this week:          

Politico, which normally is a mouthpiece for the administration, has further videos of the original (unsworn) Clinton testimony before Congress and that of Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks and excoriated her for the role she played in making a patsy of Nakoula and undermining the First Amendment,

His video, which did spark violent protests in the Muslim world by the kind of people who are looking for an excuse to protest, should have been an object lesson in freedom. Obama should have explained that our culture is full of disreputable film directors and producers. Some of them are even honored by the Academy.
Instead, Nakoula ended up the patsy in a tawdry coverup. The State Department Operations Center reported to Washington immediately that the Benghazi attack was an assault carried out by Islamic militants. The falsehoods about Benghazi weren't a product of the fog of war; they were the product of the fog of politics. Desperate to minimize the attack and deflect responsibility, Team Obama evaded and obfuscated.
Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard notes that even the politicized anodyne talking points left over after the administration's spinmiesters had thoroughly edited the CIA's original talking points about Benghazi didn't mention the Nakoula video. During her infamous Sunday show circuit, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice nonetheless said, "What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States."
Very few people have been willing to stick up for Nakoula (with "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds a prominent and dogged exception). Nakoula's character is sketchy and his work is execrable. Yet the First Amendment applies to him all the same, even if he might have reason to doubt it as he serves out a sentence that never would have come about if he hadn't offended the wrong people.

Not only did Clinton (and Rice) repeatedly lie to but as well, she made this video directed to Pakistan repeating the lie that Nakoula was the one at fault. Clinton and Obama even brazenly repeated the lies standing in front of the coffins of the dead at Andrews Field and promising their survivors that the filmmaker would be punished..

The story never made sense and I said so at the time. The big press, however, the press that could have made a difference, to its everlasting shame, pulled every defensive trick in the book to cover for the administration liars and their fairytale.

Candy Crowley famously interjected herself into the Romney-Obama debate to get Obama off the hot seat with a false interpretation of what the administration had done, suggesting that the president and his team had early blamed terrorists for the assault when they most certainly had not: at best in the quote she referred to he was making a very generic claim, not disputing his own team's official account that this was a reaction to the video.

A cabal of reporters coordinated their efforts to undercut Mitt Romney's charge defused a press conference by him condemning our response to the Libyan attacks:

It is not uncommon for reporters to coordinate their line of questioning ahead of a press conference where there will be limited time and only a handful of reporters selected to ask questions.
However, some conservatives have expressed irritation that the reporters' coordination focused on the tone and timing of Romney's statement rather than the policy proscriptions he would advance in order to preempt future attacks similar to Tuesday's assault on the American consulate in Benghazi.
h/t The Right Scoop

As they treated the issues from the beginning until late this week, with rare exceptions, such as Fox News and CBS's Sharyl Attkisson, the press has treated the issue as a nonstarter if they fitted it in at all in between news of the shape of the Kardashians' derrieres, the Cleveland child kidnappers, the Arias trial, and any other bit of fluff that carried with it no downside for Obama and little work for them.

When pressed at her first Congressional appearance -- after time off for a self-reported head injury and wine tasting abroad -- Hillary famously said of the matter of the false account," What difference, at this point,  does it make?"  This week, we learned from the men on the ground in Libya what difference it made -- because of the false narrative we undercut and discredited our allies, the officials of the new Libyan government. They in turn delayed the entry of the FBI to the scene of the attack, making a proper investigation impossible. In sum, the lie obstructed justice and undoubtedly played a role in our continued inability to identify suspects or to apprehend them. Of course, it goes without saying voters in 2012 might well have thought a great deal less of Obama had the truth been revealed.

More than the substance of the report was utterly false. So were the claims of its authorship. Contrary to the assertions that the administration talking points were prepared by the intelligence community , we learned from ABC that they were edited 12 times at the White House and State Department to hide the truth.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."
Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
[snip]
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
"The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points," Carney said. "The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn't the substance here."

Carney's notion of "stylistic and nonsubstantive" and mine are different. I'd call the changes major and meaningful.

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, who has done an outstanding job, has more on how the CIA's report was mangled beyond recognition by "senior administrative policymakers" He names the fairytale creators as Victoria Nuland , "State Department spokeswoman", Ben Rhodes, "a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser" (See here), Jake Sullivan, then deputy chief of staff to Clinton and now top national security advisor to Vice-President Biden.

What's clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.
Hicks testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had happened in Benghazi. "I was stunned," he said. "My jaw dropped."
The hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.
On May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First, Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she'd had with Libya's ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. "When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff and longtime confidante.
Second, Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points. Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to "move on" from Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that Benghazi had happened "a long time ago."
But it's increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are answered.

Congressman Chaffetz has indicated he wants Hillary to testify again before the committee, if necessary under subpoena.

Besides the reasons for the administration's obfuscations and lies, it is now necessary to determine whether we did what we could have to rescue our beleaguered men on the ground. The committee heard that there were two orders to "Stand down" from assisting them. Lt. General McInerney speaking on Lou Dobbs said, "There is only one person who can say stand down and that's the president". What took place between 5 p.m. on Sept 11 when Panetta met with Obama and 6:50 p.m. the following day when Obama left to fundraise in Las Vegas? Perhaps only they can clarify that. Panetta is subject to subpoena. Will the president be asked to testify? Will he refuse?

And why did the administration attempt this ridiculous charade? Because they feared its impact on the election? Because there was something going on in Libya they do not want us to know? Is it a Middle Eastern version of Fast & Furious with our giving weaponry to our enemies?

In the meantime, we can be sure that others will join the people who leaked to Hayes and Karl. James Rosen thinks so, too:

Fox's @JamesRosenFNC reports that "several more" #Benghazi whistleblowers are considering coming forward," including CIA officials.

Such a faithless administration with its already demonstrated willingness to cast blame on others and to sacrifice those lower down the totem pole does not inspire loyalty. 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/peeling_off_the_benghazi_cover.html#ixzz2T6xioCJI

BBC: Heads Will Roll, White House Benghazi Cover Up Exposed

Friday, May 10, 2013 13:54

(Before It's News)

New documents show the CIA was ordered to change Benghazi Talking Points 12  times and the White House is being accused of issuing a stand-down order to protect the consulate from the attack.
After ABC News dropped a bombshell earlier proving the Obama administration was directly involved in editing the CIA’s talking points which were then distributed throughout the government and the parroted by the corporate media as if they were absolute fact.
Shortly after the September 11th terror attacks the alternative media cried foul and pointed out numerous discrepancies in the official narrative.
Conservative media outlets seized upon the reports in the alternative media as a major opportunity to attack the Obama administration.
Meanwhile moderate and left-leaning media outlets continued to echo the official narrative despite mounting overwhelming evidence to contrary.
They have continued to do so even though the administration’s story has completely fallen apart.
That is now starting to change as non-conservative media outlets are realizing there is irrefutable evidence they have been duped by the government.
Today Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North American editor, issued an apology for continuing to believe Obama’s lies and went on to state heads will roll.
Perhaps even more damning is the media is now being forced to admit that they do in fact parrot talking points handed to them by the government and acting nothing more than stenographer’s echoing the same talking points given to them while refusing to go off script.

From the BBC:

After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have held repeated hearings on the Benghazi attacks

There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
[...]
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.
Black and white

Republicans are certain to use the Benghazi affair against Clinton should she run in 2016

In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
[...]
But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don’t.
[...]
Butt-guarding
The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language. The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.
Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.
The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.
As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”
However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.
Source: BBC

From ABC:

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
[...]
Source: ABC News

And this:  Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

Diplomat: Ambassador in Benghazi Said, ‘We’re Under Attack’

Gregory Hicks, who became the top diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed during an attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012, told a congressional committee today that the attack left him scrambling for help that failed to arrive in time.
“Is anything coming?” Hicks said he asked a defense attache as he worked to coordinate a response from Tripoli, Libya, during the attack. “Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?”
Hicks said requests for military help were denied and later that State Department officials tried to keep him from cooperating with a House investigation.
[...]
Source: ABC News

Waynesville Murders

Waynesville Murders

Followers of the Dark Knight/Batman might think of "Bruce Wayne," but other associations come to mind when the name "Wayne" is heard.

Within the "weird news" field, it has been a well-known truism that if a criminal has a middle name of "Wayne," no one in the newsroom is surprised he is being charged with murder. The examples are multiple. The most famous case, of course, is John Wayne Gacy.

My old buddy, correspondent Chuck Shepherd, has been a student of this "name game" for years. Here's what Chuck says about it, in an introduction to the topic:

The Classic Middle Name

It only occurred to me in the early 1990s that "Wayne" was a popular middle name among a few of the most heinous murderers of our time, e.g., the clown John Wayne Gacy (who killed almost three dozen boys and young men in the late 1970s and buried most of them beneath the floorboards of his Des Plaines, Ill., home) and Elmer Wayne Henley (sentenced to six consecutive life terms in 1974 in Houston for his role, with ringleader Dean Allen Corll, in the murders of 27 young men). I began to publish periodic lists in 1996, and soon readers made sure I never missed a one that made the news. Source, plus his impressively long list of names.

Now, today, Mother's Day, May 12, 2013, there is a breaking story out of Waynesville, Indiana, in Bartholomew County.

Police are reporting that Saturday night, four dead bodies were discovered in a residence there. The three deceased men (in the front room) and one dead woman (in the bedroom) had been shot.

The victims have been identified as 53-year-old Katherine Burton, 39-year-old Thomas Smith, 41-year-old Aaron Cross and 41-year old Shawn Burton. No suspect is in custody.
Wayne is an Old English name that means "wagon-wright," "wagon builder," and/or "wagon-driver."

Bartholomew was one of the 12 apostles, sometimes called Nathanael (Mark 3:18). It is a male name, from the Hebrew, meaning "son of Talmai."

Bartholomew County was formed on February 12, 1821 and was named for Lt. Col. Joseph Bartholomew, wounded at the Battle of Tippecanoe. Bartholomew joined the Revolutionary War at the age of 10, and he served as a scout for General “Mad” Anthony Wayne.  Bartholomew married Christiana Pickenpaugh in 1788. His daughter Martha and several of his grandchildren were some of the earliest converts to Mormonism and several were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Of course, it is only a coincidence to note that the town directly south of Waynesville, Indiana, only 11 miles away, is Seymour, Indiana. Fifty-seven miles west of Seymour is Aurora, Indiana.

Posted by Loren Coleman at

Before the Delusion by William Gleeson, a bombshell rewriting 12,000 years of history

By Roland Michel T... - http://www.ufodigest.com/article/delusion-william-gleeson-bombshell-0507

Before the Delusion: Secret Vatican Files of the Pyramids and Stonehenge is an excellent book that changes nearly everything you thought you knew about human history and the origin of religion, in particular Christianity and Judaism.

From a wide range of ancient literature and archaeological reports, Gleeson has explored our pagan history - our ‘real’ history before it was Christianised, before it was misunderstood, mistranslated and just plain distorted to serve the interests of the Church. He has recovered the fragments of factual history from a surprising variety of sources - the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek myths, the Celtic Mabinogion, Grimm’s Household Tales and modern-era archaeological reports - and cleverly rewoven these threads into a coherent and persuasive picture of ‘alternative’ history. Actually our real history.

There are of course numerous books that have been written about theology and what those pyramids in Egypt and the Ziggurat temples in Iraq and Iran were for; the same for the megalithic structures like Stonehenge found in England. You read these interesting books but at the end you are often left with a question mark, wondering if it could be possible at all. Is it not remarkable that these huge structures and why and how they were built still remain a mystery today?

Twelve percent of Before the Delusion (The Temple Publications, UK), is all the author’s references and the bibliography; it is extensively substantiated with evidence that can be found on the Internet. It is also a Dan Brownish novel like Da Vinci Code but everything in the background is true. The novel is a device to alleviate what could have been a dry subject. I don’t intend to tease anyone, I will tell you what the book is about, probably inviting ironic comments in the process but bear with me, and I will follow with an interview with Bill Gleeson.

Essentially if you read carefully the ancient texts and mythology you will find that it corresponds to what can be deciphered on the ground with all the megalithic structures found all over Britain, including also Ireland, Scotland and France. Far from being stories of heroes on a sea voyage, knights in armour fighting armies, you can discover that the main thread is instead a celestial history of our solar system recording the planet formations and collision impacts for thousands of years.  

The whole puzzle of the megalithic rocks starts with Carnac in France where on the ground you can see the design of comet trails made of multiple stones. This is the starting point of the journey of the comet originating from the Vela constellation (according to the site at Woodhenge near Stonehenge) that will extend to several planets of our solar system including: Newgrange in Ireland (Saturn and Uranus), Anglesey island (Neptune), the Hebrides and Orkney islands in Scotland (asteroid belt), Montmartre in Paris (Mont Mercury), Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy (Jupiter), Salisbury (Mars), Hatfield barrows (Earth), Marlborough (Venus), White Horse (Mercury) and Silbury Hill/Avebury (Sun). 

Other sites tell the story of other collision impacts, planet formations and constellations, and show the trajectory of the comet. Numerous smaller stones around such sites correspond to the atomic number or atomic mass of elements of the periodic table. For example the 56 peripheral ‘Aubrey Holes’ at Stonehenge indicate iron, probably referencing the composition of an ironstone meteorite (the iron-hearted hero of Greek myths). The post holes of Woodhenge are arranged in a pattern of 64+93=157, which is the atomic structure of gadolinium [64 P, 93 N, atomic mass = 157] characterising a highly magnetic neutron star which is the typical remnant of a supernova.

The early configuration of the Stonehenge circle is the key, it is a map that shows us where the comet or asteroid fell on Earth 12,000 years ago. The two earth mounds with holes at their peak at the periphery of the circle correspond to the highest volcanic craters on their respective coasts: Mount Chimborazo in Peru and Mount Fuji on Honshu Island. The two main stones at the periphery correspond to the highest mountains on the Pacific Rim: Mount Whitney, North of Los Angeles, and Mount Pucak Jaya in Papua, Indonesia.

The Stonehenge middle stone also known as the Slaughter stone marks where the comet fell on Earth (the intersection of these four highest points): exactly on the other side of the planet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This is evidenced by the high Rockies and mountains all around the Pacific Rim and the central rebound of the impact forming the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii’s tallest mountain, Mauna Kea, is the highest on Earth when considering 4205 meters above water and 5000 meters below.

That same story can be followed and compared with the Greek mythology in the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer and Aeneid from Virgil, also in the Ki Arthur’s tales and even children’s tales like Hansel and Gretel (Mercury and Venus) and Sleeping Beauty (Earth). Even the Old Testament tells parts of this epic celestial story.

The people who built this elaborate puzzle out of megalithic structures in Europe are the same who built the pyramids and the Ziggurat temples. They were the Lords of Ur, also known as the antediluvian Kings (from before the flood), who suddenly appeared in Sumeria (Iraq) before 3000 years BC. They are referenced in many biblical texts, especially before Christianity erased any mention of these Lords (plural) to replace them with the one God. However the story remains when you consider more direct and early translations of these texts.

The Lords of Ur were giants (always represented at least twice bigger than normal humans) who could live a thousand years, although they gradually lived younger due to interbreeding with normal humans and unhealthy radiation. They were also the forefathers of the Israelites. Their well-known descendants include Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus Christ.

It is unknown if the Lords of Ur were descendants of the inhabitants of the continent that disappeared after the comet’s impact in the Pacific Ocean (possibly referred to by Plato) or if originally they might not have been from Earth at all. Gleeson’s research indicates that already in 3000 BC records of their kingdom went back at least 10,000 years; and that some are probably buried at Pohnpei Island in Micronesia and could still be discovered by exploration. There are proofs of the existence of these giants from Egyptian tombs that have been uncovered and their longevity is also clearly confirmed in the Bible.

The ‘God’ of the Israelites was ‘light’, produced by nuclear reaction. All the pyramids and Ziggurat temples were nuclear power stations pumping water from the Nile and the Euphrates rivers to become steam generators providing rain and fertilization. Chemical and mechanical engineers have independently reached a similar conclusion and they explain exactly how it works at nuclearpyramid.com (http://nuclearpyramid.com/great_pyramid.php).

The purpose of these stations was to clear the sky after the comet’s impact 7000 years before from impact debris and volcanic ash; steam being a strong greenhouse gas causing warming, and rain physically cleansing the lower atmosphere. They brought light to darkness from a clouded sky. This is when everyone was advised to leave Egypt for 400 years, many Lords of Ur reaching the UK. 

The flood was a ‘wind flood’ of nuclear radiation. Previous Egyptologists mistranslated the wave hieroglyph for water when it actually meant ‘waves’ of radiation. Noah (Babylonian Utanapishtim or Ziusudra) did not build an ark, he built an arx, which was a huge building well insulated against radioactive waves. He was told 100 years before that he would need to build it, so possibly it took 100 years to build the Temples of the Sun (pyramids) and the Temples of the Moon (Ziggurats).

There is only one inscription that could be found on the Great Pyramid of Cheops in Giza and it is the equation E=mc² written in reverse in early-style symbols. “The word was god; HE=mc²”. Gleeson explains well in the book how he translated the equation from ancient texts but summarily: the first symbol, ‘V’, was a form of the later hieroglyph represented as uplifted human arms or animal horns, denoting ka – a difficult concept interpreted uncertainly as a ‘double’ or ‘duality’; a multiple of itself. The second symbol of the complete circle, ‘O’, represented completeness, wholeness or entirety. The third symbol of three parallel horizontal lines intuitively conveyed the still universal meaning of ‘equals’ or ‘equivalent to’. And the fourth symbol, of a divided circle, may be interpreted as something divided or split.

Gleeson even identified the exact location where the uranium was mined (Kerma in Nubia) and also the place where it was enriched (Abydos), where such elaborate installations have been excavated and reconstituted. Later the Israelites and Babylonians had nuclear weapons of mass destruction; examples of such radioactive weapons were the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant. It explains why so much evidence of nuclear explosions like sand and pottery turned to glass has been found. It has also been proven in 2010 that chambers in certain pyramids are still radioactive today, to unhealthy levels.

God did not separate the water of the Red Sea, but the radioactive wave did open a pathway by killing the Egyptian army for the entire host to pass through. It is clear from the Old Testament that what they used to destroy these enemy armies or cities like Sodom and Gomorrah was radiation, and that all the signs of radiation poisoning are there (especially pustulous leprosy and plagues).  

The lapis lazuli crystal stones from Afghanistan that were contained in the so-called sarcophagi in the pyramids or thrones of the Egyptian Lords, were arranged 7 X 7 X 7 along with the enriched uranium, and were later enclosed in a gold shell (insulator) attached to a hollow tube like a rifle barrel. There are plenty of examples in museums of these nuclear weapons ‘rods’, it is not clear however if they are the real weapons or later ceremonial imitations.

This may sound just unbelievable and too much to accept. It is up to you to read the book Before the Delusion, research the evidence and make your own mind up. Several other authors have written fascinating books complementing this research, like Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Robert K. G. Temple, David Rohl, Alan F. Alford, Christopher P. Dunn, Scott Creighton and Gary Osborn. No point in criticising this without reading the book. If other experts eventually verify Gleeson’s findings, his book will certainly be key to our history. And now I will let Bill Gleeson answer a few questions.

Roland Michel Tremblay: 1) William Gleeson, a few months ago your book Before the Delusion was published in the UK. You make extraordinary claims in this novel that you have researched for 15 years. Not being an expert yourself, can you tell us what prompted you to write the novel?

William Gleeson: I have a very, very sceptical nature. Extreme. I have read ancient history and archaeology for 20 years, during the course of which I noticed factual or logical anomalies - stuff that just doesn't make any sense. So I began keeping a list until eventually I had enough material that formed patterns with alternative explanations. Gradually over 10-15 years I pieced together an alternative story - supported by evidence. I didn't just make up an alternative story - I discovered the pieces and assembled it from prior records.

I had about three attempts at writing it. I tried as non-fiction but that was too boring - then I tried twice as fiction. In Before the Delusion I have used a fictional Vatican scholar as a literary device to carry the story. He is fictional but the content is factual and documented. Anyone can check it from public sources.

RMT: 2) Can you tell us in your own words what the novel is about?

WG: It is about pagan pre-Christian history - our human history for about 3000 years from ancient Babylon and Egypt up until Christianity. Then when Christianity was introduced - made compulsory by Emperor Theodosius in AD 390 - everything pagan was destroyed. All the old records were literally deliberately burned. Temples and monuments were smashed. Our real history was destroyed and replaced by Christian doctrine.

RMT: 3) You talk about ‘anomalies’ - what does that mean, can you talk about examples?

WG: Yes I mean items or events that are logically inconsistent or inexplicable – at odds with the orthodox paradigm. For example there was an iron plate and a bronze hook found inside the Great Pyramid - that are now in the British Museum. They were from inside the Great Pyramid, meaning at a date that is before the Iron Age and Bronze Age by about 1000-2000 years. And there is no tin in Egypt from which to make bronze.

Another example - in a study run by a Harvard professor, carbon C-14 dating of the mortar of the Great Pyramid shows it dates to about 3000 BC – which is about 400-450 years older than Pharaoh Cheops. Everyone knows that. And parts of the Great Pyramid and adjacent pyramid show saw cuts and drill holes in granite and even basalt - made by diamond tipped instruments. Quite clear and recorded by none other than Professor Flinders Petrie, the father of Egyptology.

Part II continues Thurday May 10, 2013! http://www.ufodigest.com/delusion-william-gleeson-bombshell-0510

Before the Delusion by William Gleeson, a bombshell rewriting 12,000 years of history - Part II

By Roland Michel T... - http://www.ufodigest.com/delusion-william-gleeson-bombshell-0510

And - the Great Pyramid was never a tomb. Again the professional academic Egyptologists know that. They call them ‘symbolic’ tombs because they know no bodies or mummies or skeletons were ever found in them. Even in several examples of closed sealed chambers - they were all empty.

If you missed part I click here!

Recently in 2010 parts of the Great Pyramid have been found to be radioactive - quite strongly radioactive. Back in the 1800s early European explorers recorded that the ‘natives’ told them the pyramids were dangerous because of invisible evil spirits - which the explorers laughed at as superstitious belief in ghosts. Those are just small examples - which some people dismiss as individual errors. But there are dozens of such cases - so many that when you add them all up the total weight is hard to ignore.

A much more important example is the emergence of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia before about 4000 BC. All the orthodox history says the eastern Mediterranean area was in a completely normal Neolithic state up until about 10,000 BC with just scattered small tribes of primitive hunter-gatherers. Then there was a gap of about 2000 years with no records of activity at all. Then somewhere around 6000-4000 BC the Sumerians and their cousins in Lower Egypt appeared - suddenly out of nowhere. They called themselves ‘Sumeru’ meaning civilised lords.

Suddenly there were sophisticated people with language and numbers; codified law, brick construction; fine pottery and exquisite jewellery; domesticated animals and agricultural crops. It was magic – material and cultural civilisation just appeared out of nowhere.

And the early records of skeletons showed the newcomers were physically much taller and different from the natives. They were immigrants. All this is on the orthodox record up until about 1950. Clearly the eastern Mediterraneans - from whom we are all descended - did not evolve by gradual Darwinian evolution. They just appeared suddenly.

RMT: 4) When you were writing that the pyramids were essentially nuclear reactors powering huge steam generators, and that the God of the Israelites was the light of these reactors; also that the Israelites had nuclear weapons in the 3000 years preceding the venue of Jesus Christ, how did you think it would be received by all these experts and everyone in general?

WG: At first I thought it was so clear, so obvious, with so much evidence that everyone would just say ...gosh, why didn't we see that before. But later I realised it was so radical that no one would believe it at all and instead think I must be a total fruit-cake.

But it is absolutely clear cut. The original Egyptian texts say the pyramid was a machine that accomplished the transformation of the dead body into the light of the sun. Those are not my words - that is a quote from a Harvard professor. I am not making any of it up, it is in the standard translations of the Egyptian texts.

The evidence that they were nuclear reactors is overwhelming, clear, unambiguous. The Egyptian literature itself is called ‘instructions for making a great light’; from ‘light food’ of saffron [yellow] cake in portions of 2-3-5 [Uranium 235]; and the Great Pyramid is known to be still radioactive. Quite strongly radioactive.

Ironically there was early ‘native’ literature that said a chamber of the Great Pyramid enclosed the secrets of the disintegration of matter. But that was not in English so it was regarded as unreliable.

RMT: 5) Who are these Lords of Ur from Sumeria (Iraq) who built the pyramids and the megaliths in Europe and are the forefathers of the Israelites? Where did they come from, and how did they have advanced knowledge of chemistry and nuclear technology?

WG: The texts - Babylonian, Egyptian and Hebrew - say they were civilised lords from across the sea. They were tall, long-headed and long-lived [called ‘mighty’ and ‘ancient of days’ in Biblical terms].

All that was accepted in pagan times. Even a father of the Church, Bishop Eusebius, acknowledged the mighty lords of old as antediluvian. The Old Testament Bible spoke numerous times of ‘giants’, which was re-translated into ‘mighty men’ in the King James Version (KJV). Flavius Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews made a point of explicitly describing ‘giants with bodies so large, countenances so different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight and terrible to the hearing’. They must have been human or humanoid because they interbred freely with locals - that is clearly recorded in the KJV and even more explicitly in the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The wife of Lamech, son of Methuselah, bore a son whose body was ‘white as snow and red as the blooming rose’, with long locks of fair hair and beautiful eyes. Lamech exclaimed in fright ‘I have a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, resembling the sons of the lords of heaven …his nature is different and not like us’ and he went to his wife and accused her, ‘have you conceived by one of the sons of heaven?’ But naturally she denied it.

The ‘lords’ came from Troy or Atlantis - the city of man that was destroyed by a catastrophic asteroid impact in ca 10,000 BC. All that is detailed in Homer’s Iliad and Vergil’s Aeneid and many other sources. Cassandra warned of celestial disaster – at which Aeneas rescued the sacred fire of the hearth and with a few kin sailed away before impact. The exact site of the original Troy was recorded in the map formed by the original Stonehenge. One princely ‘son’ figure sailed away from Troy carrying the sacred light – while later another princely ‘son’ arrived in Mesopotamia bearing the light of resurrection.

RMT: 6) An army of scholars has spent hundreds of years studying and translating the very same texts you did, why do you think no one saw what you saw in these ancient texts?

WG: Several reasons. No one much studies old literature any more – it’s not useful or fashionable. The few people who do are either orthodox University scholars or even more orthodox religious scholars. It’s not in their nature or interests to be unconventional. It took over 40 years for orthodox scholars to translate the Dead Sea Scrolls - and even then the obvious record of interbreeding was disingenuously characterised as ‘coded astrology’.

On the technology front the early explorers simply didn't know. The natives said the pyramids housed invisible evil spirits - which European explorers thought must be ghosts, we didn’t even know about radiation until Rontgen discovered X-rays and Curie identified radium in the late 1800s.

There was also some innocent or possibly deliberate mistranslation. In the KJV Bible the Hebrew plural Elohim [lords] has been deliberately re-interpreted as singular God. Literal ‘giants’ are mistranslated as ‘mighty men’. And the two great lights of brilliant crystals were transposed into the sun and the moon and the stars. Mainly we didn’t see it because we didn’t want to see it.

RMT: 7) Is there anything you left out of your novel that you felt would have been just too much and would have hurt its credibility? Can you tell us what?

WG: Yes a lot of detail - the book is only about half of it. I have left out an enormous volume of supporting material from Babylonian literature, Gnostic literature from the Nag Hammadi library, a lot of Celtic mythology and Norse mythology - both of which are very parallel to Greek mythology. To a degree that missing material is very supportive – it adds volume and weight – but it would be too repetitive and too dense. I have tried hard to be simple and brief.

If anyone wants more myth and folklore there’s a good commentary on Norse myth in de Santillana's Hamlet's Mill; and a compilation of European folklore in Frazer's Golden Bough. But they are both very dense.

RMT: 8) What else have you uncovered through all your research, is there another book brewing inside of you that you intend to write? If so, what will it be about?

WG: Possibly – there is a mountain of allegorical material in Greek, Celtic and Norse mythology which can now be made sense of.

I have also figured out exactly how the Great Pyramid worked – mechanically. There is enough information to actually re-activate or replicate the Great Pyramid. In true scientific method it would be possible to actually test the hypothesis. Incidentally, the mechanism could potentially be used to generate energy – or unfortunately to make weapons.

RMT: 9) Your novel could be considered in the style of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, although your research appears more credible, and there is less action. Was it your intention, were you hoping the book would have a similar impact?

WG: I at first tried to write as straight non-fiction but it was too bland, boring and dense. I did not consciously seek to emulate Dan Brown – far from it. But I did try to construct a structure and a thread to carry a story and simply to make it more readable.

I have deliberately detailed the bibliography and footnoted almost all references so everything can be verified. In a sense this is not my story – I have not made it up – I have merely discovered and re-presented it. As my main character Liam Kelly said, ‘I have lapsed into logic and lucidity leading me to believe factual evidence of rational explanations of history. However, if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance'.

Roland Michel Tremblay

www.themarginal.com

Photos/Images Credits:

1) Before_the_Delusion_William_Gleeson.jpg - Book Cover from Temple Publications

www.thetemplepublications.co.uk/Books/TemplePublicationsBeforetheDelusionWilliamGleeson.html

2) Carnac_Comet_A.jpg and Carnac_Comet_A_BW.jpg - Photos by William Gleeson

www.beforethedelusion.com

3) Woodhenge_pattern_gadolinium.jpg - Diagram credit: After Cunnington, M. Woodhenge, 1929

4) Original_Stonehenge_1.jpg - ca 3100 BC. Credit: reconstructed from photo by J K St Joseph in Newall, Stonehenge Wiltshire, 1953

5) Egyptian_Lord.jpg - Egyptian 'Lord' receiving native supplicants. Picture credit from Description de l’Egypte, 1822

6) Vo-O_E-mc2.jpg - Picture of Vo=O in hieroglyphs, which translates [in reverse] as E=mc². Picture credit is from Pochan, A. The Mysteries of the Great Pyramids, Avon, 1971 and Lemesurier, P. The Great Pyramid, 32, Element Books, 1987

7) Egyptian_sun_gods_seated_on_thrones_of_lapis_lazuli.jpg – The power was in the throne. Picture credit: Coffin of Djedkhonsuefankh ca 950 BC. Trustees British Museum, image 35299001

8) Narmer_composite.jpg - From the Narmer palette. An early Egyptian King brandishes his magic rod of fiery power.  

• Internet marketing advertising
• Agriculture Scholarships
• Weight loss plans
• Advertising

• Online college degree
• Online degree program
• Images
• Picture

Extra information about the article: 

The lapis lazuli crystal stones from Afghanistan that were contained in the so-called sarcophagi in the pyramids or thrones of the Egyptian Lords,