---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
Researchers from Harvard University have discovered how to orientate small objects in any direction using magnetic levitation.
Methods to manipulate small objects are crucial to
manufacture complex structures such as electronic components in assembly
lines.
But few methods exist that deal with fragile and arbitrarily shaped objects.
The researchers rotated delicate objects of varied shapes and sizes without "touching" them.
The results of their experiments are published in PNAS journal.
Lead author, Dr Anand Bala Subramaniam, from Harvard's
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology told, BBC News: "Magnetic
levitation in liquids has been used before to separate materials based
on their density, but never to manipulate objects."
Magnetic levitation is commonly referred to as MagLev.
Dr Andrew Steele, who was not part of the study, specialised in magnetism at the University of Oxford during his PhD.
He said: "The classic way of doing magnetic levitation is
using magnets. Take two magnets, or a magnet and a piece of
superconductor, which will then have opposing magnetic fields."
The repelling force lifts the magnetic object against gravity. The method used in the new study is slightly different.
"What they are doing is suspending a non-magnetic object that
is embedded in a liquid that is itself magnetic. It's an advanced form
of floating."
The device consisted of a chamber filled with a paramagnetic
fluid - a fluid that is attracted to a magnetic field - with magnets at
the top and bottom.
The two magnets were located at the top and bottom of the container
The magnets "pulled" the liquid upwards and downwards, creating
a density gradient: the liquid was more compressed in the regions close
to the top and bottom lids, and less in the middle of the chamber.
"If you place an object in that chamber, gravity is pulling
it down and buoyancy is pushing it up. The object finds a position where
it wants to float based on its density compared to that of the liquid
around it," explained Dr Steele.
The key aspect is that this method does not require the object to be magnetic at all.
Applying an external magnet also caused the screw to rotate inside the chamber
"You can levitate almost whatever you want as long as it's lighter than the liquid you are levitating it in."
The device has potential applications in the automated manufacture of soft objects that try to mimic biological systems.
Dr Subramaniam said: "If you have a hard gripper coming in and trying to grab a soft object it may deform it and even damage it.
"There really is a need for methods that can manipulate and orient objects without contact, which is what the MagLev does."
The researchers found that rotating or adding another
external magnet to the chamber caused the object to rotate in different
directions.
"We tried two different methods to show that MagLev is very versatile to orient objects.
"Sometimes bringing an external magnet is more useful than rotating the whole chamber."
At the moment, Dr Subramaniam's team has experimented with
jelly-like materials, silicon grippers that are commonly used in robot
assemblies, and gas bubbles of different shapes and sizes.
But the trials were limited to a single object at a time.
"The next step that we need to take is to put more than one
object [in the chamber] and try to assemble them in the liquid. For
this, you need a more complex configuration of magnets and control
algorithms to bring in an object, orient it, then bring in another
object, orient it and attach it to the first.
"The results are a starting point. They will require a little more work for practical applications."
Dr Subramaniam will be joining the School of Engineering at the University of California, Merced, this Autumn.
(Whale)
High-tech slavery is alive and well on planet Earth. Ever since World
War II when the United States Government’s Project Paperclip sponsored
the resettlement of about 2,000 high-level Nazis in the United States,
the technology of mind-control programming has advanced rapidly.
“The Germans under the Nazi government began to do serious scientific
research into trauma-based mind control,” write Fritz Springmeier and
Cisco Wheeler in their book, How The Illuminati Create An Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave.
“Under the auspices of the Kaiser Wilhelm Medical Institute in Berlin,
Josef Mengele conducted mind-control research on thousands of twins and
thousands of other hapless victims.”
Mengele, known as “the Angel of Death”, was one of the approximately
900 military scientists and medical researchers secretly exfiltrated
into the United States, where he continued his ‘research’ and trained
others in the black arts of mind control. This work in behaviour
manipulation was later incorporated into the CIA’s projects Bluebird and
Artichoke which, in 1953, became the notorious MKULTRA. The CIA claims
that these programs were discontinued, but there is no credible evidence
that “The Search for the Manchurian Candidate” (the title of the
definitive book by John Marks) ever ceased.
In fact, Captain John McCarthy, US Army Special Forces (Ret.), who
ran CIA assassination teams out of Saigon during the Vietnam War, told
his friend, LAPD whistleblower Mike Ruppert, that “MKULTRA is a CIA
acronym that officially stands for ‘Manufacturing Killers Utilizing
Lethal Tradecraft Requiring Assassinations’”. Thus the CIA’s official
obsession with producing programmed killers through the MKULTRA
contained more than 149 sub-programs in fields ranging from biology,
pharmacology, psychology to laser physics and ESP.
More recently, new evidence points to the continuous use of so-called
trauma-based programming techniques to accomplish the same goal. This
includes the deliberate induction of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)
in involuntary human subjects – in essence, human guinea pigs.
MPD has been reclassified by the American Psychiatric Association as
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). The psychiatrists’ bible, the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV, p. 487), characterises it by:
A. The presence of two or more distinct personality states;
B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person’s behaviour;
C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness;
D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition.
No matter what name is assigned to the problem, however, to create
this condition by conscious intent is an atrocity so depraved that
trauma-based mind-control programming remains the de facto Secret
Holocaust of the 20th century. Known as the Monarch Project, it has been
verified and corroborated by numerous survivors like Cathy O’Brien,
author of TranceFormation of America, Brice Taylor, author of Starshine,
and K. Sullivan, author of MK. No paper trail has been found which
leads from the CIA’s MKULTRA program to the Monarch Project – a
catchword for mind control which involves US military, CIA, NASA and
other government agencies.
The Franklin Cover-up, attorney John W. DeCamp’s groundbreaking book
about high-level pedophilia, also describes the sordid details of
Monarch. “Drugs are not the deepest level of government-sponsored evil,”
he writes. “I think the lowest level of Hell is reserved for those who
conjured up and carried out the ‘Monarch Project’. ‘Monarch’ refers to
young people in America who were victims of mind-control experiments run
either by US government agencies such as CIA or military intelligence
agencies.”
DeCamp’s client, Monarch abuse survivor Paul Bonacci, has a story
which parallels the victimology of O’Brien, Taylor and Sullivan – an
extensive cross-corroboration of perpetrators and their methodology.
It’s simply “the production of a horde of children in whom the soul is
crushed, who would spy, whore, kill and commit suicide”, in the words of
investigative reporter Anton Chaitkin, quoted by DeCamp in his book.
Recovering Monarch victims speak of ongoing trauma through “ritual
abuse”, also known as “satanic ritual abuse” because of the identifiable
iconography of a belief structure associated with Satanism or
Luciferianism. By using drugs, hypnosis, torture and electroshock, the
Monarch criminal perpetrators have produced new and succeeding
generations of victims.
This is not science fiction, but science fact. MPD involves the
creation of personality “alters”: alternative personalities or
personality fragments which can be used for specific tasks – usually for
illegal activities like delivering drugs or other black-market
activities (mules), messages (couriers) or killings (assassins). These
alters, or soul fragments, are segregated and compartmentalised within
the victim’s mind by the repeated use of stun guns, drugs and hypnosis,
which isolates the memories of their experiences.
An alter can be accessed by anyone who knows the “codes” or
“triggers”. These triggers, which induce an altered or trance state in a
programmed victim, can be anything including telephone tones, nursery
rhymes, dialogue from certain movies or hand signals.
According to Springmeier and Wheeler, whose 468-page book has become a
reference in the field, “…the basis for the success of the Monarch
mind-control programming is that different personalities or personality
parts called ‘alters’ can be created who do not know each other, but who
can take the body at different times. The amnesia walls that are built
by traumas form a protective shield of secrecy that prevents the abusers
from being found out and prevents the front personalities who hold the
body much of the time to know how their system of alters is being used.”
The mind-control programming, however, has not worked according to
plan. In fact, the perpetrators, in their arrogance and hubris, never
dreamed that their methods could fail. The retrieval of survivors’
photographic-like memories of actual abuse incidents, including images,
sounds and smells, constitutes a major exposure of human rights abuses.
These victims bear witness to the secret atrocities of the so-called New
World Order. More on Illuminati Mind Control
According to John Coleman, author of Conspirator’s Hierarchy : The Committee of 300:
“…the Illuminati is very much alive and well in America… Since the
Illuminati is also known as Satanism, it must follow that the CIA was
controlled by a Satanist while Dulles had charge of it. The same holds
true for George Bush [a member of the Order of Skull and Bones].
“Given the ghastly mind-control experiments constantly being
conducted by the CIA, and its past connections to fiendish monsters like
Dr Campbell and Dr Sidney Gottlieb, it does not take much to conclude
that the CIA follows satanic roads,” Coleman concludes in his monograph,
“Illuminati in America”.
With regards to “the brainwashing capabilities of the Tavistock Institute
as well as US Department of Defense projects like the Advanced Research
Project Agency”, Coleman writes that “…the bottom line of the projects
is mind control as predicted by the book, The Technotronic Era,
by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The project goes by the name ‘Monarch Program’
and it is a vast project involving not only the CIA but the Army, Air
Force and Navy with all of their skills and vast resources.” Sullivan’s Travels
The horrific torture and sexual abuse of children, also called “satanic
ritual abuse”, has been a key component in the creation of
mind-controlled slaves.
Mind-control survivor K. Sullivan has written an astounding book
called MK, a fictionalised account of her life, which describes the
world of multiple personalities. To her credit, Sullivan has been able
to reconstruct from her memories the actual mechanics and methodology of
going from one alter state to another. A programmed assassin and sex
slave, Sullivan says she was abused and raped by Robert Maxwell, Henry
Kissinger, George Bush and Billy Graham, among others. One of her
controllers was deceased CIA operative James Jesus Angleton, who has
been widely regarded as a KGB and Mossad asset.
In a recent interview, Sullivan spoke about her background as a
“family-generational slave” to the elite and about her stepfather, now
deceased, who was initially her primary programmer. His cover was a
church-going, upstanding citizen, a professional mechanical and systems
engineer with a curious interest in robotics.
“There were a number of people who trained, conditioned, then broke
my will, broke my psyche and programmed me in different altered states,”
she said in a recent interview. “My father was the one who did me the
most. He did it through terror. He did it through torture. He was a very
brilliant man, and he seemed to enjoy doing it to me and other
children.”
Confirming that her father was “horribly abused as a child”, Sullivan
added: “I know that for certain. His father was a Welsh Druid who had
been sold as a child to a ship captain who brought him over to the US.
At least that’s the mentality in my family, for slavery of children to
be okay. I heard this from older family members. They’ve never denied
it. But my grandfather was a covert Druid as well. I’m sure he brought
the religion over with him. One of the things he would do is go to the
graveyard near his house and dig up bodies, then take them into the
basement and take them apart and have fun with them. And he also did
rituals out in the woods sometimes at night. He would sacrifice babies.
And I was exposed to that. So I’m sure my father was, too, which left
him no other alternative but to become like his father.”
And how is this behaviour related to Satanism or is it just generational child abuse?
“I think it’s both,” she answered slowly. “And what it boils down to
is these people are doing illegal activities. Criminals tend to find
criminals. They tend to gravitate toward each other. It’s amazing how
they can find each other out. My grandfather developed connections to
the Mafia in our area. I understand it was the Colombo family. I don’t
know what he did exactly, but I do have one memory of riding in a cement
truck where he and other drivers with cement trucks were using the
cement from the trucks to bury several bodies. So I guess they just did
whatever needed to be done. That was in New York and Pennsylvania. My
father was an assassin as well as other things, and these people really
enjoy killing people. He killed people more for favours than for hire.
He got to have as many kids as he wanted to raise.”
Her father also had CIA and NASA connections. “The CIA work seems to
be rather covert. He worked for Western Electric and later on for
AT&T,” Sullivan said. “I found out, since then, that Western
Electric has had very strong CIA ties. I have been able to go through
some of his papers since his death in 1990, and I have found on his desk
calendar for that year that he had several contacts with NASA. Since
then I have remembered that there were several facilities that he took
me to that were NASA facilities. The NASA connections seem to be
directly connected to the Paperclip connection. The Nazis were brought
into the country and then were integrated into the NASA structure after
the war.
“My father, because of his Celtic background, had very low
self-esteem,” continued Sullivan. “Being exposed to some of these Nazi
war criminals seemed to mean a whole lot to him because he had a mother
that was German. Between the Celtic background and a German mother,
these men built up his self-esteem as far as being Aryan. He very much
identified with them, and I think, from what I understand, he got a lot
of his training especially from one man I knew as Dr Schwartz. He had
slightly wavy black hair and very dark eyes. He was slim. I can’t say
his height because I was just a child. He had a definite German accent.
People called him Herr Doctor or Dr Schwartz, one of the two. Sometimes
he was called Dr Black. He was a pedophile for sure and he was a very
cold man. He liked to make kids think that they would feel safe with
him, but he would do something that would upset the children and then
they would be afraid of him after that.” Multi-Mode Programming
Sullivan said that she was used to sexually service both males and
females in the Beta mode, and to do assassination, bodyguarding and
intrusions in hostage situations in the Delta mode.
And what is Alpha, Beta, Delta and Theta programming?
“Alpha was the basis for all the other programs,” she continued. “It
seems to be where a lot of information was stored in my memory, in my
mind, that was used by programmers to develop the other programs. It’s
where some of my more generic alter states were also stored. Beta was
the sexual servicing part of me. They also sometimes called the alter
state ‘Barbie’. It was supposed to be named after Klaus Barbie.” Like
Barbie doll?
Survivors Cathy O’Brien and Brice Taylor were also subjected to Beta,
or sex-slave, programming. They, like actress Marilyn Monroe, were
called “presidential models”, mind-controlled slaves for the use of
high-level politicians.
According to Springmeier’s book, “…in 1981, the New World Order made
training films for their novice programmers. Monarch slave Cathy O’Brien
was used to make the film How To Divide a Personality and How To Create
a Sex Slave. Two Huntsville porn photographers were used to help NASA
create these training films.”
Sullivan recalled: “I was used both as a child and as an adult in
those alter states, and I had more than one. In those alter states I
would not resist. I had no anger. I was an absolute sexual slave and I
would do whatever I was told to do.”
Delta programming is military-assassin programming that has trickled
into popular consciousness through movies like La Femme Nikita, its
American remake, Point of No Return, and The Long Kiss Goodnight.
Regarding the Delta programming, Sullivan said: “…it was when I was
used to do hits, kills, and also bodyguarding and hostage extraction. I
had a great number of alter personalities that had specialised training
and had different modes to do different things.”
Why was the training kept separate for different alters?
“Part of it was so I wouldn’t recall too much at any one time – if I
did start to remember,” she said. “And also because they hand-pick each
part out for a certain type of situation. If you had a part coming out
that was very loyal to people that that part was bodyguarding, you don’t
want that part going off and killing somebody. And you don’t want a
part that’s specifically programmed to kill coming out and feeling sorry
for the target. So you have to keep the emotions and the motives
separate as well. And so that’s why they had to have different parts.”
Sullivan’s description of Theta programming seems to correlate with
the development and use of so-called extrasensory powers and
extraphysical abilities.
“Theta was where they used – I don’t like the word ‘psychic’ because I
think it’s been so misused – thought energy,” she said. “I just knew it
as magnetic-type energy from the individual to do a number of different
things that they were experimenting with, including long-distance mind
connection with other people – even in other countries. I guess you
would call it ‘remote viewing’ – where I could see what a person was
doing in another state in a room or something like that.
“It was both actual programming and experimentation. Because what
they did – they kept it encapsulated in several parts of me, several
altered states. It was a lot of training, a lot of experimentation.”
Theta programming also implies the use of thought energy to kill someone at a distance.
“A lot of times I ran across other victims with Theta programming,”
Sullivan said in a recent CKLN radio interview. “One of the movie and
book themes they used extensively was Dune, by Frank Herbert. It won’t
be too hard to figure because what they taught us was that we could
cause things to happen to other people. It was to build up rage inside.
It would come out in a form of pure energy that would hit them… They had
talked about people imploding internally in their digestive organs. I
don’t know because I can’t see what goes on inside another body, but I
do know that it does work.”
The calculated admixture of doing good and evil seems to be a
hallmark of the Illuminati methodology. It’s as if they recognise, at a
spiritual level, that all the horrible karma they create can be balanced
by generous philanthropic gestures; for example, giving a billion
dollars to the United Nations, or other feats of extraordinary
compassion.
“Also, they tried to use me for hands-on healing because I had a
grandmother who was a healer from Sweden,” said Sullivan. “So they were
trying – that was me and several other survivors I talked to since – to
use them in that mode also. And hands-on healing means that you would
focus electromagnetic energy into the other person’s body.” Brice Taylor’s Ordeal
Another book, Brice Taylor’s Starshine: One Woman’s Valiant Escape from
Mind Control, corroborates Cathy O’Brien’s and K. Sullivan’s
experiences. Even though it’s a fictionalised account, the book clearly
indicates that major crimes have been – and are being – committed by the
major players of the world’s power elites.
Brice Taylor was also a “presidential model”, and in a recent
interview she went into intimate details of her many experiences with
politicians promoting the New World Order.
“What it [being a presidential model] means,” she explained, “is that
your program is to have sex with presidents; and I did overhear this,
that different politicians were encouraged to use CIA escorts for sex,
so they wouldn’t be in a vulnerable position if they ever disclosed any
national security secrets to anyone on the outside, or for blackmail.”
And how would she characterise this so-called New World Order?
“It is an attempt to bring in a One World Government in which elite
families have things the way they want. Their belief was that the planet
was overpopulated and that something had to be done: psychological and
biological warfare. They considered mind control as a tool, their ace in
the hole, something really different that would act as an invisible
weapon.” Adventures With Henry K. and the Council
In her recovery, Brice Taylor also had memories of being used by Henry Kissinger as a mind-controlled courier.
“If you program someone to have a perfect photographic memory and
total recall, then you have the capacity to be able to deal with many
different tasks and assignments simultaneously,” she explains. “Henry
Kissinger created a ‘mindfile’ inside of my head. I would be sent around
to all these leaders to keep their data – on some of their projects or
whatever their agenda was – sorted. When they’d meet people, I would be
programmed by either Kissinger or Nelson Rockefeller. This was in the
mid-1960s.”
But who’s running the ‘show’?
“I think there’s this other layer that I call ‘the Council’ in my
book,” Taylor explained. “I know that this is a group of men that stand
head and shoulders above even Kissinger and the Rockefellers. They have
been genetically engineered in a way that they have [she hesitated,
searching for the right words] different leadership abilities and that
they are actually the ones running the plan.”
They refer to themselves as “the Council”?
“Yes. When I was telling other people within the intelligence
community about it that were involved in it, they said they call
themselves the Council. The CIA has all these mind-control operatives
that are working for the Government. Then there’s the Council, which
also understands about the mind-control project. But the Council is not
CIA controlled. They could take someone like myself and be able to
debrief me to find out what my agenda was.” More Bad Memories
And how did Ms Taylor first figure out she was suffering from MPD and that she was a programmed multiple?
“It started in 1985,” said Taylor. “I had a very serious car accident
in which my head went through the windshield. I began to have memory
flashes like a memory bleed-through from one alter to another. I think
what occurred was I began having access to both sides of my brain.
Before, with all the sophisticated programming, half my brain was shut
away from me. Now the neuron pathways had opened up because of the
accident. I know of other women who have also had memories come back.”
So a blow to the brain had broken up the programming?
“Exactly,” she said. “What happened is my memories began coming back.
I was in school, working on my Master’s degree in psychology, when a
flood of memories came back. I have a closet full of journals. I wrote
down everything I was remembering. Once I got to a certain level, I had a
lot of therapeutic support because, every time I’d start remembering,
I’d want to hurt myself or kill myself. I lost control of my body in a
car on the freeway in the fast lane one time as I was trying to really
understand how programming worked. I was trying to understand from
inside; a part of me was trying to explain programming to me, and I was
on the freeway in the fast lane and I could not move my body. It was
terrifying. These are the kinds of things I had to constantly fight.
“When I deprogrammed I literally spent two years in my bedroom,
drinking coffee, just writing everything down,” she said. “They
programmed me with perfect photographic memory. When memories came back,
like the ones with Kissinger, I not only could hear his words and his
voice, I could smell his cigar. I could smell his farts. I mean, I could
hear and see as I remembered everything in my mind.” The Satanic Ritual Murder Connection
Missing children, sexual abuse of children and pedophilia around the
world all point to the involvement of an organised network of high-level
criminals who covertly control the legal system. Former FBI agent and
private investigator Ted Gunderson agrees. He claims that “there’s a
considerable overlap from various groups and organisations, but one of
the driving forces is the satanic cult movement today”.
In his video, Satanism and the CIA’s International Trafficking of
Children, Gunderson refers to the notorious black magician Aleister
Crowley. “The Satanists have used his writings as a guide,” he says,
referring to Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice.
In Chapter XII, “Of the Bloody Sacrifice” (p. 94), Crowley writes:
“It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of those
savages who tear the heart and liver from an adversary and devour them
while yet warm. In any case it was the theory of the ancient Magicians
that any living being is a storehouse of energy, varying in quantity
according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according
to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this
energy is liberated suddenly.
“The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle [the satanic
circle] or the Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot
escape. An animal should be selected whose nature accords with that of
the ceremony – thus by sacrificing a female lamb one would not obtain
any appreciate quantity of the fierce energy useful to the Magician who
was invoking Mars. In such a case a ram would be more suitable. And this
ram should be virgin – the whole potential of its original total energy
should not have been diminished in any way. For the highest spiritual
working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains that
greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high
intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.”
“We’re talking about human sacrifice here,” says Gunderson.
More recently the ‘tradition’ of human sacrifice has been promoted by
the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, who wrote in the
Satanic Bible (p. 88) that “the only time a Satanist would perform a
human sacrifice would be if he were to serve a twofold purpose; that
being to release the magickian’s [sic] wrath in throwing a curse and,
more importantly, to dispose of a totally obnoxious and deserving
person”.
Note the casual reference to murdering someone because he or she
‘displeased’ the Satanist/black magician. Ding dong, LaVey is dead, but
his crimes live on. He’s been named by several of his victim-slaves as a
mind-control perpetrator. The late ‘perp’ himself wrote in the Satanic
Bible (p. 90) that “the ideal sacrifice may be emotionally insecure, but
nonetheless can in the machinations of his insecurity cause severe
damage to your tranquility or sound reputation”.
The Satanists, after all, follow Crowley’s injunction: “Do what thou
wilt. That is the the law.” In other words, Satanists as gods themselves
will decide what to do – bypassing God’s laws as well as the laws of
men. It sounds like the modus operandi of the Illuminati.
Gunderson makes this further comment in his video: “In my estimation,
there are over three million practising Satanists in America today. How
did I come up with these figures? I have informants. For instance, in
the South Bay area of Los Angeles with a population of 200,000, he told
me there are 3,000 practising Satanists. That is where the well-known
McMartin Preschool case took place. I have an informant in Lincoln,
Nebraska. In Iowa City, Iowa, a town of 150,000 – 1,500 Satanists. It
averages to about 1.5 per cent of the population.”
Gunderson asserts that “…50,000 to 60,000 individuals are sacrificed every year. There are about eight satanic holidays.”
The sick joke of it all? The FBI keeps a count of stolen or missing
cars, but has yet to keep a tab on missing children in America. Crypto-Satanist in the FBI?
You shouldn’t be surprised to know that FBI Supervisory Special Agent
Kenneth V. Lanning, of the Behavioral Science Unit of the National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, denies the existence of
satanic ritual abuse in his 1992 Investigator’s Guide to Allegations of
Ritual Child Abuse. Lanning’s intellectual posturing and specious
reasoning should be studied as a prime example of serpentine logic. His
semantics are brilliant, as he claims that “the words ‘satanic’,
‘occult’ and ‘ritual’ are often used interchangeably” and “it is
difficult to define Satanism precisely”. Then he frames the discussion
of Satanism in non-judgemental terms, that “it is important to realize
that for some people any religious belief system other than their own is
satanic”.
As Pilate asked “What is truth?”, Lanning asks “What is Satanism?” He
writes that at “…law enforcement training conferences, it is
witchcraft, santeria, paganism and the occult that are most often
referred to as forms of Satanism. It may be a matter of definition, but
these things are not necessarily the same as traditional Satanism.” He
almost trips over himself declaiming the impossibility of knowing the
definition. Then he dismisses satanic ritual abuse as a simple
psychological problem: “Obsessive Compulsive Disorder”.
Of course, if he had taken the time to interview true believers, he
would know that it’s an actual belief system based on the ritual
performance of torture and murder in loyalty to Satan and as an exchange
for future rewards from the forces of darkness.
Lanning’s denial, ignoring the evidence of mind-control atrocities
and ritual abuse, is astonishing. Is Lanning a crypto-Satanist? He’s
publicly denied it, but he didn’t have to bother. His “freedom of
religion” is protected by the US Constitution. Fatal Justice Revisited
Private investigator Ted L. Gunderson was dragged kicking and screaming
into the netherworld of Satanism, child kidnapping, drug smuggling and
other corruption.
Before he retired in 1979, Gunderson was the FBI Special Agent in
Charge (SAC) in Los Angeles. He headed the FBI office, where he had 800
people under him and a yearly budget of over US$24 million. Since then,
Gunderson’s role as a private investigator and security consultant has
led him to expose CIA drug dealing, child kidnapping and trafficking,
mind control, and satanic murder-for-hire groups. He has also
investigated many high-profile cases like the Dr Jeffrey McDonald case,
the McMartin Preschool case, Nebraska’s Franklin Cover-up case, the
Oklahoma City Bombing case, the Inslaw/Octopus case, and many other
real-life criminal conspiracies.
“Shortly after my retirement, I was asked to investigate the Jeffrey
R. McDonald case as a private investigator,” said Gunderson in a recent
interview. “He’s a doctor who was convicted of murdering his wife and
two children at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on February 17, 1970. I put
in about 2,000 hours on the case. He had been convicted and sentenced to
three consecutive life sentences. Much to my surprise, the evidence
that I read, the information I developed…I’ve established beyond any
question of a doubt that this man is absolutely innocent.”
Jerry Allen Potter, author of Fatal Justice, a powerful
point-by-point refutation of Joe McGinnis’s cover-up book, Fatal Vision,
agrees. His book exposes McGinnis’s best-seller as pure fiction.
Gunderson continued: “I obtained a signed confession from Helena
Stokely, the girl in the floppy hat, for those who are familiar with the
case. She said Dr McDonald did not commit these crimes. They were
committed, she said ‘…by my satanic cult group. It was my initiation
into the cult that night,’ she said.”
After a while, Gunderson realised that the McDonald case was a classic case of US Government crime and cover-up.
“She gave me detailed information about movements within the house.
She told me she attempted to ride a rocking horse in the child’s bedroom
that night, but she couldn’t ride it because the spring was broken. The
only way she could have known that was to have been there that night.
“I submitted an 1100-plus page report in March 1981 to Judge William
Webster, who was then the head of the FBI, with a personal letter to him
and to the US Department of Justice. Much to my surprise, my 19
witnesses including Helena Stokely started calling me and telling me,
‘Hey Ted, they’re trying to get me to recant.’ And I’m telling myself,
‘That isn’t the responsibility of the FBI. The FBI is supposed to gather
information, not destroy it.’ And that was my first clue that we had a
serious problem in that case and in the other cases I handled. I noticed
in each instance that evidence was destroyed, lost, stolen; that there
were strong indications of corruption.
“So I asked myself, ‘What’s going on here?’ And over the years I
started gathering materials. Up until about two years ago, I kept
saying, ‘There’s a loose-knit network operating in this country,
involving drugs, pedophilia, prostitution, corruption, etc. From my
research, I’m convinced it’s much more serious. It’s much more than a
loose-knit network. It is a conspiracy. And you know how the media goes
after you when you use that ‘c’-word. And I’m going to prove it to you.
By the way, this conspiracy involves pornography, drugs, pedophilia and
organised child kidnapping.
“My ‘missing children’ lecture documents that the Finders, an
organisation in Washington, DC, is a CIA front,” said Gunderson. “It’s a
covert operation involved in international trafficking of children.”
He was referring to a US Customs Service report which states that the
Finders case is to be closed because it is “an internal CIA matter”.
Gunderson added: “These people – the satanic movement in the world –
have set up preschools for the purpose of getting their hands on our
children. The parents drop them off at nine in the morning and pick them
up at night.”
Far-fetched? Think again. In The Law Is For All, Aleister Crowley
writes: “Moreover, the Beast 666 [Crowley's reference to himself]
adviseth that all children shall be accustomed from infancy to witness
every type of sexual act, as also the process of birth, lest falsehood
fog and mystery stupefy their minds whose error else might thwart and
misdirect the growth of their subconscious system of self-symbolism.” Spiritual Warfare and Satanic Imperialism
Sexual abuse of children and horrific mind control technology may be
tenets of ‘faith’ for the Satanist believer as well as the programmer.
Or they may be symptomatic of a larger struggle on a cosmic scale. When
you peer in the face of Absolute Evil, you cannot remain complacent.
Therapist Dr M. Scott Peck, author of The People of the Lie,
writes: “…at one point I defined evil as ‘the exercise of political
power that is the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or
covert coercion in order to avoid…spiritual growth’”.
Psychologist Erich Fromm, author of The Heart of Man,
defines this struggle between Good and Evil as biophilia (the love of
life) vs necrophilia (the love of death). “The necrophilous person is
driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to
approach life mechanically as if all living persons were things,” he
writes. “The necrophilous person can relate to an object – a flower or a
person – only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a
threat to himself… He loves control and in the act of controlling he
kills life… ‘Law and order’ for them are idols…”
In the end, it may be that spiritual warfare – or the clash of the
absolutes – is the real reason why ritual abuse and high-tech mind
control have been exposed. Satanic imperialism continues unabated, and
the battle for planet Earth moves to the next stage.
References:
* Coleman, John, “Illuminati in America“, World in Review (2533 N. Carson St, Carson City, NV 89706), USA, monograph, 1992
* Constantine, Alex, Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America, Feral House (2532 Lincoln Blvd #359, Venice, CA 90291), USA, 1997 (USD$14.95)
* DeCamp, John, The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska, AWT, Inc. (PO Box 85461, Lincoln, NE 68501), USA, 1996, 2ed (USD$13.00)
* Gunderson, Ted, “McMartin Scientific Report” (1993); Corruption : The Satanic Drug Cult Network and Missing Children,
vols. 1&endash;4; Satanism & the CIA’s International
Trafficking in Children (video, USD$20.00), Ted Gunderson, PO Box
18000-259, Las Vegas, NV 89109, USA
* Marks, John, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control, McGraw-Hill, 1980
* Mind Control Foundation website, www.mk.net/~mcf
* Mind Control series, CKLN-FM, website, www.mk.net/~mcf/ckln
* O’Brien, Cathy (with Mark Phillips), TranceFormation of America: The True Life Story of a CIA Slave, Reality Marketing (PO Box 27740, Las Vegas, NV 89126) USA, 1995 (USD$20.00)
* Potter, Jerry Allen and Fred Bost, Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders, W. W. Norton Co., New York, London, 1997
* Springmeier, Fritz, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, Ambassador House (PO Box 1153, Westminster, CO 80030), USA, 1999 2ed (USD$20.00)
* Springmeier, Fritz and Cisco Wheeler, How The Illuminati Create An Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave, Fritz and Cisco (916 Linn Ave, Oregon City, OR 97045), USA, 1996 (USD$59.00)
* Stratford, Lauren, Satan’s Underground, Pelican Publishing (PO Box 3110, Gretna, LA 70054), USA, 1998 (USD$10.95)
* Sullivan, K., MK, K. Sullivan (PO Box 1328, Soddy Daisy, TN 37384), USA, 1998 (USD$18.00)
* Taylor, Brice, Starshine: One Woman’s Valiant Escape from Mind Control,
1995 (USD$20.00); Revivification: A Gentle, Alternative Memory
Retrieval Process for Trauma Victims (1998, USD$7.50), Brice Taylor
Trust, PO Box 655, Landrum, SC 29356, USA
Read more at http://sagaciousnewsnetwork.com/mind-control-slavery-and-the-new-world-order/#kjEdL5Y7xdRiiD6e.99
Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia, A Country Which Hosts and Finances Islamic Terrorism? On Behalf of Washington?
America Has Sold Its Soul for Oil Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism A U.S. congressman for 6 years, who is now a talking head on
MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed
the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:
This is not an isolated incident. It is a microcosm of U.S.-Saudi relations.
By way of background, former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke notes that Saudi Arabia was founded with terrorism:
One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains
directly to Muhammad ibn Ê¿Abd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and
the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn
Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many —
of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and
desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
***
Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be
demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims
must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a
Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed,
their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated,
he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite,
Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not
consider to be Muslim at all.
***
Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led
to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings,
he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What
Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to
overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power. Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now
could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages
and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not
within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad.
Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in
the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into
paradise.
*** Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the
peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear.
In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They
massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many
Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the
murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the
situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala],
and plundered the Tomb of Hussein… slaying in the course of the day,
with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the
inhabitants …”
Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote
that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly
documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and
took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the
Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the
unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which
surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to
befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical
monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they
had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.
***
With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world … to “Wahhabise” Islam,
thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a
“single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions.
Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this
manifestation of soft power.
***
It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and
the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s
interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally,
socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia,
a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with
Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta
Conference) until today.
*** The more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western
intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in
Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.Why
should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western
mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should
have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard
movement: ISIS?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism,” an
austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in
1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the
local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and
they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of
Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and
regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.
By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the
Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and
including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.
***
By 1945, the U.S. urgently needs oil facilities to help supply forces fighting in the Second World War. Meanwhile, security is at the forefront of King Abd al-Aziz’s concerns. President Franklin Roosevelt invites the king to meet him aboard the U.S.S. Quincy, docked in the Suez Canal. The two leaders cement a secret oil-for-security pact:
The king guarantees to give the U.S. secure access to Saudi oil and in
exchange the U.S. will provide military assistance and training to Saudi
Arabia and build the Dhahran military base.
U.S. presidents have been extremely close to the Saudi monarchs ever since.
The Progressive notes:
“The ideology of the Saudi regime is that of ISIS even if the foreign policies differ,” California State University-Stanislaus Professor Asad AbuKhalil tells The Progressive.
***
“Wahhabi Islam [the official ideology of the Saudi monarchy] is fully in sync with ISIS.”
But instead of isolating the Saudi regime from the global mainstream,
President Obama paid a visit there earlier this year, meeting with King
Abdullah. He reportedly did not discuss the regime’s dubious conduct.
“I can’t think of a more pernicious actor in the region,”
British-Pakistani author Mohsin Hamid told me in an interview last year.
“The House of Saud has exported this very pernicious form of militant Islam under U.S. watch.
Then the United States comes in repeatedly to attack symptoms of this
problem without ever addressing the basic issue: Where does it all come
from? Who’s at the heart of this thing? It would be like saying that if
you have skin rash because of cancer, the best option is to cut off your
skin. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Yet, the United States continues with this approach.
Even establishment opinion is recognizing the dimensions of the Saudi problem.
“It can’t be exporting extremism and at the same time ask the United
States to protect it,” Retired General (and onetime presidential
contender) Wesley Clark recently told CNN. “Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram,
the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain
of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times.
“For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni
Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.” Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.
***
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a
December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were
the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups
worldwide.”
***
Yet the United States keeps mum because the Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a
key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds.
And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as
funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras.
*** Until Saudi Arabia stops sponsoring the most reactionary
brands of Sunni Islam, this U.S. ally will remain responsible for much
of the mayhem in the Muslim world.
The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:
Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the
powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence
until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with
the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.
Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East,
Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a
billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”
***
There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar,
secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and
head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two
years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition
in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last
week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the
significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a
chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.
He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a
central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.”
This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni
majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and
would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.
***
Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee.
A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much
better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are
likely to be devastating.
***
Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they
are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge
to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of
Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given
the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they
possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted
towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”. Western governments traditionally play down the connection
between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and
jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and
al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing
conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11
hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors
who funded the operation.
***
But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards
al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and
seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates
this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi
capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.
He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West.
In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal
tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud
and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis
as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing
them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that
has fallen apart over the last year.
Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that
“Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida,
the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist
groups.”
*** Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.
***
For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason
why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011
on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt
by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates.
Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close
down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable
that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t
believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-]
Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.
*** Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.
A zipping comes across the sky.
A man named Neil Parfitt is standing in a field on a cattle ranch
outside Warwick, Australia. A white vehicle appears above the trees, a
tiny plane a bit bigger than a seagull. It glides towards Parfitt,
pitches upwards to a vertical position, and hovers near him, a couple
hundred feet in the air. From its belly, a package comes tumbling
downward, connected by a thin line to the vehicle itself. Right before
the delivery hits the ground, it slows, hitting the earth with a tap.
The delivery slows, almost imperceptibly, just before it hits the
ground, hardly kicking up any dust. A small rectangular module on the
end of the line detaches the payload, and ascends back up the vehicle,
locking into place beneath the nose. As the wing returns to flying
posture and zips back to its launch point half a mile away, Parfitt
walks over to the package, opens it up, and extracts some treats for his
dogs.
The Australian test flight and 30 others like it conducted in
mid-August are the culmination of the first phase of Project Wing, a
secret drone program that’s been running for two years at Google X, the
company’s whoa-inducing, long-range research lab.
Though a couple of rumors have escaped the Googleplex—because of course
Google must have a drone-delivery program—Project Wing’s official
existence and substance were revealed today. I’ve spent the past week
talking to Googlers who worked on the project, reviewing video of the
flights, and interviewing other people convinced delivery by drone will
work.
Taken with the company’s other robotics investments, Google’s
corporate posture has become even more ambitious. Google doesn’t just
want to organize all the world’s information. Google wants to organize all the world.
During this initial phase of development, Google landed on an unusual
design called a tail sitter, a hybrid of a plane and a helicopter that
takes off vertically, then rotates to a horizontal position for flying
around. For delivery, it hovers and winches packages down to the ground.
At the end of the tether, there’s a little bundle of electronics they
call the “egg,” which detects that the package has hit the ground,
detaches from the delivery, and is pulled back up into the body of the
vehicle. The Google delivery drone releasing a package (Google)That
Parfitt would be the man on the receiving end of the tests was mostly
happenstance. Google’s partner in the country, Phil Swinsburg of Unmanned Systems Australia, convinced him to take part in the demonstration deliveries launched from a nearby farm. (Australia’s “remotely piloted aircraft” policies are more permissive than those in the United States.)
Standing with Parfitt as he received dog treats from a flying robot was Nick Roy,
the MIT roboticist who took a two-year sabbatical to lead Project Wing.
In all the testing, Roy had never seen one of his drones deliver a
package. He was always at the takeoff point, watching debugging
information scroll up the screen, and anxiously waiting to see what
would happen. “Sergey [Brin] has been bugging me, asking, ‘What is it
like? Is it actually a nice experience to get this?’ and I’m like,
‘Dude, I don’t know. I’m looking at the screen,’” Roy told me.
So, this time, as he prepared to end his tour of duty at Google X and
return to MIT, he watches as the Wing swoops and delivers. Recalling
that moment, he struggles not to sound too rapturous or lose his cool
technical objectivity. “Once the package is down and the egg
is back up, the vehicle gains altitude, and does this beautiful arc, and
it’s off again,” he said. “That was delightful.” GoogleThe
parting between Roy and Google X seems amicable. When Astro Teller,
director of the lab, described it to me in an interview in Mountain
View, he literally patted Roy on the knee. “Nick was super ultra-clear
with us from day one, despite lots of pressure from me,”—Teller pat Roy
on the knee—“that he was going to leave after two years.” But the
timeline was good, Teller maintained, because it gave the project shape
and a direction.
In the two years, Roy’s goal was simple: figure out if the idea of
drone delivery made sense to work on. Should Google pursue creating a
real, reliable service? Was it possible? Could a self-flying vehicle be
built and programmed so that it could take off and land anywhere, go
really fast, and accurately drop a package from the air?
The answer, Roy and Teller say, is yes. They have not built a
reliable system Google users can order from yet, but they believe the
challenges are surmountable. Now, Google will begin growing the program
in an ultimate push to create a service that will deliver things people
want quickly via small, fast “self-flying vehicles,” as they like to
call them.
Teller has found a replacement for Roy in Dave Vos, a 20-year veteran
of automating flying machines, who sold his drone software company, Athena Technologies,
to Rockwell in 2008. Where Roy got to play what-if and why-not, Vos
must transform the Wing into a service that real people might use.
“What excited us from the beginning was that if the right thing could
find anybody just in the moment that they need it, the world might be
radically better place,” Teller said.
There are already dozens of Googlers working on the project,
concocting everything from new forms of the vehicle to the nature of its
delivery mechanism to the user experience of the app for ordering
drones. There will be more recruits soon. Google will enter the public
debate about the use of civilian unmanned aerial vehicles. Regulators
will start hearing from the company. Many packages will be dropped from
the sky on a tiny winch from a robot hovering in the air.
This may sound crazy. This may be crazy. But Google is
getting serious about sending packages flying through the air on tiny
drones. And this is how that happened.
* * *
Of course Google wants the world to believe in delivery by
drone as part of the natural progression of technological society to
deliver things faster and faster. This is how the world works, according
to Google co-founder, Sergey Brin.
Imagine Brin in 2011. Perhaps he’s wearing a Google Glass prototype
and a long-sleeved technical t-shirt, maybe even Vibram FiveFinger
footwear. He is rich beyond all comprehension, a billionaire many times
over. In his 39th year on Earth, he has decided to grow a beard, wisdom-enhancing salt-and-pepper sprinkled around his chin.
While Larry Page runs the mainline cash cow Internet advertising
business, Brin (or Sergey, as everyone at Google X invokes him) is
building a second, much wilder company inside the envelope of the old
one. Over the next few years, he will unveil self-driving cars, Google
Glass, help acquire eight robotics companies and a high-altitude, solar-powered drone maker, and do whatever else Google is doing in secret.
And one day in 2011—before any of us had seen these new ideas—he is
talking with Astro Teller, whose goatee is more salt than pepper, and
they make an observation about the world.
“The original observation felt most like this,” Teller said. “When
the Pony Express came along, it really reshaped society to be able to
move things around fairly reliably at that speed, which was measured in
many days. The U.S. Postal Service—growing partly out of the Pony
Express and having it be even more reliable and starting to shorten the
time—really did change society again. Library of Congress“FedEx
overnight delivery has absolutely changed the world again. We’re
starting to see same-day service actually change the world,” he
continued. “Why would we think that the next 10x—being able to get
something in just a minute or two—wouldn’t change the world?”
If there is one thing Google likes, it is changing the world. The company’s framework for societal transformation
has been conditioned by the relentless decrease in cost and increase in
performance of computers. They believe order-of-magnitude changes can
happen quickly because they’ve seen and participated in both the rise of
the commercial web and the astonishing growth of mobile computing.
To these technical changes, they attach the concept of progress,
especially if Google, with its deeply held sense that it won’t or can’t
be evil, is involved. As the company has matured, people like Teller
seem willing to admit that perhaps all things aren’t getting better all
the time. But they argue the new “goods” outweigh the new “bads,”
especially if an honest accounting is made of the current alternatives.
“Google X has this experience all of the time in all of these
different projects,” Teller said. People count all the problems created
by our current way of life as zero because that's what we’re used to as
the societal default, he contended.Conversely, people
immediately see the negatives of any new thing. “We are not deaf to
those issues and we’re really eager to talk to society about how to
mitigate those,” Teller said. “But part of our conversation with society
is about us listening, but also trying to remind the people that we
talk to that the place we’re starting from is not zero. In this case,
for delivery, cars, airplanes create a very large carbon footprint and
have a lot of safety issues.”
So, of course Google wants to help increase the speed of delivery and
reduce the carbon footprint and safety of delivery. Ergo, the
development of self-flying vehicles. “In principle that [speed
improvement] could happen independent of self-flying vehicles,” Teller
concluded. “But it was obvious from the very beginning that it was going
to have to be self-flying vehicles.”
Google X began to come up with ideas and test them theoretically and
experimentally. They considered many different wild options, sketching
out new and wacky transportation systems. (“What if you took a glider up
on a balloon with a super long string and the glider goes up, releases,
and zooms down… You can—on paper—satisfy yourself that’s not the right
solution.”) But eventually, Teller realized they needed an expert. They
did a search and ended up pulling Roy across the county.
Roy was perhaps a less-than-obvious choice. For one, he’d never
worked on drones flying outside. The challenges of the wind were new to
him. Roy neither had a traditional aeronautics background nor had he
dealt in logistics. Look back on his resume
from the early 2000s, as he prepared to finish his PhD at Carnegie
Mellon: There are almost no signs that he’d be the guy Google X would
one day tap for a drone project. His most prominent work had been on tour guide and nursing robots. Nick Roy in Australia during the Wing delivery tests (Google).But that leaves out one very important detail: Roy's thesis advisor was Sebastian Thrun,
the founder of Google X, and one of the most influential people in
robotics. In the years before his tour at Google, Roy did important work
with the support of the Office of Naval Research on indoor drone navigation in "GPS-denied" environments, where the vehicles can't rely on satellites to position themselves.
When Roy arrived in California, Project Wing’s initial focus was on
delivering defibrillators to help people who have had heart attacks. The
key factor in the success of using a defibrillator is how quickly it is
deployed, so saving a few minutes of transit time could make for a
lifesaving application. But as time went on, the Google team realized
that tying into the 911 system and other practical exigencies eliminated
the speed advantage they thought they could deliver.
So, now, Teller’s—and, by extension, I will assume Brin’s—big-picture
vision has shifted to the ways ubiquitous, two-minute delivery can
transform people’s relationship to stuff.
The idea goes like this: Because people can’t assume
near-instantaneous delivery of whatever they need, they stockpile
things. They might have a bunch of batteries, slowly decharging in a
drawer, or a drill that they use for 10 minutes a year. Each of these
things is a personal possession that sits around, embodying all this
energy and industrial effort unproductively.
If this sounds familiar, it should: It is the argument—even down to the drill example—that organizations like Worldchanging made in the mid-00s for the creation of “product-service systems.”
Those ideas, in turn, became key planks in the original conception of
the “sharing economy,” imagined as one in which the world could make
much less stuff because efficient, digital logistics would let each
asset be used by more people.
“It would help move us from an ownership society to an access
society. We would have more of a community feel to the things in our
lives,” Teller preached. “And what if we could do that and lower the
noise pollution and lower the carbon footprint, while we improve the
safety of having these things come to you?”
And unicorns might win the Kentucky Derby, too! But one would need to find a unicorn first before it could enter the race.
Google had to build a vehicle and teach it to fly itself.
* * *
The home of Project Wing (Alexis Madrigal)Off
one of the many hallways inside Google X’s simple red brick building in
Mountain View, there is a door labeled "The Hatchery." Roy swipes his
badge and we step inside the guts of the secret Project Wing.
This is a workshop. Scattered about, I can see fishing line on a
table, three colors of tape, a tall half-stuffed trash can, drawers of
fasteners, spare antennae, several glue guns, and some drills. Off to my
right, through glass doors, there are four identical plane bodies lined
up, wingless. At the back, a man is hand-building some electronics,
copper gleaming in the overhead lights.
Carapaces of different species of unmanned aerial vehicles are piled
on shelving units and anywhere else they might fit. The horseshoe-crab
shaped bodies of several editions of the current drone sit down at my
feet. Their electronic innards are visible through clear plastic. Above
me, a Cessna model hangs from the ceiling. On shelving units, there are
the familiar bug-like quadcopters, a strange craft with helicopter
rotors built into its single wing, and a remote control monster truck.
The main attraction, however, is the gleaming white prototype sitting atop the wheeled table in the center of the room labeled Chickadee.
It sits on its tail in the angle of repose of the Space Shuttle, nose
pointed to the sky. This is the tail-sitter, just like the one that
dropped the dog treats in Australia.
The design is simple. There is a tail that serves as a stand, a
central plastic body, and two wings made out of foam board covered in a
thin skin for protection from the elements. There are four rotors
attached to the vehicle, two on the underside closer to the body, and
two on the outside towards the edges of the wings.
The build quality is fascinating. From afar, it looks shiny and
complete, and it’s loaded with custom-built electronics, but up close,
it’s clear that the body itself is handmade and hacked together.
Fingerprint smudges smear it. Some pieces have been professionally
fabricated, it seems, but other bits look made in the on-site shop. It
is a work in progress.
The class of vehicles that it belongs to is not common. Most flying
things are fixed wing—like a plane—or some type of helicopter, which
uses one or more rotors to stay in the air. To fly, fixed wing craft
primarily move air horizontally, while helicopters move air vertically.
The tradeoffs are pretty obvious: The fixed wing craft are more
aerodynamic and efficient. They can go farther, faster with less fuel.
Meanwhile, the choppers can maneuver well in many different conditions,
don’t need a runway to take off or land, and can hover in place.
In the military drone world of Predators and Global Hawks, fixed
wing, long-range craft predominate. In the hobbyist drone world,
quadcopters like the DJI Phantom 2 and Parrot AR.Drone are most popular
among enthusiasts, although a strong model-airplane community exists.
In aeronautics, hybrid craft that combine elements of fixed-wing
planes and helicopters do exist, and certainly aerospace companies
experimented with them. But they are more complex because they have to
execute two entirely different tasks: moving air on different axes. In
some cases, such as the new F-35B,
Lockheed Martin built rotating jets into the plane body that can be
pointed at the ground to achieve liftoff, then rotated in the air, to
push the jets through the sky.
The tail-sitter configuration, in which the whole craft
rotates from a vertical to a horizontal position, has also been a source
of fascination through aeronautical history. The Nazis, for example,
were considering such a craft. And there was an American defense program
that resulted in the creation of two prototype aircraft by Lockheed and
Convair. The photographs of these huge planes sitting vertically on
runways—shiny and steel, unmistakably mid-century—feel retrofuturistic.
None of the research efforts caught on, though, with a major problem
being that there wasn’t a good way for the pilot to deal with the change
in orientation. The Lockheed XFV-1 tail sitter (US Navy).Obviously,
that’s not a problem with a drone, though. The “pilot” is housed in a
desktop-class computer that sits towards the tail of the plane. The
power system, batteries, cabling, and a big capacitor, sit just above
it. That’s hooked to the motors, which also send back motor performance
data to the flight computer. Sensor data also comes in from the inertial
measurement unit (IMU) mounted to the left of the computer. The IMU
uses accelerometers and gyroscopes to determine the X-Y-Z positioning of
the craft, an essential part of flying. In the nose, we find the GPS
unit, and in the tail, there’s a camera pointed down. There’s no
on-board laser rangefinding system in the current incarnation, but there
are two communications radios, one high-bandwidth for sending telemetry
data, and one low-bandwidth for longer range communications.
Google has not settled on this design for all its future program
development, but it has formed the platform for much of their testing.
While the hardware is a significant part of the problem, they seem
largely agnostic about which flying machine might ultimately serve their
needs best. The real challenges, Teller and Roy insist, come in the
design of the rest of the system like, for example, the delivery
mechanism.
Imagine all the possible ways one might get something from high in the air down to the ground. How about a tiny parachute à la The Hunger Games?
Roy’s team tried it. There was too much wind interference and they
struggled with accuracy. How about literally firing them down, a
ballistic approach? “We contemplated this,” Roy said. “And then Sergey
walked out from under a balcony and we almost hit him in a drop test.”
After that, they moved on.
Another obvious idea is to simply land the craft, drop the package,
and then take off again. To test the premise, they brought in some of
Google’s user experience researchers who queried people about how they
might react to such a delivery.
What they found was that individuals could not be stopped from trying
to reach for their packages, even if they were told that the rotors on
the vehicle were dangerous, which they are.
Finally, they settled on an idea that Roy had initially resisted:
winching down a line with the package on it and then winding it back up
into the craft.
Mechanical engineer Joanna Cohen, trained at Cal Tech and MIT,
designed the contraption. It consists of a few key parts. The first is
the winch itself, which spools out the hi-grade fishing line. The second
is the “egg,” the little gadget that goes down with the package,
detects that it has reached the ground, releases the delivery, and
signals that it should be cranked back up to the hovering UAV. If
something goes wrong, there is an emergency release mechanism at the top
of the line—“basically a razor blade,” Cohen told me—that allows the
UAV to cut and fly.
When a package comes hurtling down, it moves at about 10 meters per
second (about 22 miles per hour). When it gets close to the ground, the
winch slows the fall to 2 meters per second for a relatively soft
landing.
In the abstract, or under ideal conditions, this seems simple enough.
But the project’s hardware lead James Burgess said that out in the
world, it’s not so easy to make the deliveries work.
“If you can imagine a user case where we’re going to someone’s house,
and the egg hits something—maybe it hit the power lines, maybe it hit
the trees, maybe it hit the roof, maybe it hit the railing on the porch
before it got to the porch. There are a lot of unknowns and
environmental challenges,” Burgess said.
“So the egg is smart enough to know that it hit something, but the
vehicle also knows how high it is and the winch also knows how much line
it is letting out. The egg says, ‘I hit something,’ and the vehicle
says, ‘But wait, you’re not far enough down yet, so keep going because
probably you bounced off something and don’t arm yourself for [package]
release.’ So, all of our sensors and components work together in this
network to make good decisions.”
Or, for now, some kind of decision. When I asked how they planned to
deal with power lines, which seem especially challenging to sense and
avoid, the whole team demurred. “Remember: early days,” Roy intoned.
“We’re not even close to that.”
* * *
Like all autonomous robots, delivery drones have three fundamental
tasks. They have to understand their position in the physical world.
They have to reason where they should go next. And they have to actually
execute the control maneuvers to get there.
It turns out that the basics of getting from one place to another,
under ideal conditions, are not that difficult. Some hobbyist drones can
fly through a set of waypoints on their own. Others can follow a signal
down on the ground. But these capabilities are more in the realm of
autopilot than autonomy: They simply hold a bearing, altitude,
and speed. It’s kind of like cruise control in the sky. It’s a pretty
huge leap from cruise control to self-driving cars and the same is true
of the jump from autopilot to self-flying vehicles.
But what is hard is dealing with the thousands of unexpected
scenarios and “edge cases” that would inevitably crop up if these
systems were deployed at scale. It’s the sum of how the vehicles handle
all those difficult situations that add up to a reliable technology.
The analogy to Google’s self-driving car efforts is clear here: It’s
not that hard to build software that can drive a car on the freeway or
even around around Mountain View and deal with 99 percent of the things
that happen.
But what about that one percent?
Finding and learning how to deal with all the possible edge cases,
and coming up with safety procedures for what to do when the robot
doesn’t know what to do is actually what forms the core of these big,
long-term development programs. Google's self-driving car software in early 2014 (Alexis Madrigal)In
self-driving cars, Google keeps a massive database of all the times
when a human operator had to take control of a car. They can simulate
what would have happened if the human had not tagged in, and try out
different software approaches to teaching the system how to react, if,
in fact, it would have made an error. Any time they change the system’s
logic, Google tests the alterations against that whole database to make
sure they haven’t broken something with the new fix.
Project Wing will probably adopt the same approach with both the
database and the human operators. But instead of a single driver
operating a single car, as has been the case in the autonomous vehicle
program, Teller likes to imagine that there will be a relatively small
number of operators controlling a number of drones, helping them make
the right decisions in difficult situations.
“If a self-flying vehicle is trying to lower something and it goes
down three feet and gets stuck, should it go home? Should it land?
There’s not a right answer to that,” Teller told me. “That would be a
good moment for it to raise its hand and say back to someone looking at
the delivery control software, ‘What should I do?’”
This is a Google-y approach to the problem of ultra-reliability. Many
of Google’s famously computation driven projects—like the creation of
Google Maps—employed literally thousands of people to supervise and
correct the automatic systems. It is one of Google’s open secrets that
they deploy human intelligence as a catalyst. Instead of programming in
that last little bit of reliability, the final 1 or 0.1 or 0.01 percent,
they can deploy a bit of cheap human brainpower. And over time, the
humans work themselves out of jobs by teaching the machines how to act.
“When the human says, ‘Here’s the right thing to do,’ that becomes
something we can bake into the system and that will happen slightly less
often in the future,” Teller said.
One area where humans might be less helpful is the development of
detect-and-avoid software that could help the drones deal with birds,
other UAVs, helicopters, and the like. Some—some—of these
issues could be solved by regulation that creates certain corridors or
layers of air space for drones, as well as requiring transponders or
other signaling mechanisms on all humanmade flying things. But that’s
not a complete solution because as Teller put it, the birds aren’t going
to wear instruments.
Roy says the project is still in the very early days of developing a
mature, reliable detect-and-avoid system. But they are very far from
having the right answers.
Think about what the problem really looks like: A camera or radar or
laser is pointed at the sky in the direction that the vehicle is flying.
The background could be either the sky or earthly terrain with all the
variation that could imply. So the environment itself is pretty noisy.
And the only signal that the drone was on a collision path with a
distant object would be a few pixels in the image from, say, a camera.
Working from that limited data, the software has to interpret those
pixels as a type of flying thing and predict what it might do. And it
has to do all that consistently under radically different lighting and
visibility conditions. Actual camera data from an experimental aerial object tracking system developed at ETH Zurich (Andreas Nussberger)Predicting
others’ flight paths requires that one’s algorithm make some tradeoffs.
At one end of the spectrum, one could program the software to say that
other flying things could do anything at any time. But that
makes it incredibly difficult to fly in normal airspace and is overly
conservative. On the other end of the spectrum, one could assign fixed
and rigid paths to all other flying things, assuming they move more or
less in straight lines along a trajectory. But that, too, could lead to
problems if a plane turns or a bird dives or a quadcopter reverses
direction.
In the self-driving car space, Google has also had to build these
sorts of models for cars and pedestrians and bicyclists, but roads—and
the logic of the roads—heavily constrain what maneuvers are likely.
Furthermore, it’s easy to gather lots and lots of data about how drivers
operate: All Google has to do is drive and drive and drive, loading
ever more data into their models for how other vehicles move on the
roads of California. The sky is voluminous and these vehicles are small. It's a lot
less crowded than the country's road networks, and flying things can
move in all directions. Roy’s team found it difficult to even
trigger their sense-and-avoid systems when they tried to do so
intentionally by flying remote-controlled planes at them. So, the
self-flying vehicles need these systems for ultimate reliability and
autonomy, but they are exceptionally difficult to build—and to test.
There are other problems, too. The task of simply orienting the UAV
in space can be difficult depending on GPS availability and accuracy.
The cargo loading process requires lots of manual intervention. The
economics of delivery might end up making no sense. The batteries need
to get better. The vehicles need to get quieter. The reliability of the
parts in the drones needs to go up.
Google also has to convince the public that they want drones
instead of UPS trucks. This isn’t just about safety, but also the very
real concerns that drone delivery might generate new kinds of airborne
pollution, electronic locusts jittering across the sky. Or that it might
destroy delivery truck driver jobs, which are some of the last good
blue-collar gigs around.
And even more fundamentally: What the hell is anyone really going to
use drone delivery of anything in two minutes service for? It’s a nice
vision to consider the sharing economy delivered via robotic air, but
what specific applications for these robots will actually make sense?
Recall that the initial application for drone delivery was sending
defibrillators winging across cities. Well, many cities have solved this
problem in a different way. They keep the machines geographically
scattered across a city. That may be inelegant. That may be slightly
wasteful. But it’s simple, it’s easy, and it does not require the
invention and intervention of a flying robot.
* * *
Google, however, is not alone in thinking that delivery by drone is a
plausible part of the future. Sure, there is Amazon, which announced a drone delivery development program last December. But there is also Andreas Raptopoulos and his company Matternet.
Forged out of some sessions at Singularity University, the off-the-wall futurology school in Silicon Valley, Matternet has been working to build a business around delivering medicines and other high-value goods in places without roads. They’ve tested in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Bhutan.
Since the Amazon announcement, interest in what they’re doing has
exploded, and Raptopoulos expects a similar increase in attention with
Google’s validation of their work. “We refer to our adoption curve as
before- and after-Amazon. Things have really shifted in people’s minds.
People have started thinking at the corporate and organization level.
There is an opportunity to solve a big problem,” Raptopoulos told me.
“And I think Google’s announcement with accelerate that even further.”
But Raptopoulous’ vision for the future of drone delivery is very
different from Google’s. He imagines not an anywhere-to-anywhere free
for all, but that drones will carry goods to landing depots run by local
people who build their own small businesses around the UAV service. He
doesn’t see this type of service cutting into the logistics business in
rich countries, at least not for a long while.
There are other cargo drone believers, even outside Silicon Valley. In Europe, there is an entire organization—the Platform Unmanned Cargo Aircraft
(PUCA)—devoted to bringing people together around the idea. Their
vision of the future would see large cargo planes carrying between 2 and
20 tons of cargo flying relatively slowly and cheaply from places
underserved by the existing infrastructure. One controller on the ground
could handle 10 to 30 cargo planes flying at less than 300 miles per
hour to save fuel. They could travel at all times of night and day,
creating a more flexible in-filling logistics service to the current
cargo system. In this scenario, cargo drones are like flying buses, not
the speedy vanguard of two-minute delivery.
Founded by Dutch business school professor, Hans Heerkens, PUCA
hosted a conference earlier this year that saw presentations from Airbus
Defense & Space, the Dutch Air Force, and—most intriguingly—the
journalist and novelist, Jonathan Ledgard, who is heading up a project with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology around cargo drones for Africa.
Ledgard, who wrote one of the best novels published this decade in Submergence,
shared a draft of their vision with me—and it is fascinating in its mix
of high and low technology, pessimism and optimism. He calls the robots
in his plan “donkeys.”
“The qualities of a donkey are similar to what is required for a
cargo drone: surefooted, dependable, intelligent, able to deal with dust
and heat, cheap, uncomplaining,” Ledgard wrote. “The choice of the name
‘donkey’ for cargo drones is deliberate. A donkey is not a Pegasus,
associated with speed. It does not bomb, does not monitor. It flies
stuff between here and there, that is all.”
He imagines that specific cargo routes will develop in Africa at
around Eiffel Tower height in what he calls “the lower sky.” Unlike
Google, he does not imagine that they will fly all around; it will not
be Uber for stuff one can buy at CVS. “The routes will be geofenced:
donkeys will only be able to fly in an air corridor about 200 metres
wide and 150 metres high,” Ledgard wrote. “Busier routes will resemble a
high-speed ski gondola, without cables or supporting structures.”
At the stops on the route, “every small town will have its own clean
energy donkey station” that will “mix 3D printing and other advanced
technology with low tech, presaging a Tatooine future where neural
circuitry and simple materials will be matter-of-factly combined.”
Ledgard believes “there isn’t going to be enough cash for Africa to
build out its roads.” Yet, in previous generations, good roads were an
enabling condition for industrialization and realizing jumps in the
standard-of-living. How might African nations and citizens experience
greater prosperity? The only way, Ledgard has concluded, is through the
air.
A decade traveling the continent for The Economist, reporting on everything from jihadis to the spread of cheap Nokia cell phones has convinced him that a technological paradox will permeate poor countries in the 21st century.
“A community will have access to a flying robot even though it will
not have access to clean water, or security, or be able to keep its
girls in school.”
This may sound absurd, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be the future we live.
* * *
Google has a specific vision for the future of self-flying vehicles,
but its mere public entry into the field will catalyze all the efforts
enumerated here from Matternet’s similar project to Ledgard’s radically
different donkey vision. Google simply showing interest in flying drones
legitimizes all these efforts by people who are trying to marshal much
greater resources than they currently have to make their initiatives
work.
Beyond the reputation boost, the unmanned cargo plane booster,
Heerkens, hopes that Google will develop its program in a way that
allows other companies to tap into its infrastructure. “The significance
of what Google does, to me, is less in the vehicles they use here and
now,” Heerkens said, “but the possibility in being a big organization of
implementing the support infrastructure that’s needed.” For example,
the detect-and-avoid systems will need to be certified, he believes, and
Google could help governments figure out how to do so.
Matternet’s Raptopoulos wondered, too, whether they might not launch a
service, but provide the cloud infrastructure for others to operate
their own vehicles. “Google understands data infrastructure and mapping
at the different levels better than almost anybody else. They may be
thinking about an infrastructure play more than a service play,” said
Raptopoulos, who had spoken with Teller about the project. “But this is
all speculation.”
One area where Google will almost certainly have a major impact is in
shaping the regulations that ultimately govern unmanned aircraft. “To a
far greater degree than Amazon, Google has a history of working with
policymakers and stakeholders on technology reform,” the University of
Washington’s Ryan Calo, an expert on drone regulation, said. “Think net
neutrality, fair use, privacy, and recently transportation. Adding
Google’s voice could have a significant effect on regulatory policy
toward drones.”
In Google’s case, that may mean they do what they’ve done with
self-driving vehicles, where they hired Ron Medford, a former official
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to lobby
regulators on their behalf. Medford, backed by Google, have had a clear
influence on legislative processes in California, Nevada, and other
states where self-driving car laws have passed. In this case, Google
could hire someone from the Federal Aviation Administration and perhaps
make similar in-roads.
Teller confirmed that Google wants a seat at the regulatory table.
“It’s gonna take conversations with the public and with regulators. But
so far in the conversations we’ve had over the last two years, and more
intensely over the last couple months with regulators, I’m cautiously
optimistic that everyone wants the same thing,” he said. “Everyone wants
the world to be a great place that’s safe and has the benefits of the
technology with as little or no downsides as possible.”
Never were more Google-y words spoken.
Posts
The objects are embedded in a magnetic liquid and manipulated with two external magnets
The two magnets were located at the top and bottom of the container
Applying an external magnet also caused the screw to rotate inside the chamber
.
“Under the auspices of the Kaiser Wilhelm Medical Institute in Berlin,
Josef Mengele conducted mind-control research on thousands of twins and
thousands of other hapless victims.”
:
“…the Illuminati is very much alive and well in America… Since the
Illuminati is also known as Satanism, it must follow that the CIA was
controlled by a Satanist while Dulles had charge of it. The same holds
true for George Bush [a member of the Order of Skull and Bones].
as well as US Department of Defense projects like the Advanced Research
Project Agency”, Coleman writes that “…the bottom line of the projects
is mind control as predicted by the book, 
,
by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The project goes by the name ‘Monarch Program’
and it is a vast project involving not only the CIA but the Army, Air
Force and Navy with all of their skills and vast resources.”
,
writes: “…at one point I defined evil as ‘the exercise of political
power that is the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or
covert coercion in order to avoid…spiritual growth’”.
,
defines this struggle between Good and Evil as biophilia (the love of
life) vs necrophilia (the love of death). “The necrophilous person is
driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic, to
approach life mechanically as if all living persons were things,” he
writes. “The necrophilous person can relate to an object – a flower or a
person – only if he possesses it; hence a threat to his possession is a
threat to himself… He loves control and in the act of controlling he
kills life… ‘Law and order’ for them are idols…”
“, World in Review (2533 N. Carson St, Carson City, NV 89706), USA, monograph, 1992
, Feral House (2532 Lincoln Blvd #359, Venice, CA 90291), USA, 1997 (USD$14.95)
, AWT, Inc. (PO Box 85461, Lincoln, NE 68501), USA, 1996, 2ed (USD$13.00)
,
vols. 1&endash;4; Satanism & the CIA’s International
Trafficking in Children (video, USD$20.00), Ted Gunderson, PO Box
18000-259, Las Vegas, NV 89109, USA
, McGraw-Hill, 1980
, Reality Marketing (PO Box 27740, Las Vegas, NV 89126) USA, 1995 (USD$20.00)
, W. W. Norton Co., New York, London, 1997
, Pelican Publishing (PO Box 3110, Gretna, LA 70054), USA, 1998 (USD$10.95)
,
1995 (USD$20.00); Revivification: A Gentle, Alternative Memory
Retrieval Process for Trauma Victims (1998, USD$7.50), Brice Taylor
Trust, PO Box 655, Landrum, SC 29356, USA
