Sandy Hook: Disturbing Anomalies in Noah Pozner Coroner’s Report

by James Tracy •http://memoryholeblog.com/2015/05/09/sandy-hook-disturbing-anomalies-in-noah-pozner-coroners-report/

Image Credit: YouTube

By James F. Tracy
H/t Prof. Jim Fetzer
A closer look at Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II’s autopsy report for one Noah Samuel Pozner suggests at least three unusual discrepancies. This is especially the case when compared to the coroner’s remarks at a press conference in the immediate wake of the 2012 Newtown school massacre. Pozner was one of the 26 murder victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre event.
First, according to the document Carver pronounced Noah Pozner dead at 11:00AM–about one hour and 20 minutes after Adam Lanza shot Pozner and committed suicide inside Sandy Hook school on December 14, 2012. This is according to Carver’s January 29, 2013 signed coroner’s report of the Pozner boy’s body (below).


Carver’s testimony that Pozner survived for eighty minutes after being repeatedly shot by Lanza stands in stark contrast with his remarks at a December 15, 2012 press conference. When asked if the children suffered before dying, Carver responded, “If so, not for very long.” Yet by Carver’s own admission Pozner suffered for quite some time. Who attended to Pozner in his distress? Who pronounced Pozner and his classmates dead? According to the document it was Carver. Yet he was not yet on the scene at 11:00AM, and many first responders were likewise denied access to the crime scene.
Second, in comparison to the document, Carter’s off-the-cuff public statements to journalists concerning where the autopsies of the victims’ bodies took place simply don’t add up. The official version of what took place–that is, the story promoted in the New York Times and Wikipedia–explains that “fourteen of the children were dead at the scene; one injured child was taken to a hospital for treatment, but was later declared dead.” The coroner’s report states that Pozner’s autopsy took place at approximately 8:27AM on December 15 “at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.”
Yet in Carver’s bizarre performance at the December 15 press conference in Newtown the medical examiner explains in no uncertain terms that an elaborate facility was brought in and assembled where the autopsies presumably took place.
At the conclusion of the fifteen-minute meeting with reporters a visibly apprehensive Carver repeatedly contradicts himself. Connecticut’s top coroner first suggests that the postmortem examinations transpired at an elaborate mobile facility furnished by federal authorities. Here are Carver’s exact words:

It wasn’t a tent. It was this magnificent–thing. And, uh, ah-ah-ah-and it’s sectional, and it sticks together with velcro, and they stake it to the ground, and electricity and lights and heat appear [sic].

Why else, other than to aid in the complex and likely chaotic postmortem of an unusually violent bloodletting was this sophisticated facility brought in and erected? This is undeniably what reporters and the public are led to conclude from the remarks of a public official with considerable stature.
Having established this part of the account, a confused Carver then backtracks, stating that the bodies were transported in unmarked vehicles 42 miles away to his office in Farmington where the autopsies were to be conducted. The latter scenario would fit with his written report, yet stand in stark contrast with what he has led his audience to presume.
Third, following the most tragic school shooting in US history, Connecticut’s chief medical examiner is concerned about allaying the concerns of undertakers who have nothing to do with the major criminal investigation Carver figures centrally in. “Our goal–our goal was to get the kids out and available to the funeral directors first,” the chief coroner remarks to reporters at 11:45 in the clip below. “Uh, just for, well … y’know obvious reasons.”
Nevertheless on page one of Carver’s January 29, 2013 report–less than 24 hours after the event has concluded–the Pozners’ funeral director is dictating certain postmorten procedure on behalf of the grieving family. (“Internal examination is not performed in keeping with the wishes of the family as expressed to the undersigned through a representative of the funeral home.”)
Along these lines, in the news conference below Carver elsewhere states that his office routinely calls the mortuaries. Almost in the same breath he removes mortuaries from the equation entirely, stating that the funeral homes call his busy office directly. “The mortuaries have all been called. Uh, uh, and, uh … [T]he usual drill is the funeral homes call us, and as soon as the paperwork’s done we call them back.”
If this hold true, Carver’s January 29, 2013 report would have kept the undertakers waiting for over six weeks. Yet Carver tells reporters below that such paperwork was completed at 1:30PM on December 15. Perhaps given the circumstances Carver is making reference to preliminary processing. Still, as with so many other elements related to the Sandy Hook massacre, the Pozner document’s inconsistencies raises more questions than they put to rest.
This specific portion of the exchange (beginning at 13:31) is transcribed below.

Sandy Hook School shootings- Dr. H. Wayne Carver, Chief Medical Examiner- Full Press Conference

Unidentified Reporter #1 (off camera): Could you just–real quick, you said, did they set up a tent in the parking lot?

Carver: It wasn’t a tent. It was this magnificent–thing. And, uh, ah-ah-ah-and it’s sectional, and it sticks together with velcro, and they stake it to the ground, and electricity and lights and heat appear [sic]. And it’s from the Department of Emergency Management, and I think it came from the army, but I’m not sure. I think it’s these things that they use [sic], uh, in-in-in, uh, to set up field hospitals very quickly–mobile hospitals.

Unidentified Reporter #2 (off camera): And have all the children’s bodies been returned to the parents and mortuaries, or–

Carver: I don’t know. The mortuaries have all been called. Uh, uh, and, uh …

Unidentified Reporter #2 (off camera): But they’re ready to be released–these bodies?

Carver: The paperwork has been done. As of one thirty the paperwork is done. And if the–the usual drill is the funeral homes call us, and as soon as the paperwork’s done we call them back. That process was completed for the children at one thirty today.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): You [transported] the bodies where?

Carver: To Farmington–our office in Farmington.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Your office in Farmington. And how did you transport them?

Carver: We have our transport vehicles.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Would you say how many vehicles?

Carver: We have three vehicles, and uh, and uh, a lot of guys that drive ’em

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Are they vans or–

Carver: Uh, they’re-they’re–actually … one of the highlights of my administration is that we make them as nondescript and unmarked as possible [laughs nervously] to foil you guys. No, we–they started out at six. [Here again Carver appears confused or is responding to an inaudible question. “They started out at six” either refers to the number of drivers or the time of morning on December 15 the bodies were transported to Farmington.]

Add these glaring contradictions between Carver’s own official documents and his strange performance to the already very lengthy list of unusual circumstances and unanswered questions surrounding the Sandy Hook school massacre–an event that continues to strongly resemble a massive contrived event or coverup.
Absent major media complicity and millions in payouts from the Obama administration to Newtown and Connecticut state officials such an incident cannot long sustain itself in the public mind. In the context of increasingly militarized police, astroturf cries for gun control, and mandatory mental health protocols purportedly to save citizens from themselves, Sandy Hook is but one substantial rationale for broader social engineering already well underway in the US and other developed countries throughout the world.

Why Are UFOs Shutting Down Our Nuclear Missiles?    ~ maybe ,just maybe the "A" bomb & the "H" bomb "tech"  is an "gateway tech"  to   .....  "them"    ...out there   huh ?      :)   Oops

November 10, 2014 by Arjun Walia.        http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/11/10/why-are-ufos-shutting-down-our-nuclear-missiles/

Humanity’s interest in the topic of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) continues to increase. The subject has received some well deserved attention as of late, and continues to pick up momentum in a time where the truth about UFOs and possible extraterrestrials (already visiting our planet) is hitting the mainstream world.

This “truth” includes the fact that dozens of foreign governments have released thousands of pages of UFO related documents –here is an example of the latest batch released from the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense in June 2013. Other country’s governments who have done the same include Mexico, France, Argentina, Russia and Belgium, just to name a few. The fact that governments have released and documented information that detail UFO encounters with the military, as well as supposed extraterrestrial encounters with people, tells us that they’ve had and do have a high level of interest when it comes to the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials. Had this information remained classified, nobody would officially be able to say that governments  have allocated resources to investigate this phenomenon, and it would have remained in the “conspiracy” realm. At the same time, it’s important to remember that this issue goes far beyond and well above government control.

“It is ironic that the U.S. should be fighting monstrously expensive wars allegedly to bring democracy to those countries, when it itself can no longer claim to be called a democracy when trillions, and I mean thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects which both congress and the commander in chief know nothing about.” – Paul Hellyer, Former Canadian Defense Minister (source)

“Everything is in a process of investigation both in the United States and in Spain, as well as the rest of the world. The nations of the world are currently working together in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon. There is an international exchange of data.” – General Carlos Castro Cavero (1979). From “UFOs and the National Security State, Volume 2″, Written by Richard Dolan

“Behind the scenes, high ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.” Former head of CIA, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, 1960 (source)

Just last year at the Citizens Hearing on Disclosure, a United States congresswoman voiced her opinion that the US government should disclose this existence, pointing to the fact that a number of foreign governments have already done so -you can read more about that story here.

Apart from government documents, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has allowed researchers to petition and receive thousands of pages of UFO related documents from various agencies. Here is a defense intelligence agency document outlining an encounter that took place in Iran in 1976. It details a military encounter with a UFO. You can read more about what happens when the military encounters a UFO and tracks it on radar here, it’s quite common.

“There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, by other civilizations. Who they are, where they are from, and what they want should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not be the subject of ‘rubishing’ by tabloid newspapers.” (source) – Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee

Documents also indicate various incursions at nuclear missile sites.

The UFO issue is one that has a tremendous amount of evidence behind it. As of today, nobody can really tell you that UFOs aren’t real. Objects have been tracked on radar and visually confirmed, performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of physics and travelling at unattainable speeds.  For more detailed information (documents, statements from high ranking individuals) on the subject of UFOs, and why some of them (UFOs) might be extraterrestrial you can check out the article below and/or visit our exopolitics section of the website by clicking HERE.

If You Still Think We Are Alone In The Universe, You Might Want To See This.

UFOs At Nuclear Missile Sites

Many people who are aware, or who are becoming aware of the UFO phenomenon are not aware of the fact that UFOs have been visiting and interacting with nuclear missile sites across the globe for decades. This is a well documented fact that dates back all the way to December of 1948.

“Significantly, the UFO activity occasionally transcends mere surveillance and involves direct and unambiguous interference with our strategic weapons systems. Numerous cases include reports of mysterious malfunctions of large numbers of nuclear missiles just as one or more UFOs hovered nearby.” (Declassified Soviet Ministry of Defense documents confirm that such incidents also occurred in the former USSR.)

The above quote is from UFO researcher Robert Hastings, who has been researching the UFO phenomenon and its relation to nuclear missile sites for a a long time. Here is a clip of Robert speaking at the National Press Club in 2010.

The Encounter At Minot Air Force Base 

Minot Air Force base is located in North Dakota. In the 1960’s it was a major Strategic Air Command base, responsible for housing ICBMs (nuclear missiles). On August 25th, 1966 a team at the base was ordered to investigate a very high multi-colored light that was positioned well above the base. The team confirmed the object, as well as a second object, the object was also tracked on radar. It rose and descended several times, and eventually descended to ground level about 15 miles away from the base. According to the official report:

“When the team was about ten miles from the landing site, static disrupted radio contact with them. Five to eight mintues later, the glow diminished, and the UFO took off.” (1)

This incident lasted approximately four hours, and was confirmed by three different nuclear missile sites.

The Encounter At Malmstrom Air Force Base 

The UFO incursion at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana is one of the most remarkable events in this history of UFO encounters with the military.  This occurred in March of 1967 at a base that was responsible for a large amount of nuclear weapons. Here’s what happened:
An excerpt taken from the book UFOs For The 21st Century Mind. Written By Richard Dolan.

“An airman with the Oscar Flight Launch Control Center (LCC) saw a star-like object zigzagging high above him. Soon, a larger and closer light also appeared and acted in a similar way. The airman called his non-commissioned officer, and the two men watched the lights streak through the sky, maneuvering in impossible ways. The NCO phoned his commander, Lieutenant Robert Salas, who was not impressed. He ordered the NCO to keep watching the display  and report back if the objects got any closer. Minutes later that is precisely what happened. Shouting into the phone, the NCO told Salas that a red, glowing UFO was hovering outside the front gate.  

Salas woke his commander, Lieutenant Fred Meiwald. As he briefed Meiwald, an alarm went off in the small capsule, and both men saw a “No-Go” light turn on for one of the missiles. Within seconds, about ten of the missiles went down in succession. Twenty miles away, at the Echo Launch Control Center, the same scenario took place.

Strike teams were sent to the two launch facilities, where maintenance crews were at work and had been watching UFOs hover over each of their sites. The missiles were down for most of the day. Neither the Air Force invesigation, nor Boeing’s tests found any cause for the shutdown.” 

Over the past few years, several Air Force personnel have come forward to confirm that something did happen, and in 2010 Salas was part of a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., that included these personnel. You can watch that full conference below:

Here is another video of Professor Robert Jacobs describing UFOs shutting down and disabling nuclear weapons that have already been launched.

Above are two of several instances that have occurred throughout the years and have been officially documented.

Why Are UFOs Deactivating Our Nuclear Missiles?

In my opinion, atomic weapons are something Earth and those who reside upon it don’t need. Perhaps the deactivations are a message to us that we are playing with something we don’t need to play with? Many UFOs started appearing when we were testing atomic weapons. Is it  possible that some extraterrestrial beings might be concerned for the planet and the well being of the human race?  Perhaps they are telling us we are playing with fire? Something we don’t need or shouldn’t have?

At the same time, we don’t need beings from another world to come tell us that harboring nuclear weapons that are capable of destroying the planet aren’t needed.

Perhaps the damage caused by the detonation of nuclear weapons reaches and affects worlds beyond our own?

Perhaps this is advanced technology from another country? Spying on our weaponry. Perhaps (if extraterrestrials) they are showing their superiority?

Based on my research into the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials, I personally believe this is being done by benevolent extraterrestrials, and that it is a clear message to stop playing around with nuclear weapons and to take care of our planet.

What are your thoughts? Why do you think these incursions happened? Why do you think they are happening? Feel free to share in the comment section below.

I’d like to leave you with a video I’ve used several times before. But the statement is powerful, and true. The evidence supporting this phenomenon is overwhelming, and it’s one of the (if not the) most important story in human history that branches into so many different topics, and has so many implications. Again, browse through our exopolitics section for more articles on this subject, we have many.

 Sources:
All sources not listed here are highlighted throughout the article.

(0) Dolan, Richard. UFOs For the 21st Century Mind: New York: Richard Dolan Press, 2014

(0) (1) Report, Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 862nd Combat Support Group (SAC), Minot AFB, North Dakota. Subject: UFO Report, to: AFSC (FTD) Wright-Petterson AFB, Ohio. Date: 30 Aug 1966. Letter, Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 862nd Combat Support Group (SAC), Minot AFB, to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, 4 January 1967.

---

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study  ~  u still fucking "think" ya got a voice in ...America Hummmmm    ... sherrr  right   Oops

by

Eric Zuesse

In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)

A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: 
"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.
The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.

Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied.
What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse

World’s Richest Eighty People Own the same Amount as World’s Bottom Fifty Percent

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, May 09, 2015

Theme: Global Economy, Poverty & Social Inequality

Oxfam’s recent report, “WEALTH: HAVING IT ALL AND WANTING MORE” contains shocking figures that the press haven’t sufficiently publicized; so, the findings and the reliability of their sources will be discussed here. The results will then be related to the central political debate now going on in the U.S. Presidential contests for 2016, which is about equality and inequality.
First, the findings:
1. The richest 80 individuals own as much as do all of the poorest half of humanity.
2. During 2009-2014, the wealth of the 80 richest people doubled, yet the wealth of the bottom 50% declined slightly.
Now, the sources:
These data are calculated from Forbes magazine, regarding the world’s richest individuals, and from the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014, regarding the global wealth-distribution.
The source on the richest 80:
The Forbes list is one of two such lists, the other being Bloomberg. The two are generally in rather close agreement, but sometimes disagree enormously. For example, as of 8 May 2015, Forbes shows Sweden’s Ingvar Kamprad, the owner of Ikea, as #8 owning $43.1B, but Bloomberg shows him as #497 owning $3.5B.
Furthermore, Newsweek on March 2nd headlined “Why Putin Isn’t on ‘Forbes’ Billionaires List,” and reported that,“Forbes excludes members of royal families and ‘dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.’ Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off. When asked about Putin, a spokeswoman for Forbes told Newsweek: ‘Vladimir Putin is not on the list because we have not been able to verify his ownership of assets worth $1 billion or more’ and cited the methodology. The spokeswoman and [Assistant Managing Editor Kerry] Dolan did not comment directly as to whether the magazine considered Putin a dictator, and thus exempted him from the list by this classification. A reporter who worked on the list did not reply to a request for comment.” So: royals, and “dictators,” are both left off the list. Also: Dolan said that the magazine attempts to obtain the cooperation of listees but that “some cooperate; others don’t.”
Forbes itself says that,

“We do not include royal family members or dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power, nor do we include royalty who, often with large families, control the riches in trust for their nation.”

This means the wealthy royal families of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are not eligible for our global wealth ranking. (These monarchs, like Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, land on our list of The World’s Most Powerful People.)”
Consequently, the Forbes ranking is quite unreliable; and, on top of that, it is methodologically opaque. Leaving royalty off of their list is automatically excluding the royalty in England, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, where those people might well be the richest ones in their nation, if not the richest people in the entire world.
The Forbes ranking is thus untrustworthy, because it automatically excludes entire groups of people which might include many who are wealthier than any who are on their list. However, all that this means is that many people might exist who are even wealthier than the ones that show up as being among the top 80 on the Forbes list. Consequently, the Forbes list systematically under-states the wealth of the people who are actually the world’s 80 richest. The richest 80 could conceivably even be an entirely different list. Therefore, perhaps the richest 80 own far more than do the poor half of Mankind. But they almost certainly don’t own less than do the poor half of Mankind. In any case, they own at least as much as do the lower half.
The source on the global wealth-distribution:
The source that’s used to calculate the amount of personal wealth in the entire world and its nation-by-nation distribution, Credit Suisse, is overwhelmingly regarded as the most thorough that exists on this subject. Its research-team was selected by Anthony Shorrocks, who had long headed the UN’s World Institute for Development Economic Research, which is the leading research institute on global wealth-distribution.
However, yet again, the available data exclude a lot at the very top. For example, since the Saudi and other royals and dictators are disappeared from even the pretense of being calculated for possible inclusion into world’s-richest lists, the wealth-distributions for many Arabic and other totalitarian countries — and for constitutional monarchies such as in Norway, Netherlands, UK, Morocco, and Jordan — are necessarily based on much guesswork. Consequently, global wealth-inequality is being systematically underestimated, even in the best available source. Yet, even so, what can be publicly determined about global wealth-inequality is staggering:
The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 presents on its page 98, a global wealth pyramid, which indicates that the world’s richest 0.7% (35 million people) own $115.9 trillion, while the poorest 99.3% (4,665 million people) own $147.3 trillion. It also shows that the richest 8.6% own $224.5T (trillion), while the poorest 91.4% own only $38.7T. (Or, in other words: the richest 8.6% own 5.8 times as much as do the poorest 91.4%.)
Consequently, if the transfer of wealth from the many to the few is to continue, then the main way for that to happen will need to be by the super-rich receiving their added wealth from the lesser-rich, because the percentage of wealth that exists amongst the non-rich — the lower 91.4% — is only 17% of the globe’s total wealth, which isn’t much; and, even if all of that were to go to the richest 8.6%, it still would increase their current $224.5T to $263.2T, a 17% rise. However, from 2009 to now, the wealth of the richest 80 humans has actually more than doubled; so, even a 17% rise would be far less than the 80 richest are accustomed to — especially over such a multi-year time-period as was 2009-2014. Those 80 people would then be feeling shortchanged.
This is why the richest 80 people will need to be getting their increases, in the future, mainly from the richest 8.6%. Wall Street and other major financial centers are perhaps in the best position to achieve that.
The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 presents, on page 124, its categorization of countries according to equality-inequality, and they apply for this purpose a methodology that minimizes the distortive influences such as have been mentioned here. Here is their resultant listing:

As is clear there, the United States is listed in the highest-inequality category; and, so, no reasonable question exists that inequality is even more extreme here than it is in most of the world’s countries.
The way that U.S. President Barack Obama and his economic advisors have dealt with this is to say that what needs fixing in the U.S. isn’t economic inequality itself but instead inequality of economic opportunity — as if the latter doesn’t depend upon the former. It’s impossible to increase equality of economic opportunity unless economic equality is increased. America’s politicians lie through their teeth, because they’re financed — in both Parties — by the super-rich. The only difference between the two Parties is that the Republicans lie by saying that America’s extreme economic inequality is okay and that government action to reduce it merely increases inequality of economic opportunity — something that presupposes what it pretends to be concluding, which is that government has no constructive role to play in this matter. They’re all hoaxters. But the American public senses this, even if only vaguely. They sense that the problem is real, but they don’t know that the Democratic Party’s approach to the problem since the time when Bill Clinton became President in 1993 is itself fraudulent and a sell-out to the super-rich.
The resultant political debate in the U.S.:
On May 4th, Gallup headlined “Americans Continue to Say U.S. Wealth Distribution Is Unfair,” and reported that, in response to the question, “Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country today is fair?”
63% say no, and in 1985 it was 60% saying no to that question. The highest percentage saying no was 68% right before the 2008 crash, and the lowest was 58% immediately after that crash. By 56% to 34%, Republicans right now are saying that the wealth-distribution is fair. By 86% to 12%, Democrats say that it’s not. (Among the overall population, 63% say it’s unfair, and 31% say it’s fair. That’s a two-to-one margin.) The poorer a person was in Gallup’s study, the likelier he or she was to say it’s “unfair.” The richer he was, the likelier to say “fair.” In other words: only at the very financial top is the belief commonly held that the existing wealth-distribution is “fair.” However, Republicans, of any amount of wealth, think that it’s “fair”: virtually all Republicans agree with the very rich about the fairness of the wealth-distribution, and virtually all non-Republicans don’t agree with that. (The only problem for non-Republicans is how to solve it.)
The only U.S. Presidential candidate who focuses, and stands clearly, on the side of this issue that says it’s “unfair” (which, as was just pointed out, Gallup finds to be by two-to-one, the norm) is Bernie Sanders, who is running in the Democratic Party. Unlike Obama and the Clintons, he acknowledges that it’s the basic problem, and that shunting it off onto “equality of economic opportunity” is essentially fraudulent. All of the other candidates are raising their campaign-funds from the top 1% of America’s wealth-pyramid, who are the very people the likeliest to believe that the present wealth-distribution is fair. Those candidates are raising their campaign-funds from the few people who own almost everything that there is to own, and these are also the people who have the most to lose. Senator Sanders is raising his campaign-funds from the many people who own almost nothing. While other candidates need to serve the rich, Sanders needs to run an authentically grass-roots campaign, which can defeat far-better-financed opponents, or he otherwise stands no real chance of winning.
This situation is called ‘democracy’ in the United States, but other terms are used for it in other countries. The only scientific study that has been done of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy has found that it definitely is not. In order to make it one, profound change would be required. However, America’s richest need to convince America’s public that the nation already is a democracy, because, otherwise, America’s public won’t continue to accept rule by the super-rich — the people who finance almost all major politicians and who benefit from the current dictatorship. And that would cause the public to vote against any candidate who is receiving most of his financial support from the super-rich, which is almost all candidates. So: the only possible way to overcome any such tendency of the public to vote against the interests of the rich is to distract the public from that entire issue, onto personalities and other such distractions.
Consequently, it is to be expected that, in the 2016 contests, the best-financed candidates will be promoted by advertisements and issues that distract and deceive, instead of inform or educate, the public. That will be a contest between well-financed lies, and poorly financed truths. Perhaps by Election Day, the poorly financed truths will have been totally drowned-out. That way would lead to hellish future for the United States.
The 2016 contests will be of major historical importance: if the movement into democracy doesn’t win in 2016, then its likelihood of succeeding in the future will be virtually nil (since the current direction is toward increased dictatorship by the super-rich). The 2016 elections will be do-or-die for future democracy in the U.S. If for no other reason than this, the 2016 Presidential contests will be hugely important. If the poor come out in record numbers in the Democratic primaries and then, if Sanders wins the nomination, in the final election, then economic inequality in the U.S. will be reduced and equality of economic opportunity in the U.S. will increase, and so the future for the United States will be improvement. Otherwise, America’s future will be grim, no matter how well America’s top 0.1% will be living.
America has a huge problem; and, if it’s ignored in 2016, as it has been ignored ever since Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980, then America will, virtually certainly, spiral down into hell.
The problem is real; it has to be grappled-with, now, or else. It’s now, or it’s never. That’s the 2016 choice, for Americans — and, then, perhaps, for the rest of the world, and for all of the human future. That’s what is at stake, in the 2016 U.S. elections. The data make this clear.

UFO: AHAB’S WHITE WHALE    ~ & What did Dr. Werner Von Braun say ???

American "Enemy's List" to Sustain War Mode and Pentagon Budgets
          o
            Soviet Union
          o
            Terorrists
          o
            Asteroids
          o
            Extraterrestrials

• Posted on May 4, 2015
• by Clyde Lewis
• in Articles

UFO: AHAB’S WHITE WHALE

In the original Watchmen comic (set in an alternate reality 1985), one of the “heroes” commits what can be considered s a villainous act for the “good of all mankind.” He contrives an “alien invasion” so that the United States, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world will join together in peace and harmony to protect themselves against the outside “alien threat.”
If the story rings familiar to some of you, it is because it is based on speeches given by Ronald Reagan in the real world, in which he said an “alien threat” would be the solution to uniting a hostile world.
Numerous “conspiracy theorists”, most notably former naval officer William Cooper, the author of the famed underground book Behold a Pale Horse, speculated that Reagan’s speech was an expositional public “debriefing” to prepare the public to accept a global government as a necessary response to an alien invasion scenario.
Cooper suggested that the US government had been working on a fake alien invasion since the 1930s, and that even Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast was an “experiment” to see how the populace would react to such an event.
Cooper hosted a radio talk show, on which he predicted the gradual and pre-planned worldwide economic collapse. Most of his information has proven to be accurate.
William Cooper was eventually gunned down by police officers in front of his Arizona home. What did Cooper know? What were they trying to silence? Even at his most paranoid, he offered what was probably as close to 100% uncompromised, unadulterated human truth as one could possibly find. All of his associates and friends knew that Cooper was legitimate. The Information from his book Behold a Pale Horse is, to this day, being revealed as true. However he did say that an alien invasion would happen and that it could be just a psy-op provided by your government.
Well, lately the psy-op — if it is a psy-op — is getting better and better.
Skeptics used to always say that with so many cell phones and digital cameras around there would be more UFO “proof” or more documented sightings. Now times have changed and we see more and more so called legitimate sightings recorded on cell phones and digital cameras. There are plenty of people who are now realizing that they can also fake the images with computer software. The unfortunate thing now is that even the skeptics can fake UFO sightings, convince people that they are real and then turn around and reveal how they fooled everyone.
Then they use their fakery as proof that there are no real unidentified flying objects. There are also individuals who are paid to spread disinformation about the subject to cover up secret operations dealing with exotic or secret aircraft. These aircraft are not known to the general public, and they appear to be paranormal.
The UFO is still one big secret and it is being exploited as both real and fake to confuse the public and get them to not be so bold as to reveal what they are seeing or even recording.
Ufology has now become a complicated soap opera of tall tales in short order and short tempers for those who want serious disclosure. There are professional skeptics in bed with the government, some UFO researchers in bed with them as well. The government is also in bed with the Military industrial complex which is allegedly in bed with aliens and it is all there to obfuscate and confuse people into writing it off as some undercover tabloid ruse.
There have been some new cases both in New York and in San Diego where the observer first sees a red orb in the sky. Then there are many red orbs that flash and rotate like a ferris wheel. Then a white strobe appears. It lowers and raises like a probe. Below the red lights there are a string of golden lights.
The UFO is the size of a two story house, or a two story building. The UFO hovers and flashes its lights. It moves slowly and eventually disappears from view.
I have been following reports of his particular UFO since it was reported in Milstadt, Illinois back in the year 2000. A published report of my investigation was found in UFO magazine as a new type of triangular craft was being seen in the Milstadt-Lebanon-St. Louis area and the famous sightings of similar craft in New York, Jerusalem and Utah.
These new cases are showing a pattern since the news broke of a UFO over Jerusalem and Utah dropping off a glowing cargo and then flying off into the darkness. After viewing all of the footage from Utah and now from the newest sightings, I am wondering if all of these sightings need to be categorized as a different sighting because of its unconventional size and reports of a strobing probe that is attached to the so called “mothership.”
This unique UFO has been my Moby dick of sorts, trying to piece together a phenomenon that is beyond a mere UFO glimpse. These huge ships are rare and are the size of a building.
UFO hunters have pounced on reports of mystery lights in the skies of San Diego and with good reason. A local television news crew snapped the unbelievable UFO above a skyline showing that the object was a huge configuration of red lights a, strobe light and other brilliant lights below.
This strange image of a string of colored flashing lights has been posted an a number of alien and UFO websites after several residents of the city in California, US, reported seeing the same thing.

Local resident Larry Fox sent news channel NBC 7 the picture of an “odd light” he spotted in the night sky.
The channel described the picture as “a string of multi-colored lights.”
Mr. Fox said he was in his back garden when he saw the strange light to the southwest of the city.
“I ruled out a drone or a plane because the light was stationary. It was a series of flashing lights,” he said, adding: “If it was a plane, it would have moved.”
Mr Fox was reported to have described the lights as “red, blue and green” and that they “kept flashing and changing colors.”
NBC 7 claimed several other viewers had called in to say they witnessed the same mystery phenomenon, including one of their own photographers, who did not appear to have captured the moment.
Days before a similar UFO was seen over Equimalt in British Columbia, however this time the large mothership UFO was releasing smaller probes into the sky that were seen flying around and doing maneuvers.
While it was reported that a large UFO had released the objects, authorities all but ruled out a UFO story and decided that what the witnesses saw were drones.
Drones however don’t make sonic booms as they travel through the sky and so we see that uncomfortable evidence does not make it into a report that needs to ne revisited to see if there is a pattern.
Any mainstream news expert asked about UFOs should almost certainly be disqualified from having any real opinion on the matter. They only pitch a theory and that is enough to keep things balanced in the view of the news media.
If there is any conspiracy theory or cover-up that can be considered it is that this is a multilevel attempt to construct Intel data about how we react to reports of strange anomalies in the sky. What the public thinks, how disinformation is distributed and how the internet reacts to government agencies and their reports of space threats and then withdrawing their warnings with no accountability.
Allegedly, branches of the military are engaging in psychological warfare involving false flag exercises. These include simulated extraterrestrial attacks. The frightening part is that the military psy-ops groups are conducting these alien-based psychological experiments to test the collective acceptance of a real alien landing. They are allegedly faking occasional UFO reports and YouTube videos to gauge public reaction. They are also allegedly taking real events shown on YouTube and creating a sense of confusion by creating very sophisticated fakes that appear to be eyewitness documentation.
These fakes are used to discredit any and all anomalous events as hoaxes. The mainstream media then takes the story and jokingly ridicules those who believe that the event was out of the ordinary. This has been lost on many armchair skeptics who believe that they know CGI when they see it. Of course there is CGI; your taxes paid for the intelligence blackouts and disinformation. The psy-op begins and soon everything is a hoax and evidence is overlooked in the race to debunk and not to decipher.
We begin to see a public consensus that has a whiff or a whim claim that any UFO activity is always caused by Project Blue Beam or HAARP. We begin to see every UFO video held to scrutiny because it is assumed by skeptics that people who see lights in the sky are prone to delusions of alien contact. It is also assumed that if the skeptics themselves can fake the evidence, it is almost certainly a hoax created by those who claim to have authentic footage or documentation.
We are now witnessing the hijacking of information by maggot-like thought police.
This type of hijacking of information has created a form of neo-skepticism, in which there is a group of true skeptics who have no knowledge of an external world, or of infinite possibilities. Their whole lives are mired in doubt and contempt for anyone with a belief in something that is beyond the norm. They are adamant in suppressing new ideas and dismissing anything that does not fit into the consensus orthodoxy.
Mankind has been seeded with the idea that his culture and his religious philosophies come from enlightened beings from heaven. The fusing together of science and religion will give mankind a new way to look at the world. Man is set to begin the next step in his evolution and this may be linked to a better understanding of what lies outside the confines of his own planet. There is however a great number of people who will attempt to begin the eschaton or the end times by using whatever means necessary to mold the world to their liking.
I know full well that with new technology leaders, scientists of the world can stage or fake a supernatural, messianic event. They are capable of convincing you of a godlike arrival from heaven.
They can create an extraterrestrial landing, a UFO apocalypse and plant a story, to develop new religious movements. Brainwash scores of individuals in believing in worlds and places where these aliens live. They only need smoke and mirrors to make this happen and an entire world will confess and bow before an image the controllers have created. However there is the other side of the story. Perhaps to our own surprise the faking of such events may just trigger the real thing.
That would be an amazing cosmic joke.

THE SPACE SCRAPBOOK: TEXAS SPACE FACILITIES, AND A HIGH OCTANE SPECULATION

Posted on May 7, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/05/the-space-scarpbook-texas-space-facilities-and-a-high-octane-speculation/

It has now been about two weeks since we started all these blogs about space matters, beginning with that strange article from RT about spy satellites disguised as "space junk" and their strange turn of phrase that these satellites were "state affiliated." Much to my surprise, the space-related articles continue to pour in from various people, so space does seem, for whatever reason, to be on everyone's mind. This article in particular, shared by Mr. S.D., caught my attention for one very significant reason:
Internet billionaires face off in renewed Texas space race
Consider carefully the implications of those five opening paragraphs:

"An isolated edge of vast West Texas is home to a highly secretive part of the 21st-century space race, one of two being directed in the Lone Star State by Internet billionaires whose personalities and corporate strategies seem worlds apart.
"The presence of Blue Origin, LLC, the brainchild of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, barely registers in nearby Van Horn, a way station along Interstate 10, a full decade after he began buying land in one of Texas' largest and most remote counties.
"Few visitors are allowed beyond the "No Trespassing" sign and a remote-controlled gate and into the desert and mountain environment reminiscent of the Air Force's renowned Area 51 in Nevada. The privileged who do get inside decline to describe what they've seen, typically citing confidentiality agreements.
"'No one gets in other than employees,' says Robert Morales, editor of the weekly Van Horn Advocate newspaper.
"At the opposite end — of Texas and the competition — is the highly visible SpaceX venture, led by PayPal co-founder and electric car maker Elon Musk. His company contracts with NASA to resupply the International Space Station and is building a launch site about 600 miles from Van Horn, on the southernmost Texas Gulf coast, with the much-publicized goal of sending humans to Mars." (Emphases added)

Now, before we ponder these statements, consider the context of our blogs over the past couple of weeks: the spy-satellites disguised as space junk with "state affiliations," then the story about the US and Japan being concerned about such satellites too, then the story about zapping space junk out of the aether with lasers, then the Russians releasing fuzzy pictures of an American spy satellite taken with ground based lasers, and all the messages implied in that (including the message "if we can snap it, we can probably zap it"), and then the very bizarre stories about NASA accidentally discovering a possible space warping effect in its tests of the so-called EM drive, and the even more bizarre fact - as I pointed out - that the experimental tests on that engine weren't conducted in high vacuum to begin with ... well, the total context seems to indicate that something quite major is happening with respect to space, and this story may be yet another clue.
Consider only the strange dialectical construct of the story: this facility is "highly visible," that one "highly secret"; this one is in the east part of Texas, that one in the west, the east part is populated, the west part is not, and so on. One is perhaps tempted to see in this dialectical construction an allusion to the public programs and "secret" or "breakaway civilization" and its "secret space program," which, suggestively, the article might be implying was privatized a long time ago. After all, one effect of the US government pouring such vast funds into such a program over a prolonged period of time would simply be to give the corporations developing any putative secret space technologies not only enormous power through the sheer funding requirements of such a program, but an enormous technological advantage.
So we come to the part of the article that (in the large context of what we've been blogging about for the past couple of weeks) gave me pause, and that is the secrecy of the "Blue Origin" private spaceport,a concern that the article itself compares to the secrecy surrounding Area 51:

"'It's very secretive out there,' said Maricel Gonzalez, chief appraiser for the Culberson County Appraisal District. She declined to describe it, citing a nondisclosure agreement. A UPS driver who recently emerged from the compound also declined to talk.
"Nuny Morriss, a Van Horn city council member and FedEx delivery driver, said the site includes a 'big warehouse-looking building and some offices ... But they don't let us go around in the back.'
"Blue Origin's presence in Van Horn is minimal. Morriss recalled word getting out a few years ago about a scheduled launch. Traffic at the local airstrip suggested that VIPs were coming in, and local officials were eager to join them.'No one in town got invited,'Morriss said."

One wonders precisely how a county tax assessor can make any valid tax assessments when she has to sign non-disclosure agreements, but we digress. What is pertinent here is the "small footprint" being left locally, in contrast to the noise surrounding Elon Musk's venture in the eastern part of the state. Why the secrecy?
One reason might be that the curiously named "Blue Origin" site might be a kind of codeword or project name. Might it, for example, be launching private corporate spy satellites disguised as space junk, one of the scenarios I suggested for the curiously worded RT article? Might this be one of the "state affiliated" enterprises that the RT article was referring to? There's another possibility as well, and it's one that, if one has been paying attention, should be cause for concern. We are being told that these private space ventures are developing this or that version of standard chemical rockets. But, with NASA and other people and agencies - including CHina - testing the EM drive, does it not stand to reason that some more exotic technologies could be being tested at this site?
We'll never know, of course, but there's one final possibility that looms large over all of this, and one almost hesitates to mention it. By current space law and treaty, the weaponization of space is prohibitted.
But no corporation signed those treaties, and even though they may by certain interpretations of the law be subject to them, corporations haven't been showing much regard for the laws of the countries they do business in lately. It only stands to reason that they might decide to protect their own space assets with their own versions of privatized (and in this case, space-based) security.

The Rich Get Richer: Titanic Stock Bubble Fueled by Buyback Blitz

By Mike Whitney

Global Research, May 08, 2015

CounterPunch 6 May 2015

Region: USA

Theme: Global Economy, Poverty & Social Inequality

Why are stocks still flying-high when the smart money has fled overseas and the US economy has ground to a halt?
According to Marketwatch:

“For the eighth week in a row, long-term mutual funds saw more money flowing out of U.S. stocks and into international stocks, according to the Investment Company Institute……For the week ended April 22, U.S. stocks saw $3.4 billion in net outflows from long-term mutual funds…For the year to date, net outflows for U.S. stocks are $13.79 billion, while inflows for international stocks are $41.12 billion.
Those figures, however, don’t count exchange-traded funds. In April alone, mutual funds and ETFs that focus on international stocks saw $31.8 billion in net inflows, while U.S.-focused funds and ETFs shed $15.4 billion, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.” (“Why U.S. stocks are near highs even as fund investors flee“, Marketwatch)

So if retail investors are moving their cash to Europe and Japan (to take advantage of QE), and the US economy is dead-in-the-water, (First Quarter GDP checked in at an abysmal 0.1 percent) then why are stocks still just two percent off their peak?
Answer: Stock buybacks.
The Fed’s uber-accommodative monetary policy has created an environment in which corporate bosses can borrow boatloads of money at historic low rates in the bond market which they then use to purchase their own company’s shares.  When a company reduces the number of outstanding shares on the market, stock prices move higher which provides lavish rewards for both management and shareholders.  Of course, goosing prices adds nothing to the company’s overall productivity or growth prospects, in fact, it undermines future earnings by adding more red ink to the balance sheet. But these “negatives” are never factored into the decision-making which focuses exclusively on short-term profits. Now get a load of this from Morgan Stanley via Zero Hedge:

 “In 2014, the constituents of the S&P 500 on a net basis bought back ~$430Bn worth of common stock and spent a further ~$375Bn on dividend payouts. The total capital returned to shareholders was only slightly less than the annual earnings reported. On the fixed income front, the investment grade corporate bond market saw a record $577Bn of net issuance in 2014. While the equity and bond universes don’t overlap 100%, we think these numbers convey a simple yet important story. US corporations have essentially been issuing record levels of debt and using a significant chunk of their earnings and cash reserves to buy back record levels of common stock.”  (“Buyback Bonanza, Margin Madness Behind US Equity Rally”, Zero Hedge)

So corporations are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from investors through the bond market. They’re using this cheap capital to repurchase shares in order to boost skyrocketing executive compensation and to line the pockets of their shareholders. At the same time, they are weakening the capital structure of the company by loading on more debt.  (It’s worth noting that “highly rated U.S. nonfinancial companies” are now more leveraged than they were in 2007 just before the crash.)
This madcap buyback binge has gotten so crazy, that buybacks actually exceeded profits in two quarters in 2014. Here’s the story from Bloomberg:

“Companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index really love their shareholders….Money returned to stock owners exceeded profits in the first quarter and may again in the third. The proportion of cash flow used for repurchases has almost doubled over the last decade while it’s slipped for capital investments, according to Jonathan Glionna, head of U.S. equity strategy research at Barclays Plc.
Buybacks have helped fuel one of the strongest rallies of the past 50 years as stocks with the most repurchases gained more than 300 percent since March 2009.” (Bloomberg)

But maybe we’re being too pessimistic here. Maybe stocks would have risen anyway due to record high earnings and improvements in the economy. That’s possible, isn’t it?
Nope. Not according to Morgan Stanley at least. Check it out:

“Since 2012, more than 50% of EPS growth in the S&P 500 has been driven by buybacks and growth ex-buybacks has been a mere 3.3% annualized. (EPS: Earnings Per Share)

“More than 50% “!  There’s your market summary in one damning sentence. No buybacks means no 5-year stock market rally. Period.  If it wasn’t for financial engineering and the Fed’s easy money, stocks would be in the same general location as the real economy, circling the plughole, that is.
What’s so frustrating about the present phenom is that the Fed knows exactly what’s going on, but just looks the other way.  So while the stock bubble gets bigger and bigger,  CAPEX –which is investment in future productivity and growth– continues to deteriorate, GDP drops to zero, and demand gets progressively weaker. Shouldn’t that warrant a rethinking of the policy?
Heck, no. The Fed is determined to stick with the same lame policy until hell freezes over. Whether it works or not is entirely irrelevant.
Now take a look at this eye-popper from Wolf Street:  “GE, in order to paper over a net loss of $13.6 billion and declining revenues in the first quarter, said on April 10 that it would buy back $50 billion of its own shares.” (Wolf Street)
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read similar stories in the last couple years.  The company’s revenues are shrinking, they’re losing money hand over fist, and what do they do?
They announce they’re going to buy back $50 billion of their own shares.
What a joke. And it doesn’t stop there. The Fed’s policies have also ignited a flurry of activity in margin borrowing. This is from CNBC:

“NYSE margin debt rose to an all-time high in March, according to recently released data from the stock exchange….NYSE margin debt sat at $476.4 billion, up from $464.9 billion at the end of February..(Note: That’s $95 billion more than 2007 at the peak of the bubble.)

Margin debt is created when investors borrow money in order to buy stocks. If an investor buys $100 worth of stocks with $50 in capital, that individual has $50 of margin debt outstanding. Since margin debt provides leverage, it amplifies gains, but also increases the risk to an investor.” (“What record-high margin debt means for stocks”, CNBC)

More borrowing, more risk taking, more financial instability. And it’s all the Fed’s doing. If rates were neutral, then prices would normalize and CEOs would not be engaged in this reckless game of Russian roulette. Instead, it’s caution to the wind; just keep piling on the debt until the whole market comes crashing down in a heap like it did six years ago. And that’s the trajectory we’re on today, in fact,  according to TrimTabs Investment Research, February saw buybacks in the amount of $104 billion, ” the largest monthly figure since these flows were first tracked 20 years ago. ”
So things are getting worse not better. Bottom line: The Fed has led the country to the cliff-edge once again where the slightest uptick in interest rates is going to send the economy into freefall.
But why? Why does the Fed keep steering the country from one financial catastrophe to the next?
That’s a question that economists Atif Mian and Amir Sufi answer persuasively with one small chart. Check it out:
“Here is the distribution of financial asset holdings across the wealth distribution. This is from the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances:

The top 20% of the wealth distribution holds over 85% of the financial assets in the economy. So it is clear that the direct income from capital goes to the wealthiest American households.” (Capital Ownership and Inequality, House of Debt)
Why does the Fed create one bubble after the other?
Now you know.