If CO2 is So Bad for the Planet, Why Do Greenhouse Growers Buy CO2 Generators to Double Plant Growth?  ~ hehe  IT's the god~damn cows  FARTS  folks !...ain't that right ...douche bag !?!  https://www.google.com/search?q=whos+the+douchebag+congress+woman+that+says+it%27s+the+cow+farts&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX95OMsPnkAhUC11kKHRACCx0Q_AUIEigC&biw=1920&bih=940#imgdii=3bRAXW6mglhwFM:&imgrc=1CMntfa4pgOiLM:

Global Warming Hoax, Recent Articles

http://humansarefree.com/2019/09/if-co2-is-so-bad-for-planet-why-do.html

For only "pennies a day," any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That's the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada.

"1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved... these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day," the ad says.

View it yourself in this picture taken from a greenhouse supply magazine.

CO2 generators "improve plant quality" and "increase production." They're made in the USA and run on propane or natural gas, turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.

Why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because — are you ready for the truth? — CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.

Nope, it's not a pollutant that threatens human civilization as has been ridiculously claimed by global warming doomsday pushers. CO2 actually increases plant yields, accelerates "re-greening" and improves reforestation of the planet.

And while today's atmosphere contains only 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, CO2 generators can help raise that level to 1500 ppm inside greenhouses, thereby accelerating plant growth and food production.

Here's the ad so you can see it for yourself:

Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?

If CO2 was so terrible for the planet, then installing a CO2 generator in a greenhouse would kill the plants. But scientists and even governments actually recommend supplementing CO2 in greenhouses in order to boost plant growth and food production.

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years," says the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

"CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient... increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."

In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts and arid areas, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses which produce the oxygen human needs to breathe.

Attacking carbon dioxide is hate speech against Mother Nature

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem.

In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean. Anyone who criticizes CO2 is attacking ocean life and condemning trillions of aquatic creatures who exhale carbon dioxide as part of their natural respiration. (Should they all be fined?)

Besides, all those people who keep sounding the alarm on CO2 are being too negative all the time. Nobody spews more doom and gloom than Al Gore and the global warming crowd who paint apocalyptic pictures of Earth's future if we all don't start paying carbon taxes to the super rich. Stop being so negative!

They need to practice more positivity and repeat to themselves affirmations like:

"CO2 is a nutrient for forests."

"CO2 is produced by ocean life."

"CO2 brings balance to the global ecosystem."

"CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans."

"CO2 can help transform barren deserts into sustainable forests."
Perhaps by staying positive, the global warming fearmongers and doom-and-gloomers can calm down, take a few breaths (with extra CO2) and recognize that what's good for plants is good for the planet.

For the record: NO, I don't support burning fossil fuels

The No. 1 criticism of this story by the brainwashed hoards of Greta Thunberg / Al Gore cult worshippers will be that I must have been paid big bucks by the coal industry to write this article.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm the record — for at least a decade — having exhaustively condemned the burning of fossil fuels. Even though the CO2 they release into the atmosphere is actually a nutrient, they release many other pollutants such as sulfur and mercury (from coal).

Scrubbers in the USA make U.S. coal plants the cleanest in the world, but China's coal plants are truly sickening pollution factories.

I also believe it's time to get humanity off the petrochemical habit and onto something cleaner and more renewable such as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), formerly called "cold fusion."

Recent analysis has confirmed, yet again, that cold fusion is real and practical. Cold fusion could be harnessed and used in place of coal to heat large quantities of water that drive steam turbines which generate electricity.

In time, all of America's coal power plants could be switched over to cold fusion. Similarly, if improved battery technology comes along, gasoline-powered vehicles could be switched over to electricity, and if that electricity is powered by cold fusion, then it's clean all the way through the energy supply chain.

Fossil fuels are dirty business: they're dirty to extract from the ground, dirty to transport and dirty to burn. But the CO2 they produce is not a pollutant; it's a nutrient that's desperately needed by trees, grasses and shrubs all around the world.

So while there are lots of reasons to oppose the burning of fossil fuels around our planet, CO2 is not legitimately one of them.

If all this talk makes you hyperventilate, then feel free to experience a hefty dose of self-inflicted guilt that you can alleviate only by sending all your money to Al Gore for all the carbon dioxide you're generating.
Reference: NaturalNews.com

Ancient Alien Probes May Hide on Near-Earth Asteroids, According to Astronomer   ~ hehe Humm ...did ya's EVER  "wonder"  how/y nasee  pics "certain" rocks out in ole merry space~ville ta "fly~by" humm

Sequoyah Kennedy September 24, 2019

• https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/09/ancient-alien-probes-may-hide-on-near-earth-asteroids-according-to-astronomer/

What if we’ve been silently observed by an alien civilization since humanity’s genesis? A new idea put forth by astronomer Dr. James Benford in a paper published in the Astronomical Journal this week suggests that our search for alien intelligence should focus on the “co-orbital” asteroids that orbit the sun in a similar pattern to Earth. Benford suggests that these asteroids would provide perfect observation decks on which aliens may have stationed robotic probes, laying dormant since ancient times. He argues that these co-orbitals should be a primary target for SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. He also suggests that if we look at these asteroids and do not find evidence of ancient alien probes than it tells us something else: we’re well and truly alone and no one cares about us.

Now that might be a pretty big assumption to make. After all, there’s the whole fallacy of thinking that an alien intelligence would come up with the same plans, tactics, and techniques as an Earth-bound descendant of chimpanzees would. But it’s clear that Benford is right about one thing at least—if aliens did have a long-term observation strategy, co-orbital asteroids would be perfect staging areas.

Dr. James Benford calls these potential probes “lurkers.” They would be small probes that have remained hidden and unnoticed for thousands of years, watching us, or perhaps waiting for a signal to turn on and begin watching us. A news release covering Benford’s new paper says:

“They may respond to an intentional signal and may not, depending on unknown alien motivations. Lurkers would likely be robotic, like our own Voyager and New Horizons probes.”

“Co-orbitals” are a recently discovered group of asteroids that orbit the sun at similar rates to Earth, thereby staying at roughly the same distance from our planet. If aliens had stationed probes on these asteroids they would have a constant source of solar energy and and a secure, hidden, and stable place from which to observe us. Regardless if aliens use technology remotely similar to ours or not, the physical laws of the universe would still apply. Everything needs energy, and in the void of space solar energy is probably the best bet regardless of what the probe actually looks like. Benford says that probes hanging out on co-orbitals could possibly sustain themselves for many thousands of years.
Benford says that if we did find an alien probe on one of these co-orbitals we could simply photograph it and send it the photograph with a message saying “we see you.” And sure, that’s a pretty creepy thing to do, but so is spying on a whole species for all of their evolutionary history. It’s only fair.
But if we don’t find one, Benford says that it would be strong evidence that we truly are alone. He says:

“If we find nothing there, this gives us a profound result: no one has come to look at the life of the Earth, which has been evident in our atmosphere in spectral lines over interstellar distances for over a billion years.”

Would we even recognize evidence of an alien civilization if we saw it?

But it has to be said, what if they just did something else? Sure co-orbitals would be perfect places to stage an observation from, but many people who have been told there’s a perfect way to do something end up doing it a completely different way, to varying degrees of success. Jumping straight to “well if it’s not there, in that specific spot, then that means it doesn’t exist anywhere else” is pretty ludicrous. That sounds like what I say about my car keys when I’m grumpy in the morning. But that’s a problem with looking for alien intelligence. We don’t know what it looks like, and we don’t know how it thinks. Assuming that it behaves exactly like Earth primates, when there’s a whole universe of infinite possibility seems a little bit small minded. But of course, that’s coming from someone who is 100% sure his car keys got eaten by a black hole at least three times per week.

Is Planet Earth Being Terraformed by Non-Humans?

~hehe "something" IS going ON ...the Question is ....what?    & WE should  start wit US  {people of Earth} STOP financing 2 civilizations !!!   ...yes folks WE {people ON this Planet}  R "financing" 2  ...where's ALL the "missing" $$$$$$$$$$$$$ folks  IT just didn't go ....puff ????        where's the $ folks ???

http://humansarefree.com/2017/10/is-planet-earth-being-terraformed-by.html

Some things happening on planet earth today just don’t make sense if you’re looking at them from the perspective of an ordinary human being.

For one example, look at the amount of financial debt being accrued around the world. We’re talking trillions and trillions of dollars. It seems utterly cartoonish that human beings could owe this much money to other human beings. The numbers actually make more sense if consider that our creditors may actually be off-planet entities.

Take also for example, the widespread industrial scale destruction of the planet. The Athabasca oil sands project in Alberta, Canada, is a scorched earth endeavor so large it is being compared to the Great Pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China.

Mountaintop removal in the Appalachians, the end of the Amazon, such callousness about Fukushima… none of it makes sense.

But if you expand the realm of possibility when trying to comprehend all of this, it actually makes more sense that the driving forces behind such wholesale destruction of the planet aren’t from here. Those pressing for all of this aren’t  dependent on these ecosystems for life.

Perhaps our earth is being used by off-planet entities for its resources, and the planet is being actively terraformed to maximize the efficiency of resource extraction.

Terraforming is, “the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying its [a planet’s] atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the environment of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.”

They use the term hypothetical because as far as we know it has never been done, however, a holistic look at events on earth at present fit the description of terraforming, except in reverse. Earth is being terraformed to look like some other place.

Writer V. Susan Ferguson wonders if an extraterrestrial race is already here, in the millions, and if the planet is being altered to be more favorable to their particular needs.

“They are Terraforming our Earth to make it suitable for the hybrids that are now said to number in the millions. A planet that has been slowly chemically altered, made physically denser, warmer, drier and slightly more radioactive and methane-rich is evident.

“The insanity of building nuclear power plants next to ocean shores as in Fukushima show an intent to increase radiation. The melting of the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctica is causing the release of vast amounts of methane. Are the hybrids immune to large amounts of radiation and methane. Do aluminum resistant GMOs agree with their immune systems?” [Source]

Is this the hypothesis that most accurately fits a world where geoengineering is broadly evident and is more and more frequently described by the mainstream news as a necessary part of adapting to climate change?

“Unknown to most, it became exceedingly clear by approximately 2025 that governments had in fact reengineered [geoengineered]Earth’s atmosphere, its oceans and the planet’s electromagnetic grid to facilitate the use of scalar and sonic technology in such a way as was harmful and in some cases detrimental globally.” ~ Timeline Collapse & Universal Ascension, E.M. Nicolay & H.L. Jang

These projects are so massive and involve complex cooperation between industry and government. Regarding the amount of investment it takes to finance projects like these, Timothy Good in his book Earth An Alien Enterprise: The Shocking Truth Behind the Greatest Cover-Up in Human History quotes William J. Pawlec, a former U.S. Air Force computer and programming specialist:

“What concerns me is when these projects go ‘beyond black’ — people with ulterior motives have gotten in control of these projects and/or the funding of them, and/or the ability of what is really scary, to write their own unlimited checks with no recourse to anybody.

“They are not even a budget item anymore. They literally authorize the Treasury to cut them checks, [and] it becomes evident that they have agendas that are independent of the goals of the United States. And the attitude is seemingly one of control — power and control.” ~ William J. Pawlec

Meanwhile, the demolition of the environment only accelerates, and all the while it appears that nature is somehow being weaponized so that both the weather and the earth’s electromagnetic field can be utilized for geopolitical ends.

Regarding the use of technology to reshape the earth’s electromagnetic environment, Ferguson refers to Nicolay:

Nicolay says that perhaps the most destructive use of these technologies that have ‘weaponized’ our atmosphere is the use of the Earth itself “as a medium for transmitting massive scalar and electromagnetic energy waves that could silently be used for enormously destructive purposes anywhere in the world.”

Awareness of the potential for bullying countries into agreements regarding trade and military installations can be considered when we read of unprecedented anomalous hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, and bizarre firestorms. They blame these occurrences on global warming, which then justifies more geoengineering. Read between the lines. Our planet is dying.

Nicolay: “By the mid to late 2010’s hardly any region on Earth was free of the newly ionized and metalized atmosphere, or by virtue of particle fallout, the ionization of the electromagnetic grid system of the planet.

“Earth itself, and its atmosphere, were [are] now the ideal medium for the transfer of vast waves of scalar energy, which could be used to control weather patterns, control natural phenomena, or directed and delivered with near pinpoint accuracy and devastating results.” [Source]

MORE EXPLOSIONS IN RUSSIA, THIS TIME AT A BIOTECH LAB

https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/09/more-explosions-in-russia-this-time-at-a-biotech-lab/

OK folks, there's clearly something going on, at least in Russia. Over the past few weeks, we've seen (1) two munitions plant explosions, (2) the explosion of a nuclear test rocket, (3) the sinking of a Russian submarine somewhere off of Alaska, with the cryptic announcement from the Russian Defense Ministry that the crew died heroes. If one wants, throw in those fires in Siberia too. Well, there's been another explosion, this time at a Russian biotech laboratory in Novosibirsk, a major city along the Trans-Siberian railway. In fact, many of you noticed this story, and many of you are wondering the same thing as I.  Here's RT's and Zero Hedge's versions:

Blast & fire hits major virus lab in Russia, where HIV, Ebola & anthrax strains are stored

Explosion Hits Russia's Largest Virus Lab Which Houses Plague, Smallpox, Ebola And Other Deadly Viruses

Both articles are essentially the same, with Zero Hedge echoing and copying the RT article, but on something like this it doesn't hurt to check. The RT article states that the explosion occurred at a major Russian virology research facility called the Vector Institute. It's what it was researching that's rather intriguing:

The laboratory is known for having developed vaccines for Ebola and hepatitis, as well as for studying epidemics and general issues surrounding immunology. During the Cold War, it was thought to be part of now-defunct Soviet biological weapons program, meaning that some of the most dangerous strains – including that of smallpox, Ebola, anthrax and certain plagues – are still being kept inside the Institute’s building.

So we're led to believe that the Vector Institute had once been a bioweapons laboratory, which was converted to an immunology facility. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that the two are intimately related, and that the bioweapons component may still have been going on. But then there's an even more curious statement. At the beginning of the article we're informed that the facility we engulfed in flames after an explosion. Then, after being informed that the facility was once a bioweapons laboratory, we're told this:

The fire was located and quickly extinguished on the fourth floor where some “construction works” were being carried out.

...

Reports by local authorities were conspicuously light on detail, with various sources suggesting it was a gas blast that had triggered a fire at the construction site. One construction worker suffered burns to his legs and was taken to hospital for trauma care.

Most of you who shared this story expressed some skepticism about the mundane speculation, and frankly, I share it too. If the story were standing alone, all by itself, the explanation would be plausible. It was just an unfortunate accident perhaps caused by human error, or an undetected accident due to the construction. But put into the context of two munitions plant explosions (both in Siberia, incidentally), a nuclear test rocket explosion, and the curious submarine incident, the complexion and character of the incident changes completely, for it would appear that someone seems to be targeting Russian research facilities or research institutions. If this were the sole potential context from which to view these incidents, then the culprits would seem to be rather obvious: someone in the West, or its allies.  Then there were those strange Chinese chemical plant explosions, beginning with the one in Tianjin that left the suspiciously narrow and deep crater. To my mind, there's simply been too much of these types of events lately to write them all off to human error, accident or any other mundane explanation.

But cast the net of suspicion a bit wider, and the picture becomes puzzling. Consider the anomalies associated with the California fires, and one has a confusing picture, for "someone" would clearly seem to be targeting real estate in the USA as well. Perhaps one may even add the fires in Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities; perhaps that event was some sort of "pay back". If one assumes that all these things are related - and that's a big assumption - then the question of who, why, and how becomes both crucial and pressing.

But even without that context, we've now seen no less than five major incidents involving Russian defense or research facilities, and if one counts the Chinese chemical plant explosions, two additional incidents. And if we can at least suspect that there may be more pattern than coincidence in all this, you can bet the Russian and Chinese intelligence services are all over it.

UPDATE: THAT STRANGE THERANOS STORY, AND ITS OPTICAL PATENTS

https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/09/update-that-strange-theranos-story-and-its-optical-patents/

During last week's News and Views from the Nefarium (Sept. 5, 2019),https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/09/news-and-views-from-the-nefarium-sept-5-2019/ I had to resist temptation to talk about the "easy" story (BREXIT), to talk about a story that had caught my eyes thanks to an astute reader of this website who brought it to my attention. The story was one of those short and, at a surface level, "dull" science pieces about the latest discovery. But when I read it, I immediately thought about its possible connection to another story. What caught my attention was that scientists have observed a new kind of light wave that emerges in the boundary conditions when light traveling through crystals transitions into a very different medium, say, a liquid, producing a kind of spectroscopic response. The article went on to mention that the discovery had all sorts of potential applications, including in the medical and biotech fields.

That little statement gave me pause, and made me immediately think of the whole saga of Elizabeth Holmes and her once much-vaunted multi-billion-dollar start-up Silicon Valley company sensation, Theranos. For many years Ms. Holmes was the darling of the talk shows and magazines: a smart, articulate, attractive, young and determined business woman with a bright idea. Her bright idea, essentially, was to place small portable blood testing units - about the size of a desktop computer - in homes and businesses, that would be able to test your blood for a multitude of diseases and potential health issues, all from just a couple drops of blood, and then be able to deliver the results right there and then. No big syringes full of blood to be sent off to distant laboratories for analysis with several days' waiting time, and more hours in the lobby of perpetually-late-to-their-appointments doctors, who bill you for their time, but have no regard for your time. All that: gone. And with just a couple small drops of blood and a portable "home testing unit." Say what one will about Ms. Holmes, she at least had the guts to dream big.

When I first learned about this story from former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts, I was intrigued, and began to research the story just for my own personal interest, even buying and reading Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou's book about the story, Bad Blood, the only book-length study of the subject, and based on Carreyrou's serialized articles for the newspaper. What intrigued me about the story, and Ms. Holmes' claims, was the sheer impossibility of doing what she claimed Theranos would be able to do based on ordinary laboratory chemical (or even ordinary spectroscopic) methods. Indeed, as I pointed out in the Sept. 5th News and Views, and according to Carreyrou, attempts to get Theranos' technology to peer review were thwarted by Holmes and the senior management at Theranos. Attempts to get Theranos to disclose its technology led to vague statements. Effectively, it was a black box that no one else was permitted to peer inside and see what made it work.

But the story disturbed me, and disturbs me still, because in the final analysis we're being asked to believe that Holmes and Theranos were essentially and totally fraudulent. Don't get me wrong; massive fraud can and has been committed and run for years before anyone is the wiser, think only of Bernie Madoff (or the federal budget for that matter). But on something like this, there had to have been something genuine at the core, otherwise Theranos and Ms. Holmes would not have been able to attract the sorts of people they attracted to her board, people like George Schultz, or Riley Bechtel, or General James Mattis. We'll get back to my high octane speculation of the day on that score shortly. But for the moment, my reasoning was that for Ms. Holmes to be able to claim to do what she wanted to do, some sort of very different and advanced optical technology and spectroscopy would have to be involved. Hence, my interest in the story about the discovery of a new form of light wave emerging from crystals at the boundary with another medium, a liquid medium, like blood, and that story's own statement that it had great potential for the medical and biotech industries, like testing. As I mused in my News and Views commentary that day, perhaps we're looking at part of the real story behind Theranos being let out into the public eye.

All this rambling "around Harvey's Barn" (as my mother used to say) has been for a purpose, for it brings us to today's story, shared by a regular reader, G.L.R., who had very sharp eyes:

Patents Assigned to Theranos, Inc.

When scrolling through this list of Theranos patents, one comes across Patent number 9835548, the abstract of which reads as follows The full patent text is  here: Theranos Patent 9835548):

Patent number: 9835548

Abstract: The devices and systems disclosed herein provide multiple optical capabilities in a single device or system. Methods for using these devices and systems are provided. These devices and systems are configurable for operation in each of a spectroscopy mode, a fluorescence mode, and a luminescence mode, and are capable of performing spectroscopic, fluorescence, and luminescence observations, measurements, and analyzes when operated in the corresponding spectroscopy mode, fluorescence mode, or luminescence mode. These devices and systems include mirror dispersion elements having multiple faces including an optical dispersion element on one face (e.g., a diffraction grating or a prism) and a reflective element on another face (e.g., a mirror). These multiple capabilities eliminate the need to move or load a sample in multiple devices when subjecting a sample to multiple analyzes, and thus provide greater accuracy, precision, and speed while reducing complexity and cost of sample analysis.

Type: Grant

Filed: May 20, 2016

Date of Patent: December 5, 2017 (Italicized and boldface emphases added)

Now, I don't know about you, but I think this is a little more than coincidental; prisms equal crystals of some sort, and that was the subject of the new form of light wave at boundary conditions where light is traveling through a crystal and then transitions into a different medium. Indeed, like all patents, there is an extensive reference list at the end of the patent to the "prior art", and one might indeed add the story I talked about in my Sept 5th, 2019 News and Views to that list.

So where's the high octane speculation here? For starters, Elizabeth Holmes, as I mentioned in the News and Views, is under indictment for fraud. Indeed, no one can come away from reading Carreyrou's book without the distinct impression that there not only was a massive amount of that going on, but that the delaying and stalling tactics of Theranos simply ran out of time; or to put it much differently, Theranos promised to deliver on something within a certain time frame, and was unable to do so, and Walgreen's corporation pulled out of its marketing arrangement with Theranos. But if nothing else, this patent indicates that my initial hunch about how Ms. Holmes intended to deliver on her promises, and Theranos' own research directions, were more or less aligned, whatever Ms. Holmes' alleged character faults may or may not be. One gets the sense that being the bright individual she clearly is, she researched the "prior art" and came up with her bright idea.

So why the effort, after the list of luminaries on the Theranos board, to take her and her company down? I suspect there might be two, possibly three, explanations here. The first is, given the defense presence on the Theranos board, one might be dealing with a corporate front designed to roll out a new technology. The problem was, they selected the wrong spokesman - Holmes - to bring it out. They needed, according to the adage, a better "team player" and someone "more stable." The second is that "optical diagnosis and testing" implies also electromagnetic - not pharmaceutical - means of therapy; and the diagnostic technology itself would certainly put a crimp in several medical laboratories' and physicians' bottom line. Indeed, anyone who has investigated the various claims to electromagnetic medicine (so to speak) will encounter the effort over the past few decades, going all the way back to Dr. Royal Raymond Rife, to shut down, ostracize, and even imprison and ruin any one making such claims. Big Pharma, like Big Agra, has long and powerful arms. The third possibility is, to me, the most intriguing. And also the most speculative. Perhaps Ms. Holmes, with her statements to deliver the technology in functioning form years ago, was acting under orders from more hidden masters, who either pulled the plug on her ambitious schedule, or via that same ambitious schedule set her up to take a fall, once they had determined they needed a different face for the roll out, or once they bowed to pressure from elsewhere in the multi-billion-dollar health care field, like Big Pharma..

In any case, I suspect there is still much more to the Theranos story, and that we're just getting started.                                                                                                              

Judicial Watch Sued To Get Footage of The ‘Plane’ Hitting The Pentagon On 9/11 (Video)

September 11, 2019

By
Joe Martino

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/09/11/news-judicial-watch-sued-to-get-footage-of-the-plane-hitting-the-pentagon-on-911-video/

In Brief

• The Facts:Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton Tweeted today that he hopes to put 9/11 conspiracy theories to rest with the video of the AA plane hitting the side of the Pentagon on 9/11. The video doesn't seem to show a plane.
• Reflect On:What does the image look like to you in the video? A plane? Or a missile? What seemed to create the hole in the Pentagon? A plane or a missile?

Finally, we can put to rest the theory that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11. Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch released a video today on his Twitter showing what looks like a Tomahawk cruise missile going into the side of the Pentagon on 9/11. Although Fitton claims this was actually a plane that hit the Pentagon, the evidence doesn’t appear to support this at all.

The ‘plane hitting the Pentagon’ theory has been a question mark for so many people as the camera footage was instantly seized showing the entire event, and there were no plane parts to be found anywhere. Not to mention the plane would have to be flying completely parallel to the ground, JUST skimming the grass to make it into the side of the Pentagon. And of course the hole made in the Pentagon doesn’t match that of a plane at all. See image below.

Image of a Tomahawk cruise missile.

I have honestly been trying to figure out what Fitton is really up to witH this post, because I almost can’t believe he thinks this is a plane which leads me to think he is doing this on purpose to help people see the truth.

Have a look at his Tweet below, and the video below that.

In order to help put to rest the 9/11 conspiracy theories, @JudicialWatch sued for and obtained the Pentagon parking camera footage of AA#77 hitting the Pentagon. https://t.co/0UIHXsHeHxpic.twitter.com/QEkTewHtlJ

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) September 11, 2019

Do you see a plane? Or do you see what looks a lot more like a Tomahawk cruise missile?

Authors Guilded, United, And Representing... Not Authors

~Who has really been manipulating and supervising the sale of books and therefore affecting the exchange of ideas in America, and who has really established effective control of a medium of communication — an entity that screens out 99.9% of books, or one that has enabled the publication of any book?

Failures

from the what's-their-real-agenda dept

Thu, Jul 30th 2015 9:07am — Barry Eisler

One of the more Orwellian aspects of the book world is the number of publisher advocate groups calling themselves Author This and Author That. The Authors Guild, Authors United, the Association of Authors' Representatives... their devotion to protecting the interests of authors is right there in the names, right? No further inquiry necessary.
That's the idea behind the misleading nomenclature, anyway. But even a cursory glance at the behavior of all these "author" organizations reveals their true priorities and actual allegiances.
Let's start with the Authors Guild, which claims to "have served as the collective voice of American authors," and which describes its mission as "to support working writers. We advocate for the rights of writers by supporting free speech, fair contracts, and copyright. We create community and we fight for a living wage." The Authors Guild even proudly notes that it "has initiated lawsuits in defense of authors' rights, where necessary."
Leave aside the wooly talk about creating community. How does the collective voice of American authors, the supporter of working writers, the advocate for the rights of writers, go about fighting for that living wage? Especially given that publishers are making more money from digital books than ever, and sharing less of that money with authors than ever.
Well, the organization has periodically mentioned in passing that the shockingly low lockstep 17.5% legacy publisher digital royalty rate "needs to change," so there's that. Sometimes a spokesperson expresses his or her "hopes" for a little more fairness. And recently they did manage a whole blog post on the topic. But that's all. Occasional words; zero deeds. And likewise regarding a host of other obvious, longstanding, outrageous legacy publisher abuses such as life-of-copyright (forever) terms, twice-yearly payment provisions, draconian non-compete clauses, and impossible out-of-print clauses. Pro forma words and practiced complicity.
But does all this mean the Authors Guild is lying when it says it sometimes initiates lawsuits?
Not at all. The organization did sue Google and Hathitrust over digitization (the first suit was settled; in the second, the Authors Guild lost). Leave aside the merits of those suits; I think they were wrongheaded, but that's not the point. The point is that when the Authors Guild really wants to throw down, it throws down — just never against legacy publishers and the Rich Relationships™ by which they systematically screw authors (in fact, in the Google suit, the Authors Guild fought alongside the Association of American Publishers).
Indeed, at the moment when the Authors Guild had maximum leverage over legacy publishers to extract some actual digital royalty and contract provision concessions — during Hachette's contract standoff with Amazon — the organization surrendered that leverage and threw all its Collective Voice of American Authors weight behind Hachette. Even though Hachette's position was costing authors money; even though Amazon had repeatedly offered to compensate any authors who were being harmed by the standoff.
What's doubly bizarre about the Authors Guild's reflexive anti-Amazon animus is that Amazon stands for so much of what the Authors Guild claims to want. A pristine example: as I write this, the organization bleats on its home page that "Half of Net Proceeds is the Fair Royalty Rate for E-Books," while two lines down it calls on the government to investigate Amazon…for paying exactly that fair royalty!
Not only does the Authors Guild refuse to stand up to publishers; it actively supports them (while censoring the authors it claims to represent). I challenge you to review the organization's public positions and find a way to distinguish them from what you would expect in a legacy publisher press release. I'm being literal here — legacy publishers and the Authors Guild actually do cite and cross-post each other's press releases. Here's an example — the Authors Guild, approvingly posting on its own site a press release from John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan, who in the release approvingly quotes Scott Turow, then president of the Authors Guild. It's really that incestuous between the New York Big Five and the Collective Voice of American Authors.
If the Authors Guild really wanted to "advocate for fair contracts," it would support self-publishing, which even more than Amazon publishing is empowering authors with the first real competition the industry has ever seen — a 70% digital royalty rate (four times the lockstep legacy standard); control over packaging and other business decisions; faster time to market. Yet there's nothing on the Authors Guild website about how to use KDP, Kobo, NookPress, Smashwords, or any other self-publishing resource. Nothing about AuthorEarnings.com, the most comprehensive breakdown available about where authors are making money in Amazon-, legacy- and self-publishing. The only "self-publishing" resource available through the Collective Voice of American Authors has been a notorious scam outfit called (naturally) Author Solutions (a relationship the Authors Guild finally terminated in May).
(Novelist David Gaughran has been tireless in exposing Author Solutions' shady practices — see the preceding links — and the refusal of establishment publishing media to follow up on his work is at least as revealing as anything else in this article about where true power lies in the industry. Within that refusal there's a great story for an intrepid journalist about concentrated media ownership, how advertising dollars buy silence, and why establishments are so reluctant to examine their own shadiest practices.)
Authors United is no different. Against abysmally low digital royalties, Authors United might offer up a bit of pro forma tut-tutting. But the organization's only real action — in the form of petitions, monster ads in the New York Times, media blitzes assisted by pet stenographers, letters to boards of directors, and letters to the Department of Justice pleading for protection for publishers — is against the company that has sold more books than any other, that has opened up publishing to more authors than ever before, that pays higher royalties than any legacy publisher, that is making more money for more authors than ever before, that pays authors once a month instead of twice a year, that gives authors unprecedented access to sales data, that almost single-handedly ushered in the digital book revolution — Amazon.
All of which is more than a little weird just on the face of it. But it gets even weirder — and more telling — when you consider the animating principles Authors United claims in the anti-Amazon screed it recently sent to the Justice Department:
[We can't have a company using] its technologically supercharged monopoly powers to manipulate and supervise the sale of books and therefore affect the exchange of ideas in America…
The government has the responsibility to maintain an open, competitive, free, unsupervised, and undistorted market for books…
Our larger point is that we believe the Antitrust Division needs to reassess…overwhelming market power [regarding] any business that has established effective control of a medium of communication…
We believe these steps would restore freedom of choice, competition, vitality, diversity, and free expression in the American book market, while ensuring that the American people—as individual free citizens and as a democratic community—determine for themselves how to take advantage of the new technologies of the 21st Century…
Lofty principles! But given that Amazon's self-publishing platform enables all authors to publish whatever they like and leaves it to readers to decide what books they themselves find beneficial, while the New York Big Five (no concentrated market power in a group with a name like that!) has historically rejected probably 999 books for every one they deem worthy of reaching the public, a few questions present themselves. Such as:

• Who has really been manipulating and supervising the sale of books and therefore affecting the exchange of ideas in America, and who has really established effective control of a medium of communication — an entity that screens out 99.9% of books, or one that has enabled the publication of any book?
• Who has really been running an uncompetitive, controlled, supervised, distorted market for books — a company dedicated to lower prices, or a group calling itself the Big Five that has been found guilty of conspiracy and price fixing
• Who is really restoring freedom of choice, competition, vitality, diversity, and free expression in the American book market — an entity that consigns to oblivion 999 books out of a thousand, or one that enables the publication of all of them?
• And who is really ensuring that the American people determine for themselves how to take advantage of the new technologies of the 21st Century — an entity responsible for zero innovation and dedicated to preserving the position of paper, or one that has popularized a new publishing and reading platform that for the first time offers readers an actual choice of formats?

Measured against every one of the lofty principles Authors United claims to champion, the Big Five is a historical disaster; Amazon, a reformist boon. The organization decries Amazon's alleged abuse of its publisher suppliers (monopsony!), yet offers not even a word about how legacy publishers consistently abuse their own suppliers — the group commonly known as authors. Against legacy publisher abuses, silence; against the company that offers an alternative to those abuses, coordinated, well-funded attacks by a stable of celebrity authors (accompanied by admittedly hilarious claims to be "not taking sides").
Follow any of the links above to the various positions Authors United has taken, and repeat that handy "how do these positions differ from those of any legacy publisher?" exercise. You'll see almost complete redundancy between the positions of Authors United and those of, say, the Association of American Publishers. They might as well be the same organization. The only real difference is that one honestly declares that it represents the interests of publishers, while the other dishonestly pretends to represent the interests of authors.
Now let's look at the Association of Authors' Representatives, which, judging from what it has named itself, one might reasonably imagine is in the business of representing the interests of…authors.
So: when the Justice Department and 16 States Attorneys General charged the New York Big Five with colluding to fix prices, did the AAR cheer? No. Instead, they lobbied the Justice Department on behalf of the publishers. And when three of the Big Five settled with the Department of Justice, did the AAR, say, offer a public statement on behalf of the authors whose interests price-fixing had damaged? No. Instead, it protested the settlement “in the strongest possible terms” in a letter to the DOJ…on behalf of the publishers.
But when Penguin and Random House merged — inarguably increasing the already Olympian clout of the Big Five relative to authors, narrowing author alternatives, concentrating market power, diminishing choice, empowering a company notorious for scamming authors, etc., did the AAR write to the Justice Department to oppose the merger? Did the organization take any meaningful action at all?
Crickets.
And has this organization that purports to represent authors ever protested “in the strongest possible terms” any of the longstanding, widespread, abusive publisher practices noted above?
Against actual legacy publisher abuses, tepid words at best. In support of legacy publisher collusion, The Strongest Possible Terms.
All of which gives the lie to the oft-repeated Authors United claim that Amazon “retaliates” against authors. There’s no evidence at all for this charge; in fact, were it true, it’s hard to imagine how the books of every Authors United member, even those of floridly outspoken Authors United pitchman Doug Preston, would be available on Amazon, despite all the crazy accusations and anti-Amazon advocacy. These “author” organizations demonstrably have no fear at all of crossing Amazon. But the one group they never cross is the New York Big Five. Which is about all you need to know about where real retaliation, and real power, lies in the book industry.
Sometimes making a name misleadingly vague can serve an organization’s tactical interests — think the National Security Agency (it wouldn't do to call it the National Surveillance Agency) or the Chamber of Commerce (can't very well call itself the Big Business Lobbyist). Other times, organizations deliberately choose names that are the opposite of reality — calling a surveillance law the Freedom Act, for example, or a group dedicated to preventing gay marriage calling itself the National Organization for Marriage. It's the latter tradition in which all these allegedly author-centric groups belong. To call out their real priorities, their primary affiliations, in their names would be to reduce their effectiveness.
Now look, there’s nothing wrong with lobbying the government on behalf of big publishers. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, after all, and it doesn’t say those grievances can’t be self-serving or even that they have to be sane. I just wish all these organizations pretending to advocate for authors would call themselves something a little more honest. Power in publishing is already horrendously lopsided. Publisher lobbyists masquerading as author champions only makes things worse.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150729/15551431793/authors-guilded-united-representing-not-authors.shtml

Sent from Mail for Windows 10