Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Aug. 15, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok. In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed: “Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been…
………The third kind of person is found at the deepest level of life where integrity is grounded in vision and in values found only after losing the innocence of superficial hopes and dreams.
The third kind of person survives some life-changing defeat or loss and suffers a descent in life that makes them aware of the agonies and tragedies experienced by so many throughout the world. Such a descent can be quite private, as in the case of a debilitating illness or the loss of a loved one. It can also occur as part of a collective tragedy, as in the case of war, a terrorist act or a natural disaster that alters the lives of many people at once. Either way, the stricken person finds themselves in a dark night of the soul, alone with the remnants of broken dreams, lost in a darkness that erases all sense of hope.
To despair means to have lost all hope, to feel both hopeless and helpless in the face of overwhelming forces of violence, betrayal or tragic loss. Yet, if we are willing to face the darkness, a deeper level of understanding can be felt and a deeper dream of life can be found.
Because of this deeper knowledge, those who survive loss know who they are at their core; they also know the core values and ideals upon which humanity depends. They cannot be manipulated by fear or greed, cannot be shaken by threats or be pressured to act against either their own integrity or the interests of the greater good. We look to them to preserve the highest sense of human value and the deepest sense of human connectedness. In this way the third level of awareness produces the truly inspired leaders, the wounded healers, and the wise counselors who know that the ideals of humanity must be upheld precisely when the darkness and confusion around us grows.
Today’s highlighted article was published last month, but I didn’t read it at the time and I’m guessing you didn’t either. What’s so uniquely tragic about the the intrusion of the police state into America’s schools, is it appears the parents themselves are the ones demanding it. This is in contrast to an overbearing surveillance state implemented by government in secret, as well as by private corporations via lengthy terms of service agreements nobody actually reads. What follows are excerpts from a very important article published at The Nation, The School-Security Industry Is Cashing In Big on Public Fears of Mass Shootings
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona introduced an amendment that would grant the FBI extensive surveillance powers during deliberations over a bill pertaining to American water supplies Monday. The legislation is intended to help solve water problems that have arisen from incidences like the one in Flint, Michigan, but McCain capitalized on the bill to amplify U.S. law enforcement’s spying capacity.
For years, cosmetic, toothpaste, and body care product manufacturers added “microbeads,” microscopic balls of plastic, to their merchandise, touting their skin-exfoliating effects. A Congressional ban that goes into effect beginning in 2017 will put an end to the environmentally toxic practice, at least in the US.
Another terrorist attack in a major American city, more frightening images and talk of pressure cookers and ball bearings, BBs and pipe bombs, “lone wolves” and Christmas tree lights. The latest alleged perpetrator is Ahmad Khan Rahami, a young Muslim man who grew up in America and likes souped-up cars. He became “self-radicalized” watching videos on the Internet that inspired him to blow up innocent Americans.
FBI agents conducting undercover investigations have now been given the green light to impersonate journalists, the Justice Department determined last week — effectively legalizing the government’s most notorious propaganda program, Operation Mockingbird. Last Thursday, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published what’s become the subject of outrage for journalists, civil and constitutional rights advocates, and legal experts — “A Review of the FBI’s Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation.” Allowing agents to infiltrate media organizations for any reason threatens to utterly undermine public trust, kill the very concept of journalistic integrity, and throttle the flow of information from sources and whistleblowers concerned with the legitimacy of journalists they contact.
As the nation reels from two recent fatal police shootings of black men, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday called for cities nationwide to adopt “stop-and-frisk”—a widely condemned police practice that New York City was forced to abandon after a federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional, finding that it disproportionately targeted minorities.
Here’s the nation’s would-be first lady — and right beside her, a second lady.
Three years before she met husband Donald Trump, Melania Trump was snapped in a nude frolic with another female model, bombshell photos obtained exclusively by The Post show.
The lesbian-themed pics are from a two-day photo shoot in Manhattan in 1995, when Melania Knauss, as she was called, was 25 years old and modeling under the name “Melania K.”
(Photographer Alé de Basseville later told The Post that he misspoke, and the photo session actually took place in 1996 in Manhattan, and appeared in a 1997 issue of the magazine.)
Several were featured in Max Magazine, a now-defunct French men’s monthly, more than 20 years ago. Others have never been in print — until now.
The raciest of the photos shows Melania lying nude in a bed as Scandinavian model Emma Eriksson, also naked, embraces her from behind, just below her breasts, which are fully exposed.
In another photo, Eriksson wears sheer stockings, a low-cut bustier, high heels and a long robe — all designed by John Galliano — and raises a whip as if preparing to spank Melania, who pretends to recoil. Melania is more conservatively dressed in a skin-tight gown and high heels.
“I always loved women together, because I have been with a lot of women who desired the ménage à trois,” said Jarl Ale de Basseville, the French fashion photographer who snapped the pictures.
~This follows the work of Viktor Shauberger and the imploding (not exploding) vortex energy field. We are electromagnetic beings. Everything is frequency, vibration and energy. Everything.
In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him had demolished the pressure propulsion principle. Earlier in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum, as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with “induced” momenta from the heart. He also stated that the pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. Experimental corroboration of Steiner’s concepts in the embryo and adult is herein presented.
The fact that the heart by itself is incapable of sustaining the circulation of the blood was known to physicians of antiquity. They looked for auxiliary forces of blood movement in various types of
etherisation' andpneumatisation’ or ensoulement of the blood on its passage through the heart and lungs. With the dawn of modern science and over the past three hundred years, such concepts became untenable. The mechanistic concept of the heart as a hydraulic pump prevailed and became firmly established around the middle of the nineteenth century.
The heart, an organ weighing about three hundred grams, is supposed to
pump' some eight thousand liters of blood per day at rest and much more during activity, without fatigue. In terms of mechanical work this represents the lifting of approximately 100 pounds one mile high! In terms of capillary flow, the heart is performing an even more prodigious task offorcing’ the blood with a viscosity five times greater than that of water through millions of capillaries with diameters often smaller than the red blood cells themselves! Clearly, such claims go beyond reason and imagination. Due to the complexity of the variables involved, it has been impossible to calculate the true peripheral resistance even of a single organ, let alone of the entire peripheral circulation. Also, the concept of a centralized pressure source (the heart) generating excessive pressure at its source, so that sufficient pressure remains at the remote capillaries, is not an elegant one.
Our understanding and therapy of the key areas of cardiovascular pathophysiology, such as septic shock, hypertension and myocardial ischemia are far from complete. The impact of spending billions of dollars on cardiovascular research using an erroneous premise is enormous. In relation to this, the efforts to construct a satisfactory artificial heart have yet to bear fruit. Within the confines of contemporary biological and medical thinking, the propulsive force of the blood remains a mystery. If the heart really does not furnish the blood with the total motive force, where is the source of the auxiliary force and what is its nature? The answer to those questions will foster a new level of understanding of the phenomena of life in the biological sciences and enable physicians to rediscover the human being which, all too often, many feel they have lost.
Implicit in the notion of pressure propulsion in the cardiovascular system are the following four major concepts.
(1) Blood is naturally inert and therefore must be forced to circulate.
(2) There is a random mix of the formed particles in the blood.
(3) The cells in the blood are under pressure at all times.
(4) The blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and thereby takes on their form.
However, there are observations that challenge these notions. It is seen that the blood has its own form, the vortex, which determines rather than conforms to the shape of the vascular lumen and circulates in the embryo with its own inherent biological momentum before the heart begins to function. Just as an inert vortex in nature pulses radially and longitudinally, we tentatively assume that blood is also free to pulse and is not subject to the pulse-restricting pressure implied in the pressure propulsion concept. The blood is not propelled by pressure but by its own biological momenta boosted by the heart.
When the heart begins to function, it enhances the blood’s momentum with spiraling impulses. The arteries serve a subsidiary mimical heart function by providing spiraling boosts to the circulating blood. In so doing the arteries dilate to receive the incoming blood and contract to deliver an impulse to increase the blood’s momentum.
- The sheer volume of work which the heart would have to do if it were solely responsible for pumping inert blood through the vessels of the circulatory system. Blood is five times as viscous as water. According to the propulsion premise the heart would have to pump 8000 liters of blood a day in a body at rest and considerably more during activity, through millions of capillaries the diameters of which are sometimes smaller than the red blood cells themselves – a huge task for a relatively small, muscular organ weighing only 300 grams.
- Once the questions start being asked, the anomalies in currently accepted dogma become apparent. For instance, if blood were pumped under pressure out of the left ventricle into the aorta during systole, the pressure pulse would cause the aortic arch to try and straighten out, as happens in any Bourdon tube pressure gauge. In practice the exact opposite happens; the curve increases, indicating that the aorta is undergoing a negative, rather than a positive, pressure.
- Another paradoxical finding concerns the mechanics of fluid flow under pulsatile pressure. When a pressure pulse is applied to a viscous fluid in a closed vessel, the liquid initially resists movement through its own inertia. The pressure, therefore, peaks before the fluid velocity peaks. In the aorta, exactly the opposite happens where a peak flow markedly precedes peak pressure, a fact which was observed in 1860 by Chaveau and Lortet. So just what is going on inside the circulation?
Four Faulty Premises of the Heart as a “Pump”
As Marinelli et al point out, the pressure-propulsion model of blood circulation rests on four major premises:
- blood is naturally inert and must, therefore, be forced to circulate;
- there is a random mix of formed particles in the blood;
- blood cells are under pressure at all times;
- blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and take on their form.
All of these premises can be shown to be faulty. For example, far from having a random mix of the blood components in vessels, the cellular elements arrange themselves in a highly organized flow pattern in which the heavier red blood cells flow nearest to the axis of the vessels while the lighter platelets are nearer to the periphery. All of the formed elements are surrounded by a sleeve of plasma which is in contact with the vessel wall. However, a major misconception about how blood circulates is the assumption that it flows in a laminar fashion, whereas in reality the main pattern appears to be a vortex. This leads to a whole new concept of circulatory dynamics–one which goes a long way towards explaining the close interaction between the heart and the blood– both of which are derived from the same embryonic material.
Clues to circulatory physiology are found in embryology. Two of the main embryological observations have been that the blood starts circulating before the heart has been fully formed and that it circulates in a spiraling fashion, as in the single-stage tube heart of the chick before the valves have developed.
Why are we concerned about the way in which the blood circulates and the `heart as a pump’ paradox? Do we not already know enough about circulation in conventional terms for all practical purposes? No. Is all this really relevant? Yes. Not only should truth be sought for its own sake, but therapy based upon faulty premises can only be bad therapy.
Visionary schemes for weather and climate control have a long history, but with very few exceptions have ever worked. Would-be climate engineers and policy makers need to take this into account. My intent here is to demonstrate that- contrary to claims that climate engineering is something wholly new in scale and intent- a number of previous technological interventions have been attempted on the atmosphere, on both regional and planetary scales. By and large, they did not have their desired effects on the physical environment, outpaced their original technical requirements, and gave rise to complicated political, social and economic issues.
I would begin by addressing a claim that although historical cases of weather modification provide a valuable context for thinking about climatic interventions, they represent different temporal and spatial scales, and therefore may be of limited comparative value. Manipulation of weather and climate phenomena is intimately related. Any intervention in Earth’s radiation or heat budget (such as managing solar radiation) would affect the hydrological cycle and the general circulation, thus rainfall and upper-level wind patterns, including the location of the jet stream and storm tracks. The weather itself would be changed by such manipulation. Conversely, intervening in severe storms by changing their intensity or their tracks or modifying weather on a scale as large as a region, a continent, or an ocean basin would obviously affect cloudiness, temperature, and precipitation patterns, with major consequences for monsoonal flows and ultimately the general circulation. If repeated systematically, such interventions would influence the overall heat budget and the climate.
The earliest documented cases were rain-making schemes, and as such tended to be regional rather than global. In 1841 James Espy, America’s first national meteorologist, developed a theory of storms powered by convection, but the so-called “Storm King” went off the deep end technically when he proposed lighting giant fires all along the Appalachian Mountains to emulate an artificial volcano that he thought would generate rains, disrupt cold and heat waves, and clear the air of miasmas. His contemporary, Eliza Leslie, perceptively pointed out that attaining such control might cause serious damage to social relations. There were many other such rainmaking schemes. In the 1920s, with concerns about aviation safety ascendant, independent inventor L. Francis Warren and Cornell chemistry professor Wilder D. Bancroft developed a scheme to dose the clouds with electrified sand delivered by airplane. Rainmaking and fog clearing were both on the agenda, but trials, supported by the U.S. Army Air Corps, were less than promising. It turned out that airplanes could successfully disrupt smaller clouds, but experimenters could not predict whether a treated cloud would subsequently dissipate or thicken.
These early weather modification plans (some of surprisingly large scale) were couched in the context of the pressing issues and available technologies of their eras: Espy wanted to purify the air and make rain for the East Coast, and Warren and Bancroft hoped to make rain and clear airports of fog, while the military sought advantages for its fliers. But intervention is not control, and the hype surrounding both projects exceeded technical capabilities.
Prospects for larger-scale, even planetary intervention in the climate system arrived after 1945 with the dawn of several transformative technologies: nuclear weapons, digital computing, chemical cloud seeding techniques, and access to space (See Table I). Two of the projects listed here involved cloud seeding techniques, and two involved disruption of the space environment. All were part and parcel of the Cold War quest to militarize the atmosphere. Not listed in the table are proposals, dating from 1945, to bomb nascent hurricanes or break up polar ice with nuclear weapons, or to build a digital computer that would produce perfect forecasts and perhaps allow real-time intervention in threatening weather systems as they developed.
|Table I. Weather and Climate Control Projects in the Cold War (Fleming 2010)|
|1947||Project Cirrus attempts diversion of an Atlantic hurricane using dry ice seeding.|
|1958||Project Argus, top-secret military project detonates three atomic bombs in space.|
|1962||Starfish Prime, H-Bomb detonated in magnetosphere. Similar Soviet tests.|
|1967||Monsoonal cloud seeding over Vietnam leads to UN ENMOD treaty in 1978.|
In 1947 scientists at the General Electric Corporation developed methods for seeding clouds with dry ice and silver iodide, sparking a race for commercial applications and military control of the clouds. They partnered with the military in Project Cirrus to seed an Atlantic hurricane with dry ice, but the experiment went awry. Nevertheless, GE chief scientist Irving Langmuir hyped the possibilities, arguing that hurricanes could be redirected and that the climate might ultimately be controlled on a continental or oceanic scale with the techniques they had developed. Cloud seeding reached around the world, especially into arid areas and upslope watersheds, but they never resulted in fully reliable techniques to enhance precipitation or snowpack. The scale of nature was too huge and problems of verification and social acceptance were too huge. Instead of quasi-military aerial bombardment of the clouds, small-scale practices such as drip irrigation and snowmaking machines became the norm.
Between 1966 and 1974 massive and surreptitious seeding of the Southeast Asian monsoon during the Vietnam War resulted in little measureable rain, but a diplomatic nightmare for the United States when the Soviet Union brought the issue of environmental warfare to the attention of the United Nations. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) was the biggest fallout from the effort, followed by a systematic and persistent collapse of US federal support for cloud seeding.
The Argus and Starfish Prime nuclear detonations in space, along with similar Soviet testing, constituted actual attempts to engineer space weather and disrupt the magnetosphere. A theory promulgated by Nicholas Christofilos, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, held that the ionized debris and high-energy electrons generated by a nuclear explosion would travel almost instantly through Earth’s magnetic field as a giant current. In case of hostilities a nuclear blast could possibly generate a massive electromagnetic pulse over an enemy city, disrupt military communications, and destroy both satellites and the electronic guidance systems of enemy missiles. These tests, conducted by both superpowers, generated widespread public outrage and were quickly followed by the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
Lessons from History for Weather and Climate Engineering
History teaches us that things change – often in surprising or unanticipated ways – and that a certain amount of clarity can be gained by looking backward as we inevitably rush forward. Schemes aimed at attempted control of weather and climate—often framed as responses to critical problems such as water shortages, military exigencies, and cold war dominance—have fallen short of their goals many times in the past. The checkered history of this field provides valuable perspectives and a cautionary warning on what might otherwise seem to be today’s completely unprecedented climate challenges. Contemporary engineers err if they ignore this history.
Would-be climate engineers are strongly motivated by fears of future global warming, but within recent memory this landscape too has been changing. The past decade-and-a-half of surface temperature measurements seem to indicate that the estimated sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models have projected, temporarily reducing some of the short-term angst. Additionally, there is strong technical resistance, or at least caution, from the faculty of mainstream atmospheric science departments, who tend to be skeptical of simple geoengineering schemes. Increasingly, historians, philosophers, and other humanists and social scientists are getting beyond back-of-the-envelope technicalities and are taking a critical look at complex issues related to the history, ethics, and governance of global control issues. Even the neologism “geoengineering” is in the process of being abandoned (since it is not really engineering in any traditional sense), as is the phrase “solar radiation management” (since there are too many unknowns to really consider it a form of management).
Intervention into weather and climate systems does not result in control over them. Instead it has often given rise to unexpectedly complicated social issues. We should base our decision-making not only on technical expertise and what we think we can do “now” and in the near future. Rather our knowledge must be shaped (and tempered) by what we have and have not done in the past. Such are the grounds for making informed decisions and avoiding the pitfalls of rushing forward claiming we know how to control weather and climate. The following misleading claims were made by various speakers at the 2010 Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies; my comments are in italics:
“We don’t have a history of geoengineering to fall back on…” — Yes we do.
“Things are moving quickly, so we don’t have the luxury of looking at history.” — We must take the time.
“We are the first generation to think about these things.” — History says otherwise.
“If an unfriendly nation gets into a position to control the large-scale weather patterns before we can, the result could even
be more disastrous than nuclear warfare.”
— Howard T. Orville,
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s weather advisor, 1958
There are over 150 legal documents (US Patents) that evidences weather modification aka geoengineering that can be found in Appendix I of this book. Many of these patents cannot be employed or used unless used in aerosol spraying. These weather modification patents date all the way back to 1920!
In 1932, The Soviet Union established the Institute of Rainmaking in Leningrad, setting the stage for decades of experimentation with cloud seeding as a means of altering the weather. The United States followed suit in 1946, when researchers at the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, discovered that dry ice stimulates ice-crystal formation. In the Cold War’s early years, both superpowers carried out hundreds of experiments using solid carbon dioxide, silver iodide, and other particulate matter to trigger precipitation over their citizens heads.
Operation Drop Kick, in 1955, released infected mosquitoes on poor African American populations in Georgia and Florida and was part of a much larger Tuskegee Operation that lasted between 1932 to 1972 without consent or knowledge from the deliberately targeted innocent poor.
Another example, of just one of hundreds of aerosol spraying conducted over unsuspecting populations over the past decades, was the 1966 spraying of live bacteria over San Francisco residents, to allegedly test to see what biological weapons could be used to help spread a biological weapon in a “simulated germ-warfare attack.” At that time, according to Ms. Rebecca Kreston in Discover Magazine, it was “one of the largest human experiments in history” and “one the largest offenses of the Nuremberg Code since its inception.”
Between 1949 and 1989 secret biological testing has been conducted using humans as guinea pigs in Washington D.C., New York City, Key West Florida and Panama City Florida. Meanwhile, across the pond, BBC Spotlight broadcast from 1998, detailed the large area coverage Germ Warfare experiments conducted by Porton Down scientists in populated areas of Devon, Somerset and Dorset during the 1960s and 1970s.
(Please visit the website/links section to learn more about these and many more experiments on humans over the past decades.)
And the Misdirection…”we’re just starting now….” ha ha aha. this psyop piece put out in 2013
Operation Popeye (ProjectControlled Weather Popeye/Motorpool/Intermediary-Compatriot) was a highly classified weather modification program in Vietnam and Southeast Asia for over a decade beginning in 1963. Not only was cancer causing Agent Orange used for defoliation but also over 2600 cloud seeding sorties were conducted throughout the conflict to extend the East Asian Monsoon season in support of US Government military war department.
Yesterday, 375 of the world’s top scientists, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, published an open letter regarding climate change. In the letter, the scientists report that the evidence is clear: humans are causing climate change. We are now observing climate change and its affect across the globe. The seas are rising, the oceans are warming, the lower atmosphere is warming, the land is warming, ice is melting, rainfall patterns are changing and the ocean is becoming more acidic.
These facts are incontrovertible. No reputable scientist disputes them. It is the truth.
Despite these facts, the letter reports that the US presidential campaign has seen claims that the earth isn’t warming, or it is only a natural warming, or that climate change is a hoax. These claims are false. The claims are made by politicians or real estate developers with no scientific experience. These people who deny the reality of climate change are not scientists.
These claims aren’t new. We see them every election cycle. In fact, for the Republican Party, they are a virtual litmus test for electability. It is terribly sad that the party of Lincoln (the president who initiated the National Academy of Sciences) has been rebuked by the National Academy today. It is sad that the party of Teddy Roosevelt, who created the National Park System, is acting in a way antithetical to his legacy. It is also sad that the party of Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, now is trying to eliminate that very organization.
What is perhaps most sad is that the party of “fiscal conservatism” is leading us on a path that will result in higher economic and social costs for all of us.
~ Asia is not to blame, it is the endless consumption of Americans, who use up more resources for their lifestyles than all others combined. WE reap what we sow (and consume)
Among the many disturbing findings are shocking accumulations of mercury in densely forested areas such as those found along the Pacific mountain ranges of California and Oregon. The scientific team showed that these critical ecosystems collect dangerous mercury loads because they receive high amounts of precipitation. Rainfall washes mercury from the atmosphere onto wet forested regions where it binds to the vegetation and accumulates in the soils and surface waters. From these vectors it can bioaccumulate in fish, including salmon.
The report confirms the findings of a January 2016 study that narrowly investigated mercury levels in rainfall. That study reported that the long-term trend of decreasing mercury levels in precipitation had leveled off and that some sites in the western U.S. were experiencing increases, which the investigators concluded were due to exploding mercury emissions from Asia.
An earlier study in 2002 reported that industrial emissions in Asia are a major source of mercury in rainwater falling along the California coast. The new USGS study describes the precise atmospheric transport mechanisms that carry massive mercury contamination from Asia and deposit the potent neurotoxin in the water, soils and biota across America’s West Coast. According to the papers lead author, it is not just the mercury itself, but a cocktail of atmospheric pollutants that contribute to the deposition of mercury in rainfall. Elemental mercury behaves as a gas in the atmosphere and is not washed out in rain until it has been oxidized into a charged ionic form that can be captured by water droplets.
Somethings really bad going on here. Either we are being duped into Hillary’s demise so that Obama does not abdicate or the elite plans have gotten seriously messed up as Hillary either died or is serious ill.
They are trotting out the CGI green screen fakery now and is easily refuted as being real, as you can see below. Stay tuned, they fakery is only to get more intense from here as well as false flag distraction or twelve.
Check out the 20:51 and 21:14 marks, as well as her entrance all CGI’d at the start with “smart” phones pointed in the wrong direction.
These two frames to the left here prove Hillary was never there. In addition to the “compression” ruse, the trolls have a secondary explanation that Hillary vanished due to a transmission glitch. This is another lie, because if that was the case, the entire frame would have glitched, and NO GLITCH could have put the flag in behind a missing Hillary because that data simply would not be there. The fact the flag showed up right through Hillary proves beyond all doubt that this is a LAYERED IMAGE, NOT A LIVE BROADCAST HAVING PROBLEMS, BECAUSE IF YOU START WITH A SINGLE LAYER FRAMES ANYTHING LIVE IS COMPOSED OF, NEW LAYERS SIMPLY CAN’T HATCH FROM OUT OF NOWHERE. If it is layered as the trolls are saying to explain it away, that can only happen in a studio that produces special effects by stacking different scenes on top of one another and a couple of the merges did not go right. Any video done this way proves Hillary was never there. And there is proof this is how Hillary was faked in North Carolina all through her “appearance” because the video is full of other anomalies that only happen when different scenes are merged by someone who lacks the talent to get it right. And with anything that will be placed under severe scrutiny, it would take a Steven Spielberg over a month to get it right. The DNC and MSM obviously do not have that, especially on such a short time deadline.
If ANYONE in the alt media says live appearances are layered and therefore this can happen, they are either bold faced liars or too stupid to be in the business. The only overlay in ANY live broadcast is “ABC News” ect, and THAT IS ALL – Nothing within the scene itself can possibly be layered if it really is live. The line is drawn. There is no way to escape this. And if anyone in the Alt media fails to walk that line, they are fakes that are trying to get Hillary into power. This is not the type of thing that can be “put up for discussion” because it is an on/off type deal, either it is or it is not. There is no way out of this, even if they “rip her to shreds” in other ways. Any real individual in the alt media would hop on this chance to prove beyond all doubt the MSM is as fake as old world Communist Tass, because the MSM had to enable this scam by calling it live when they clearly knew it was not. Yes folks, the MSM is that fraudulent.
When have you ever taken a picture or video in your entire life and had someone who was sitting in a chair not be there, showing clearly an empty chair? The truth is self evident!
“That was most defiantly a body double leaving the apartment building yesterday in NYC and it was not Hillary. The impersonator’s name is Theresa Bamwell from NC.
I checked the door of the building and she (Barnwell) is about 5 feet tall…about 6.5 inches shorter than Hillary. Also, she has hazel eyes and Hillary has blue…see the photos below.
Notice the Barnwell body frame. Hillary has big hips, big stomach, big butt. This women is 15-20 lbs lighter and has skinny legs where Hillary has fat legs. Hillary has jowls under her chin. Appears this woman has had facial surgery but they did not do the same to Hillary.
I also found photos her standing next to famous people and tracked her height from that Giuliani, John Voight, Jay Leno, Geraldo Rivera. She, ‘Barnwell’ is about 5 feet tall. Which means any clothes she is wearing especially pants have to be adjusted! This woman’s nose is very pointy and her teeth are very pronounced while Hillary’s look uncapped and uneven.
This ‘Barnwell’ woman is short. The two are together in the first photo a clear 5-6 ” difference! There is a 7 year difference in age and about a 15 – 20 lb difference in their weight.
Hillary and her alleged double, one ‘Theresa Barnwell’ of North Carolina
Body Double Lett, Hillary Right
A Group Of Body Doubles Around Barnwell
And the CGI faking of a President was played out in the 1987 movie must see: AMERIKA! an ABC 14 hr. mini-series.
Amerika” Miniseries, 1987
playlist for the movie http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
“Amerika” — suggesting a Russified name for the United States — is an American television miniseries that was broadcast in 1987 on ABC. It starred Kris Kristofferson, Mariel Hemingway, Sam Neill, Robert Urich, and a 17-year-old Lara Flynn Boyle in her first major role. “Amerika” was about life in the United States after a bloodless takeover by the Soviet Union. Not wanting to depict the actual coup, ABC Entertainment president Brandon Stoddard instead chose to set the action of the miniseries ten years after the event, focusing on the demoralized American people a decade after the Soviet conquest. The intent, he later explained, was to explore the American spirit under such conditions, not to portray the conflict of the Soviet takeover.
Described in promotional materials as “the most ambitious American miniseries ever created,” Amerika aired for 14½ hours (including commercials) over seven nights, and reportedly cost US$40 million to produce. The program was filmed in Toronto, London, and Hamilton, Ontario, as well as various locations in Nebraska — most notably the small town of Tecumseh and Milford, the setting for most of the action of the series. Donald Wrye was the executive producer, director, and sole writer of Amerika, while composer Basil Poledouris was hired to score the miniseries, ultimately recording (with the Hollywood Symphony Orchestra) eight hours of music — the equivalent of four feature films. (from Wikipedia)
North American skies have grown quieter over the last decades by the absent songs of 1.5 billion birds, says the latest summary of bird populations.
The survey by dozens of government, university and environmental agencies across North America has also listed 86 species of birds — including once-common and much-loved songbirds such as the evening grosbeak and Canada warbler — that are threatened by plummeting populations, habitat destruction and climate change.
“The information on urgency is quite alarming,” said Partners In Flight co-author Judith Kennedy of Environment Canada. “We’re really getting down to the dregs of some of these populations.”
The report is the most complete survey of land bird numbers to date and attempts to assess the health of populations on a continental basis. It concludes that, while there are still a lot of birds in the sky, there aren’t anywhere near as many as there used to be.
Evening grosbeaks are down 92 per cent since 1970. Snowy owls have lost 64 per cent of their numbers. The Canada warbler has lost 63 per cent of it population.
Tally it all up and there should be another 1.5 billion birds perching in backyards and flying around in forests than there are, says the report.
Nor are the declines stopping. Among those 86 species, 22 have already lost at least half of their population since 1970 and are projected to lose another 50 per cent of their numbers within the next 40 years.
For at least six species, this “half-life” window is fewer than 20 years.
The culprits are familiar.
Agriculture disturbs habitat of grassland birds and introduces pesticides into the landscape. Logging fragments the intact forests birds use as refuelling stations as they migrate. Domestic cats are thought to kill more than two billion birds a year.
“It’s the death of a thousand cuts,” said Kennedy.
At stake is much more than the pleasure of a little back-window bird song.
The report says birds are crucial indicators of overall ecosystem health. Healthy forests and prairies need healthy bird populations, said Kennedy.
“(They) only function because of that abundance.”
As well, birds — like bees — pollinate plants. And birds eat bugs. Lots of bugs.
“We would be bitten by a lot more mosquitoes (with fewer birds).”
There are still up to five billion birds that leave Canada every winter. But Kennedy said the time to start thinking about their future is now, before some species start to decrease.
“It’s too late for us to worry when we’re down to the last few hundred.”
The Partners In Flight report reinforces messages from several previous, related studies.
Earlier this year, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative found one-third of all North American bird species need quick help to stop them from disappearing, with more than half of all seabird species on the road to extinction without conservation action.
A 2014 study by the Audubon Society found climate change could cost 126 species more than half their current range by 2050.
A McGill University study in 2015 concluded more than 70 per cent of global forests are within a kilometre of a road, field, town or other human disturbance — easily close enough to degrade forest habitat.