kimmy

Wilhelm Reich's work isn't "surpressed". His work is published and easily available to anybody. It's not surpressed, it's just ignored because it's of no value. Doubtless, the same can be said for Royal Raymond Rife, judging from his fanbase at least. -k

As I already agreed, it sounds like there are many medical reasons why fluoridation of drinking water should be stopped.However, *none* of that does anything to support Pindar's claim that "fluoride makes people docile and less resitant to authorities" at all. -k

Wow. That article is a doozy! I'm speechless. That you present this article for discussion is a perfect example of hypocrisy. You ask people "Don't you people question what the media tells you?" "Don't you people question what the government tells you?" "Don't you people question what the corporations tell you?" And yet you apparently believe read anything you read. Anybody capable of critical thinking should be scratching his head at this article within a matter of moments. First off, who is this Dr Kilde that the article references? Here she is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauni-Leena_Luukanen-Kilde Years ago, she was apparently the provincial medical officer for Lapland in Finland. But in 1986 was in a serious car crash that left her unable to continue her career. Now she writes about her many experiences with Space Aliens. How big of a kook is she? Even other UFO kooks think she's a kook. Perhaps she suffered a serious blow to the head during that car crash? Perhaps she's just senile? Or maybe she really has been visited by aliens hundreds of times, does have telepathic powers, and really does receive messages from space regularly. Why don't we look at some of her specific claims? Kilde: "When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye,", Dr. Kilde indicates "it draws neuro-impulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuro-impulses can be projected back to the person's brain via the microchip to be re-experienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target's performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads. " "A 5 micromillimeter microchip?" Micromillimeter? Micro means one-onemillionth. Does she mean one-one millionth of a millimeter? That would be 5 nanometers. That would also be impossible. Even the most advanced electronics foundries only have 45-nanometer processes available. That refers to the size of a *single transistor*. If Dr Kilde's "5 micromillimeter chip" is supposed to mean 5 nanometers, she'd have us believe that these chips are 1/9 the size of the smallest transistor that our most advanced technology can build. That's clearly not possible. Perhaps she means 5 micrometers (Micrometers are sometimes called microns, but never micromillimeters, for reasons most of us learn in elementary school.) A human hair is roughly 50 micrometers, so that might be what she meant to say. It's still ridiculous, though. A 5 micron chip, complete with "thought sensors", processor, transmitter, receiver, and power source? Consider that for a moment. Your cell-phone has a proper antenna, a fairly large battery, and it only has about 2 hours of talk-time and a range of a few kilometers. Does it seem believable that a chip would be able to transmit for any length of time powered by a battery 1/10 the size of a human hair? Secondly, the human body is a really lousy transmitter of radio waves. Don't believe me? Here's a simple experiment you can try in your very own home, if you have a cell-phone and a couple of clear zip-lock bags. Turn on your cell-phone, put it inside of a zip-lock bag, and just to be sure it's water-tight, put it inside a second zip-lock bag. Your cell phone has a little bar graph that tells you how strong the signal is. Count how many "bars" your phone shows. Now, fill a sink with water. Submerge the bagged cell-phone so that all of it is about an inch underneath the water. Now count how many "bars" you have. Your results might vary, but I just did this and went from 5 bars down to 2 bars. If you don't think an inch of water is a good indicator of the human body's opacity to radio waves, feel free to experiment on your own. Wrap your hand around the antenna, squeeze the antenna under your arm, or insert the antenna into whatever bodily orifice you feel appropriate. Thirdly, she has the optic nerve drawing impulses out of the brain. But it can't. The optic nerve only sends impulses in one direction: from the eye, to the brain. Aside from her description of a physically improbable technology, all Dr Kilde has to offer is claims of knowledge that she has no means of accessing... unless the Space Aliens told her. But of the sources in the article, Dr Kilde surprisingly seems like the more credible. Let's have a look at Dr Carl Sanders, "who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people." Let's hear what he has to say! Sanders: "Today's microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now "see and hear" what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS)." "Low-frequency radio waves". That's a bit problematic, and should be a big tip-off. As a consequence of a mathematical fact called Shannon's Law, Low-Frequency means Low Bandwidth. Does transmitting what someone "sees and hears" sound like a low-bandwidth application? Try downloading a video from the internet on a low-bandwidth connection, then get back to me on the feasibility of transmitting audio and video by low-frequency radio waves. And, as a consequence of radio theory, low frequency also requires big antenna. Length of antenna is proportionate to radio frequency wavelength. Low frequency means long wavelength, which means long antenna. Is that going to work for a chip that's supposed to be able to be too small to detect? Does this Dr Sanders sound like he knows what he's talking about? Maybe we should find out a bit more about him. I did some searching and found this end-times-oriented Christian website, which posted this article where Dr Sanders describes the chip he invented and why he now believes it might be The Mark of the Beast and a sign of http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Chip_Imp...arl_Sanders.htm "Dr Carl W. Sanders is an electronics engineer, inventor, author and consultant to various government organizations as well as IBM, General Electric, Honeywell and Teledyne. He is also a winner of the Presidents and Governors Award for Design Excellence." Wow! That sounds pretty impressive! This guy must know what he's talking about. ...or, maybe he made it all up: From the same website: "CORRECTION: Implantable Chip "Inventor" Carl Sanders is a Fraud Charlatan exposed seven years ago still popular in Christian circles." http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Chip_Imp...nders011023.htm Which contains this poignant observation: "Today, more than seven years after Torell exposed him, Sanders continues to give his presentations and wow prophecy-minded audiences worldwide. Last year he was in Orem Utah, telling the same story. I wasn't there, but I was invited, and I spoke with an individual shortly after who did attend, and who was clearly convinced of the truthfulness of the claims. It was after this that I posted the Sanders statement on my website. When Sander's fraud was brought to my attention (10/23/01), I did a search on the internet for "Carl Sanders fraud" and found only three pages from two websites that discuss the fraud. Two were Torell's statements, the other was a citation of Torell's first statement. Apparently the Sanders story is so fantastic, prophecy buffs don't want to believe otherwise, even though the fraud has been known for more than seven years." And doesn't that hit right at the heart of the matter? Because apparently the Sanders story is so fantastic, conspiracy buffs don't want to believe otherwise either. -k

If anybody has some evidence to present that is, you know, real? and not fake? then feel free. -k

And as Monsieur Dancer demonstrated, you've been duped, hilariously so. So perhaps Mr Hal Turner's trustworthiness is an issue after all. The guy claims that he got an informant at the mint to send him some super-secret "Amero" coins that are being produced for the day when our sovereign nations are melded into a "North American Union". And it turns out that his "proof" is actually novelty coins produced by a manufacturer of novelties and souvenirs. If somebody claims to have super-secret inside information, isn't his credibility directly at issue? -k

What illuminati? And why would they want to do microchip us? Ok, I'm lookoing around. I don't see it. Where's it at? Will it prevent me from getting to the grocery store this afternoon? Ordo Ab Chao? So the Masons are behind everything after all? Are they the "they" that's behind everything? For real? I always thought their primary goal was to put on fezzes and drive their miniature cars around in figure-eights during parades. They seem so harmless... -k

The line is obvious: the line between people who've forfeited their freedom by breaking the law, and those who have not. The scenario you worry about is not specific to RFID chips. It is about governments expanding the definition of criminal behavior in unwarranted ways, and is worrisome whether there are RFID chip implants or not. Government abuse of the power to imprison is scarier than RFID chips, for example. The nightmare in the situation you describe is not that people of races or religions or ideologies could be "chipped". The nightmare is that the government expands the definition of criminal behavior to make criminals of people of races or religions or ideologies. Oh, wait... you're saying that ordinary people forced their state governments to take this measure through weight of public opinion and threat of reprisals at the next election? If that is true, isn't that a powerful counter-argument to this whole theory that "the elite" controls everything and ordinary people have no say in the matter? -k

:lol: PWNED. again. As well, Topaz, do a bit of reading and find out what kind of person Hal Turner is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner Is this the sort of person you'd put your trust in? -k

Good for California! As I said, that's a fight I'd join. I expect that if such a thing were attempted in Canada, people would be equally adamant. You did notice that it was The Totalitarian CorpoFascist governments that are moving to *BAN* companies from RFIDing employees? You guys have got it wrong. The slippery slope isn't in regard to prisoners. It's in regard to companies asking employees to "voluntarily" accept RFID chips. "First it's ok to implant prisoners, then it's ok to implant people of a certain race, "terrorists" then it's ok to implant people who participate in certain actions. (anti-government) Bad drivers and on and on." uh, no. There's a hard and fast line between "people of a certain race" on the one hand, and prisoners and terrorists on the other. That line, obviously, is that the latter group have broken the law and forfeited some of their freedoms as a result. "Bad drivers" and "people who participate in certain actions (anti-government)" might be on either side of that line, depending whether their driving is sufficiently bad to be considered criminal and a threat to society, or what anti-government actions they take. (protests -- fine. destroying railroad bridges, blowing up electrical transformers, etc, -- not fine.) Please tell me you can see the distinction? The real slippery slope is the other issue: employees being asked to "voluntarily" accept RFID tags. The states that have banned the idea before it gets started obviously recognize the potential. A gross invasion of employee privacy that isn't warranted except under exceptional conditions. Drug testing for employees is an invasion of privacy that I could see justified in specific circumstances (operators of dangerous equipment, high-risk occupations, etc.) I'm having a hard time seeing any situation where RFID tagging of employees could be similarly justified. I'm also skeptical about the wisdom of it from an employer's point of view. I would be surprised if it isn't already possible to read and copy an RFID signature, probably without even tipping off the person you're copying it from. I think it would be foolish to rely on it as a means of access control. Not to mention the medical cost. Surely there are much more reliable and cost-effective technologies. -k

George Bush Sr used the phrase "New World Order" to describe a post-Cold War world community where civilized nations cooperate to keep peace and deter rogue nations. From your article, Gordon Brown "...called for a "new diplomacy" to go alongside military power to defeat terrorism, share prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds"." Sarkozy was advocating that the United Nations should grow a pair and take an active role in making the world a better place: http://eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=15099 I don't see any mention of "Illuminati" or bloodlines or fluoride or anything else remotely relevant to Pindar's foolishness. Three leaders using the phrase "New World Order" to advocate for international co-operation to work for peace and prosperity has nothing to do with tin-foil hats, 13 bloodlines, Illuminati, or any of Pindar's ridiculous theories. I agree with you. Completely. It's about the powerful using their influence to shape the rules to their benefit, often to the detriment of ordinary people. All this nonsense about "13 bloodlines" and "Illuminati" and so on does the disservice of making real issues look ridiculous. -k

I would suggest that being implanted with an RFID chip is less degrading to the prisoners than having to wear an armored tracking bracelet around their ankle wherever they go. Which in turn is less degrading than being held in a cage. I can't imagine why anybody would argue that being allowed to participate in society in a closely-monitored situation is much better for non-dangerous prisoners than remaining in prison. It certainly *is* a violation of peoples' freedoms to implant tracking chips. However, we remind ourselves that we're talking about *prisoners*, who have by definition forfeited their freedoms. Allowing non-violent offenders to participate in society is a far more kind and forgiving way of dealing with these prisoners than we have had in the past; many would suggest it's *too* kind and forgiving. Get back to me when somebody starts advocating planting RFID chips in people who aren't prisoners, and I'll be concerned. That's a fight I'll sign up for myself. But putting RFID chips in prisoners? That's a pretty sweet deal for the prisoners. -k {wondering whatever happened to that deluge of information about the mind-controlling effects of fluoride I was promised.}

If that's what you'd like to talk about, why not kick things off yourself? -k

People are focusing on the first one because it's the one with shades of grey. (Particularly, to me at least, does the fact that she was not *his* teacher alter the "position of authority" aspect of it?) There's nothing to discuss in regard to the second story: it's as clear cut as could possibly be. Is there anything to say about it that doesn't go without saying? -k

What makes this particular case a little perplexing is that she was not *his* teacher. As the article says, she was an elementary teacher, and he was a high school student. In a city, they would be at different schools and the argument that she's in a position of trust/authority over him goes out the window. In this instance, elementary through high school apparently attended the same school. That blurs the line. -k

A very good website! Lots of excellent information, lots of reference to real research and legitimate studies that suggest that the concerns about water fluoridation outweight the supposed benefits. However, none of it actually does anything to support your earlier claim that "But in order to let them think properly stop givintg them fluoride, really, fluoride makes people docile and less resitant to authorities:" As an intelligent and rational person, I can read through the website, consider the studies it cites and the arguments it makes, and recognize that they are making a strong case for their opinion. Personally, I'm not sorry at all that I now live in an area that does not have fluoridated water. However, as an intelligent and rational person, I also recognize that despite the fact that fluoride may be a Not Very Good Thing to ingest, that doesn't mean it's a Plot by The Man to Bring Me Down. -k

Fighters and multi-role planes, like the F18 and F22, are still needed. The Arrow wasn't a fighter or multi-role plane. It was an interceptor. Fighters and multi-role planes place a high value on agility, acceleration, angle of attack, ability to attack targets on the ground, the ability to control an airspace, and the ability to support ground operations. An interceptor is designed for none of that. Its attributes were an extremely high top speed, and the ability to carry a lot of air-to-air missiles. When the radar line detected Russian bombers coming over the north pole, the Arrow was designed to get there fast, with enough munitions to wipe them out. It's a job description that became quite pointless with the advent of the ICBM. Similar American projects, like the F108 Rapier, were cancelled at the same time... because they filled a role that had been made obsolete. Keep in mind that at the time of the Arrow's cancellation, the ICBM age and nuclear warheads cast a huge shadow over military thought. Criticizing the Canadian government for cancelling the Arrow is like criticizing your local technical school for dropping its Typewriter Repair program. -k

Well DUH. *MOST* of the substances that are essential to our survival are also dangerous or lethal in sufficient quanitity. Show me where anything in your Material Safety Data Sheet contradicts anything I wrote, buffy. Re-examine your ability to process basic information before you question my knowledge of science. There is medical debate over water fluoridation. It relates to possible increased incidence of bone cancer. Not "mind control" or "mass hypnosis". -k

Fluoride was not invented by the Manhattan Project. Fluoride is commonly found in minerals and often occurs naturally in well-water and many foods. Fluoride's natural occurance in the drinking-water in some communities, and statistically lower incidence of tooth-decay in those communities, led to serious study of water fluoridation as a public health measure prior to World War 1. Fluoride's dental properties have been demonstrated for over 100 years. Fluoride has never been demonstrated to have any psychopharmaceutical properties at all. -k

I would suggest that you're overlooking the third type: people of rational and objective nature who make jokes about these theories because they recognize it for the rich vein of comedy that it is. You criticize people for not wanting to "discuss" this, but what has been presented in this thread to discuss? Pindar asserts that 13 families rule the world, and asks people to visit some websites. Is that really worth discussing? -k

We've discussed Jones before, and I'm still shocked that somebody who seems as level-headed as you would continue to defend this psychopath. I mean, you do seem like a bright person, Gost; I can't imagine why you'd line up behind somebody like Jones.I don't know how many times some True Believer posted a link from Alex Jones to "prove" some theory, and I went to Jones' site and read his article, then investigated the mainstream sources he references, and discover that he has completely misrepresented the content of the article, claiming it to support his sick and fearful vision of the world where in reality it says nothing of the sort. The result is that the gullible or stupid (which I'd suspect encompasses the considerable majority of his customers) say "Wow! If even the mainstream media says so, then it MUST BE TRUE!" Jones' trick is simply to hope that his readership is too lazy or too stupid to verify the link, while being vague enough that what he says isn't technically wrong. It's a game that anybody can play, once you get the hang of it. For example: New York Times: Church insiders worship daemons, abduct children for black magic! (link) ...hey, read the article! It's true! Kind of! -k

Going through this thread, the thing that amuses me to no end, as always, is the conceit on the part of the True Believers that they know the truth and people who can't see this Great Conspiracy are "sheeple" who have been brainwashed and can't think critically. The real "sheeple" are the ones who read the stuff written by people like Alex Jones (prisonplanet) or David Hawkins and take it as undisputed truth. If you read David Hawkins' "research" and think it stands up to reason, then you're the one who's lost the ability to think critically. If you read "prisonplanet" and can't bother to spend the two minutes it generally takes to track down the source articles and spot how badly the meaning has been distorted, then you're the one who's lost the ability to think critically. How can people who swallow this stuff whole go around calling others "sheeple"? -k

You're prepared for a world where we've for some reason lost the ability to make electricity and no longer have an agricultural industry? Congratulations -k

If you had stopped at "What it comes down to is a group of self serving rich folk who are consolidating money/power/governments" I would have been with you 100%. You could think of the African Union as a bunch of recovering drug addicts who've banded together to try to help each other. Individually they might all have problems of their own, but collectively they can still help each other. Each member of the group might have their own troubles, but collectively they can still notice that Janice is cutting her wrists again and try to grab the knife out of her hands, or notice that Bill and Jimmy are fighting again and try to break it up before somebody gets hurt too bad. What are international agreements like the EU "a prime example" of? -k

What do you guys think of this?? For some reason I picture Grand-dad Simpson standing on his porch, shaking his feeble fist in the air and shouting "GIT OFF MY LAWN, YOU DERNED HOMOS!" as I read this. -k

Why would the people working on one assembly line earn more than people doing exactly the same work for the same company in the same country? Do you envision a system where workers would arrive at the factory and have fistfights to see who gets to work on the Corvette line and who's stuck earning a fraction of the money doing ? The Corvette costs far more than the Cobalt for reasons unrelated to the efforts of the people who are working on the assembly line: -incorporates more features, luxury items, gizmos, gadgets, etc. -incorporates expensive high-performance parts (the 500hp V8 probably costs more than the whole Cobalt...) -lower volume production -styling, marketting -the company deliberately sets pricing of Cobalts lower (ie, accepts a minimal profit margin per car) to try to maintain a market share and to try to boost sales of its more fuel efficient cars for reasons relating to the calculation of its CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) number, which is sales weighted (sell one 40mpg compact and one 10mpg SUV and your CAFE is 25mpg. Sell ten 40mpg compacts and one 10mpg SUV and your CAFE is 37mpg). Did the guy on the Corvette assembly line design the 500hp V8? Did he design the beautiful styling? Did he create the mystique that makes otherwise-sensible people plunk down $70,000 for a car that doesn't even have a back seat? Did he pay for the $500 tires or $3000 rims out of his own pocket? No? None of that? Then what did this guy do that makes his contribution to this car worth so much more than his friend who does the same job in a cheaper car? (so all these thousands of people that GM employs in Canada, they're just standing around doing nothing?) A house that sells in White Rock doesn't cost 10x as much as one in southeast Surrey because the crew that built the frames and dug the foundation and poured the concrete are 10x better at their jobs than the guys who worked on the cheaper house. Swap the crews, and the projects still both get built, with no discernible difference in quality, and the house in White Rock still costs 10x more. So why should they be paid any differently? If this was some sort of a collective where the workers all put in some money to buy the land and the inputs, and get together to decide what to build, and hire someone to design a house for them to build, and were involved in it to that extent, then obviously they own the project and they're entitled to divvy up the proceeds of the sale. But if their involvement in the project consists of pour concrete, then they get paid like guys who pour concrete, whether they do it in White Rock or in southeast Surrey. -k