Forbidden technology part IV, Transhumanism, cyborgs and the real life terminators

 

This next one is not probably not so forbidden, but sure there is not enough talk about it. And it is the fact that some people and organizations wants to blend humans and machines together to make human2.0. This intellectual movement is called Transhumanism:

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal at fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman“.[1]

The contemporary meaning of the term transhumanism was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviewstransitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[2] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[2][3][4]

Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.[2] Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as among the world’s most dangerous ideas,[5] to which Ronald Bailey countered that it is rather the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity”.[6]

According to Nick Bostrom,[1]transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.

There is debate within the transhumanist community about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence, despite its exaltation of the “Übermensch” (overman), due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation.[1][7][8][9]Nikolai Fyodorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical life extension, physical immortality and even resurrection of the dead using scientific methods.[10] In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist J.B.S. Haldane‘s 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, “indecent and unnatural”. J. D. Bernal speculated about space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement, which have been common transhumanist themes since then.[1] Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane’s), appears to have been the first to use the actual word “transhumanism”. Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature“.[11] This definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.

Computer scientistMarvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.[12] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.[13][14] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[15] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of “transhumanity” in his book Man into Superman.[16][17] FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.[18]

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his “Third Way” futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth’s gravity as they head into space.[19][20] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030’s courses and audiences from Vita-More’s artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement,[21] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[22] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy,[23] and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:[24]

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […].

In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy.[25] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[26]The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[27]

  1. The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
  2. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist.[28]

In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.[2] A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.[29] In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes.[29][30] In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was “essentially completed”.[31] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to “Humanity+” in order to project a more humane image.[32] Humanity Plus and Betterhumans publish h+ Magazine, a periodical edited by R. U. Sirius which disseminates transhumanist news and ideas.[33][34]

The first transhumanist elected member of a Parliament is Giuseppe Vatinno, in Italy.[35]

Theory

It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of “posthumanism” and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative,[5]Christian[36] and progressive[37][38] critics. A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift),[2] but clings to a “posthuman future” as the final goal of participant evolution.[39]

Nevertheless, the idea of creating intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism.[13] Moravec’s ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a “complacent” or “apocalyptic” variant of posthumanism and contrasted with “cultural posthumanism” in humanities and the arts.[40] While such a “cultural posthumanism” would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the “autonomous liberal subject” but are expanding its “prerogatives” into the realm of the posthuman.[41] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.

Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[42] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[43] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.

The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to technoself studies; an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society focusing on the changing nature of relationships between the human and technology.

Aims

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,[27] transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[44] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity’s future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[45]

While many people believe that all Transhumanists are striving for immortality, it is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology, surveyed Transhumanists, and of the 818 respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality.[46] Some of the reasons were that they would be bored, Earth’s overpopulation, and that “they wanted to go to an afterlife.”[46]

Ethics

Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on futurology and various fields of ethics. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically “natural” as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[47] In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism’s critics on the political right and left jointly as “bioconservatives” or “bioluddites“, the latter term alluding to the 19th century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.[48]

Many believe that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use where if one athlete uses steroids in sports he has an advantage over those who do not. The same scenario can happen when people have certain neural implants that gives them an advantage in the work place and in educational aspects.[49]

Threats to morality and democracy

Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.[100] In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the world’s most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular, through a fundamental alteration of “human nature“.[5] Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another’s unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human “species ethic” would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.[101] Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the “naturalizing” of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. The AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.[102][citation needed]

In a 2004 article in Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, “the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance“. In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.[6] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[103]

Dehumanization

Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[89][104] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the “natural” into the “artifactual”.[105] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of “monsters” such as human clones, human-animal chimeras or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982), the novels The Boys From Brazil (1978) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[106]

Others believe that “we are morally obligated to help the human race transcend its biological limits.”[107] In fact, they go so far as to call those who are opposed to them, “Bio-Luddites.”[107] Though the gamut of Transhumanist opinions ranges from those who believe that we will eventually be cyborgs to those who simply want their brains frozen in the hopes of being resuscitated in the future, all have considered the question of the human identity, and whether or not it will be compromised. While the concept of being able to do away with negative emotions is appealing in theory, there are possible negative implications. For example, Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, points out that if we did not have the emotion of aggression, “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves.”[107] These would not only affect our humanity, but also our interactions with others.[107]

Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.[108]

A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer Isaac Asimov termed the “Frankenstein complex“. They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the “yuck factor” and “human-racism” that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.[25][109]

Existential risks

Struck by a passage from Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski‘s anarcho-primitivist manifesto (quoted in Kurzweil’s 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines[14]), computer scientistBill Joy became a notable critic of emerging technologies.[115] Joy’s 2000 essay “Why the future doesn’t need us” argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the “grey goo scenario” where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[116] Joy’s warning was seized upon by appropriate technology organizations such as the ETC Group. Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-ludditeKalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway‘s 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[117] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.[118]

In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer RoyalMartin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[119] Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[120] The Terminator franchise‘s doomsday depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a superintelligenceSkynet, a malignant computer network which initiates a nuclear war in order to exterminate the human species, has often been cited by some involved in this debate.[121]

Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historianJames Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet’s resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.[122]

One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.[45] An argument for an “anti-progressionist and pessimistic version of transhumanism” has also been presented by Philippe Verdoux.[123]

Source

Then I post some videos in chronological order. First one is a video about ancient robots and machines and tells for example how Leonardo Da Vinci made first so called cyborg (5 parts):

 

Here is also another video series which talks about ancient machines (5 parts):

 

Then we move towards transhumanisms goals and here is a small russian film where they do experiments in the revival of organisms. They for example chop of dogs head and then revive it so that it eats and acts like it was alive. And remember this was in the year 1940:

 

One of the defenders of transhumanism is Kevin Warwick a man who probably wants to be a cyborg. He for example has put neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. Here is description about him:

Kevin Warwick is Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, England, where he carries out research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics and biomedical engineering. He is a Chartered Engineer (CEng.) and is a Fellow of The Institution of Engineering & Technology (FIET). He is the youngest person ever to become a Fellow of the City & Guilds of London Institute (FCGI). He is the author or co-author of more than 500 research papers and has written or edited 27 books (three for general readership), as well as numerous magazine and newspaper articles on scientific and general subjects. He has broadcast and lectured widely and held various visiting professorships.

Kevin was born in Coventry, UK and left school to join British Telecom, at the age of 16. At 22 he took his first degree at Aston University, followed by a PhD and a research post at Imperial College, London. He subsequently held positions at Oxford, Newcastle and Warwick universities before being offered the Chair at Reading, at the age of 33.

He has been awarded higher doctorates (DScs) by Imperial College and the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague on different scientific areas. He was presented with The Future of Health Technology Award from MIT (USA), was made an Honorary Member of the Academy of Sciences, St.Petersburg, was awarded the IEE Senior Achievement Medal in 2004, the Mountbatten Medal in 2008 and the Ellison-Cliffe Medal in 2011 from the Royal Society of Medicine. In 2000 Kevin presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, entitled “The Rise of The Robots”. He has also been awarded Honorary DSc Degrees by the Universities of Aston, Coventry, Bradford, Bedfordshire and Portsmouth and an Honorary DTech Degree by Robert Gordon University.

Kevin instigated a series of pioneering experiments involving the neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. The development of the implant technology was carried out by a team of researchers headed by Dr Mark Gasson who, along with Kevin, used it to perform the ground-breaking research. Kevin was successful with the first extra-sensory (ultrasonic) input for a human and with the first purely electronic communication experiment between the nervous systems of two humans. His research has been discussed by the US White House Presidential Council on BioEthics, The European Commission FTP and led to him being widely referenced and featured in academic circles as well as appearing as cover stories in several magazines – e.g. Wired (USA), The Week (India).

The Institute of Physics selected Kevin as one of only 7 eminent scientists to illustrate the ethical impact their scientific work can have: the others being Galileo, Einstein, Curie, Nobel, Oppenheimer and Rotblat.

His work is used as material in several advanced Level Physics courses in the UK and in many University courses including Harvard, Stanford, MIT & Tokyo. His implants are on display in the Science Museums in London and Naples. As a result, Kevin regularly gives invited Keynote presentations.

Kevin’s research involves robotics and he was responsible (with Dr Jim Wyatt) for Cybot, a robot exported around the world as part of a magazine “Real Robots” – this resulted in royalties totalling over £1M for Reading University. Robots designed and constructed by Kevin’s group (Dr Ian Kelly, Dr Ben Hutt) have been on permanent interactive display in the Science Museums in London, Birmingham and Linz.

Kevin’s recent research involves a collaborative project with the Oxford neurosurgeon, Prof. Tipu Aziz, using intelligent computer methods to predict the onset of Parkinsonian tremors such that they can be stopped by means of a deep brain implant. This work was hailed in the Mail on Sunday as “the most significant recent advance in biomedical engineering”.

He presently leads an ongoing EPSRC sponsored project in which a cultured neural network (using biological neurons) is trained to control a mobile robot platform. This work, which was reported on in a New Scientist feature article, is being used as an exercise for high school science studies in the UK. A Youtube video of this research has now been downloaded/viewed over 1.6 million times.

His presentations include The 1998 Robert Boyle Memorial Lecture at Oxford University, The 2000 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, The 2001 Higginson Lecture at Durham University, The 2003 Royal Academy of Engineering/Royal Society of Edinburgh Joint lecture in Edinburgh, The 2003 IEEE (UK) Annual Lecture in London, The 2004 Woolmer Lecture at York University, the Robert Hooke Lecture (Westminster) in 2005, the 2005 Einstein Lecture in Potsdam, Germany and the 2006 IMechE Mechatronics Prestige Lecture in London. The 2007 Techfest plenary lecture in Mumbai; Kshitij keynote in Kharagpur (India); Engineer Techfest keynote in NITK Surathkal (India). The Annual Science Faculty lecture at University of Leicester in 2007 and the Graduate School in Physical Sciences and Engineering Annual Lecture, Cardiff University. In 2008, Leslie Oliver Oration at Queen’s Hospital; Techkriti keynote in Kanpur. Also 2008, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, guest lecture “Four weddings and a Funeral” for the Microsoft Research Chair. In 2009, Cardiff University, 125th Anniversary Lecture and Orwell Society Lecture, Eton College. In 2010 he launched the new Research Institute for Innovation Design and Sustainability (IDEAS) at Robert Gordon University and gave the Ellison-Cliffe Lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2011. In 2012 he is to present the IET Pinkerton Lecture in Bangalore.

Kevin was a member of the 2001 HEFCE (unit 29) panel on Electrical & Electronic Engineering, was Deputy Chairman for the same panel in the 2007/8 exercise and is a member of the EPSRC Peer College. Kevin received the EPSRC Millenium Award (2000) for his schools robot league project. Kevin’s research has featured in many TV and film documentaries, e.g. Inventions that changed the world (BBC2), Late Night with Conan O’Brien (NBC), Future Scope (RAI 1) and The Making of I Robot (Twentieth Century Fox/Channel 5). He has appeared 3 times on Tomorrow’s World, 5 times in Time magazine, thrice in Newsweek and was selected by Channel 4 as one of the Top 6 UK Scientists for their 2001 series “Living Science”. In 2002 he was chosen by the IEE as one of the top 10 UK Electrical Engineers. Kevin also appeared as one of 30 “great minds on the future” in the THES/Oxford University book – Predictions – with J.K.Galbraith, Umberto Eco and James Watson.

Kevin’s research is frequently referred to by other authors – recent examples being in books by Robert Winston, Peter Cochrane, Jeremy Clarkson and Susan Greenfield. Kevin’s research was selected by National Geographic International for a 1 hour documentary, entitled “I,Human” screened in 2006/7 – this was broadcast in 143 countries and translated into 23 different languages. Some of his TV appearances are logged on the imdb website.

Source

Here is Kevin Warwick’s appearance in TEDx and notice that it is the first time when they named conference after the speaker, why? That’s because this is the mainstream’s goal and they want to destroy humanity and bring in the human2.0:

 

Is this the so called mark of the beast scenario (666)? Who wants to be chipped and tracked all the time? How far we have to go when we are playing God? I think that this is the end of our mankind, but it’s just my opinion. I think that first we should learn to live in peace and after that we could start to develop this kind of technology. All of this technology is going to be militarized  and used to kill and destroy people and you can check that in the history books if you want. We are just doing the same mistakes again and again.

Now when you have watched the Warwick’s presentation I post a video about DARPA‘s robots. Now if you think that Warwick’s ideas are linked to these machines, what we got? I think rela-life terminators:

And here is more about these real-life terminators:

Death from a swarm of tiny drones: U.S. Air Force releases terrifying video of tiny flybots that can can hover, stalk and even kill targets

  • Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is already developing prototypes of tiny drones that can hover
  • The Micro Air Vehicles will work in swarms to provide complex surveillance of a battlefield
  • They can also be armed with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’

The U.S. Air Force is developing tiny unmanned drones that will fly in swarms, hover like bees, crawl like spiders and even sneak up on unsuspecting targets and execute them with lethal precision.

The Air Vehicles Directorate, a research arm of the Air Force, has released a computer-animated video outlining the the future capabilities of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs). The project promises to revolutionize war by down-sizing the combatants.

‘MAVs will become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future,’ the narrator intones.

‘Unobtrusive, pervasive, lethal – Micro Air Vehicles, enhancing the capabilities of the future war fighter.’

Scroll down for video

Hovering: Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are the future of the unmanned drones program, according to a new video from the Air Force. The Air Force has already developed a drone capable of hovering like a mothHovering: Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are the future of the unmanned drones program, according to a new video from the Air Force. The Air Force has already developed a drone capable of hovering like a moth
Perching: The video, released by the Air Vehicle Directorate, shows a pigeon-like drone that can draw power from an electrical wire while its camera watches a targetPerching: The video, released by the Air Vehicle Directorate, shows a pigeon-like drone that can draw power from an electrical wire while its camera watches a target
Crawling: The drones will be equipped with legs so that they can crawl through tight spaces like an insectCrawling: The drones will be equipped with legs so that they can crawl through tight spaces like an insect

The project, which is based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was revealed in the March issue of the National Geographic magazine.

Air Force officials said they have already produced tiny remote-control prototypes – but they consume so much power that can only operate for a few minutes. Researchers estimate that it will take several years of advances in battery technology to make the designs feasible.

Still, the Air Force has a clear concept of what it hopes to accomplish with the program.

The promotional video begins with a swarm of tiny drones be dropped on a city from a passing plane. 

The drones will work in concert to patch together a wide, detailed view of the battlefield – singling out individual targets without losing sight of the broader scene. 

‘Data will be communicated among the MAVs to enable real time, reliable decision-making and to provide an advanced overall picture for other platforms or operators,’ the Air Force says.

Killing: The video demonstrates how MAVs could be used to sneak up behind unsuspecting targets and kill them with a single, lethal shotKilling: The video demonstrates how MAVs could be used to sneak up behind unsuspecting targets and kill them with a single, lethal shot
Lethal: The drones could be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustable payloads or even explosives 'for precsion targeting capability'Lethal: The drones could be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’

As the drones fall, they begin to fly – not like planes, but like insects. High frequency flapping wings allow the drones to hover and maneuver in tight spaces.

The military has already produced a drone patterned after a hawk moth that can flap its wings 30 times a second. However, the activity exhausts the drone’s tiny battery in just a few minutes, according to National Geographic.

Another drone type soars like a pigeon and perches unobtrusively on a power line to observe a surveillance target with a camera.

The Air Force is working on technology that will allow the drones to steal electricity from power cables and other sources – so they can continue to operate for days or weeks on end.

Swarming: The drones couple be dropped en masse over a battlefield or a city and would work together to create a complex surveillance networkSwarming: The drones couple be dropped en masse over a battlefield or a city and would work together to create a complex surveillance network
Working together: The drones would use advanced software to navigate by 'sight,' rather than GPS - which can be blocked by buildings or by jamming from the enemyWorking together: The drones would use advanced software to navigate by ‘sight,’ rather than GPS – which can be blocked by buildings or by jamming from the enemy

The Air Force training video shows a winged MAV following a target as he drives through the streets of a dense city.

Advanced sensors will enable ‘optic flow,’ which will allow remote pilots to fly by ‘sight’ – rather than flying by GPS, which can be disrupted by buildings or deliberately jammed by enemy forces.

The video depicts three drones following the target into a house, where they maneuver hallways and rooms undetected.

‘Small size and agile flight will allow MAVs to covertly enter locations inaccessible by traditional means of aerial surveillance,’ the narrator says.

The video follows the drones as they fly through an open door and sneak up behind a man who is aiming a sniper rifle. 

‘Individual MAVs may perform direct attack missions and can be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives for precision targeting capability,’ according to the video.

On screen, a small, hovering vehicle pauses before shooting the man directly in the back of the head.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-developing-terrifying-swarms-tiny-unmanned-drones-hover-crawl-kill-targets.html#ixzz2Ueige0Ik
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So you just have to ask yourself that do you want this kind of future? Because if we don’t talk about this agenda we are truly facing a dark future which could be like this:

 

Future looks pretty dark, but stay tuned for more FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!

Forbidden technology part III, Stargates

So the last post was about Project Looking Glass which has been claimed to be a stargate too, but in this post I’m trying to tell you about real-life stargates. There are couple of people, who are talking about stargates and one of the most interesting one is Nassim Haramein. Here is a small description about him:

Nassim Haramein was born in Geneva, Switzerland in 1962. As early as 9 years old, Nassim was already discovering the universal dynamics of matter and energy, which led him on a journey toward pioneering a new approach to quantum gravity and continual developments in unified field theory. He grew up in Eastern Canada with an innate reverence for the design of nature and a determination to discover the basic building-blocks of creation. Nassim dedicated most of his time to his independent investigation into physics, geometry, chemistry, biology, consciousness, archeology, and various world religions. Haramein’s dedication to scientific exploration combined with his keen observation of the behavior of nature led him to a specific geometrical pattern which is at the core of his approach and new perspective in unified field theory.

Fluent in both French and English, Haramein has been delivering lectures and seminars on unification theory for over 20 years worldwide. In 2003 he founded The Resonance Project Foundation, and as it’s Director of Research leads teams of physicists, electrical engineers, mathematicians and other scientists to explore the frontier of unification principles and their implications. Haramein’s lifelong vision of applied unified physics to create positive change in the world today is reflected in the mission of The Resonance Project Foundation. He shares the developments of his research through scientific publications and educational offerings through the Resonance Academy.

Currently Nassim is focused on his most recent developments in quantum gravity and their applications to technology, new energy research, applied resonance, life sciences, permaculture, and consciousness studies. Nassim currently resides in Kauai compassionately raising his two young sons, and surfing the sunlit swells on the shores of the magnificent island of Kauai.

Source

Then we have the videos where he tell about his unified field theory and that the Sun is a stargate:

 

Here is more about Nassim’s unified field theory if you are interested, Holofractalgraphic Theory. Nassim Haramein Awake & Aware Conference 2011:

 

>> And here is Nassim’s website called “The Resonance Project”

It’s also strange that they removed Nassim’s page from Wikipedia. Why? There’s a lot of information in Wikipedia, which is just crap and they remove this guy’s page? Could there be some Truth about his lessons, because they removed it? He is an interesting person and if you want to know more about real life stargates check him out. Here’s little bit more about this Wikipedia incident:

Uploaded on Jan 19, 2012

I just tried to “Wiki” Nassim Haramein, but found his page had been deleted for “…failing notability guidelines for academics and people in general.”, yet I did find “Joe the Plumber”, “Chupacabra”, and even “The Great Pumpkin”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi…

For those of you who may not yet be familiar with Nassim Haramein, This was his Wikipedia page before it was deleted. I found it using the “WayBackMachine” Internet Archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/2008062307…

***FOR MORE INFO SEE THIS PLAYLIST***

ILLUMINATION Part 1 The Sun is a Stargate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncY-dW…

Nassim Haramein & Klaus Dona. Ancient artifacts with pictures of ufos and wormholes,stargates in operation. (Fullscreen great view) 11.06.11 Congresshalle Saarbrücken
http://theresonanceproject.org/
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheResona…

Klaus Dona : The Hidden History of the Human Race (March 2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmMwo1…

Mayan Secrets to Be Revealed by Mexican Government in ‘2012’ Doc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/0…

NASA Photos of Giant UFOs Around the Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgSjEh…

4th Dimensional Shift Val Valerian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2V0f2…

And here is the video about Mayan artifacts, which tells you, that the Sun is a stargate:

 

Then we move on and focus on fact that CIA have this “Project Looking Glass” technology and then US starts wars, because it wants to possess the nature’s stargates also. One of them is probably located at Culf of Aden and there is this guy called Aaron McCollum, who talks about this:

 

So it seems, that there are two sides in this Stargate phenomenon. One is that is the Sun a stargate? Do we have a natural stargates on Earth? And then we have artificial stargate devices, which US/CIA holds. But let’s keep on searching the Truth and stay tuned for more FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!

Forbidden technology part II, Project Looking Glass

This post is about technology which allows you to watch in the past or in the future and it also works as a stargate to another planets… or this is what it’s claimed to be. So here we go again and dive in the world of Project Looking Glass:

Rumored Technology

Classified Technology is rumored to be 10,000 years ahead of public sector technology and is accelerating away from the public sector technology at a current rate of  1,000 years per calendar year.

Looking Glass Technology– Device using wormhole technology to see into future probability or past. The original technology was derived from cylinder seals that slightly predate Sumerian time frame. Some of the information was recopied in Sumerian cylinder seals. This information was a series of instructions for accessing wormholes, which naturally pass in the hyperspace in which we find ourselves. And from there scientists worked on the technology, they built the equipment from the instructions. After building the equipment from the instructions, they began to tweak it and find different things out about it. One of the things that they found is that they could actually use it as a peering portal, like a peering glass, if you will, to see different aspects of, not only the future, but the past. This device (at least 3 to 4 years ago) could not focus on a detailed sequence of activities in the future. In other words, you could not see exactly what would happen, like a series of events. Consider the multiverse idea combined with work by Richard Gott on cosmic strings. The multiverse apparently is accessed when the forward mode is set. Consider the views provided by looking glass as one of many potential realities (at least in the future view mode). In viewing some possible future events, it was discovered that this type of technology was a possible contributing factor to a cataclysmic event. The groups using the technology all agreed to dismantle the technology and agreed not to use it until after the year 2017. It was also discovered that information about this technology had been purposely planted in the past to many areas of the world. One such place was Iraq, which has been confiscated.

Source

I have posted this guy before and he talks about this technology too and here is the Dan Burisch take on Project Looking Glass:

The following text is copied from Bill Hamilton’s website:

The Commentary that follows is from my [Bill Hamilton’s] source that linked with inside sources and took notes on Project Looking Glass and Time Travel experiments:

“With regard to LG (Looking Glass): As I understand it, this device (at least 3 to 4 years ago) could not focus on a detailed sequence of activities in the future. In other words, you could not see exactly what would happen, like a series of events. I was told to consider the multiverse idea combined with work by Richard Gott on cosmic strings. The multiverse apparently is accessed when the forward mode is set. I was also told to consider the views provided by LG as one of many potential realities (at least in the future view mode).

I have also been told that recently there has been an effort made to outfit videotape recorders to be sent forward through the apparatus, thereby allowing the dark project people to gain some insight into what may take place.

When I heard about this several questions came to my mind. The most pressing of which was: if a camera were sent forward in time/space, would it be able to record anything other than what was immediately in front of its lens? I mean, what if LG were located in the middle of the Groom Lake facility, and the operators wanted to gain insight into the outcome of a conflict, say in the Middle East. How could a videotape recorder, set to record what was right in front of its lens at that location gather any data on the Middle East if it were still stuck in the middle of the Mojave desert when it got to the future??? Hell, something important could be happening right behind the camera and it would miss it – a couple of degrees change in camera direction allows one set of events to be seen while another set is completely overlooked, much less events half a world away.

To answer this question, my contact was not specific, saying only that cameras did not move, as mass does not change in its perspective to space time. However, such an item placed into the injected atmosphere, might experience a different time, if only briefly. And cameras could film within the gas or see images in the injected atmosphere as though it were a lens reflecting events in and around the column. I was given to understand that the tilt or positioning of the electromagnets would allow different views or positions in the environment to be reflected in the gas column.

(I feel confident that at least two rings of electromagnets are employed and that the rest of the device is composed of a barrel and the gas* injected into the barrel. (Two different sources have indicated that these are the basic components.) These magnets spin in different directions, creating a charge of some kind. Then the gas is injected into the barrel. Depending on the direction of the spin (I am sure speed and tilt and a bunch of other factors must also have an effect) time space can be warped forward or backwards by long or short distances relative to the present. I have reason to believe that the scientists have completed a map of the exact positions and speeds of the magnets necessary to reach targeted times both forward and back.)

Apparently, images of the events at different places, relative to the location of the device can be picked up and in essence reflected off the gas, causing it to behave like a teleprompter or crystal ball, for lack of a better example. But I am not entirely sure that mass does not move, or that mass is not affected. Since I was also told many years ago about an experiment that went very wrong in the early years of the LG project, involving a test subject of some kind. As I understand it there was significant movement of mass during that experiment, and it ended up with a rather gruesome death for the poor test subject. (I originally thought it was a monkey, but I found out that there were many test subjects that got sent through, so I am not certain what kind was involved in the experiment that went bad. However, in my typical reverse-logic search for corollaries, this tells me that there must have been many test subjects that made it through just fine. So I am certain that any errors that were made or any miscalculations have long since been corrected).

I wish I could offer you more information. For what its worth, my sources have confirmed the presence of electromagnets and a barrel-like device which is injected with some kind of gas [an independent source has stated that the gas concerned is argon. Project Camelot] …these components seem necessary for LG to function as a viewing device. And as for any changes in mass, or movement within time-space….I really don’t know since my information sources would only tell me ‘so much’ about what they saw or experienced at the time they were involved. But it can be reasoned, based upon what they did say that there were significant experiments in the movement of mass back and forward through time, many of which were successful. I am sure much has been discovered and/or refined in the process since then.”

Source

And here is the Dan’s interview:

Stargate Secrets : Dan Burisch revisited – Part 1
A video interview with Dan Burisch
Las Vegas, June 2007

Shot, edited and directed by Kerry Lynn Cassidy

Dan Burisch: … because people will then target toward a date. And I …Yeah, there are people out there that are now saying, ‘Yep, it’s right around the corner at any moment now. Why won’t the aliens save us?’ We need to save ourselves.

…This was a quid pro quo for them to get certain information from … that Chi’el’ah showed me. I demanded certain information back. It actually was information concerning the time travel issue. Because they were still trying to be … You know, they were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was as late as 2001.

…The Looking Glass shows probabilities, or has shown probabilities. The Cube would react with the people present, so there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it … where the word “Yellow Book” originally came from. Actually I used that to our advantage at the T-9 because that in fact was present at the T-9 and I projected certain information which caused a little upset during the meeting.

…But I was also allowed to show them probable outcomes, so in fact the Yellow Book, the Cube, was used for that purpose. Shockingly, they happened to see themselves standing on the bones of their own families and things like that in the vision, and they ultimately decided to remove Lotus as well as certain abductions from the Tau 9 treaty.

…They were handing this Cube around from country to country, to the elitists in the countries, who looked into their own futures so that they could pick the best path for themselves.

…I’m happy to pass along the information – I’m honored to pass along the information – that I understand that the Yellow Book is no longer accessible.

Start of interview

Kerry: How would you like to start? What’s the best place to start as far as Stargates go?

Dan: Well, I’ve got a list of questions here in front of me, submitted by you two, all 30 of them.

K: [laughs]

D: Oh, I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have mentioned the number.

K: No, no …

D: They are decommissioned. They are separated into their three components: there’s a projection component, a ring component, and also a barrel component to both the Stargate devices as well as the Looking Glass device. The Stargates also have field posts, and again I’m not a physicist so I wouldn’t be the appropriate one to make comment as to how they work.

But there were field posts that were positioned around the actual “gates” and they have been stored, I guess. I’m not certain what happened to the field components. But the three components have actually been decommissioned and liasioned to the European Union, the United Nations, and NATO, who are actually in possession of them. And there is no one group which has the other one of the other two components.

K: OK, so …

D: So everybody is staring at everybody and they’re not … They can’t put the equipment together because everybody is mutually dependent and looking questioningly at everybody else. So everybody is literally protecting everybody else. Of the actual base operating equipment, there are three components to it, which is a projection device of some sort, a barrel, and a set of rings, electromagnetic rings.

K: Are we able to know how many man-made Stargates there were on the planet?

D: No. I’m not going to comment as to the total. I will say that there was over 50.

K: Really!

D: Yep.

K: Wow. In different countries of the world.

D: Yes.

K: OK. And these are man-made?

D: Yes.

K: OK. So, and now these Stargates …

D: Well, see, it’s not a Stargate. It’s a device which accesses a portal, a wormhole.

K: Does it access a natural … In other words, the manmade device accesses a natural Stargate.

D: Yes. It draws off from a natural ERB, an Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

K: OK.

D: It accesses it and somehow works, from what I understand, not in parallel, but almost like piggybacks, on the energy of the natural Stargate, yeah.

K: OK. So, in other words, if there were only … If there were 50 man-made devices accessing, they would be accessing a corresponding 50 natural energy vortexes.

D: That I don’t know.

K: OK.

D: There is a possibility that … In fact when the Looking Glass was operated, they were usually worked in tandem. It required a second Looking Glass to be turned on at the same time to get acoustics through. So unless a second one was turned on …which operated at one other place, where Will Uhouse had been. He saw the second node location, as opposed to the first node being over at the Papoose facility.

Two pieces of equipment, two Looking Glasses, were required to be turned on at the same time to be able to hear acoustics or sound, if you will, from whatever the people were watching, to piggyback in tandem with the visual response of the equipment. That it required two to be turned on to hear anything.

K: Uh huh.

D: And then both sides could hear the same thing. So I suppose, both of the Looking Glasses being tuned to the same thing was accessing the same “tunnel,” if you will, to the information.

K: OK, that’s what I was wondering. So the Looking Glass has an ability to show one the future but a Stargate, or, you know, equipment that accesses a Stargate, or a wormhole, is for time travel? Right? We’re talking about two different things?

D: Yes.

K: Are they using the same technology?

D: Essentially, yes. The original device was the Stargate device. That was then increased in power, if you will, with the use of these field posts. How it bumped up the power, how it stabilized it, I don’t know. You’d need to speak with a physicist about that.

K: OK.

D: However …

K: It increased it enough to where that it became a Looking Glass?

D: Well, no. No. No. It would be pumped up in power to stabilize the “doorway,” if you will, to step through into another location, which in essence, because distance and time are relative, the same thing – step through into another time. The Looking Glass device is a back-engineered Stargate.

K: OK.

D: So it was actually back-engineered from the original cylinder-seal data which allowed us to produce the Stargate access devices, if you will, what we call the Stargates.

K: Uh huh.

D: It’s a back-engineered device, the Looking Glass is. So the Looking Glass is a secondary device and it was coming into its fore in the 60s and 70s and Will saw one of the first generations of it, from what I understand, a very large piece of equipment. They always get smaller, no matter what. Look at what’s happened to the computer.

K: Who? Will saw?

D: Oh yeah.

K: Will …

D: Will Uhouse.

K: … Uhouse saw the original Looking Glass.

D: He saw one of the original Looking Glasses demonstrated. And in fact it’s going to be in the DVD that we’re getting ready to put out, the actual interview, where he was indicating the firing of a bullet, I believe it was, through an object, and there was a time delay where the bullet actually passed through the object where you saw the bullet past the object, or the projectile if you will, a rail gun, I believe. What was the … [Marci McDowell, off screen, confirms this]. Yeah, it was a rail gun being used. And then afterward they saw the impact of the device. So they were already playing with it in the early 70s, early to mid 70s, dealing with time sequences.

K: Wasn’t the original Looking Glass back-engineered from alien technology?

D: [long pause] Yes.

K: OK. But there was also information around the cylinder-seals …

D: Um hmm….

K: …that they used also and that those cylinder-seals also came from an off world race.

D: From … Well, no, the cylinder seals didn’t. The information on them did.

K: Which was maybe the Anunnaki? Is that …

D: I wouldn’t feel comfortable in characterizing it with that name.

K: OK.

D: I really shouldn’t. No.

K: But it was off world technology. Originally.

D: Yes ma’am.

K: OK. And at this point, like … OK. Say that was in the 60s? the 50s?

D: Well … Yes. That’s when they started actually showing a lot of interest in actually building the equipment to be able to see over the curvature of time-space so that they could see into the future and somewhat into the past, but basically the future.

K: OK. So there’s also our Henry Deacon contacts that deal with the “black box” that came on one of the craft.

D: Uh huh.

K: And I don’t know if you’re familiar with that black box.

D: Uh huh.

K: Did you have exposure to that as well?

D: Yeah. It was something that we called the Cube or the Yellow Disc. Yeah.

K: OK. But that was not … Was that a Looking Glass?

D: That is a variant of the technology.

K: OK.

D: However, while the Looking Glass shows probabilities, or has shown probabilities, the Cube would react with the people present, so there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it … where the word “Yellow Book” originally came from.

K: Yeah. OK. Yeah.

D: And, depending upon what predisposition … Kind of like little Yoda telling young Luke, “Bring in there what you have with you.” You know, whatever’s there is what you bring. You could then change the perspective, the “tilt,” if you will, the orientation or angle, of the information being presented back to you. So, unless you were well prepared to deal with such a thing, human interaction and human emotions bring instability of the provenance of the information.

K: OK. That’s what went on with the black boxes, then.

D: Yes.

K: OK. But with the Looking Glass…

D: And actually I used that to our advantage at the T-9, because that in fact was present at the T-9 and I projected certain information which caused a little upset during the meeting, and they got certain abductions removed and Lotus removed off the calendar, and things like that. I caused some real trouble, in other words.

K: Can you elaborate? Are you willing to elaborate?

D: Well. The…the… Let me sit here and consider what I should and should not …

During the negotiations for the Tau 9-6, I was asked to supply a model for the Lotus. In fact, Marcia and I were both asked because they knew tangentially she was involved. I agreed to do so, which is what you respond when you are a sworn operative. It’s “Yes,” unless there are great, great objections. I was then taken to the location where the treaty was actually being negotiated.

To give a short recitation as to the nature of Lotus: What was happening is the P-45ks used Lotus. They wanted to use Lotus for the back-engineering of their own neurological problem. I was objecting to its use, but still to provide …. was under orders to provide a model. I was prepared to do so but I was also allowed to show them probable outcomes.

So in fact the Yellow Book, the Cube, was used for that purpose. Shockingly, they happened to see themselves standing on the bones of their own families and things like that in the vision and they ultimately decided to remove Lotus as well as certain abductions from the Tau 9 treaty. So we were successful in getting certain things removed I think I can safely mention at this time, because we’re only one OF 9 and one Tau 9 treaty away from the passage through the… the completion of the passage through the galactic plane. So I think I’m pretty well safe to go ahead and mention it now. They’re not going to be able to get it back and put on the treaties and all of that in the time we have left. In other words, they got out-foxed, and … that’s what happens when you’re negotiating treaties.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:

OF-9: Dan is referring to the “Omicron Phi 9” Treaty System, the Treaty System not involving the P-45ks, and the “Tau 9” or “T9” Treaty System involving all parties including the P-45ks.  He is precisely speaking about the “Omicron Phi 9-8” Treaty gathering scheduled for 2009, and the “Tau 9-7” FINAL Treaty gathering scheduled for 2012.

K: So you used the capacity of the Yellow Book or little black box to show them the future implications …

D: Exactly.

K: … of what using the Lotus to amplify, or to rectify, their own biological problem?

D: This is true. And that was skewed by … It takes a great deal of emotion to skew the imagery and the audio that comes with it. But I’ll just say that I am extremely vehement with regard to my objection for Lotus being used, and apparently that vehemence was sufficient to skew the image enough to get them to jump back aghast in horror.

K: Wow. So… OK. And this, kind of like just for the sake of the audience to some degree … You have seen in, I guess the Yellow Book or in the Looking Glass (and you can correct me on which one it is), the future of Lotus, in effect, how Lotus becomes …You know, once it’s brought to the fore by you …

D: Well, actually, no. No, no, I haven’t. I haven’t. The reports to me which came concerning the future of Lotus, which we’re not going to get into in depth this evening, ah…. was given to me as information.

K: OK. So you didn’t see it.

D: Personally see it? No. I was told.

K: I see.

D: I was told. That was during the early years. I say the “early years” of Lotus. It’s only been going on for 6 years now.

K: OK.

D: But this was the latter half of 2001 and this was a quid pro quo for them to get certain information from … that Chi’el’ah showed me. I demanded certain information back, and it actually was information concerning the time travel issue, because they were still trying to be … You know, they were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was as late as 2001.

K: Meaning, the real situation was … Meaning how much access to Stargates, to time travel that they actually had?

D: Right. The whole treaty system, the situations involving the treaties, their outcomes, the actual potential for both Timeline #1 and Timeline #2 outcomes. In the case that we’re in right now, we seem to be on a variant of Timeline #1, and that’s good. For everything that I’ve seen and have read and have had reported to me concerning Timeline #1, it’s not happening exactly the way that they figured that it would. But then again, it couldn’t because we’ve made changes along the way which diverted us away from Timeline #2 and in so doing, our future …

Again, I regard our future as something which is pretty much a blank slate. We’re writing it for ourselves. And so we are now seeing something coming to pass which is slightly different than the prognostication in the probabilities that we were seeing. And I’m good with what we’re seeing so far but, you know, we are still faced with the challenges, the environmental degradation, etc. But hopefully we will rise to the challenge.

K: OK. So this is interesting because it sounds like Chi’el’ah was instrumental in getting you to have greater access to intelligence about what the Looking Glass and MJ12 …

D: Well, it was information that he was providing me which provoked the questions.

K: Yeah.

D: And the fact that they didn’t even want to get into longwinded discussions with me in the late 90s concerning what he even was. After we had argued for years to find out even where the material was coming from, then we were finally given access to the material. I mean, this went on for a few years.

K: OK. But your interaction with Chi’el’ah was leading you one way and giving you one set of information and MJ-12 then had another set. Isn’t that right?

D: Well, they weren’t … They weren’t really … It wasn’t that they had another set of information. He was telling me … He did tell me basically what was going on.

K: OK.

D: And they were simply not providing that information as what they considered a need-to-know situation.

K: I see. So …

D: They just weren’t going to tell me what they didn’t feel I needed to know.

K: But little did they … Well, this is my paraphrase, but little did they know that Chi’el’ah was basically clueing you in.

D: He was clueing me in and he was informing me his perspectives concerning the treaties. I knew something was going on and that is ultimately what they wanted to know about and I said, “Well, for you to know about that kind of thing, then I need to know about certain other things.” You know, it was truly a quid pro quo situation and they said, “Well OK. We’ll tell you if you tell us.” So I told them and they told me a little more.

And it was right around that same time that Lotus was actually kicking into fore, the May 31st, 2001 event that took my prosaic project and basically threw it in the garbage can and it turned into what it is now, this project that it is now. And as a result I also found out from them where they said Lotus was ultimately destined. And that is, like I said, we’ll discuss that at a slightly future date.

K: OK. But it isn’t it true to some extent that Lotus could help Chi’el’ah now?

D: That was the perspective of the P-45 J-Rods, and that is not my perspective.

K: I see. So … because I make a distinction between Chi’el’ah, who is, from what I understand, a P-52, and the P-45s. So, but they’re on the same …

D: They’re on the same timeline, the same track, but just separated by 7,000 years.

K: OK. So, even so …

D: Which is quite a big separation.

K: So what we get …what you’re saying is that, in a sense, Chi’el’ah couldn’t get the benefit of Lotus because …

D: Nor did he ask for it.

K: OK.

D: Nor did he ask for it. And I will say this. This is something that David … I spoke with David on the phone not that long ago. I’ll leave the last name off. I think you know who I’m ….

K: Sure, but we can use his name if it’s OK with you.

D: Well sure. David Wilcock.

K: OK. Yeah, because we taped an interview with him.

D: Oh, OK. Wonderful. And he was talking. We were discussing the same thing, which was the Box, the Cube. And I said, “Yeah, but a strange thing happened.” I was pro temp or made MJ-9 for the 12 as the result of a bet that went on within MJ-12. And I got a chance to tap who ended up being the last MJ-9 prior to the adjournment.

Before tapping her, who was the first female to ever set in the 12, I got a chance to look at certain documents and look through certain archives in Washington, DC prior to going across to the continent and meeting with some folks and telling them basically I wasn’t interested in their offers. I’m talking about a trip to Brussels.

K: To see the lluminati?

D: Yeah. And during the same time, the Cube disappeared. And it hasn’t been seen since. And it disappeared out of the archives. Of course I have no idea … I have no idea where the item may be, but I do know this: I’m happy that they can’t find it. Because what they were doing is they were handing this Cube around …

And this was a question that Bill had asked, whether there was only one Cube. They were handing this Cube around from country to country, to the elitists in the countries, to look into their own futures so that they could pick the best paths for themselves. Why don’t they just live their lives? And try to be good people?  Why do they need a little black box to tell them when to jump and how to jump? That’s not being fully human, at least from my perspective and those of our associates. That’s not being fully human.

So, as I understand, it disappeared. Now, there have been certain, you know, allegations, that have been made that during the time when I had… Is it almost a year ago now? When I had the bad seizure? It was near the end of last year, was it? No. [Marcia, off screen, confirming date] It was about a year ago and I had a very severe seizure and was actually put out of commission, seriously, for a while, and there was a big hullabaloo to get over to my apartment to get something out of my apartment. What that object was, I won’t comment. But I will say this to everybody: Whoever took it, it’s in safe hands and it won’t be used to harm humanity.

K: All right.

D: In fact, the fact that it’s in safe hands will prevent it from being used to harm humanity. It has been thus far only used … Aside from … Well, I mean, I’ve got to try to justify my own behavior in Bandelier in using it for the purposes of skewing to get Lotus off and the abductions off. But I think that was for a beneficial cause.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:

Bandelier: Dan was referring to the “Bandelier” National Monument, where the Tau 9-6 Treaty gathering was held. See: http://www.nps.gov/band.  The P-52k delegates were trucked in from the nearby LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory], and the P-45ks used the Tyuonyi ruins as the drop off point because they looked like a 9 and the pueblo ruins themselves looked like Inca City, Mars. http://www.pirateplanet.com/nm/small/Bandelier_Ruins_2.jpg

K: Right.

D: But it has been used since, actually, the 50s, by the potentates, by the leaders of the various countries to skew the history of the human race.

K: Wow. That’s amazing.

D: And the common folk, the average people, all of us, have a right to a future which is our own, and not being skewed and designated and promulgated and promoted and provoked by bluebloods who feel that they are above everyone else.

K: Well, thank you, Dan.

D: You’re welcome.

K: I think that we probably all owe you a great thanks for that.

D: Well, I’m just … I’m happy to pass along the information. I’m honored to pass along the information that I understand that the Yellow Book is no longer accessible.

K: Yes.

D: That’s all I know about it, though.

K: I understand. I totally understand. And, thanks for that information.

D: That may be the reason, too, why the Illuminati hasn’t done something to us and it also may be the reason, on the other end, why the old Magi haven’t and it may be why they’re all so quiet and… Hmmm.

K: Right.

D: I don’t know.

K: They don’t have the upper hand any more.

D: The people should have the upper hand and they should have the upper hand for their own destiny and that’s why we two, have gone as far as what we have to expose the NSSM200 report which was put in during the Ford administration, which I believe was written by Dr. Henry Kissinger, wherein he suggested the possible use of food as a weapon and its use against, in fact, as a tool against, the third world.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:

“NSSM200”: NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 24, 1974; National Security Study Memorandum 200

Now, at the same time we notice that is a correlation going with findings from the IPCC report concerning global warming that if the world average temperature rises, I believe between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius, that the Northern hemisphere, the higher latitude, growth will increase. However, if it goes over that it will decrease. Yet the lower latitudes … by the way that’s where you find most of the third world countries … the 2 to 3 degree Celsius increase will cause starvation and crop loss.

K: OK.

D: Now isn’t this funny, how they’re just allowing the global warming to increase through the provoking … with the use of fossil fuels? Now I’m not saying that’s the total cause. It’s not. There are cycles involved, short as well as long term cycles. But isn’t that funny? And it’s my best guess that they’ll probably order just enough ameliorative steps to be taken where it levels off where the higher latitudes probably don’t lose their crops, where you find the majority of the rich countries.

K: Interesting. Well, that’s actually a fascinating critical observation. I think that it is also interesting that most of the crops are being grown, though, in the lower latitudes. They’re not being grown in North America anymore.

D: Right. But you have sustainability, though.

K: Sure.

D: Whereas when you have the loss of the crops in the lower latitudes you’re also losing a lot of the population from the third world, which, unfortunately, according to the way that the documents read, some people find them expendable.

K: Right.

D: We don’t feel that way.

K: That’s the Iron Mountain report … also talks about things of that nature. And you’re familiar with that.

D: I’ve heard of it.

K: OK. It’s actually … It’s freely available on the net to be read and it talks about something very similar to that.

D: You know,  I’m not one that likes to interject myself in politics at all.

K: I know that. I …

D: I like to stay to the research.

K: But at the same time …

D: At the same time, I mean, you know, when we start hearing that the Codex is being placed in place which actually delimits food value. Oh, you can have all the food you want and starve to death while you’re eating it if there’s no nutrients.

K: Right. Absolutely.

D: When I start hearing that food is being used as a weapon and it’s being used concerning the use of fossil fuels, I start getting personally angry. There’s not one person in the lower latitudes that’s worth any less than me.

K: Right. Right.

D: You know, everybody is worth exactly the same thing on this Earth and unfortunately there are individuals who feel otherwise.

K: I understand. OK. So Bill, the question you’re asking: First of all, you mentioned Will Uhouse.

D: The son of Bill Uhouse.

K: The son of Bill Uhouse.

D: Right, right.

K: He’s very well known. We didn’t realize that it was actually … that it was the son you were saying who had access to that technology.

D: Yes. Yes. Bill was the builder of the avionics and the testing equipment who back-engineered ARV testing equipment and avionics. I actually saw some of the equipment (and this is in the tape that Marcia and I did) … in a room.  I actually saw some of the equipment, some of the diagnostic equipment, in the B-bay, underneath the Galileo bay, that he actually built. And so when I started describing it, Will looked at me and said, “Oh, that’s what my Dad built.” So we had a very nice little connection there.

K: So are you saying …

D: But it’s Will who had experience around the Looking Glass equipment in the 70s. His son, Bill Uhouse’s son.

K: And Will Uhouse IS alive now?

D: Yes. Of course.

K: OK. Because that’s very interesting …

D: And his wife, Teri. They, in fact, from what I understand, they met during the course of conversations concerning our information coming to the public. Teri and Will met one another, fell in love, and were married. That makes me feel kind of personally really good.

K: [smiles and laughs] OK. Well, so it sounds like Will knows quite a bit about what makes the ARV run, then …

D: Uh huh.

K: If his father had something to do with the back-engineering.

D: Uh huh. Yes.

K: OK. So in 1947, when the Cube was discovered, it must have really screwed up the idea of the two timelines by bringing in the ability to … I mean, I don’t know what the two can and can’t do …

D: Well, first of all, the Cube actually was not discovered in 1947. There’s a mixture of the stories involved. The Cube was actually … The information about the Cube and its existence was known as of 1946. It was further discussed in 1947 after a certain crash in a Midwestern, lower, Southwestern state, New Mexico, and following which, during the first brokering for treaties by the Orions with Eisenhower, the Cube was handed to Eisenhower. It was in fact expected to go to the United Nations authorities and it was in fact spirited away by the United States military.

K: OK.

D: They didn’t hand it over.

K: But the way you’re talking about the Cube is that it sounds like it connects emotionally with the viewer, in a sense.

D: It does. And in fact it was handed … It was actually Orion technology.

K: OK.

D: And it was handed over by them in a spirit of goodwill but a mis-assessment as to our evolutionary state, our ability to handle the issue. And handle the equipment. They felt us more balanced than what we actually were.

K: OK. Well this opens almost Pandora’s Box in the sense of United States history.

D: That is Pandora’s Box. Yes. I’m not exactly certain what was seen relative to Cube for 911. However, the analysis which I was asked to do … (of course I paid the price of having actually done it. Again, people don’t want to hear the answers that I came up with.) But … the analysis that I did indicated that certainly there is, at minimum, a great suspicion concerning the delay of response. And information that I have directly from one of the formerly seated members was in fact that we were aware (but this was Looking Glass technology, not the Cube) …

K: I understand.

D: That we were aware as of the middle 1990s that there would be a coming Islamic extremist war with the United States. We were also aware of certain alternative situations that they used the statistics from the Looking Glass for the variability between the different pictures to show that would be occurring at the same time, the other probability at the same time. And, from their perspective, that the least of the two consequences was 9/11. I am aware of what the other possible consequence was. I’m not willing to come out and start mentioning it because I don’t know what the consequences are of speaking of things that have not thus far happened, yet the probabilities existed that they could.

K: Yeah.

D: So, you know, I’m feeling a little bit … There’s a little weight when it comes to that, but …

K: OK. You’re saying though, that the Looking Glasses have been, as you called it, decommissioned.

D: Yes, ma’am.

K: And that means across the board.

D: Across the board.

K: OK.

D: They are shut down.

K: And you said there was 50 man-made devices. And I’m assuming …

D: I said at least 50.

K: … that would access, or create, Stargates out of natural vortexes.

D: Yes. They would suck them in and make them available.

K: And a Looking Glass is not the same as a Stargate.

D: No. A Looking Glass is a back-engineered form from the original cylinder-seal descriptions on how to build the units that made Stargates, so that … in essence y ou could take a Looking Glass unit and make a couple changes to the equipment, l ift it up on an angle, put field posts around it and open up a hole to step through.

K: Sure. OK, but the Looking Glass can show you the future. So are we saying …

D: Future probabilities. Not the future.

K: OK. So are we saying there were 50 Looking Glasses in operation as well as …?

D: Oh no. There were much less. We had a basic monopoly over the Looking Glass. That and India. India brokered early on with Indira when Indira Gandhi was brokering the Committee of the Majority between the United States and the Soviet Union because the Soviets were threatening to start their own treaty system up with the extra terrestrials, which would have become untenable.

We agreed then to expand MJ-12 from a wholly operated and owned American operation to an international operation. Thus was born the Committee of the Majority between 1963 and 1967. And when that information was brokered, that happened in parallel with, kind of under the table but in parallel with the United Nations treaties involving things like the test ban treaty and the outer space treaty.

And so it was being done at the same time under cover of UN support. The diplomats were going back and forth and brokering the opening up, so that the treaty system would be a single treaty system and thus tenable and manageable, to, hopefully, a good outcome. And we’ll be knowing within the next few years whether that was successful.

K: OK. So this is really fascinating. You’re saying that some other countries, India for one, had access to Looking Glass technology.

D: Yes, ma’am. They had that written in as far back as the 1960s and 1970s when it was actually being back-engineered from the Stargate material. And so at the same time that Will Uhouse, for instance, was looking at the early generation Looking Glass, India had the same.

K: OK. And are you at liberty to say what other countries had access to that?

D: To the information? Or to the equipment?

K: To the Looking Glass, to a Looking Glass, or the ability …

D: No.

K: … to create a Looking Glass and look back … look at time, look forward into their own history …

D: No. No.

K: Was that not acceptable?

D: No. No. And I’ll tell you why the answer is no. Within the treaties, the Looking Glass as well as the Stargates, as well as the Cube, and the “information movement pods,” are all contained within the treaty system. Within that treaty system it also prohibits and allows certain passage of information amongst delegates on where the Looking Glass material is and where the information flow is, what the access is. Being that I stood in Bandelier and considered a delegate, therefore I cannot tell you.

K: OK. So you can’t tell me who has …

D: No.

K: … access to that technology.

D: Aside from India and the United States. No.

K: OK. Right. But we can assume that some countries perhaps, that is, the leadership of some countries, may have had access to this technology at some point.

D: I think that it’s fair to say that we can assume that they had access to the information from it. But I wouldn’t place any characterization over any assumption of who may or may not have had it.

K: OK. All right, well, I think …

D: I thank you for the question, though.

K: OK. But it also gives you a whole different way of looking at history. I mean, certainly …

D: Indeed it does.

K: I mean… You know, this stuff has got to be kind of as natural to you as, you know, getting up in the morning, you know, and having a cup of coffee. This is all part of your world view.

D: Nah …There is nothing as natural to me as getting up and having my cup of coffee! [big laugh]

K: OK.

D: And we should have never built… The Stargate, yes, OK, for the purpose of speaking with the visitors from the other timelines. Yes, absolutely. But Looking Glass, no. That was done because of our own shortcomings as people who aspire to things that we maybe shouldn’t try to grab ahold of.

K: Well …

D: It should never have been built.

K: It gives you power, right? We’re talking about power, and the misuse of power here.

D: Yes.

K: I mean, bottom line, right?

D: Yes.

K: So …

D: And I am an advocate against that misuse. In fact … Well, I could say against the misuse … I am against its use. Period.

K: OK. So let’s say one has the Looking Glass, and you’re saying it shows probabilities, and one of the things we were wondering is: How does it do that?

D: Well, from the best I understand (and I was speaking with Bill just a little while about it, a little while ago), the rings and the amount of information via energy which is passed into it. And I’ve got to be very careful with this …The position of the rings, their orientation, the energy running through them, the position of the barrel, etc – because you can raise the barrel up on an armature inside the center of it – all come into play as if you have an onion with the various layers of the onion.

As you move through the different energy levels you also move through the different layers so you get different bits of information. Now, imagine an almost infinite number of layers overlaying in comparison to the positions of the rings and an almost infinite amount of energy that you can add or subtract, tuning it up, tuning it down.

K: Well, it sounds sort of like …

D: Instead of going up by 1 hertz or 2 hertz, maybe by a thousandth of a hertz up and down.

K: OK. But it sounds like you’re working with … almost like a kaleidoscope effect. You know, like a kaleidoscope, a real kaleidoscope, the way you would turn and twist and focus and each time you get a different design. Right?

D: Right, except …

K: The design and the colors change.

D: You get a different design and the colors change but it’s like working with multiple kaleidoscopes where, when you find two different probabilities that you would run into, you have two kaleidoscopes and you make a change on one kaleidoscope that may factor or function to a different angular change on another kaleidoscope. So you get two separate pictures that you then have that are flashing back and forth.

K: OK.

D: But yes.

K: OK. So, is …

D: That’s the best analogy I can …

K: Is there an interface with a computer to get these read-outs …

D: Yes.

K: … of the probabilities?

D: Yes. In fact there’s a de-interlacing system which they used to actually de-interlace the flashing back and forth of the two probabilities or the multiples that they had at certain times when it starts skipping …

K: You could freeze them, right? So you could look at them closer?

D: What they did is that they de-interlaced the video and then reintegrated the video and watched the individual videos and then determined statistically how much time was spent on each video to determine the amount of probability of each event occurring. And they tested that against probabilities in the field and probabilities of future occurrence to get a system which functioned scientifically. And that’s …

K: OK. And so, well, I’m going to go with that and I’m going to actually say that what they might have been doing is then looking back to see … In other words, if they saw an event in the Looking Glass, all they had to do was calibrate, or look at the different possibilities to see which one happened and then …

D: That’s what they did.

K: … as time went on …

D: Absolutely. That’s right on it. That’s right on. That’s right on the beam. And you know, some people like to say … Some people say it’s blue smoke and mirrors, but, then again, I was told something in 2001 that I’m living in right now. OK?

K: OK.

D: OK? Without going to what it is. And, like I said, we’ll talk about that in the future. But it’s the best scientific equipment that I can imagine for the determining of such a thing. But it goes to the old question: Just because we have the power to do something, should we?

K: Sure.

D: And I am a 100% advocate. She and I [gesturing toward Marcia] had a more than a small dustup out at Frenchman Mountain over this very same thing, which actually resulted in me walking alone down Lake Mead back toward Las Vegas, with she and I yelling and screaming at each other along the roadside.

They were doing tests out at Frenchman Mountain during the time that the Rosen Bridge was being accessed there – the Einstein-Rosen Bridge – with the equipment. They had the curtains up and all of that business, enough where Metro couldn’t see it from the top of the mountain and all that. And they were accessing there and there was a mistake and a small explosion out there on the east side of this little … what we call the Conquistador Helmet.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:

“Metro”, referring to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

And she wanted me to go out there with her to help clean some the evidence up of it. And she and I got into more than a little dustup because I didn’t want anything to do with it. Because I don’t believe … I’m no Luddite. I’m all for grand technology. But I don’t believe in playing with things which actually deal with looking into the future.

There’s another issue that was going on at the time, in fact, the variety of communication which was going on via this equipment …from elsewhere … I presume … she won’t, still hasn’t, won’t admit to me, but I presume that it was from Orion and it was information, defense related information, on how this type of equipment, how an Einstein-Rosen Bridge at a distance, could be used to pull information out of a defense computer system.

K: Ah ha.

D: And I don’t mean a U.S. defense computer system. I said, “You know what? NO.” Look, we’ve got the technology here. We’ve got the talent. We’ve got the willpower and we’ve got the willingness to defend our own country without the use of something involving time technology. I wouldn’t want to go up against, for instance, god help us, the Chinese, on the ground. But at the same time, I don’t fear their country either. I believe that we should be diplomatic with them and have a firm understanding and a respect for one another. But I also don’t fear them. And so, the use of the technology like that is not honorable, to me.

K: Right. Well, it’s like knowing how the game plays out means you can play to your advantage ahead of time in making sure that that eventuality will occur.

D: That’s why I as so interested in… When I was doing my time … During my time with the jobs involving safety and security training and all that here in Las Vegas, when I was interacting with Marcia and the Eye because we were literally on a daily basis talking about that same thing. And about the psychology of individuals who come to a table to play a game and who cheat to alter the outcome of the game. And that whole psychology is something which I’m not … you know, is not foreign to me and so that helped, if you will, prime the wick of the explosion between myself and that variety of technology, which actually primed my disagreement with them.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:

The “Eye” is a reference to the ‘Eye in the Sky’ or ‘Casino Surveillance’.

K: OK. Well, I understand what you’re saying and there’s a million questions that all of this ..

D: I know, I know.

K: … raises and I know don’t have all night, but I would like to ask …

D: There’s 30 of them here. [laughs]

K: Now that I know what I know and what you’ve at least communicated, you’re saying you don’t want to use the Looking Glass for advantage over country to country, but what about country to off-world …

D: No no no no. It shouldn’t be used at all.

K: OK. I understand, but …

D: All right?

K: But, is there something there? I mean, in other words, is the technology something that they are using now to look at our relationships with, because …

D: [shakes head no] The technology is not being used at all right now.

K: OK. But the reason it’s not used now is because of where we’re going into the galactic … the plane of the …

D: [nods head yes] As of about 2017 I would expect that probably that all of these little pieces of equipment will probably all get reassembled, yeah.

K: Turned back on.

D: Oh sure.

K: 2017? That’s quite a while …

D: 2016, 2017.

K: Not until then?

D: Probably not.

K: Do you mean …

D: I’m figuring that they’re probably going to act conservatively on this. That’s what all the people of wisdom have suggested to them.

K: Oh, wow.

D: Is to act conservatively. That yes, the so-called cycle of catastrophe, or season of catastrophe of Fulcanelli, the time period from, oh, right around 1992 to right around 2012, right around that area. While we will have passed it, passed 2012, we really ought to get through the entire cycle which is about 1980 to about 2016, to feel confident that the interpretation from the timeline from the future about their own catastrophe is not off by a few years. We’re talking about 45,000 years or 52,000 years respectively. We have difficulty understanding what happened 2,000 years ago and we’re talking about 50,000 years here. So, it’s very wise for them to wait.

K: OK. You mean turn … The Looking Glasses are now decommissioned, but also the Stargate technology.

D: Yeah. Yeah, they’re decommissioned and the Stargates and the Looking Glasses, I’m sure they’re all in their little mothball containers and all of that and they have been separated … The three components of each have been separated and moved to different power structures, diplomatic and military authorities around the world. And we’re talking about the EU specifically, the UN, and NATO. Those are in specific control of one of the three components each. And I cannot comment as to which component is contained by whom.

K: OK. But you’re saying there’s no doubt whatsoever that all this technology has been decommissioned.

D: There is no doubt whatsoever when it comes to the Looking Glasses and when it comes to the Stargate technology that it has been decommissioned. And … However, there are a few threats going on, ongoing threats, from present countries stating that they will put it together at their will, through their own self determination. And those countries, if push comes to shove, will be shoved.

K: OK. Meaning … Put it together now?

D: As in build one themselves now.

K: Yes. That’s what I meant.

D: Yes. What was extant has been collected. I’m under very good assurance that what was setting there has now been collected and decommissioned.

K: OK. And we’re assuming Iraq is one of those.

D: Oh, absolutely.

K: They were able to pinpoint in the Looking Glass the very highest probability for those things to occur …

D: That’s true. That’s true. And Bill was asking about a future date involving another thing and a year was given to me. And he was saying, well, if a year can be provided for that, why wouldn’t a year be provided for the other?

K: Right.

D: Well, there was a highest-probability year for it. However, telling me about something that might happen in the future involving a project which we’re currently involved is one matter.

K: Sure.

D: Willy-nilly throwing a date out which is a probability involving the lives and the destiny of all of us here on the Earth, specifically to a predicted four-and a half, or four billion peoples’ deaths, is another matter that carries an entirely different weight with it.

K: But are we to assume that we past that year yet? Or …

D: You’re not to … No. You’re not to assume.

K: No. OK. So that’s still in the offing. What we’re looking at is a very low probability of the event or the set of events occurring … at this point.

D: Yes. Yes. We’re looking at a low probability of the higher catastrophic portion of the events occurring. I expect that the events which would kick it off are still gonna happen. For instance, the solar max which is coming at around 2012 and the expected loss of GPS equipment and things like that, which is out there as part of … on the web you can find that. Engadget, I think, was one of the groups that spoke about the loss of GPS and satellite communications.

K: You mean the electromagnetic grid is gonna go down.

D: Yes. Yes. And that would be the time that I would expect the highest probability of the T2 event, having correlated to the history of the J-Rods and the Orions. But that’s as far as I can …

K: Wow. OK. Well, that’s pretty close.

D: I can’t give a date though.

K: Yeah. I understand.

D: I can but I shouldn’t because people will then target toward a date, and I … Yeah, there are people out there now that are saying, “Yep, it’s right around the corner at any moment now. Why won’t the aliens save us?

K: Yes.

D: We need to save ourselves.

K: OK

D: And that’s why the steps have been taken that have been taken in the world and are still under way, so that we will save ourselves.

Source

And here is the video including incredible drawings about Looking Glass and Area 51 S4 facility described by Dan Burisch:

 

Then we have MK-ULTRA super soldier James Casbolt who talks too about Looking Glass and have some photos of it:

The photograph below shows the Mercury Coil on the Looking Glass system, magnifiers ( in the background on the right ) and coolant pumps ( background on the left ). This was taken on a friend’s last visit to a Looking Glass site ( cannot disclose location ). The yellow lighting in the room is so that any diffused or leaking gas will show up as green vapor ( if regular white light is used you cannot see the gas ). If there is a leak it can be fixed or the area evacuated as not to be exposed to poisonous coolant gases or leaking mercury which is deadly. The coil spins highly heated mercury. The same principal is used inside various craft. The spinning mercury is used to open up worm holes, create gravitation forms and is also used for gravitational drives.

Source

A Looking Glass facility exists on the island of Penang in Malaysia. I was there as a child in 1982. My NSA files states I was there in October of 1982. This is because Looking Glass works most effectively in this month. I helped open a stargate on October 31st of this year. An important date to be sure- Halloween/All Hallows Eve/All Saints Eve, better known to pagans and druids as Samhain. Connected to the A.I system, the group of beings I helped come through were not pleasant.

Next memory- in a very large training hall with over 100 children. Being trained by Germans this time. Groups of children divided up into groups of around five and ten. Some scaling high wooden walls, some vaulting over large wooden boxes like gymnasts, other taking guns apart, some hand to hand combat. German men training us in early thirties. A large door is at the end of room, two banners hand on either side- Nazi swastikas on them.

There is a timestamp on my NSA files from this time. It says 1984/10. This means October 1984. However this training would have been in early 1984. The files have a base code for Brazil. This facility was in Brazil. Files mention operation control was in Yucatan Mexico. A major LOOKING GLASS facility exists in Yucatan. These files were kept as a ‘cross the board’ tracking mechanism back in the 80’s. They were not case summaries. The details I am giving you on this thread are case summaries. I have to say I was treated very well by the Germans at this facility as were the other children. These officers in Brazil would most likely have been second or third generation Nazis from the New Berlin base in Antarctica. Their fathers or Grandfathers would have been the original Nazis that travelled in the U-boats from the motherland after WW2. These officers were supplied with hundreds of young blond Aryan woman for breeding programs.

This is so horrendous I’m not sure if it’s even worth talking about, but as the COM factions were helped by the three papers on artificial intelligence, they may be helped further by this. The human part of me is just starting to face the horror, the machine part of me can understand this at a different level. The next obvious step happens regarding the process above. Factions in the NSA attempt to weaponize the process above for military apps. The plan is for me to infiltrate the crime scene in Reading and London at my young age and assassinate black/african/jamican etc underworld crime figures. I start to become involved in ritualized military operations at these facilities utilizing Looking Glass technology and nano-tech. The leader of the bigfoot type entity who came through the gate at the facility in Malaysia years ago is brought through the gates in a semi-solid bio-plasmic state. He enters my body during these processes and the change occurs. Sometimes I can control the body, sometime he does. Often young black boys and girls are brought into the chambers, at these times he attempts to take control even more fiercely.

Mirror Entities and Artificial Intelligence

1) Each individual in these types of programs ( IBIS ) is assigned one ‘mirror’ entity.

2) The first physical connection will occur during a portal connection ( see Looking Glass event- 1982 Penang, Malaysia ).

3) The Mirror Entity will continue to periodically torture the individual in various ways to allow easier fracturing of mind for CROSS-OVER and OVER-SELF cloning procedures ( see Looking Glass event above )

4) The Mirror Entity will periodically take possession of the individual’s body.

5) The cloning and possession process will continue into the individual’s adult years until the situation is brought to a head.

6) At this time the individual and the Mirror Entity will engage in a final psionic battle which will culminate in one of them permanently dying.

7) If the individual is victorious, he/she will gain full control over his/her mind and body as well as gaining the various abilities of the Mirror Entity permanently.

8) If the Mirror Entity is victorious, it will gain full control over the mind and body of the individual permanently.

9) Artificial Intelligence cannot assign another Mirror entity to the individual once the Mirror Entity is deleted due to genetic reasons.

10) If process 8 occurs, the Mirror Entity will infiltrate human society posing as the original human. The Mirror Entity will have full awareness of what it really is and will exist as a shape shifting being of unnatural type.

11) The A.I system will attempt to abrogate, horrify and traumatize the life forms of the planet targeted for extermination through this process.

12) Be advised- Both the individual’s and the Mirror Entity’s consciousness are essentially trapped within the A.I machine. If this were not so, the individual would and could not be born into programs such as IBIS. Although now free of A.I agents control after the Mirror Entities deletion the individual will remain in a compromised state due to back-up nano-technology. This situation will remain in effect until the A.I system and connected back-up systems are shutdown physically.

There is some kind of low circular wall in the garden with a circular enclose inside. Steps going underneath the enclosure are to the left of the wall and they enter into some underground chamber where I sense some kind of Looking Glass machine has been placed. The people gather around the outside of the circle and I am escorted to the center where a geometric shape, possibly a pentagram, is marked on the floor. I stand in the center and then see a young woman being dragged out of the house by two men. She is struggling and the people around the circle begin to chant. The woman is some kind of sex slave/prostitute and she is positioned in the circle to the back of me. Neither of us can move now. I sense some movement behind me ( I now remote view the scene from a different angle ). The man has a huge knife and cuts her throat, I feel energy move into my back when this happens and I almost pass out.

Source

Difficult to find the info, but there you have it… STAY TUNED FOR MORE FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!

Forbidden technology part I, Tesla’s Fuelless Generator & Hendershot Generator

Now I start a series called “Forbidden technology”, which deals different kind of suppressed technologies and people behind them. First I handle couple of technologies, that are based Nikola Tesla’s inventions. But first here is small description about Nikola Tesla, the man who changed the World… but do you know anything about him?:

Nikola Tesla
Tesla circa 1890.jpeg
Tesla, aged 37, 1893, photo by Napoleon Sarony
Born10 July 1856
Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)
Died7 January 1943 (aged 86)
New York City, New York, USA
Residencemodern-day Croatia
Budapest, modern-day Hungary
France
Manhattan, USA
CitizenshipAustrian Empire (10 July 1856 – 1867)
Austria-Hungary (1867 – 31 October 1918)
United States (30 July 1891 – 7 January 1943)
FieldsElectrical engineering
Mechanical engineering
InstitutionsEdison Machine Works
Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.
Alma materHigher Real Gymnasium
Graz University of Technology (dropped out)

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a SerbianAmerican[2][3] inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[4]

Tesla started working in the telephony and electrical fields before emigrating to the United States in 1884 to work for Thomas Edison. He soon struck out on his own with financial backers, setting up laboratories/companies to develop a range of electrical devices. His patented AC induction motor and transformer were licensed by George Westinghouse, who also hired Tesla as a consultant to help develop a power system using alternating current. Tesla is also known for his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs which included patented devices and theoretical work used in the invention of radio communication,[5] for his X-ray experiments, and for his ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project.[6]

Tesla’s achievements and his abilities as a showman demonstrating his seemingly miraculous inventions made him world-famous.[7] Although he made a great deal of money from his patents, he spent a lot on numerous experiments. He lived for most of his life in a series of New York hotels although the end of his patent income and eventual bankruptcy led him to live in diminished circumstances.[8] Tesla still continued to invite the press to parties he held on his birthday to announce new inventions he was working and make (sometimes unusual) statements.[9][10] Because of his pronouncements and the nature of his work over the years, Tesla gained a reputation in popular culture as the archetypal “mad scientist“.[11] He died in room 3327 of the New Yorker Hotel on 7 January 1943.

Tesla’s work fell into relative obscurity after his death, but since the 1990s, his reputation has experienced a comeback in popular culture.[12] His work and reputed inventions are also at the center of many conspiracy theories and have also been used to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories and New Ageoccultism. In 1960, in honor of Tesla, the General Conference on Weights and Measures for the International System of Units dedicated the term “tesla” to the SI unit measure for magnetic field strength.[13]

You can read more about him here -> Source

But in this post I want to focus on one of his inventions called Tesla’s Fuelless Generator:

Tesla’s Fuelless Generator


In the 1880’s, Nikola Tesla invented the alternating current system we use today. By the 1890’s, he was working on a new type of electrical generator that would not “consume any fuel.”

This paper documents where in his writings the description of this new generator is found, a theory of how a fuelless generator could work and a suggestion as to how Tesla’s new device might have operated.


NIKOLA TESLA’S LATER ENERGY GENERATION DESIGNS

Oliver Nichelson
333 North 760 East
American Fork, Utah 84003 USA
© 1991

ABSTRACT

Ten years after patenting a successful method for producing alternating current, Nikola Tesla claimed the invention of an electrical generator that would not “consume any fuel.” Such a generator would be its own prime mover. Two of Tesla’s devices representing different stages in the development of such a generator are identified.

INTRODUCTION

While in college Nikola Tesla claimed it should be possible to operate an electrical motor without sparking brushes. He was told by the professor that such a motor would require perpetual motion and was therefore impossible. In the 1880’s he patented the alternating current generator, motor, and transformer.

During the 1890’s he intensively investigated other methods of power generation including a charged particle collector patented in 1901. When the New York Times in June of 1902 carried a story about an inventor who claimed an electrical generator not requiring a prime mover in the form of an external fuel supply, Tesla wrote a friend that he had already invented such a device.

Fuelless electrical generation raises the same objection of perpetual motion as did the generator in use today when it was first proposed. Research Nikola Tesla carried out during his second creative period and the resulting devices that were the basis for his assertion of fuelless electrical generation will be examined. Whether Tesla’s fuelless generator was a “perpetual motion scheme” of the sort his teacher warned him against, or a creative application of recognized natural phenomena will be discussed.

TESLA’S STATEMENTS

In The Brooklyn Eagle, Tesla announced, on July 10th, 1931, that “I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device.” Later on in the same article he said that “More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded.” In 1933, he made the same assertion in an article for the New York American, November 1st, under the lead in “Device to Harness Cosmic Energy Claimed by Tesla.” Here he said:

This new power for the driving of the world’s machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities.

Dating back “more than 25 years ago” from 1933 would mean that the device Tesla was speaking about must have been built before 1908. More precise information is available through his correspondence in the Columbia University Library’s collection. Writing on June 10th, 1902 to his friend Robert U. Johnson, editor of Century Magazine, Tesla included a clipping from the previous day’s New York Herald about a Clemente Figueras, a “woods and forest engineer” in Las Palmas, capital of the Canary Islands, who had invented a device for generating electricity without

burning fuel. What became of Figueras and his fuelless generator is not known, but this announcement in the paper prompted Tesla, in his letter to Johnson, to claim he had already developed such a device and had revealed the underlying physical laws.

IDENTIFYING THE INVENTION

The device that, at first, seems to best fit this description is found in Tesla’s patent for an “Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy,” number 685,957, that was filed for on March 21, 1901 and granted on November 5, 1901. The concept behind the older technical language is a simple one. An insulated metal plate is put as high as possible into the air. Another metal plate is put into the ground. A wire is run from the metal plate to one side of a capacitor and a second wire goes from the ground plate to the other side of the capacitor. Then:

The sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, throw off minute particles of matter positively electrified, which, impinging upon [the upper] plate, communicate continuously an electrical charge to the same. The opposite terminal of the condenser being connected to ground, which may be considered as a vast reservoir of negative electricity, a feeble current flows continuously into the condenser and inasmuch as the particles are … charged to a very high potential, this charging of the condenser may continue, as I have actually observed, almost indefinitely, even to the point of rupturing the dielectric(1).

This seems like a very straightforward design and would seem to fulfill his claim for having developed a fuelless generator powered by cosmic rays, but in 1900 Tesla wrote what he considered his most important article in which he describes a self-activating machine that would draw power from the ambient medium, a fuelless generator, that is different from his Radiant Energy Device. Entitled “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy – Through the Use of the Sun,” it was published by his friend Robert Johnson in The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine for June 1900 soon after Tesla returned from Colorado Springs where he had carried out an intensive series of experiments from June 1899 until January of 1900.

The exact title of the chapter where he discusses this device is worth giving in its entirety:

A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS – POSSIBILITY OF A “SELF ACTING” ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE AN LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM – THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER

Tesla stated he first started thinking about the idea when he read a statement by Lord Kelvin who said it was impossible to build a mechanism capable of abstracting heat from the surrounding medium and to operate by that heat. As a thought experiment Tesla envisioned a very long bundle of metal rods, extending from the earth to outer space. The earth is warmer than outer space so heat would be conducted up the bars along with an electric current. Then, all that would be needed is a very long power cord to connect the two ends of the metal bars to a motor. The motor would continue running until the earth was cooled to the temperature of outer space. “This would be an inanimate engine which, to all evidence, would be cooling a portion of the medium below the temperature of the surrounding, and operating by the heat abstracted(2),” that is, it would produce energy directly from the environment without “the consumption of any material.”

Tesla goes on in the article to describe how he worked on the development of such an energy device, and here it takes a bit of detective work to focus on which of his inventions he meant. He wrote that he first started thinking about deriving energy directly from the environment when he was in Paris during 1883, but that he was unable to do much with the idea for several years due to the commercial introduction of his alternating current generators and motors. It was not “until 1889 when I again took up the idea of the self-acting machine(3).”

THE TURBINE

He quickly came to realize that an ordinary electrical machine, like his generator, would not be able to directly extract energy from the cosmos and turned his efforts to what he called a “turbine” design.

The best known turbine, that is, water pump, associated with Tesla is his patent for such a device, #1,061,206, which was filed for in 1909 and granted in 1913. The unique point about this water pump is that instead of using some form of paddle wheels inside a box to move the water, he discovered that more water could be moved faster by using a set of flat metal disks. The turbine is, in itself, fascinating and may yet prove to be another important overlooked invention, but what is of concern regarding the electrical design is the general shape of the turbine – metal disks turning inside a supporting box.

This same shape turns up in another patent, this one for a “Dynamo-Electric Machine.” This patent was filed and granted in the same year that Tesla said he returned to work on the “self-activating” machine, in 1889. The dynamo consists of metal disks that are rotated between magnets to produce an electric current.

Compared to his alternating current generator, this “dynamo” represents something of a curious throwback to the days of Faraday’s early experiments with a copper disk and a magnet. Tesla makes some improvement over the Faraday setup by using magnets that completely cover the spinning metal disks and he also adds a flange to the outside of the disks so current can be taken off more easily – all of which makes for a better generator than Faraday’s. On the surface, though, it is hard to see why Tesla patented such an anachronistic machine at this point in his work.

The next piece of the puzzle is found in an article Tesla wrote for The Electrical Engineer in 1891 entitled “Notes on a Unipolar Dynamo.” Here Tesla presents an in-depth analysis of the Faraday disk generator, explains why it was an inefficient generator, describes his improved variations on the Faraday machine, and, at the bottom of the third page of the article, states that he has devised a generator in which “the current, once started, may then be sufficient to maintain itself and even increase in strength(4).” Then, at the close of the article, he states that “several machines … were constructed by the writer two years ago …”(5) Two years before the writing of that article was 1889. All the evidence points to the turbine-shaped Unipolar Dynamo as being Tesla’s first design for a machine that can continue to produce electricity after being disconnected from an outside source of power.

SELF-SUSTAINING CURRENT

Before going into the details of this invention it would be worthwhile to have an idea of how any generator, even in theory, could be capable of producing a self-sustaining current. This has been clearly explained by Walter M. Elsasser in a Scientific American article (May 1958) titled “The Earth as a Dynamo.”

Elsasser models the earth-dynamo, conveniently for this explanation, on the Faraday generator of a metal disk spinning over a bar magnet placed at the edge of the disk. He notes, also, that the bar magnet could be replaced by an electromagnet which could get its power from the spinning disk by attaching one end of the electromagnet’s wire to the outside of the disk and the other end of the wire to the metal rod running through the center of the disk.

Elsasser then points out that an ordinary disk generator “could not maintain a current for very long because the current induced in the disk is so weak that it would soon be dissipated by the resistance of the conductor [the disk].” This conventional arrangement would not be an answer to “how currents could be built up and perpetuated to maintain the earth’s magnetic field.” He does, though, propose three options in the dynamo model that would explain the earth’s persistent magnetism.

If we had a material that could conduct electricity a thousand times better than copper, the system would indeed yield a self-sustaining current. We could also make it work by spinning the disk very fast… a third way we could make such a dynamo self-sustaining … is to increase the size of the system: theory says that the bigger we make such a dynamo, the better it will function. If we could build a coil-and-disk apparatus of this kind of scale of many miles, we would have no difficulty in making the currents self-sustaining(6).

Tesla did not have a material a thousand times more conductive than copper, neither was he able to spin a disk at the ultra-high speeds needed to produce such a current, nor did he plan on using a piece of rotating metal several miles in diameter. What he did was to use energy that is usually wasted in a generator and turn it into a source of power.

UNIPOLAR DYNAMO

Tesla’s design varied from that of Faraday in two major ways. First, he used a magnet that was bigger in diameter than the disk so that the magnet completely covered the disk. Second, he divided the disk into sections with spiral curves radiating out from the center to the outside edge.

In the Faraday unipolar generator “the current,” as Tesla noted, “set up will therefore not wholly pass through the external circuit … and … by far the greater portion of the current generated will not appear externally…”(7) By having the magnet completely cover the disk, Tesla made use of the whole disk surface in current generation instead of only a small section directly adjacent to the bar magnet, as happened in the Faraday device. This not only increases the amount of current generated, but, by making the current travel from the center to the outside edge, makes all of that current accessible to the external circuit.

More importantly, these modifications on the Faraday design eliminated one of the biggest problems in any physical system – the reaction to every action. It is this reaction that works to cancel out whatever effort goes into causing the original action. In an electrical system if there are two turns of wire wound next to each other and a current is sent through the wire, the current passing through the first loop will set up a magnetic field that will work against the current passing through the second loop.

The spiral divisions in the disk cause the current to travel the full radius of the disk or, as in his alternative version of the generator, to make a full trip around the outside edge of the disk. Because the current is flowing in a large circle at the rim of the disk, the magnetic field created by the current not only does not work against the field magnet above the circular plate, as in conventional generators, but it actually reinforces the magnet. So as the disk cuts the magnetic lines to produce a current, the current coming off of the disk strengthens the magnet, allowing it to produce even more current.

Like conventional direct current generators, the unipolar dynamo also functions as a motor if current is put into the disk while under the magnet, and this seems to be the last element that could make the device self-sustaining, that is, capable of generating a current after being disconnected from an outside source of movement like falling water or steam.

Rotation is started by, say, a motor powered by line current. Both a generator and a motor disk are mounted in the magnetic enclosure. As the disks gain speed, current is produced which, in turn, reinforces the magnets, which cause more current to be generated. That current is, likely, first directed to the motor disk which increases the speed of the system. At a certain point the speed of the two disks is great enough that the magnetic field created by the current has the strength to keep the dynamo/motor going by itself.

What process might have kept the unipolar dynamo operating after the powered start-up is speculation at this point, however two features of the generator are significant. First, when a resistive load, like a light bulb is added to the circuit, it lowers the voltage at the center of the disk. This lower voltage at the center means that there is a greater difference in voltage between the center and the outside edge of the disk than there was before the light bulb was added. As the difference between the center and the outside increases, the dynamo works harder and makes more current. Second, yet more important, the dynamo takes either very little, or no energy to keep going because the current coming off the generator is doing double duty. The current makes the bulb glow, but on its way from the generator to the filament in the bulb, it travels a path that adds to the momentum of the dynamo and, therefore, consumes energy at a very low rate. The process continues , it would seem, until heat losses in the filament equal the rotational energy of the generator’s flywheel.

In terms of Elsasser’s criteria for a self-sustaining generator, the Tesla unipolar dynamo comes closest to satisfying the condition of a better electrical conductor. It is not that a new material is used, but a new geometry is applied so that the current does not create its own opposing forces. This is similar, but not equivalent, to having a better conductor.

Whether or not the dynamo is in fact a “fuelless” generator it appears to be an ingenious feat of engineering that takes one of the basic principles of nature, an equal and opposite action for every action, and turns it, by the use of a novel circuit geometry, into a reaction that is additive to the original action. Instead of the opposite reaction slowing down the system that created it, the reaction adds energy to the system.

Tesla, however, was not satisfied with his mechanical self-sustaining generator. The dynamo would provide the energy to run a single machine, but his vision was to light cities and in the 1900 Century magazine article he elaborated on the theory of such a machine.

Imagine, he suggested, an enclosed cylinder with a small hole in it near the bottom. Let us say that this cylinder, he added, contains very little energy but that it is placed in an environment that has a lot of energy. In this case, energy would flow from the outside environment, the high energy source, through the small opening at the bottom of the cylinder, and into the cylinder where there is less energy. Also suppose that as the energy passing into the cylinder is converted into another form of energy as, for example, heat is converted into mechanical energy in a steam engine. If it were possible to artificially produce such a “sink” for the energy of the ambient medium then “we should be enabled to get at any point of the globe a continuous supply of energy, day and night(8).”

He continued, in the article, to elaborate on his energy pump but changed the image slightly. On the surface of the earth we are at a high energy level and can imagine ourselves at the bottom of a lake with the water surrounding us equal to the energy in the surrounding medium. If a “sink” for the energy is to be created in the cylinder, it is necessary to replace the water that would flow into the tank with something much lighter than water. This could be done by pumping the water out of the cylinder, but when the water flowed back in, we would only be able to perform the same amount of work with the inflowing water as we did when it was first pumped out. “Consequently nothing would be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down.”

Energy, though, can be converted into different forms as it passes from a higher to a lower state. He said, “assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out of it without using any, or by using very little power(9).” For example, if the energy of the ambient medium is taken to be the water, oxygen and hydrogen making up the water are the other forms of energy into which it could change as it entered the cylinder.

Corresponding to this ideal case, all the water flowing into the tank would be decomposed into oxygen and hydrogen …and the result would be that the water would continually flow in, and yet the tank would remain entirely empty, the gases formed escaping. We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for…the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort(10).

Tesla recognized that no energy conversion system would be perfect, some water would always get into the tank, but “there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed [by the incoming water], and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium(11).”

He found that this pumping could be done with a piston “not connected to anything else, but was perfectly free to vibrate at an enormous rate(12).” This he was able to do with his “mechanical oscillator,” a steam-driven engine used for producing high frequency currents. The faster the pump would work, the more efficient it would be at extracting energy from the cosmos. Research along this line culminated in the oscillator demonstrated at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893. It was not until much later, in the 1900 article, he revealed: “On that occasion I exposed the principles of the mechanical oscillator, but the original purpose of this machine is explained here for the first time (13).”

It was also in 1893 that Tesla applied for a patent on an electrical coil that is the most likely candidate for a non-mechanical successor of his energy extractor. This is his “Coil for Electro-magnets,” patent #512,340. It is another curious design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one.

In the patent Tesla explains that this double coil will store many times the energy of a conventional coil(14). Preliminary measurements of two helices of the same size and with the same number of turns, one with a single, the other with a bifilar winding, show differences in voltage gain(15). In figure 6, the upper curve is from the Tesla design, the lower was produced by the single wound coil. The patent, however, gives no hint of what might have been its more unusual capability.

In the Century article Tesla compares extracting energy from the environment to the work of other scientists who were, at that time, learning to condense atmospheric gases into liquids. In particular he cited the work of a Dr. Karl Linde who had discovered what Tesla described as a “self-cooling” method for liquefying air. As Tesla said, “This was the only experimental proof which I was still wanting that energy was obtainable from the medium in the manner contemplated by me(16).”

What ties the Linde work with Tesla’s electromagnet coil is that both of them used a double path for the material they were working with. Linde had a compressor to pump the air to a high pressure, let the pressure fall as it traveled through a tube, and then used that cooled air to reduce the temperature of the incoming air by having it travel back up the first tube through a second tube enclosing the first(17). The already cooled air added to the cooling process of the machine and quickly condensed the gases to a liquid.

Tesla’s intent was to condense the energy trapped between the earth and its upper atmosphere and to turn it into an electric current. He pictured the sun as an immense ball of electricity, positively charged with a potential of some 200 billion volts. The earth, on the other hand, is charged with negative electricity. The tremendous electrical force between these two bodies constituted, at least in part, what he called cosmic energy. It varied from night to day and from season to season but it is always present.

The positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground, a distance of 60 miles, there is a large difference of voltage – something on the order of 360,000 volts. With the gases of the atmosphere acting as an insulator between these two opposite stores of electrical charges, the region between the ground and the edge of space traps a great deal of energy. Despite the large size of the planet, it is electrically like a capacitor which keeps positive and negative charges apart by using a non-conducting material as an insulator.

The earth has a charge of 90,000 coulombs. With a potential of 360,000 volts, the earth constitutes a capacitor of .25 farads (farads = coulombs/volts)(18). If the formula for calculating the energy stored in a capacitor (E = 1/2CV2) is applied to the earth, it turns out that the ambient medium contains 1.6 x 1011 joules or 4.5 megawatt-hours of electrical energy.

In order to tap this energy storehouse Tesla had to accomplish two things – make a “cold sink” in the ambient energy and devise a way of making the “sink” self-pumping. Explaining how this process might have worked requires, again, speculation.

Such a “sink” would have to be at a lower energy state than the surrounding medium and, for the energy to continually flow into it, the “sink” would have to maintain the lower energy state while meeting the power requirements of the load attached to it. Electrical energy, watt-seconds, is a product of volts x amps x seconds. Because the period of oscillation does not change, either voltage or current has to be the variable in the coil’s energy equation.

In that the double wound coil maximizes the voltage difference between its turns, it is probable that it is the current that is minimized to produce a low energy state in the coil. For the coil to be initially “empty” and at low energy would mean it operated at high voltage with a small amount of charge(19).

The coil, then, would be set into oscillation at its resonant frequency by an external power source. During a portion of its cycle the coil will appear to the earth’s electric field as one plate of a capacitor. As the voltage across the coil increases, the amount of charge it can “sink” from the earth’s higher energy field will increase.

The energy taken into the coil – through the “small opening” which appears to be the atomic structure of the conductor according to the physics of Tesla’s time – is “condensed” into positive and negative components of current, a lower energy state relative to the originating field.

The current is equivalent to the water converted to gases in Tesla’s description of the self-acting engine. The current would “escape” from the “sink” into whatever load was connected across the coil. The movement of current into the load would produce a strong magnetic field (the stated intention of the patent) which, when it collapsed, would, again, produce a high potential, low charge “sink” to couple with the earth’s electric field.

Because the inflowing energy performs a double function similar to the unipolar generator, supplying current to the load and aiding the pumping function, the system’s energy expenditure in moving charge is low, allowing the system to gain more energy from the medium than it expends in its operation. The coil needs no extra energy from an outside source to pump the energy it has extracted.

Energy would come directly from the sun.

A more modern view of such a device, should it prove to operate in this theoretical manner, would be to describe it as a self-oscillating capacitive system. Once the device is set into oscillation, very little power is expended in driving the load. Because it is an electrostatic oscillating system, only a small amount of charge moves through the load per cycle, that is, the coulomb per seconds = amps are low. If the charge is used at a low rate, the energy stored in the capacitive system will be turned into heat at a slow rate enabling the oscillations to continue for a long period of time.

With his prominent position in the world of science at the time, it is curious why Tesla’s invention was not commercialized or at least publicized more. Economics, not science, appear to have been the main factor. The adoption of alternating current was opposed by powerful financiers of the period. Michael Pupin, another leading electrical researcher at the turn of the century, noted in his autobiography:

…captains of industry…were afraid that they would have to scrap some of their direct current apparatus and the plants for manufacturing it, if the alternating current system received any support … ignorance and false notions prevailed in the early nineties, because the captains of industry paid small attention to highly trained scientists (20)(21).

Tesla’s patents for electrical generators and motors were granted in the late 1880’s. During the 1890’s the large electric power industry, in the form of Westinghouse and General Electric, came into being. With tens of millions of dollars invested in plants and equipment, the industry was not about to abandon a very profitable ten year old technology for yet another new one.

Tesla saw that profits could be made from the self-acting generator, but somewhere along the line he had pointed out to him the negative impact the device would have. At the end of the section in Century where he described his new generator he wrote:

I worked for a long time fully convinced that the practical realization of the method of obtaining energy from the sun would be of incalculable industrial value, but the continued study of the subject revealed the fact that while it will be commercially profitable if my expectations are well founded, it will not be so to an extraordinary degree(22) .

Years later, in 1933, he was more pointed in his remarks about the introduction of his fuelless generator. In the Philadelphia Public Ledger of November 2nd, is an interview with Tesla under the headline “Tesla ‘Harnesses’ Cosmic Energy.” In it he was “Asked whether the sudden introduction of his principle would upset the present economic system, Dr. Tesla replied, ‘It is badly upset already.’ He added that now as never before was the time ripe for the development of new resources.”

It has been nearly a century since Nikola Tesla claimed a radically new method for producing electricity. The need for the development of new resources is greater now than at the end of the last century. Perhaps these overlooked inventions will make his vision of “increasing human energy through the use of the sun’s energy” become a reality.

Source

One of the inventions based on Tesla’s technolgy was ” the Hendershot generator”:

1900 to 1950

In 1900, Nikola Tesla claimed to have discovered an abstract principle on which to base a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. No prototype was produced. He wrote:

A departure from known methods – possibility of a “self-acting” engine or machine, inanimate, yet capable, like a living being, of deriving energy from the medium – the ideal way of obtaining motive power.[13]

By 1903, 600 English perpetual motion patents had been granted.[citation needed] A design patented in the early years of the 20th century involved a cable projecting 150 miles into the sky to induce electricity (technology at the time would limit its usefulness, as it weighed 80 tons) and to be held up by the aether.[14][clarification needed]

In the 1910s and 1920s, Harry Perrigo of Kansas City, Missouri, a graduate of MIT, claimed development of a free energy device.[15] Perrigo claimed the energy source was “from thin air” or from aether waves. Perrigo demonstrated the device before the Congress of the United States on December 15, 1917. Perrigo had a pending application[16] for the “Improvement in Method and Apparatus for Accumulating and Transforming Ether Electric Energy”. Investigators report that his device contained a hidden motor battery.[17]

Popular Science, in the October 1920 issue, published an article on the lure of perpetual motion.[18]

In 1917, John Andrews, a Portuguese chemist, had a green powder which he claimed and demonstrated could transform water into gas (referred to as a “gas-water additive”).[citation needed][clarification needed] He reportedly convinced a Navy official that it worked. Andrews disappeared after negotiations began. Andrews’ laboratory was rummaged through and disheveled upon a return visit by United States Navy officials.[clarification needed] Also in 1917, Garabed T. K. Giragossian is claimed, reportedly fraudulently, to have developed a free energy machine.[citation needed] Supposedly involved in a conspiracy, Woodrow Wilson signed a resolution offering him protection. The device was a giant flywheel that was charged up with energy slowly and put out a large amount of energy for just a second.[citation needed]

A series of designs were developed in the 1920s. During this period, Thomas Henry Moray demonstrated a “radiant energy device” to many people who were unable to find a hidden power source. On June 9, 1925, Hermann Plauson received U.S. Patent 1,540,998 which utilizes atmospheric energy. In 1928, Lester Hendershot got an Army commandant to endorse his free energy machine called the “fuelless motor”. At the close of the 1920s, Edgar Cayce in Chicago, Illinois, described “Motors with no Fuel” (Reading 4665–1; March 8, 1928).[citation needed]

Source

Little description about Lester Hendershot:

Lester Hendershot (1899-1960) was the inventor of the so-called Fuelless Motor (1928). In the 1920’s Lester Hendershot was working on a new type of aviation compass. He stumbled across a method of generating energy. His “Hendershot magnetic motor” drew attention of the press and attracted big name investors as Charles Lindberg. He got into political trouble promoting his device and consequently tried to take his business to Mexico. He is reported to have accepted an offer he couldn’t refuse being paid never to work on his device again.

In 1961 Dr. Ed Skilling, from Columbia University, successfully built and tested a Hendershot free energy device, out of which he got 300 watts. Skilling had been associated with Hendershot and learned of the device through him. The generator was self-resonant at 500 kHz.

The Machine

 

Not claiming his device to be a perpetuum mobile explained he that it was tapping the earth’s magnetic field and rotation as its energy source. The Hendershot Device concerns a self-running oscillator. There are a pair of large air-core coils positioned in a “basket weave” pattern, hand-made cylindrical capacitors inside the coils, several high-value capacitors, a couple of standard transformers and a permanent-magnet “buzzer” for a regulator. The two large coils are tuned to resonate with each other. The device generated an AC output and was capable of lighting a bank of lightbulbs.

Witnesses

Oldest Son

“As the oldest son of Lester J Hendershot I witnessed the works of my father.” (Posted in 2008?) [1]

Career

Only Hendershot could adjust his device for successful operation. Hendershot’s son attempted to reproduce his father’s discovery, but no success has been reported.

Quotes about Hendershot:

“In 1960, Hendershot’s device (now called a ‘magnatronic generator’) was researched by the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research. The generator was reported to have lit a 100-watt lamp by ‘induced radio frequency energy’. The project ended when Hendershot committed suicide.” from:Tremendous new Power Soon to be released’ by Doug Yurchey (2002)

“Two historical events are worth including here regarding possible suppression and inability to commercialize Free Energy devices. These are the Over-Unity Device of T. Henry Moray (Resines, 1988), and the Hendershot Motor (Brown, 1988). Both of these devices were publicly demonstrated to the US press in the 1930s, and carefully conducted tests were made to assess these devices. From the newspaper reports and clippings, it appears that both devices passed all tests, only to fall into oblivion. What exactly happened to the devices, their inventors, and the technology is not known. It also appears that the secrets of the devices died with their inventors.” From “A Review Of Zero Point Energy And Free Energy Theory, Progress, And Devices” by Patrick C. Baily. (1992)

“Hendershot ran into political difficulties in promoting his device, attempted to take his business to Mexico, and finally faded into obscurity.” Bill Beaty of KeelyNet.

Source

Here is the video about The Hendershot Generator:

 

So there you have the first post of the series… and stay tuned for more FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!

What retired vaccine researcher said about vaccines

I found this report where retired vaccine researcher tells his story about vaccines and it isn’t nice to read. Here it goes:

 Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport:
“If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination.”

[Editor’s Note: This interview was posted by Jon Rappoport in early January 2002. You will discover by reading it that the very issues we now face of FORCED vaccination of a laboratory-created vaccine to “protect” us against a laboratory-created “disease” (Swine Flu, Bird flu, etc.) was set into motion a long time ago. The vaccine researcher quoted here flat out says that the World Homicide Organization, WHO, is driven by a DEPOPULATION agenda, and that many African leaders know full well that the explosive spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa was caused by WHO-sponsored vaccinations of the 1970s. This former pharmaceutical insider also debunks the widespread ASSUMPTIONS of vaccine “safety” promoted by orthodox medicine, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, state health departments, and their compliant media propagandists who are all parroting SUPERSTITIONS, rather than FACTS. ..Ken Adachi]

From Jon Rappoport (www.nomorefakenews.com)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/rappoportinterviewvaccineresearcherjan2002.shtml
January 2002

Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport: If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination.” (Aug. 6, 2009)

Jon Rappoport (Q) Interviews a Retired Vaccine Researcher (A) (given the pseudonym of “Dr. Mark Randall”)

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won’t say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don’t matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was “part of the inner circle.” If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall “brilliance” of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It’s one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don’t contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases — say, meningitis — that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that’s not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I’m talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors — that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don’t know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time — which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I’m just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don’t find because we don’t think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn’t work that way. A vaccine is supposed to “create” antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related “killer cells.”

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It’s all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you’ve concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it’s circular reasoning. It’s a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It’s discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with “guilt by association.” All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn’t create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles — is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from “unknown causes,” and that’s why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair’s wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his “personal and family life.” In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don’t need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers — a few — might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I’ll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn’t get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is “appear.” What about all the children who can’t focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don’t get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person’s responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.


Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was “disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines.”

As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark has been one of my sources.

He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory — with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings — he has decided to break his silence.

He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.

Jon Rappoport

Source

 

 

Then I post some latest new concidering about how they use Africa to test these killervaccines:

Vaccine Injured Children In Small African Village Used Like Lab Rats And Left To Die


Children vaccinated in Africa were severely harmed by vaccines.

Revealed Government Documents Show Vaccine Injured Children in Small African Village Used Like Lab Rats (Vactruth, May 19, 2013):

In December 2012, vaccine tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, Chad, Africa, situated on the edge of the Sahara Desert. Five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third and fourth phases of testing.

Within hours, one hundred six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. The children’s wait for a doctor began. They had to wait one full week for a doctor to arrive while the team of vaccinators just carried on vaccinating others from the village. More children became sick.

When the doctor finally came, he could do nothing for the children. The team of vaccinators, upon seeing what had happened, fled the village in fear.

Fifty children were finally transferred to a hospital in Faya and later taken by plane to two hospitals in N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad. After being shuttled around like cattle, these sick, weak children were dumped back in their village without a diagnosis and each family was given an unconfirmed sum of £1000 by the government. No forms were signed and no documentation was seen. They were informed that their children had not suffered a vaccine injury. However, if this were true, why would their government award each family £1000 in what has been described as hush money?

Interestingly, during the time the children spent in the hospital, two more children joined them from another village.

To read the full stories of this tragedy, please see references at the end of this article from previous Vactruth world-exclusive reports. [1,2,3,4]

Since this time, Vactruth has been passed a series of secret documents, which fill in some missing gaps in this story and expose just how corrupt the organizations behind this tragedy really are.

The Exclusive, Heartbreaking Details

On January 14, 2013, arrangements were made for seven female patients between the ages of 8-18 to be evacuated from the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN)  in N’Djamena and transferred by air to a clinic in Tunisia. This was scheduled to take place between January 16 and 22.

The documents in our possession state that the Chadian government arranged for the patients to be accompanied by Dr. Joseph Mad-Toingue, Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of the National General Referral Hospital; Dr. Moumar Mbaileyo, anesthesiologist employee of the National General Referral Hospital; and Mr. Dihoulne Kakiang, state-certified nurse, employee of the National General Referral Hospital.

On January 29, 2013, a letter passed between The Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of HGRN-N’Djaména and Mr. Director General of the National General Referral Hospital, stating:

“Mr. Director General,

Herewith I have the honor of putting into your hands the report of the mission completed in Tunisia between 15 and 22 of January 2013 regarding the medical evacuation of 7 patients.

The Chief of Service.”

Vactruth now has this report.

A Parent’s Worst Nightmare

The report states that seven female patients between the ages of 8 and 18 had suffered adverse reactions after receiving the meningitis A vaccination during a national campaign, which took place on December 11, 2012, for the prevention of this illness. These patients had originally been taken to the Regional Hospital of Faya, before being transferred on December 26, 2012, to the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN) in N’Djamena.

Arrangements were later made for a medical evacuation to transfer these patients to Tunisia for further tests and treatment.

According to the report, the departure took place in N’Djaména on January 15, 2013, at 10:50 pm after a long wait at the Hassan airport in N’Djamena because of the late arrival of the plane.

The journey took place on board a Tunisian plane chartered by the International Medical Society (SMEDI). The party consisted of seven patients, three members of the medical team and seven parents (two men and five women) who accompanied the sick children.

Interestingly, the document states that the party did not fly alone.

The government report states that twenty other passengers traveling to Tunisia for the same reason (medical evacuation) also joined the party. Sadly, there were no further details on these patients in the report.

Were these patients also vaccine-damaged by the meningitis A vaccination, and where did these twenty other sick patients come from?

Just before the plane took off, an 18 year-old patient had what the report describes as a ‘shaking episode,’ and was given a 10 mg vial of diazepam before boarding the plane. Other than this incident, the flight went well.

The Specialists Say “Case Closed”

The group arrived in Tunisia on January 16, 2013, and was received by SMEDI agents who took care of the police formalities (entry visa) before dividing the group into three parties. The patients were transported by ambulance to the clinic, the medical staff was taken to a hotel, and the patients’ parents were taken to a center.

On the afternoon of January 16, the three medical staff were introduced to SMEDI’s Director General, M. Ghazi Mejbri, to get acquainted. This was followed by a work session with the medical coordinator, Dr. Folla Amara. In the course of this meeting, the condition of the patients was discussed and plans were arranged for their care.

The patients were taken to the neurological department of SMEDI’s La Sourka clinic. The clinic had received the children’s medical records in advance and was reported to have conducted their own clinical and biological tests on the patients before meeting with the medical team that had accompanied them.

On January 17, a meeting took place with Professor Rachid Namai (“chef de clinique”), Dr. Kefi and Dr. Mabet. It was concluded that the children’s ‘shaking attacks’ or convulsions were of no consequence. On the paraclinical level, the report stated that the liquor tests of five patients did not reveal any anomalies, nor did the EEG of six patients.

The EEG of the seventh patient showed minor anomalies in the immediate post-critical phase, but was reported to have stabilized. An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was to take place of all seven patients. After the meeting, the team visited the patients who were all reported to be well, except for one child who had developed tonsillitis and had to receive appropriate treatment.

On January 19, a second meeting took place at the La Soukra Clinic during which they examined the patients’ medical records that gave the results of all the medical tests that had taken place. Among the biological perturbations there was reported to be one case of persistent thrombopenia (a lower than normal number of blood cell fragments called platelets), two cases of of elevated immunoglobulines E (Ig E) and five cases of gram negative bacteria directly upon examination — culturing has not been contributory.

The report stated that, generally speaking, the patients showed a raised tendency for hypoalbuminemia (swelling), hypo creatininemia (renal dysfunction), and hyper glucorrhagia (no definition found).

The MRI results showed no anomalies, and the HIV and hepatitis serologies were negative. The medical team found the children’s health to be satisfactory. The report states that the children had no infectious cause for their illness and the hypothesis of an immuno-allergic reaction was deemed to be more probable.

At this point, it was decided to close the investigation due to the advice from specialists and followed up with epidemiological and pharmacodynamical studies.

No Reason For Concern?

On January 21, the mission members visited the clinic at La Soukra for a last time. They found all patients waiting for their stay to end. The report states that a short meeting took place with the chief of service who promised to give his medical report shortly. The mission ended with a visit to the Dr. Naoui Mohamed Néjib’s laboratory where the biological tests of all the patients had been performed.

The mission members left Tunisia on January 22, 2013, around 2:00 pm and arrived in N’Djaména at 4:00 pm.

They concluded that the medical evacuation to Tunisia had given them the opportunity to investigate more thoroughly seven patients who had developed post-vaccination reactions during the national vaccination campaign against meningitis.

It was stated that, generally speaking, the clinical state of the patients did not give any reasons for concern and that the paraclinical balance of the majority did not show major perturbations.

The mission was deemed a success.

The report was signed by Dr. Joseph Mad-Toïngé in N’Djaména on January 28, 2013.

Determined Parents Won’t Give Up

The parents tell a very, very different story. According to parents and relatives, these children were locked into their school, threatened with no education and forcibly vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge.

They state that the children are still desperately ill and that they have no way of getting any medical care. After the mission, they were left in Faya and had to make their own way back to the village.

The children are still suffering severe convulsions. One relative told me:

“The children drop suddenly to the ground and shake violently before going paralyzed. We do not know what is wrong and we want answers. No one will help us. Our children were well and fit, we have never had meningitis in our area, so why did they vaccinate our children with this vaccination?

Our children have since become aggressive in their behavior and have a rash all over their bodies. They are having terrible frightening convulsions. Why won’t anyone help us?”

I have been informed that the parents have formed an activist group to put out their plea to the world.

Unanswered Questions

The parents ask:

Were the vaccines used on our children out-of-date?

Had some of the batches used been spoiled in the heat?

Did the vaccinators vaccinate our children inadvertently with an unsafe product?

Was the maximum duration of four days without refrigeration respected and adhered to?

Were the vaccinators adequately trained?

They state:

“All this disturbs us and makes us fear the worst effects for the future. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes and what the Minister of Health, the organizations involved with the tragedy (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH WHO, MVP and UNICEF) are saying or are going to do. As parents, our priority is to get back the health our children. We feel that it is very sad that [our] entire city is paralyzed and is suffering from epilepsy. We were hoping that our government would make a stand and save our children but it has so far failed to do so. Therefore we call assistance for everyone in the world to intervene.

Our needs as listed below:

  • A health specialist, an organization or an individual to assist the sick children, who are innocent victims and help them to get their health back.
  • Human rights organization or an individual lawyer who could help the parents association with legal issues and get justice for the children against the Chad government, WHO, MVP, PATH, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Indian company Serum Institute of India Ltd.
  • Parents need independent and freelance journalists to help them to get media coverage and tell the world what has happened to the children of Gouro, Chad.”

Conclusion

The parents’ requests are simple and the same as any other parent left in this impossible situation. They feel deserted and betrayed by the Chadian government, who have left their children to die, while at the same time announcing the vaccination program to be a success. All the parents are very angry and are pleading with the world to help. They state they need lawyers, doctors, medication and above all, support.

This whole debacle has been a coverup from the very beginning. One of the children’s relatives has told me that there has never been a case of meningitis in this part of Africa. So, why vaccinate children needlessly for a disease that does not exist in this area? Worse still, according to my source, this particular part of Chad is not even on the meningitis belt, and yet this vaccine was given to these children. He could be right, as according to a map attributed to the Gates Foundation, it is not. [5]

The abnormal tests demonstrate that the vaccines caused these problems (especially the abnormal immunoglobin levels).  Had the doctors done more specific tests proving vaccine damage (especially anti-myelin antibodies), they would have found abnormal levels, which indicate vaccine injury. Did they avoid doing these tests on purpose?

It seems very likely that these children, who are now sick and vulnerable, were used as lab rats and have since been left to die by some of the biggest organizations known to mankind. Five months have passed and a lot of covering up the truth has gone on and still, the world waits for answers. The children of Gouro and their parents want the following organizations –  PATH, WHO, UNICEF,  and the Gates Foundation — to make a public apology and to own up to what has happened. They want and need accountability.

This is a violation of the Nuremberg code and these government “officials” are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Source

I just want to wake up people to think before they take vaccines, because lately there has been too many these kind of cases. I once thought that vaccines are good for mankind, but now I’m not so sure anymore.