Interview 1463 – New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato

07/18/201950 Comments

Welcome back to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / Odysee / YouTube or Download the mp4

Story #1: House Orders Pentagon to Say If It Weaponized Ticks and Released Them

‘Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons’

‘Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory’

Search: “Plum Island”

Episode 356 – Top 5 “Conspiracy Theories” That Turned Out To Be True

Episode 111 – A Brief History of Biowarfare

Requiem for the Suicided: Dr. David Kelly

Story #2: Scientists Find "Man-Made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Winter Monsoons Became Stronger During Geomagnetic Reversal; Revealing the Impact of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate


Interview 255 – Dr. Richard Lindzen

UN Warning: Just 3 YEARS Left to Save the Earth!

Just 96 Months to Save World, Says Prince Charles (2009)

Prince Charles Exclusive: We Have 35 Months to Tackle Climate Change (2015)

“Next 18 Months Will Decide” Climate Change Success – Prince Charles (2019)

“Why Does the Sun Shine?”

Story #3: FBI To Ramp Up Social Media Surveillance

PDF: “Social Media Alerting”

Episode 332 – The Weaponization of Social Media

300 Californian Cities Secretly Have Access to Palantir

Armies of Fake Accounts “Ruined” Twitter in the Middle East

Leaked Images Show US-Backed MKO Terrorist Social Media Operations Against Iran

You can help support our independent and non-commercial work by visiting & Thank You.

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (50)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HomeRemedySupply says:

    News such as Lyme Disease, Epstein, etc. coming out in the Main Stream.

    I strongly believe that stories such as these are coming out primarily because of the alternative media, activists and those who are aware…and it may even be an indirect result of activism dating back to 2005, 2006.
    Stories such as these are more readily accepted than they once were a decade ago.

    I know we have an effect.
    After many, many events of local activism, I have seen how awareness has spread in my neck of the woods over the years.

    Let’s keep getting the word out.

  2. cooly says:

    Re: weaponized ticks

    I just go on the assumption that anything you can imagine, or dream up while under the influence of 10 grams of mushrooms, they already have.

  3. manbearpig says:

    Loved this episode. I’ve already sent the “Man-made climate change doesn’t exist in practice” articles to my Mechanics of fluids/Climate change physicist neighbor for…feedback…

    and I remembered Truthstream Media had done a thing about LYme’s disease:

  4. pearl says:

    My goodness, I was so creeped out by all the tick footage, the only thing I heard was something about the Pentagon experimenting with plums and limes?

    I mentioned some time ago my family’s brush with a terminal, insect-borne illness, namely chagas disease (we lost two puppies to it). Researching that is what opened my eyes to weaponized insects (not saying the kissing bug that carries chagas is being weaponized, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out they were). Regarding Lyme, the only reason I can think of that Congress gives a sh** is that Martha’s Vineyard is quite infested with the debilitating blood suckers (other than themselves).

    At long last, JP trimmed his beard! He’s handsome again! Yay!!

  5. Stronghorse says:

    Government, or any part thereof, investigating itself?
    Me thinks that is similar to a mouse running up an elephant’s leg, with rape on it’s mind.
    The same results, in both cases, is the likely outcome.
    Or I’m wrong, and Bullfrogs really can fly.

  6. mikensd says:

    Concerning the climate change segment: May I interject a little sanity?

    Suppose you are diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. Would you treat it? What if you discovered that the cancer was due to natural causes, not by inhaling coal dust for forty years working in a mine (ie: it was NOT due to anthropogenic causes). Would you say, “Doc, this cancer was not ‘man-made’. Take this IV out of my arm!”? Of course not! It doesn’t matter in the least what the origin of the cancer was; it needs to be treated if you want to try and maintain your health. (that is to say, if you want to maintain your ‘internal environment’ in a state that is conducive to health)

    The same goes for climate change. We evolved in a range of environmental conditions, and we are slipping out of that range. That is, the climate is changing in ways that we must either deal with, go extinct, or experience a severe population crash. As you said, James, no one is looking at the data in a rational way, and that includes you. It makes no difference what is causing climate change, only whether we can adapt to it or not. And there is a MASSIVE amount of empirical evidence that we need to confront the situation head on with much urgency. Just look at this evidence, and try to stop being political about the topic. I think that is what needs to happen, regardless of where anyone’s perceived interests lie. CO2 levels have never risen even remotely this fast, and it is the rate of change that is most of the problem. Species go extinct b/c they cannot adapt fast enough to environmental changes – and we’re only talking about natural changes until humankind came down the pike. Who cares why the changes took place? Either way, we need to take action, now. Ignoring the situation b/c it is not man made, which seems to be the implication of this whole argument to begin with, and always has been, is short-sighted and foolhardy to say the least.

    • manbearpig says:

      First of all, the following statement is, I believe, what’s known as a “strawman argument”:

      “Ignoring the situation b/c it is not man made, which seems to be the implication of this whole argument to begin with, and always has been, is short-sighted and foolhardy to say the least.”

      Nobody, and certainly not most so-called climate skeptics or Mr Corbett, is advocating ignoring the situation.

      “Suppose you are diagnosed with stage four lung cancer…It doesn’t matter in the least what the origin of the cancer was, it needs to be treated if you want to try and maintain your health”

      Telling you it was probably caused by the colour of the ink on the package of cigarettes you used to smoke and hooking up a morphine UV to attenuate the uncomfortable symptoms

      isn’t gonna help you find an effective treatment for dealing with it (supposing you could even rival the other massive forces involved in its creation. (Climate change is not lung cancer)

      If you’re trying to diagnose a lung disease and you keep insisting on the colour of the patient’s toe nails explaining that the machines used to diagnose toe fungus are the most powerful diagnostic machines at your disposal

      isn’t gonna be very helpful either.

      Trying to understand the nature of and adapting to changing climate is quite a different matter than politicizing, instrumentalizing and completely misrepresenting some possible symptom of the phenomenon and its causes

      which will prevent anyone and everyone from taking any sort of effective action.

      Do you want want self-serving agenda-driven liars curing your lung cancer?

      If so, I’d say that’s insanity.

      • Collin says:

        cancer, is it;

        Trying to understand the nature of and adapting to changing climate is quite a different matter than politicizing, instrumentalizing and completely misrepresenting some possible symptom of the phenomenon and its causes

        consider the preceding;

        “Suppose you are diagnosed with stage four lung cancer…It doesn’t matter in the least what the origin of the cancer was, it needs to be treated if you want to try and maintain your health”

        back in late 70s i came to realise cancer was a condition and now 40 years later the ‘disease – kill’ outlook is still pushed & accepted by so many.

        Of the many, many people Ty Bollinger has interviewed over the years since his Truth about Cancer Series, none have spouted the allopathic myopia ‘kill the disease’ so to talk of treating a disease is little more than perpetuating the misdirection of the disease/drug focus.

        • manbearpig says:

          “…to talk of treating a disease is little more than perpetuating the misdirection of the disease/drug focus.”


          So, you’re saying we can take my quote and replace the term climate change” with the term “cancer”?

          “Trying to understand the nature of and adapting to CANCER is quite a different matter than politicizing, instrumentalizing and completely misrepresenting some possible symptom of the phenomenon and its causes…”

          Though my two grandmothers reportedly died of cancer, and though I once took a very very interesting course at UMass called “The Biology of Cancer and AIDS” taught by a certain Alby Reiner, who communicated on some pretty way-out-there alternative treatments for cancer (via a few cured guests)

          I can’t say I know much of anything about cancer.

          As you probably noticed, the cancer analogy was brought into the climate debate by mikensd above to whom I was responding.

          Thanks for the Ty Bollinger tip though, I may try to have a look at it.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      mikensd says: “… CO2 levels have never risen even remotely this fast, and it is the rate of change that is most of the problem….”

      For me, it is extremely obvious that the most pressing environmental issue is the growing cesspool of manmade toxic chemicals which we are now drinking, eating, breathing and destroying the planet with.
      From fracking chemicals to the Teflon-like perfluorinated carbons to phthalates and bisphenols to pesticides to Beyond Meat synthetics, we are in a heap of trouble.

      As far as the CO2 issue, it is a propaganda design.
      CO2 is a deflection.
      CO2 is absolutely nothing to worry about unless you hold your breath too long.
      It is part of the rigged game to take eyes off the corporate chemical pollutants.

      CO2 is the boogeyman (manbearpig) that ushers in the eugenic-minded Technocrats.
      And the Technocrats are already here.
      I don’t think many people even understand this new carbon-trading scheme, even the designers. It is a racket. A scam.

      On July 14th, I read this Bloomberg article.
      Geez! The ol’ carbon con game. Al Gore and his ManBearPig (See Southpark episode)
      “– Climate Changed — Exxon’s Loss In a Court Case in Europe May Be a Gain for Carbon Market”
      Exxon Mobil Corp.’s loss in a court case in Europe may translate into a gain for carbon prices in the continent’s emissions trading system.

      The European Union’s Court of Justice ruled that part of Exxon’s natural gas processing plant in Germany should be classified as an electricity generator, a decision that could result in a cut to its allocation of free pollution rights. Since 2013, utilities have to buy permits to pump out carbon dioxide while other industries get some or all of theirs for free…

      The ruling may drive up the cost of carbon, already trading at an 11-year high, depending on how nations react

      …Carbon has jumped more than five-fold since May 2017, buoyed by EU regulations to reduce a surplus that had depressed prices for years. Reduced allocations of free allowances may mean more companies have to buy permits in the market….

    • Octium says:

      There is nothing sane or rational about panicking over the effects of C02 if C02 not the dominant cause for warming. Dominant is the key word.

      If cosmic rays effect the climate so much, the rational thing to do would be to try and predict the trend of cosmic rays and then make a decision. It may turn out that the trend predicts a new ice age – in which case the last thing you want to do is cut back on greenhouse gases!

      • mik says:

        “…the most pressing environmental issue is the growing cesspool of manmade toxic chemicals which we are now drinking, eating, breathing and destroying the planet with.”


        At the same time it is the issue rarely discussed.

        Nice example are various devices used to protect against mosquitoes. Majority of people thinks they repel them with smell they produce. No, active ingredient is poison, more precise, nerve poison.

        • mik says:

          Another alarming environmental issue: Groundwater and its unsustainable usage in agriculture.

          Pumped Dry: The Global Crisis of Vanishing Groundwater

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          You are right. That DEET is a toxic hydrocarbon which can lead to damage of the nervous system, among other health issues.

          SIMPLE HOMEMADE BUG REPELLANT for deep woods.
          When I am crawling around in the dark shadow of the brush and woods, especially near a creek bottom, I often will do this…

          Get an old sock.
          Mix 50% cinnamon powder with 50% corn starch.
          Place the mix in the sock.

          Prior to going out into the brush, slap that filled sock against the body, arms, ankles, shoes, clothing, wherever.
          A puffy cloud of soothing corn starch and cinnamon will cover the body areas.

          This repels all kinds of bugs. (Mosquitoes, chiggers, ants, wasps, etc.)

          One hot, humid Texas summer, I was at the bottom of a shadowed, brushy creek bed digging up bamboo for transplanting. Sweating like a dog. Exhaling lots of CO2, which of course attracts mosquitoes. After lots of digging, I stopped to catch my breath.

          No exaggeration here…
          I look down near my body, and dang! There were about 100 or more mosquitoes all swarming around me.
          Not one bite that day.
          I had previously covered my body and hair with the mix.

          Of course the mix is a light brown. Add in sweat, and a person looks like Rambo.

          • mkey says:

            You mention CO2, I didn’t know that was a factor around mosquitos. It’s been decades now mosquitos have avoided taking a stab at me. Granted, I don’t live in a mosquito profuse area, but on many, an occasion people around me would get nicely chomped on, while I would get a free pass.

            I’m also pretty sure I don’t sweat corn starch and cinnamon.

            The last time one bit me was some days ago when I came back from a swim in the sea. She didn’t get much of my blood, though. I can’t remember what was the last time before that, I’m pretty certain it’s been a few years.

            From my observations and deduction, I estimated body temperature plays a role. Since I’m a bit cooler than the average, maybe their receptors are simply not picking up on my presence.

    • mik says:


      “… MASSIVE amount of empirical evidence that we need to confront the situation …”

      Looks like you missed James’ massive opus regarding climate-whatever where he dissects evidence. I’m strongly recommending you to fill the gap in your knowledge.

  7. manbearpig says:


    “…curing your lung cancer”

    Should be

    “…diagnosing and treating your lung cancer”?

    (especially with radical anti-fungal toe ointment that might even worsen your condition??)


  8. Peripatêtikos says:

    The blatant lie behind anthropogenic climate change (aka Original Sin) is that it lacks anything remotely resembling a valid hypothesis. The positing of human influence over climate can never be tested against a control, hence all attempts to “measure,” to make declarations and forecasts are not even wrong. The Finnish researcher’s summary statement of findings also fails in this regard. It really means nothing, except that maybe his funding is secure and doesn’t rely on his toeing the party line.

    An illustrative Socratic inquiry might go:

    I wonder how anyone can know what the climate would have been without human influence?

    I suggest, if you want to put this question out there in a social setting, take no position, make no assertions — that’s the Socratic part. But do make sure the question is clearly understood, and re-ask if need be. Never waiver. A simple question demands a simple answer.

    Like any threat to deeply held beliefs, to blind faith, to the needy truthism and mass addiction to virtue-signalling that are characteristic of our time, such a diabolically detached inquiry will result in visible cog-dis. One should be ready.

    A knee-jerk response is Tactical Agnosticism: “Oh, no one can really ever know anything.” (Often followed by Tactical Nihilism: “Oh, nothing matters anyway. Who cares.” Noam Chomsky responded to 9/11 questions in just this manner.)

    But otherwise, an abstract, non-scientific, anti-logical and probably very emotional and maybe even ad hominem reaction is sure to follow. (See for example the poorly crafted ethical “dilemma” from the commenter above, relying upon facts not in evidence to present a tautological personal belief as “truth” within a lesser-of-two-evils argument. Virtue-signalling is a form of poverty.)

    The fact that Anthropogenic Clime Change IS an ideological construction goes without saying, but needn’t be emphasized in friendly conversation. Socrates didn’t earn his reputation as a teacher by rubbing peoples’ noses in it, because there (Athens, Samos, the Academy, what have you), the common ground was the quest for truth, for understanding, for knowledge. And since your average normy discussion partner is unschooled in logic — and very likely writhing 24-7 in thrall to a manipulative, top-down ideology — the Socratic demand that the issue stand up to the first tier of logical rigor adequately exposes the lie.

    • manbearpig says:

      Well thanks Peripatêtikos for those extremely enlightened and interesting remarks and advice!

      I sure never would’ve made the debate team and

      the elegance of such a cool minimalistic demonstration is extremely attractive to me…

      So please help my average mind through this Socratic maze.

      “I wonder how anyone can know what the climate would have been without human influence?”

      I mean, wouldn’t someone just argue: “through testing and deduction even in the absence of a control group? Indeed”, (they would argue),

      “we owe it to the future of the human race to try to find a way to deduce the effects of human activity on climate by amassing what we think we know about the dynamics of climate (such as atmospheric green-house gasses trap heat and warm the surface of the planet) and then try to discover what aspect of human behavior might impact that dynamic (such as pumping more or less objectively large quantities of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere)?”

      Doesn’t such a perspective seem reasonable?

      Even though there is no proof that the increased quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in any additional warming than what would’ve happened without it

      and even though the “experts” entrusted with establishing compelling arguements have been found to manifest a very strong unsupported bias
      (the very mission of the IPCC itself skewing any conclusions away from objectivity)

      you’re still propulsed into a scientific discussion that risks winding up at the layman’s impasse with a “let the scientific experts hash it out”??

      The most effective recourse I’ve found to date is when laypeople get really worked up about man’s responsability in the role of climate change I simply ask them what the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is and the vast majority of the time they don’t know.

      When I tell them what it is and point out that it’s a shame that people have such adamantly profound convictions on such a subject without having the slightest grasp of the very most basic dynamics of the problem they’re trying to combat (let alone trying to more humbly and pragmatically adapt to)

      they are at least destabilized

      at which point I strike: by strongly advising they watch Svensmark’s “The Cloud Mystery”

      so they can at least appreciate A: how incredibly fascinating and complex the dynamics of climate change are and B: how political and thus emotionally wrought and confused the subject has become.

      I quite agree that your approach is the most logically sound one,

      I’m just afraid the response will be that A: they are not specialists and B: in the image of David Suzuki sophistry, that we must uncritically act according to the decrees of institutionalized climate experts.

      • Peripatêtikos says:

        What follows “Indeed, we owe it to the future ….” is ideology, to be expected. It is reducible to “I know I’m right because I’m right.” (Like the above commenters’ humble appeal to “sanity” or earnestly pasted links to “crisis” vids, it reminds me of a festering national politician who once launched a gust of bloviation with, “Okay, let’s put aside all the B.S.” What followed was, predictably, purely ideological.)

        Without a control, the method of reasoning in support of the unsupportable is at best inductive, not deductive. Your interlocutor will likely not appreciate the difference. You may as well say “Post hoc ergo propter hoc,” and wait for the crickets.

        The point here is not to second guess science, or to even convince someone of some thing.

        Destabilizing specious reasoning — not the opinion — seems a step in the right direction, however.

        The core question is one of knowledge (epistemology): How can we be sure we actually know what we say and think we know? There are, thankfully, tools designed to address this question.

        Any person is in theory capable of sound reasoning, independent thought, etc., and thus everyone is potential threat to those who wish to blinker and control, as well as an enemy or “other” to those under the spell. Remember what happened to Socrates.

        So, if the goal is to enlighten, profitable discussion requires the absolute simplest approach, the simplest response. (See William of Occam.)

        “I don’t know” is a valid and honest reply, and no one ever died or became ill for making such an admission.

        It may be best to listen politely while they blow their spout, thus failing or refusing to answer the question. Then you might simply shake your head and restate it, admitting that you yourself don’t know the answer. Leave them to stew.

    • cooly says:


      Never waiver. A simple question demands a simple answer.

      That’s going in my Rolodex. I admire the logic and clarity of your comments.

      As to Chomsky- I had read a few of his books and watched some lectures, and have to admit that I was falling into the Chomsky Cult to a certain extent. When I saw his comments about 9-11, I came to a screeching stop.
      “Who cares?” Really Chomsky? That was clearly a tactical response. When a “leading intellectual” considers such a huge event off-limits, one cannot look at that person the same way again.

      • Peripatêtikos says:

        Speaking of Chomsky in this regard, many, many people, those with even a fraction of his cheese-box capacity, are capable of sound reasoning. He points out, in an attack on “Critical Theory” as a so-called discipline, that Lacan is a charlatan, and because those (Zizek, also a charlatan) who quote him or who similarly espouse such formalized, lifeless, jargon-heavy “theory” cannot boil it down to 25 or even 200 intelligible words, you can be sure you are looking at pure nonsense.

        Considering Chomsky’s “stance” on 9/11, the Kennedy assassinations, and so forth, I assert that cognitive dissonance is not a function of the intellect. This means cog-dis can and does affect those who should otherwise obviously “know better.” (Few people born before 1940 can deal with “questions” about the Kennedy assassinations, or 9/11, just as boomers can’t really deal with much of anything, present company excepted.)

        • cooly says:


          Thanks for your reply. Two things:

          Agreed. Anymore, if someone goes on and on to make their point, my mind wanders and I’m not listening any further. Impatience I guess, or maybe I suspect they are full of shit or have an agenda, or just don’t know how to say something concisely.

          As to Chomsky, with his reticence with respect to 9-11 and JFK, I wonder if that is cog-dis or just a man who is protecting his reputation, legacy, and lifestyle. I wouldn’t know, I don’t know the man personally. Just wondering.


        • manbearpig says:

          I vigorously reject the idea that Chomsky is suffering from “CogDis”.

          His was not blindness nor unconscious bias.

          Chomsky engaged in crafted intellectual bullying, ridicule, sophistry to belittle the importance of investigating 9/11 and stigmatize those who do as many have now amply demonstrated including Barry Zwicker and the owner of this website.

          Chomsky is a Gatekeeper par excellence. And he is certainly not alone.

          When high profile opinion-maker pundits “who should know better” use sophistry to orient opinion, twisted reasoning, emotional manipulation

          they are doing it consciously, deliberately and most probably in full cognitive harmony with some agenda. No dissonance.

          As many have discovered, 9/11 is really a fabulous litmus test for revealing this phenomenon among high profile “researchers” of various types.

          Associating 9/11 investigation with “moronic” “conspiracy theory” is patently disingenous.

          Chomsky did it. Jon Stewart did it. George Monbiot did it. Julian Assange did it.

          And when they did it, they all became complicit in the attrocities committed in the name of that murderous event.

          And whatever they may say today about 9/11, for example Jason Bermas says that in 2017 Assange sang a slightly different tune to the one he sang in 2010 when he did his damage to the movement by saying:

          “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

          is of little importance. Timing is crucial in gatekeeping/damage control. Trying to find nuance in that statement today, as Burmas does, is not only futile, it is, in my opinion, suspect.

          And those today who trivialize the crimes of these gatekeepers suggesting they’ve done more to help “by dropping (truth) bombs” for Assange or getting money for 9/11 first responders like Jon Stewart as Jason Bermas does,

          well, it gets me wondering… if maybe they’re suffering from CogDis.

          or maybe not…

          In fact, it occurs to me, 9/11, like the Vietnam War, were such traumatic events, that just as Chomsky became a figurehead opinion-maker largely due to his anti-war activities (holding up the front line “stop the vietnam war” banners) making people vehemently and emotionally attached to his extraordinary analyses on various topics

          so he could better mislead folks on certain key issues such as JFK and 9/11

          Folks like Bermas who have been figureheads for the 9/11 truth movement from very early on, to whom many are viscerally attached for Truth

          are perfect witting or unwitting vectors of disinformation concerning other key issues today such as Assange and “former” 9/11 gatekeepers who also happen to be powerful opinion-makers themselves….

          • manbearpig says:

            Perhaps it is this 2017 video Jason Bermas wanted to show in his demonstration linked in my comment above?:


            but I don’t really see how it could be since Assange engages in brilliant deflection (pointing at Saudis and alluding to the notorious “missing 28 pages” as if the 28 pages were among the so-called investigation’s greatest omissions) and then blatantly goes on to say:

            “…On the 9/11 issue generally, ahhh,…. …. yea, I don’t, I Don’t think it is particularly important uh, in the sense that, uh, every day, or, or every few weeks Wikileaks and some other publishers have published proof of very serious Existing conspiracies that are happening right now or just a couple of years ago in order to start wars or steal billions of dollars, uh th, These things I think can have more of a change. There’s a certain view in relation to 9/11 that it it’s some kind of holy grail that would shake the existing order of things. I don’t think it would even if it came out that there were some rogues, some rogue agents involved and that that’s how it would be positioned no matter who it was…”

            Coulda sworn I was listeing to Chomsky.

            Jeepers. Such sophistry could’ve been damaging for Assange!

            Fortunately for him he has unconditional supporters like Caitlin Johnstone and Jason Bermas drumming up support.

            • manbearpig says:

              Oh damn,

              in my Bermas/Assange CogDis gatekeeper rant above, of course

              “Coulda sworn I was listeing to Chomsky. ”

              should be

              “Coulda sworn I was listeNing to Chomsky….”

              • manbearpig says:

                Hey Mkey,

                do you think gatekeepers

                like the ones I was excoriating above,


                I mean, people who’ve been entrusted with misleading the masses in the service of some exclusive, unannounced agenda??

              • mkey says:

                Does the bear shit in the woods?

                Astroturfing is a fine art.

              • manbearpig says:

                Astroturfing. Ok. Yea. Thanks. I actually had to look that up. Thanks for teaching me precious new vocab.
                Windows 10. Nasty stuff from what I’ve heard.

                Sent from my personal Huawei tracking device.

          • mkey says:

            This only teaches us, repeatedly, ad nauseam, that we are responsible for our own truth-finding and we need to choose where and when to call it quits and start believing something we can’t experience, understand, see or otherwise sense.

            Even if these people could come to terms with being lied to and having believed those lies for the entirety of their lives; and accepting their gullibility and corroboration; and understanding they have been holding the key to their own cell during all of that time; what they couldn’t cope with, I’d posit, is that they wouldn’t be able to believe a word anyone has to say from that point onward.

            Something almost completely unrelated:

            I’ve kept my eye during the day on this laptop I’ve been setting up for a fried. Windows 10 is the name of the game, it’s been updating like crazy, installing all sorts of features and updates and who knows what. It’s preparing for installation, it’s downloading, it’s installing, it’s failing at installing… and I can’t trust it with anything it does; I don’t want to type anything on such a machine; I don’t want to browse any sites on such a machine; and so I don’t. But my friend is used to using it, somewhat, so he looks the other way. Being used while using it is not an issue he wants to deal with. He’s just watching some movies and visiting some sites on it, so does it really matter? That’s 99.[add as many nines as you find appropriate]% population right there.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      – Bump –
      “Brain machine interface”.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        50 year old Thomas “T.R.” Reardon is an American computational neuroscientist and the CEO and co-founder of CTRL-labs. Formerly, he was a computer programmer and developer at Microsoft. He is credited with creating Microsoft’s discontinued web browser, Internet Explorer, the world’s most used browser during its peak.

  9. m.clare says:

    The Zharkova paper published in 2015 is one of my favourites. Consider the implications of Figure 3.

    TPTSB were aware of this before we were. Prince Charles was right to suggest Climate Change had a shelf life; they knew they were running out of time to sell their snake oil.

    • manbearpig says:

      Indeed, I’d seen that but I also saw (Sharp) criticism of Zharkova’s reasoning in the comments section of Tallbloke’s Talkshop:

      “Geoff Sharp says:
      June 28, 2019 at 5:36 pm
      At around the 13 minute mark Zharkova states the planets orbit the SSB and not the Sun. This part of her paper is obviously very wrong.”

      “…tallbloke says:
      June 29, 2019 at 11:55 am
      Geoff: I agree. This aspect is wrong…”

      “…Geoff Sharp says:
      June 30, 2019 at 2:39 am
      Zharkova uses 35 years of data to produce a 120,000 year solar model that has regular grand minima at 350 years and super grand minima at 2100 years. But this in no way reflects what the actual Holocene proxy record shows us.

      We know the outer 4 planets do not repeat their positions in relation to each other for 4627 years, so instinctively if her model is SIM driven we should not see such a regular pattern as she portrays. Rather she should have seen a repeating pattern every 4627 years with grand minima of DIFFERENT strengths occurring roughly every 172 years (N/U synodic) and LIA type clusters of grand minima every 2100 AND 2400 years. This is what the Holocene and planetary record shows.

      Her model does not represent reality so is totally worthless.

      If Zharkova and Charvatova looked deeper they would see what drives grand minima that occurs during EVERY disordered phase of the SIM…”

      “Geoff Sharp says:
      June 30, 2019 at 6:41 am
      Zharkova’s model does not hindcast the Sporer Minimum, one of the longest and deepest grand minima of the Holocene.

      To overcome this criticism she invokes a supernova that is responsible for the downturn in the solar proxy record…crazy stuff?…”

      etc. etc. I’m not really sure how severely these purported inaccuracies discredit her predictions in the eyes of these scientists.

      I know she has been remarkably credible to date however.

    • manbearpig says:

      Fascinating new comments from link above since I’d initially read them a couple weeks back:

      “…oldmanK says:
      July 13, 2019 at 10:40 am
      Today, a link from ‘Climate Etc’ – Week in review – science edition ultimately landed me at this discussion. Very interesting.
      It is important to note that there appears to be present disagreement on how orbiting masses with great differences in mass behave…”

      “…Geoff Sharp says:
      July 14, 2019 at 10:07 am
      Interesting comments in the pubpeer forum re Zharkova’s paper…she is being hammered and refuses to take advice on her gross error re the Sun/Earth distance.
      I will post my plot on the Sun/SSB to Earth distances as soon as moderation approves my login credentials…”

      “…Geoff Sharp says:
      July 16, 2019 at 5:59 pm
      Finally had my profile approved in the pubpeer forum and just logged in.

      To my amazement Zharkova has used my plot (but tries to suggest she plotted it) to somehow bolster her argument that the Earth orbits the SSB.
      This is surely fraudulent and at the same time completely misguided. The are over 100 comments on the pubpeer forum that challenge her paper and a big proportion dispute her Earth orbiting the SSB theory. You would think at this point she would just give up?

      “Paul Vaughan says:
      July 18, 2019 at 6:38 pm
      Geoff, Zharkova’s role isn’t about votes. It’s to make sure lots of people bet on the wrong horse.
      Security First…”

      Not looking good for the Zharkova paper… disappointing…

      • manbearpig says:

        “…When I finally logged into the Pubpeer platform to my surprise Zharkova had just produced with the help of her team the required plot, BUT the plot was MY plot from 2010.

        Recently I questioned Zharkova re stealing my plot and she stated it was just a coincidence and an artefact of her plot building software (the colors matched etc) which is clearly impossible. Zharkova blatantly latched onto something she found on the internet and then passed it off as her own work, the sad extra is that the said plot actually refutes her argument but she refuses to see it…I am personally shocked that science can be reduced to this level, its just a game for some who are only interested in fame, notoriety and clickbait.

        She is not interested in the pursuit of science.

        I am hoping the Journal takes down her paper; they are reviewing it as I type.

        There is a positive outcome to this sorry tale, for me at least, as the Planet/Sun theory is once again in the spotlight. Charvatova discovered the Disordered Phase and now we know how to predict Solar Grand Minima within this phase along with individual solar cycle modulation of both phases. AMP theory is the next phase of SIM science that adds to Charvatova’s work…”


    • manbearpig says:

      Ooops; you were talking about the 2015 paper and obviously I was focused on the recent one.

      though I agree “they” realize there’s a shelf life to the global warming con ( shifting to the appellation “climate change”, however, has acted as an artificial preservative.)

      yet memories are short and malleable and a new con is never far down the pike…

  10. royb says:

    Finding evidence for weaponized ticks is not difficult. Or maybe one should say weaponized spirochetes and so on in the ticks. I saw a victim of lymes disease on YouTube who could show old patents of altering viruses and bacterias so that they got more «effective» at causing serious Deadly cronic disease. The chief architect behind several, like borrelias, was a an imported nazi called Erich Tauber. It is also said that these weaponizing programs were stopped, and then they dumped all the Stuff into the Ocean.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top