Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Fallen Angels and the Nephilim

 The claim that a text challenges present understanding is irrelevant.  Neither have a monopoly on truth but are attempts to describe faithfully an understanding to which we need to become sympathetic.

The second problem is that marriage between a master race and a subjected race must be between two races of humanity.  At best this involved human giants for which we have archeological evidence.   None of this produces the Nephilim who are surely an alien life form plausibly responsible fior the rise of man.  Again we have convincing archeological evidence in Peru.

I have little doubt that after the flood, that colonies of agricultural man was introduced and that these quickly hybridized with women of the surrounding hunter gatherer populations.  This also rapidly expanded the gene pool as well.

The key point is that something large took place and that we have a handful of key texts that are eye witness reports.  These reports are terribly local but the event is global.  The time frames are not understood.  The Flood was 13950 BP.  Effective colonization was likely underway two to four thousand years later.

The Nephilim were present up to as little as a few centuries ago but have since disappeared...

The Fallen Angels and the Nephilim—explained in the book written by Noah’s grandfather

Enoch was Noah’s grandfather and he was the “seventh” man from Adam. This places the Book of Enoch as being around 5500 years old. Enoch was born 622 years after the creation of Adam, and that makes the Book of Enoch one of the oldest Books on planet Earth.
In this article, we will look at some of the texts provided in the Book of Enoch where we can find very interesting things that speak of the “Fallen Angels” and “The Nephilim”.  The product of ancient myth? Or truth, written down thousands of years ago?
The so-called Book of Enoch is described as an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. Modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.

[ Modern scholars estimate is still a guess and likely a bad one.  Revered prose is translated and copied and thus handed down.  Understanding that some form of effective writing existed with the earliest signs of large communitries is needed.  arclein ]
The first part of the Book of Enoch describes the fall of the Watchers, the angels who fathered the Nephilim. The remainder of the book describes Enoch’s visits to heaven in the form of travels, visions, and dreams, and his revelations. The book is made up of five major sections which are:
  • The Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72–82) (also called the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries or Book of Luminaries)
But the contents of the book completely challenge modern religion and history, mainly because of its controversial content.
Is it possible that we have overlooked ancient texts such as the Book of Enoch?

Is it possible that these texts speak the truth about what happened to mankind in the distant past?
If so why have we chosen to ignore these ancient texts? Because they do not seem to fit in our mainstream chronology?
Many authors agree that based on numerous ancient texts we can conclude that the ancient Nephilim could have been an ancient Alien species that lived on Earth in the distant past even though this is an extremely controversial notion for mainstream scholars who firmly oppose it.
According to several ancient texts, it’s possible to conclude that the Nephilim were, in fact, mysterious beings that dominated over the planet before the Great Flood. In many ancient texts, they are referred to as giants and some ancient texts suggest these mystery beings are in fact the descendants of the Fallen Angels.
 However, despite many scholars trying to comprehend what the Nephilim were there is considerable confusion surrounding these mysterious beings which according to ancient texts, were real and inhabited Earth in the distant past.
 There isn’t doubt whether or not these beings were real, the only question that surrounds them is their actual origin and legacy.

Enoch 6:1-3:

“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.”
 Enoch 10:3-8:

 “And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! The Watchers called me – Enoch the scribe – and said to me: Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin: and inasmuch as they delight themselves in their children [Nephilim], The murder of their beloved ones shall they see, and over the destruction of their children shall they lament, and shall make supplication unto eternity, but mercy and peace shall ye not attain.”
Enoch 7:1-6:

“And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them…And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells [450 feet]: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.”
Chapter 8

1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures.
2 And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.
3 Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, ’Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokablel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .
Chapter 19

1 And Uriel said to me: ’Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their SPIRITS ASSUMING MANY DIFFERENT FORMS are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to DEMONS as Gods, (here shall they stand,) till the day of the great judgment in
2 which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who went astray shall become SIRENS.
So, after reading these chapters, is it possible that there is some or any truth in them? Is it possible that the so-called “fallen Angels” did in fact exist in the distant past? Is it possible that the Nephilim, lived among humans? If so, we ask again, why have we chosen to ignore what ancient man recorded so perfectly in the past?


It is actually a good time to think about this.

The fundamental problem with Bitcoin is that the rules can be changed.  This happens all the time in the securities business producing massive losses.  From my perspective it is actually only a matter of time.  Lawyers are not paid to preserve the status quo but to turn things to the advantage of his client.

Thus every lawyer out there is scheming to print bitcoins at no cost.

Getting past that problem and it becomes a store of value in the same way Gold is.  What makes gold work is how hard it is to produce.  That still might change and then it is all over..

BITCOIN vs. GOLD: Which is the better long-term strategy for securing assets? Sobering analysis will anger some…

Sunday, June 04, 2017 by: Mike Adams

(Natural News) Across the independent media, there’s a fierce debate raging between those who promote GOLD vs. others who are advocating BITCOIN. I’ve been a long-time gold advocate and Bitcoin advocate, although I recently warned that Bitcoin was overbought and headed for a massive correction. In less than 24 hours after that warning, Bitcoin began a plunge that took it down nearly 30%. It has since partially recovered to the $2500 range, and the debate rages on.

What’s interesting about this debate is that all of us who are pro-gold and pro-Bitcoin are anti central banking. We all understand the total currency collapse that’s coming for fiat currencies such as the dollar. We are all fully informed of the massive theft of purchasing power taking place every day due to the endless money printing of the central banks, and we all want to promote and pursue strategies for asset protection that minimize risk.

In this analysis, I aim to give you straight up advantages and disadvantages of Bitcoin vs. Gold, then I’ll reveal my conclusion of what I think is the best store of wealth. (Hint: It’s a mix.)

Disclaimer: I currently own approximately 0.35 Bitcoins, and I am mining Bitcoins daily using a solar farm in Arizona. I am not betting against Bitcoin price movements in either direction. I also own some amount of gold, and I am not invested in any gold derivatives or options of any kind.

BITCOIN advantages and disadvantages

Bitcoin is a phenomenal innovation with extraordinary advantages over fiat currency, including its relatively rapid speed of transfer, its mathematically limited coin supply and its distributed, decentralized blockchain which avoids all government regulation. The fact that Bitcoin is completely decentralized means no government can shut it down. There are no central servers to be raided and confiscated at gunpoint, which is usually how governments shut down activities they don’t like.

Bitcoin is easily portable, so it’s a great “escape” currency. You can “carry it” with you without carrying anything that can be easily confiscated such as cash or coin. Your entire Bitcoin savings could be help on an encrypted thumb drive, or even in an online wallet where you remember the password (or tattoo it on your heel, just in case).

On the downside, Bitcoin is highly volatile and subject to outright thievery and con artistry (remember the Mt. Gox theft?) while depending entirely on the existence of the ‘net to maintain its integrity. Even more, Bitcoin now suffers from a “mania” mentality where most of the discussion about Bitcoin for new users is all about “how much money can I make” from buying low and selling high. This is a big red warning flag that Bitcoin is being pumped up by masses who have no business getting involved in crypto-currencies in the first place.

Bitcoin is not a good store of value, as evidenced by the fact that Bitcoin can crash 30% in 24 hours. In previous years, it has also fallen 50% in 24 hours. Because Bitcoin is entirely unregulated and is, in essence, a “perfect” representation of the psychology of greed vs. fear, there are no limits on the speed at which Bitcoin can fall. All price crashes are driven entirely by psychology, and fear is a very powerful emotion. That’s why Bitcoin tends to climb slowly and plunge rapidly.

Here’s the real kicker with Bitcoin, however: It isn’t REAL. Even those who are heavily invested in Bitcoin understand very well that before any gains in Bitcoin really “count” in the real world, Bitcoin has to be sold to someone in exchange for something that’s closer to a real store of wealth. For example, Bitcoin can be sold for fiat currency, and then fiat currency can be traded for land. This is how you convert Bitcoin to a real store of wealth. Or you can spend Bitcoin to buy gold, thereby converting a virtual currency (Bitcoin) to real precious metals which have universal, real world value.

Here’s one big risk of Bitcoin that few people are talking about: The risk of Bitcoin being modified to allow unlimited future Bitcoin mining. This is the equivalent of “quantitative easing” or “money printing” which benefits the Bitcoin mining operations at the expense of everyone else. It’s true: There’s a lot of talk inside the Bitcoin community right now about altering the Bitcoin system to override the 21 million coin limit and allow for unlimited future mining. If this happens, it would essentially turn the entire promise of Bitcoin (limited scarcity if coins) into a total fraud, proving that Bitcoin is just a pump-and-dump scheme to benefit those insiders who profit the most from controlling the system to their benefit.

Finally, Bitcoin is subject to instant wipeouts. The Mt. Gox online wallet decided one day to steal everybody’s Bitcoins and escape to the Bahamas (or somewhere). People lost what would now be worth literally billions of dollars worth of Bitcoins. Even popular online wallets like Coinbase are now engaging in the outright theft of Bitcoins. Coinbase, for example, is currently stealing Bitcoins from all users in Wyoming, and this outright theft of Bitcoins could expand to other states. If you run your own Bitcoin wallet, you can lose everything if your computer is stolen or suffers a fatal crash. This is similar to the way that cash or gold can also be physically lost or stolen.

Because Bitcoin is also a virtual, electronic crypto-currency, it instantly ceases to exist in a grid down solar flare, EMP attack, nuclear war, global natural disaster or other cataclysmic event that takes down the internet. However, in a catastrophic financial collapse involving central banks, I continue to recognize that Bitcoin could skyrocket to $10,000 or more, although getting out of Bitcoin at “the top” of this surge will be impossible to time. So speculating with Bitcoin is an extremely dangerous game of roulette that could cost you dearly.

Summary of Bitcoin: 

Excellent portability
Excellent anonymity
Decentralized and government-proof
Highly volatile, can lose 50% of value literally overnight
Subject to irreversible theft from dishonest online wallets such as Coinbase
Completely non-regulated, which is both good and bad
Now appears to be driven by GREED and a “mania” mindset rather than reasoned users
Instantly useless in a solar flare, EMP or nuclear war that takes down the ‘net
Risk of ownership of Bitcoin is HIGH because it’s not “real” until you trade it for something that is real
Huge risk in Bitcoin being “modified” to create more coins, effectively flooding the current coin scarcity
The thing to remember with Bitcoin is that it’s not REAL until you SELL. Until you sell, it’s just numbers on a distributed ledger. (Related: Follow more news about financial risk aversion strategies at

GOLD advantages and disadvantages

Gold is instantly recognizable as having value in the real world. It’s a precious, physical substance with a wide variety of industrial and medical uses due to its extraordinary molecular and elemental properties. Because gold mining is so difficult, gold has a strictly limited supply that can only grow at a slow rate, guaranteeing the scarcity of gold currently in circulation.

Unlike Bitcoin, Gold is a universal store of value. Gold can be traded for housing, food, ranch animals, vehicles, firearms and land anywhere in the world, across any culture or government. Gold is, essentially, the “ultimate currency” for human civilization.

The best advantage of gold? Because gold is real, it cannot simply “vanish” due to technical glitches, solar flares, nuclear war, EMP attacks or other large-scale disasters. Gold is impervious to all such events, and even if you melt it with fire, it’s still gold. That’s because gold is an ELEMENT on the Table of Elements, and you can’t destroy elements unless you subject them to hot nuclear fusion or similar processes.

Gold, in other words, will still be around long after Bitcoin has crashed or been abandoned for some other crypto currency. As a physical object in your hands, gold isn’t a speculation rooted in runaway psychology (greed vs. fear). It’s a real substance with real value that’s only slightly impacted by changes in human emotions.

The disadvantages of gold include its ability to be stolen, difficulty in transporting large quantities of gold (it’s heavy), the transactional cost of converting gold into fiat currency (if you ever need to do that), and the possibility of you losing your physical gold in a flood, tornado or other natural disaster. There’s also inherent risk in sending gold to someone else via common carriers such as the USPS. Bitcoin, on the other hand, can be electronically transferred with no real risk of it being intercepted and stolen.

Gold is difficult to carry across borders in large quantities, as governments seem to take a huge interest in people who carry large sums of precious metals. Buying and selling gold is also trackable, depending on how you buy and sell it, meaning that governments might one day track down people who have purchased large amounts of gold (especially on credit cards) and demand confiscation of that gold.

Thus, gold can be instantly lost just like Bitcoin, but it can’t be lost based purely on emotions such as FEAR. Gold has inherent value rooted in much more than psychology, and right now, gold prices are being heavily suppressed by the status quo, which means that gold is currently under-valued, while Bitcoin seems to be increasingly over-valued.

Summary of Gold: 

Good portability, but large quantities are hard to move (if you own so much gold that you can’t carry it, by the way, you are pretty well off in this world) 

An excellent store of value, will continue to exist no matter what the psychology of other markets 

Cannot simply “vanish” — will outlast solar flares, EMP, nuclear war and natural disasters
Can be stolen or lost 
 May be confiscated by governments 

Gold purchases can theoretically be tracked by governments if you buy gold with credit cards or bank transfers 

Has universal, long-term value and utility
Risk of ownership is relatively LOW, because even if everything goes wrong in the world, your gold is still gold 

CONCLUSION: Gold is for storing assets; Bitcoin is for fleeing with your life

Here’s my conclusion in all this: Gold is an excellent store of value, but Bitcoin is the ultimate “get out of Dodge” currency for fleeing with your life.

In fact, I continue to tell people that gold, silver, land and firearms should be your “hard” assets that store wealth. Land has all sorts of advantages, including the fact that it’s very hard to have land stolen from you (though not impossible, when governments go rogue). Gold, silver and firearms are all portable and universal representations of value. You can trade gold, silver and guns for almost anything, anywhere in the world (with various levels of risk associated with each transaction, of course).

Bitcoin is the last ditch crypto-currency for fleeing with your life. I continue to recommend roughly about 5% of your savings be invested in Bitcoin or another crypto-currency for the simple reason that it could save your life in a real pinch. You can flee with Bitcoin in your pocket (on a thumb drive), leave behind everything else, and still have some usable money when you arrive at your destination. Bitcoin, in essence, is “emergency funding.” It’s the escape hatch on your rocket ship… it’s your “pull this handle in an emergency” strategy for last-ditch escape in a world run by tyrannical governments.

Personally, I sold nearly all my Bitcoin for gold a couple weeks back. Now I’m sitting on some gold coins instead of Bitcoin, but I’m still mining Bitcoin with solar power and I plan to maintain a small Bitcoin wallet for emergency use. I’m defending my gold coins with firearms, of course, meaning that anyone who tries to steal my gold will find themselves enjoying a limited run for the “Center for the Perforating Arts.”
That’s my bottom line advice: Bitcoin has a practical use, but don’t bet the farm on it. Don’t play the greed game and think of Bitcoin as a money making opportunity. That’s where people are going to get burned when the Bitcoin market turns sour. If your primary reason for buying Bitcoin is thinking you can buy low and sell high, you are a fool. Sometimes fools get lucky, but usually they get proven as fools.

The bottom line

Remember: Bitcoin isn’t REAL until you SELL, while Gold is real the moment you buy it and possess it. If you’re looking to reduce risk in storing assets of value, gold is a far better choice than Bitcoin. If you’re looking to bet big and try to outsmart everybody else for a gain, then Bitcoin is a speculative betting house that might suit you just fine.

Personally, my best advice for everyone right now is to focus on preserving assets rather than trying to “make money” by timing markets. Nearly everyone who thinks they can buy low and sell high for things like Bitcoin (or corporate stock shares) actually ends up buying high and selling low. That’s because crowds are stupid, and when you find yourself swept up in the madness of a crowd, that should be a really big red flag that says, “Hey, this might not be such a good idea after all.”

Risk aversion strategy summary: (modify as needed for your personal situation)

5% in Bitcoin (or other crypto-currency) as your “emergency escape” fund
15% in gold and silver
75% in land, fine art, firearms, ammo or other hard assets
5% in fiat currency cash (very useful when they declare bank holidays but the currency is still accepted)
0% in the stock market

Mainstream media COMPLICIT in excusing global terrorism as London suffers deadly ISIS-linked attack:

In case you have not noticed. the number of events has increased dramatically over the past two years.  Obviously this is intended because it all demands money.  This how fascism arose back in the day along with Communism itself.

Countering it means finding the money and really going after them.  Soras in particular is not shy in the types he funds either.  It is also obvious that the mainstream media is also funded as well.

Tying it all together is necessary but the counter attack is now.   That means teating activists as an enemy and draining hem of information..

Mainstream media COMPLICIT in excusing global terrorism as London suffers deadly ISIS-linked attack: 7 dead, 49 hospitalized

Sunday, June 04, 2017 by: Mike Adams

(Natural News) The latest ISIS-linked terror attack has killed 7 and hospitalized 49 people in London, even as the insanely delusional “progressive” media insists there’s “no reason to be alarmed” while radical Islamic fundamentalism wages open warfare on Western civilization. The mayor of London, a practicing Muslim, practically denounced anyone concerned with the terror attack that just took place, saying, “there’s no reason to be alarmed.”

Really? These are the same people who insist we should all hyperventilate in a total panic when they claim global warming might raise the oceans by a few inches over the next century. But when radical terrorists are blowing us up right now, we’re told to just calm down and stop thinking about it.

Western civilization, you see, has become obsessed with self-induced idiocy and political correctness that’s so insane, its political leaders can’t even muster the will to engage in simple acts of self-defense against a cultural onslaught. Western Europe, in particular, is being overrun by radicals who practice an extreme, violent form of Islam that has zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t obedient to their narratives.

Even as the London stabbings featured radical Islamic terrorists screaming, “This is for Allah”, the complicit mainstream media pushes its progressive P.C. agenda of absurdly claiming that anyone blaming ISIS for their acts of terrorism is guilty of “Islamophibia.” Somehow, it’s wrong to name those who are carrying out acts of death and terror because we should “embrace” people of every religion (except Christianity, of course, which is incessantly vilified by the left-wing media).

President Trump is absolutely right when he says, “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don’t get smart it will only get worse…

We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse

Liberals have all but joined forces with “team ISIS” to destroy Western civilization

The P.C.-obsessed liberal media has become so detached from reality that they now seem to side with ISIS rather than America. It’s almost as if they want to see Western civilization torn apart, overrun and destroyed with radical Islamic terrorism. In fact, Kathy Griffin recently echoed the tactics of ISIS terrorists with her decapitated Trump stunt that spectacularly backfired. Her message was very clear, however: She’s with the terrorists, and she wants to see Trump — and presumably all his supporters, too — beheaded in a murderous “cleansing” run by the totalitarian Left.

Remember that Kathy Griffin also a very outspoken supporter of the LGBT community as well as a former CNN host with Anderson Cooper. She’s friends with Al Franken, the radical left-wing Senator who also despises America and was only elected in the first place due to widespread left-wing voter fraud. The political Left is now openly and unabashedly embracing the visual imagery, intimidation tactics and bullying strategies of ISIS. It seems to be the perfect fit for their radical anti-American ideology that hopes to see this nation stomped out of existence.

It’s no exaggeration to say that Leftists hate Trump more than they hate ISIS terrorists, and they openly welcome more terrorists into their liberal countries even as those terrorists are systematically bombing their capitol cities and carrying out mass murder rampage attacks on their citizens. Meanwhile, Merkel, May and Macron remain willfully blind to the reality of radical Islamic terrorism, pretending that the very people stabbing their citizens are somehow “refugees” needing to be rescued rather than soldiers of war who are occupying their intended targets in order to carry out tactical assaults of mass murder and mayhem. Many Western nations are actually financially subsidizing the very terror cells now waging war against their citizens. When will the P.C. insanity end?

Apparently, the only thing worse than calling out radical Islamic fundamentalists is being named Bill Maher and referring to yourself as a “house ni@@er.” Somehow, that “went too far” in America, even when being a radical Muslim who opens fire on a gay bar in Miami is somehow moderately acceptable to the Left. Even when Muslim culture executes gays, demeans women and mutilates the genitals of female children, it’s all excused by the delusional Left which pretends to have a monopoly on “compassion.”

We the people must defend our own nations, even if our morally bankrupt bureaucrats and media voices will not

It’s now becoming obvious to all that the blindness of progressives has never been more extreme… or dangerous. In a time when all of us are now threatened by radical terrorism rooted in a twisted, violent rendition of Islamic fundamentalism, nearly all the leaders of Western nations are asleep at the wheel, deliberately “dumbfounded” by the acts of war taking place all around them. Perhaps the members of the liberal mob can fool each other with their blatant denialism, but they’re not fooling the People.

We the People know exactly what is happening: We are under assault. Our nations are being occupied by enemy forces. Terror cells are being activated to murder our families and fellow citizens. Determined efforts are being waged by international terrorist funding villains — such as George Soros — to undermine liberty, national sovereignty and even the very concept of national borders.

An all-out war is being waged against Western civilization, and the war is being waged not merely by ISIS but also Google, Facebook and Twitter. The tech giants and left-wing media have joined forces with radical Islamic terrorists to suppress any real news coverage of their wartime attacks while smearing defense-minded citizens as “racists” or “bigots” for daring to want to defend their borders against a violent invading force.

The only real question in all this is: How much longer with the sheeple stay asleep while their home nations are being overrun and occupied by radical, violent forces? When will Western civilization finally wake up and rise to its own defense? And when that day comes, will it already be too late?

Stay informed at as we continue to cover unfolding events in our chaotic world, where western “progressives” are deliberately sleepwalking through their own self destruction. You are witnessing the politically correct SUICIDE of Western culture, much to the amusement of George Soros, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, all of whom have long sought to overthrow our constitutional Republic and replace it with a totalitarian Leftist regime run by insane elitists.

Don’t let them succeed.

Kolbrin - Book of Scrolls - Chpt 22- Sacred Registers Pt 22 - prayer

What i have learned from much effort is that every scrap of evidence needs to be viewed by every possible educated eyeball and that no eyeball should be held in extreme repute.  This allows the creation of a set of reports that should ultimately exceed two dozen.  Then it is also possible to define a set of what i have called conforming data.

Even better each eyeball sees a generalized image but then hones in on a particular aspect.

In this item i observe that the theology thinks man is responsible for his  destiny. Rather an important question when we see ample evidence that our world is guided and that  we are guided but all done by human spirits working from the other side..




O Great One in Heaven, whose thoughts probe the hearts of men, cast forth a small ray of illumination to light my way in the darkness of man's ignorance. Strengthen me by Your revelation, that for even a brief moment I may see Truth and know the mysteries of life. I ask not to see as the Great Ones have seen, but just for something within my understanding.

O Great God, send me one bright shaft of light, that I may see silhouetted as in a flash of lightning the forces that wage war for the possession of my soul. For what mortal unaided can understand or visualise the dark things that lurk to lure the soul along the path of horror, such as the demons waiting to twist the weak soul into coils of frightflilness before casting it into the abyss of terror?

Lord of the Universe, take pity on me. Everything hes in Your Great Hand except the fate of each man, and men are frail and weak. Many who have seen Truth revealed have quailed before the awfial responsibilities of man and consoled themselves by fashioning unnatural gods before whom they quelled the fears in their hearts. I am not one worthy to gaze upon Truth, nor do I desire to do so lest I be overwhelmed, perhaps I ask too much from One who reads the hearts of men.

0 Great Luminated One, keep me from the final horror which hes in wait to devour the souls of men. Help me in the dread hour when I come face to face with my own soul. O save it from the abode of the Dark Warden of Terrors!

What are the great mysteries of man's destiny so dimly perceived even by the Illuminated Ones? Have mercy on my dismal ignorance, or I am delivered into the toils of my own repulsiveness.

What is the Great Secret whispered so fearfully among the great columns? What are the substances wherewith men may pass through the Great Portal and return to life? Is it true that the destiny of man is determined by man? O what fearful responsibility, my heart is overwhelmed and my spirit becomes weak with dread. Is it for this that men shun the Truth and cast themselves at Your feet for mercy?

1 fear, for my soul is heavy with evil and the scales will bear down against me. Will it be stamped with the dread impress of condemnation by the forty-two seals? Place Your hand in mercy upon the balances and let my soul be. made light.

0 Great One, hidden within the eternal silence, who shines forth as a beacon of light to few men. O lighten our darkness and our fear-shadowed hearts! Lift the veil just slightly, that we may understand something of Your greatness.

We are not uninstructed and know we can be granted no more than a glimpse of Your greatness, for to receive more would be too awesome for the frail constitution of man. This is why the ignorant doubt, for their very ignorance spawns the frailty which inhibits their enlightenment.

We hardly dare murmur these fervent words. O Great One, grant that the spirit within us may be helped to cleanse itself of the besmirching foulness spawned by our thoughts. Remove from us every trace of that which may pollute, and let us know timeless splendour in glory. 

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Global warming “hockey stick” data founded on FRAUD

Image: Global warming “hockey stick” data founded on FRAUD… computer models “hacked” to produce warming trend from any data set

Anyone following this blog knows this, but this item does call it all for what it is. Now that global support for the underlying political scheme is under serious challenge and Trump has finally called the UN to account, it will become possible blow this rubbish out the door.

The truth is that maximim heat is well deserved including firing all scientists who went along.  The others were screwed even more viciously.

Money needs to absorb a serious lesson here as well on what is now passing for medical research were self serving results only come out..

Global warming “hockey stick” data founded on FRAUD… computer models “hacked” to produce warming trend from any data set

Sunday, June 04, 2017 by: Mike Adams

(Natural News) “The hockey stick debate is thus about two things. At a technical level it is about flaws in methodology and erroneous results in a scientific paper. But at a political level, the debate is about whether the IPCC betrayed the trust of governments around the world.” – Professor Ross McKitrick, 2005

In late 2016, the liberal media launched a conspiracy theory narrative that claimed “the Russians stole the election from Hillary Clinton.” This was achieved, we were told without a single shred of supporting evidence, by hacking the DNC emails and publicizing the highly embarrassing messages that revealed just how corrupt and criminal the DNC has been all along. That hacking, we’ve been informed, was very real and very scary, and it’s why the entire left-wing media continues to insist to this day that the election was a fraud.

The “Russian conspiracy theory” is, of course, complete fiction. It was fabricated by the left-wing media as cover for Hillary Clinton’s dismal candidate performance and horrendous loss to a total political outsider. The Russian conspiracy narrative, in fact, wasn’t spawned until the days after Clinton’s loss, and it was just a few weeks earlier that Hillary Clinton herself had condemned Donald Trump for refusing to pre-accept the outcome of the election, even before the election took place. Clinton said she “feared for our democracy” and shuddered at the thought that someone wouldn’t agree in advance to honor the outcome of an election the lawless Left was systematically stealing through vote fraud, rigged CNN debate questions and an all-out media smear campaign to destroy the reputation of Trump.

The 2016 wasn’t hacked; it was lost by Hillary Clinton. But there is some real hacking that has been going on to steal national sovereignty and overthrow national governments. That hacking, it turns out, was conducted on a piece of software to make it produce false “hockey stick” graphs depicting global warming out of data sets that logically support no such conclusion.

Hacking the IPCC global warming data

The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data.

What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there.

Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models:

From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)

Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.

Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.

Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.

In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.

So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.

…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.

For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.

According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.

Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.

Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.

Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.

What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.

Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.

The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.

Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.

On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’

But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)

Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.

Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)

When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.

One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).

But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)

Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.

When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44

One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45

In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.

Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.

What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?

Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’

Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at, and

Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD

What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.

The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.

The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack.

Letter from Ufologist


A few better ideas here.  He is quite right that most of our our ideas about UFOs are unconvincing.  That they are bio robots is a working hypothesis.

There is a lot of traffic and they are getting shot down as well.  Yet all data must be collected and deep sixed to avoid public excitment.

All that data was initially confirmed as real sixty five years ago.  Since then actual UFO activity has streadily increased.  Thus evidence collection has as well.

Letter from Ufologist

Paul Murad writes, I remember trying to solve a fluid dynamic stability problem. The conventional wisdom was to extend an exponential solution and see what would happen. Great scientists failed.

I looked at the similar boundary-layer equation and using Lyapunov’s approach, suction tends to generate stability while blowing unstable. This could be used to look at transient flow problems. Anyway, My paper was published in an AIAA paper.

What is the lesson for this? If you have a problem, the AI search would look into existing methodologies to find solutions. Here is the benefit but, could AI create an original thought? This is the 64,000 dollar question. It could only use what was previously created. Creativity leaves AI in the dust.

.Now, why am I concerned? I finished my UFO course out of OLLI/GMU I did this several years ago and found that I needed to add additional ‘new’ information, especially about skinny Mike and Bill.

Some amigos in Brazil, during the course, I was able to identify that many crashes occurred especially after Roswell. The earliest on was in Nazi Germany in 1937 as well as finding part of a vehicle in the Kiev, Soviet Union region. The Germans used this technology while the xenophobic Russians hid their treasure moving it to Moscow.

The Nazis attacked in the Eurasia region. Findings in these aliens suddenly jumped occurred especially after the Trinity nuclear bomb explosion.

Crashes were also found strictly from Brazil while the former picture is sometimes referred to as a Russian activity and possibly incorrectly informed as Roswell. At Roswell, the methodology claims one dead, one was wounded and soon died, while the third lived for some time of period before dying. I doubt is there were two bodies together out of Roswell…

What commonalities occurred with all of these bodies assuming they came from the same species? Although they had ribs, no expansion or expulsion in the lungs seemed to appear. All of these guys did not have a helmet so they could live in our environment. This is in contrast to ancient historical artifacts which imply aliens used helmets. They do not have a mouth nor do they appear to eat. Sex is not of sufficient size for females to allow propagation. Their missions appear to gain some human DNA for some yet to be established reason. Their basic body is slim and their long arms are extended usually with three large fingers.

Now the question is that these crashes have crashed in several different nations to go as far as a situation in Saudi Arabia. One may argue they literally fall out of the sky/In Russia they are shot down. There appears to be a war with these aliens and the Russians, since most of their cities have a sophisticated air-defense systems.

Russian Su-27 on afterburner for pursuing a saucer.

The point is that saucers are literally falling out of the sky all over the world.

Admittedly they are from several different species and these devices were not only saucers, but triangles as well as stranger vehicles.

Some saucers and something that looks like antennae or else in China.

This loss of saucers and personnel represent significant assets. Why is there no response about these vehicles falling out of the sky that we are aware of? Why do these creatures appear to be so focused? If their owners do not care, my view is that these are not the specific species itself, but to look at these as nothing more than biological robots. The behavior appears to be robotic; however, they have clear biological capabilities. They represent advances in AI which appear to be limited with knowledge possibly to go back into the past or in one case, being intellectual at the equivalent of two Ph.Ds.

This leaves us with a different perspective. Several sources claim being involved with aliens and would like for us to believe that these aliens care about us and although they are focused on atomic weapon locations or missiles, they care about humanity going over the top with a nuclear war. I do not accept this premise at all. I feel this is nonsense.

Let me explain why. Dr. Brandenburg implies that based on the Mars Rover and Spectrometer on a satellite in orbit about Mars has found unusual isotopes. The typical NASA geologist would generally ignore these elements. However, if you possess knowledge and expertise building nuclear weapons, these isotopes are basically the consequences of nuclear fission/fusion explosions. Mars appears to demonstrate a civilization that once existed. What occurred?

We would like to provide a hypothesis. The sun is large and billions of years ago, there was a planet named by the Russians as Phaeton. This planet was between Mars and Jupiter. As the Sun’s mass is converted into energy, the gravitational mass decreases and the orbits of these planets move further away. Phaeton enters the Goldilocks’ zone and develops biology to create some sorts of being. In time, with more loss of mass in the Sun, Mars also enters the Goldilocks’ zone possibly billions of years later and develops their own civilization.

Apparently, Mars and Phaeton did not get along. Mars won in terms of the Phaeton planet being disintegrated resulting in an asteroid belt. However, in a nuclear war, no one really wins, The Martians are contaminated and if they exist, any civilizations are below the surface. The point is that if these events occurred, why did not aliens come to save them? It did not happen. They were truly only watchers.

Others claim aliens claim that humanity is too violent because we killed each other. This is trash. All biological forms on the Earth, from insects to birds, lions, and fish are violent. If this occurs in our planet, why would these lesser beings operate in a different fashion in their so-called advanced world?

Anyway, some of these possibilities are really questionable. Moreover, regarding AI, it will show some limitations and that they can only act as a means of data selection, although important, creativity is absence with AI. Hence, mankind will still survive despite such a threat…Thanks to Paul Murad

There was an error in this gadget