Online free speech continues to circle the drain as YouTube shadowbans UFO hunter and commentator SecureTeam10’s channel, including view count and comments simply for covering the The Great Purge of Alex Jones.
Also, Twitter has warned us to take down a tweet from January criticizing CNN hobgoblin Brian Stelter.
h3h3Productions Gets A Youtube Strike for Even Discussing Alex Jones - Coordinated Decision To Ban InfoWars Was Personally Made By Mark Zuckerberg - Trump's Tweet To Jack Dorsey Saves Alex Jones From A Total Big Tech Purge - MSM Spreads More Spin Stories About Infowars' Twitter Account - The Total Purge Of Infowars Is Only The Beginning:
“Space Force” Is The Start Of Trump Declassifying The US Secret Space Program - Full Show - Trump Launches Space Force As Globalists Attempt To Collapse Human Civilization:
NEXT LEVEL CENSORSHIP! SECURETEAM10 CENSORED FOR COVERING ALEX JONES? - How the Alt Media and Its Fans Should Respond to The Jackboot Lickers - The Infowars Facebook Ban Was the Result of Brigading and Zuckerbergs own Personal Decision - Gay Frogs Censorship & The Ballad of InfoWars - Diamond and Silk React to Alex Jones/Infowars Ban - "They CAN'T Have it Both Ways!" Nigel Farage REACTS to the Alex Jones Ban
Editor's Note: Molyneux states that prayer won't do any good vs science when it comes to growing crops and that science has shown prayer isn't effective. First off, prayer has been scientifically validated in several ways...
Food for Thought: Group Meditation Reduces Terrorism - 50 different scientific studies have confirmed the Meditation Effect is real. 7000 people get together and meditate -- and global terrorism goes down by 72 percent. Similarly dramatic decreases were seen in war, fatalities and violent crime. Even if skeptics want to argue about whether or not this is "real," the fact is that all other variables have been ruled out -- including weekends, weather, holidays, et cetera. This effect has been documented in numerous peer-reviewed publications, including theJournal of Offender Rehabilitation. - https://911truthactivism.blogspot.com/2015/03/food-for-thought-group-meditation.html
Now, as far as crops. I bet those people who hadn't yet mastered agriculture prayed about it, and wouldn't you know it, science answered their prayers... in an seemingly odd way...
Archaeology has never even addressed all the questions raised by the sudden emergence of agriculture and highly advanced civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, let alone answered the most critical ones...
Purebred dogs just suddenly appear in the archeological record as if by magic. This is also true of agriculture and our key cereal and legume crops. Wheat, corn, beans and rice pose a second set of genetic enigmas.
Research into the dietary habits of Stone Age tribes around the globe show our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors subsisted on leafy plants and lean muscle meats. This makes perfect sense because these foods were readily available, took little or no processing, and wild game could be cooked over an open fire. The problem with our grain crops, and they are the basis of civilisation, is wild grass seeds are so miniscule the cost/benefit of harvesting them was not in favour of it. They also require harvesting, threshing and cooking technology since they have to be boiled extensively. This was technology Stone Age Man lacked.
The reason grains have to be cooked is that the human gut is not adapted to digest wild grains. This makes it very clear the use of wild grass seeds as a primary food source is of recent origin. Our Paleolithic ancestors did not subsist on them. Once again, this poses a set of formidable problems that need to be studied rigorously. If our ancestors did not harvest and eat wild grains, how could they have domesticated and bred the wild species so quickly?
Without many generations of trial and error experimentation – culminating in a vast body of agronomic knowledge and agricultural practices that would have included genetics and breeding – it is all but impossible to understand how the agricultural revolution was brought about. Official science tries to explain the evolution of nomadic hunter-gatherers into sedentary, crop-growing farmers by claiming they discovered crops quite by accident. We are told it happened when a primitive villager tossed a seed bearing plant into the trash pile and noticed that it sprouted.
But that trite tale can hardly explain how they selected the best wild species to use as the basis for the agricultural revolution. There are thousands and thousands of potential wild plants that could be turned into agricultural crops. How is it people with very little experience with wild grasses were able to pick the best varieties to breed? This represents a quantum leap. What we are asked to believe is that our ancestors, without much experience at the seminal stage of civilisation, were able to select and breed the very best varieties of wild grass species.
How do we know this is true? Because we still grow the very crops they supposedly selected even after 5000 years of continuous technological and agricultural development. We are asked to suspend disbelief and accept they also constructed the largest precision-engineered stone building the world has ever seen – the Great Pyramid of Giza – using only primitive hand tools and backbreaking labor. Something is obviously wrong with this picture.
Is it logical to assume our Earthly ancestors could (or would) have thrown together the agricultural revolution and then the entire civilisations of Sumer and Egypt out of whole cloth? No it is not; and neither do these suppositions represent sound science.
For those of us in the alternative history camp, one of the most fundamental questions we must impress upon the public and upon ‘official science’ is to ask where are the antecedents and precedents? Show us the slow Darwinian stages of development that official history presupposes. How can you explain the sudden appearance of genetically altered food crops and advanced engineering techniques at the onset of human civilisation?
But yes, Postmodernism is awful though, carry on...
Postmodernism's Dangerous History | Stephen Hicks and Stefan Molyneux
A M, Dallas, Tx, Astral travel through space is not unheard of, and it may well be that she had such an experience. How can any of us say for sure if true or false? Extra-terrestrial beings from nearby planets do engage with some people on Earth. Usually these are relatively (spiritually) evolved humans, who are somewhat free from illusion and they interact for definite purposes. Maybe what she is saying is pure fantasy in her case, but it is a well documented fact that ET life has been visiting us for over 50 years. The sightings are increasing in large numbers over past few years. One of the most significant and currently developing stories I know of is an usual star-like object being photographed and video-taped all over the world. Do a search for: "Star sign" on YouTube and you'll find dozens and dozens of videos, or try "ufo star diamond Costa Rica" for a specific example. Very interesting!!
Steve, Australia, Marvelous how many people who cannot possibly know if the woman is telling the truth, think they can declare the state of her mind, based on their assumption, based on nothing more than their own limited experience of the universe. For a mere "bug" which is born onto a tiny speack of dust in a minor part of a single rather uninteresting galaxy, and which lives for less time than it takes a single star to burp....to make assumptions about the entire universe and what is possible within it, is ludicrous. Such people although they don't realise it, are the ones showing mental abberation in the first instance. Only a very low intellect or a nut case could make such assumptions. Maybe Mikiyu is crazy, but frankly based on her story as such, you are in no position to make that judgement. If she is telling the truth, and she may be, then you end up being equivelant to a malformed, unevolved insect in comparison.
To understand the argument put forward about Mars having a Blue Sky, and therefore a thicker atmosphere than NASA or the ESA has claimed, we need to understand how the colouring of the sky on Earth works:
The colours of the sky on Earth are a function of our relatively thick atmosphere. Our blue skies occur due to the scattering of the blue wavelength of light from white light coming from our star.
The sky looks orange when the Sun appears at a low angle in the sky because the light travels though more atmosphere and the blue wavelength has been scattered away leaving the longer red wavelength.
Dust in the atmosphere also contributes to the sunset colours. The clouds and other aerosols reflect these colours.
If we believe NASA, the atmosphere on Mars is as thin as on Earth at 100,000 feet. From near 70,000 feet and higher the sky looking upwards on the daylight side of Earth is black.
To have a red sky would require a lot of obstruction (dust or gas) to block out or scatter the blue wavelengths. According to NASA's own claims the red sky cannot be due to gas.
The problem is that we consistently get orbital pictures of Mars that does not show any of the dust haze that would be needed to get the consistent orange-red skies NASA shows. On Earth, if you get orange daytime skies it is in conditions of a dust storm. The clear orbital picsshould mean we see black skies, like on Earth at high altitude. Either the orbital pictures are in error or NASA's red sky pictures are not true colour representations.
In fact early pictures from Viking and even some pictures from the current set of landers/rovers show blue skies. This is indicative of a thicker atmosphere. It also would account for surface features that look like water run off channels - near impossible in a super thin atmosphere, but easily explained if the atmosphere was slightly thicker (like on Earth at 29,000 feet - the top of Mount Everest).
The argument being made here is from basic scientific principles and observations.
To get the red skies NASA shows on Mars you need a LOT of dust. The fact that we often have clear skies (no haze), and no black sky pictures, and the fact that we sometimes see blue skies, is indicative of NASA portraying Mars with false colour imagery.
If blue is eliminated from the colour pictures then you get lighter surface details. The problem is you also end up with false colour (red) images of the sky.
We even have NASA pictures that show the elimination of blue from the colour composition. In this picture from the Spirit rover mission you can see the colour calibration sundial and blue strips that come up pink:
Blue has been removed from the image. If blue is added back in, and we end up with a blue sky, then Mars has a thicker atmosphere than we've been led to believe.
Spook.
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, July 28th, 2018.]
According to the text books Mars has very low surface air pressure which is 0.6 of the sea level pressure we have on Earth. The pounds per square inch is 0.087 (psi) to our 14.69 (psi). Images of the Martian sky taken in these alleged conditions often reveal an orange or grey-blue sky.
At 0.087 psi the level of Martian air pressure is similar to the very thin atmosphere on Earth at an altitude of 100,000 feet. According to this chart the psi on Earth at 100,000 feet is 0.162 compared to Mars at 0.087.
HOWEVER, the problem we face is that during the daylight hours on Earth at 100,000 feet the sky appears black.
On Mars, with a similar air pressure, looking upwards we are not treated to a black sky during the daylight hours but something either reddish or blue-grey.
BUT without dust, or even with small amounts of dust, and having such a thin atmosphere, the sky should conform to the same physical principles we find on Earth - the sky will be black.
On Earth, if we find ourselves looking skyward at a reddish hue we need either a lot of dust, like what one sees during a dust storm (in which visibility becomes obstructed); or instances where the Sun is shining low in the sky (through a lot more atmosphere) and the Rayleigh light scattering effect has turned away the blue wavelengths of light leaving the longer wavelengths of light (such as red) to travel in the direction of the observer. Also causing the red colouring on Earth is the Mei light scattering effect that interacts with larger sized particles (dust) at lower altitudes to cause red sunset colours to dominate out of the Sun's spectrum of light.
The problem we face with Mars is that there is an allegedly thin atmosphere and a distinct lack of haze from dust in the sky - except when there are dust storms. Looking at the thousands of high resolution images taken of Mars by the European Space Agency probe Mars Express you can see pictures without noticeable dust haze. Many of the pictures are stunning because of their clarity.
If the atmosphere was always full of dust - enough to cause a red hue- then we should almost always see instances of dust haze, just like on Earth when we find orange sky situations.
One should note that on any Earth day there is actually dust suspended in our relatively thick atmosphere - car filters pick it up all the time - and yet looking upwards - we see no red hues. All we are greeted with is the blue glare from the Rayleigh effect as white light interacts with small gas molecules in our atmosphere.
At night time, we still have our atmosphere, with the dust, and yet when we look up, there is no red hue, even when we have the stronger levels of light reflected directly off the Moon, absent the excessive blue glare from the daytime Rayleigh effect. Looking at the Moon we commonly see the white Sun light, and the grey and darker surface colours, being reflecting off the Moon - plus occasionally we see it as yellow thanks to mild Rayleigh scattering and dust effects - but no reds like in the Mars pictures.
With such a thin atmosphere on Mars, the sky should be predominantly black, just like on Earth at 100,000 feet, with occasional instances of redness from dust storms. The idea that there is enough dust always suspended in the thin Martian atmosphere to give a constant red hue seems extremely unlikely.
It has also been claimed that the red Mars we see, that looks like a star in the night sky, is due again to suspended dust in the atmosphere - in combination with the planet's surface colour. Yet when we look at the Moon we see its colour does not come from dust suspended in an atmosphere, but from the dark surface, the Sun's white light, and the effects of our own atmosphere. The same can hold true of Mars and we should not automatically accept that dust in the atmosphere must be the primary element - although such an effect is present when there are dust storms, which is to be expected on a planet that comprises mostly of desert.
The bottom line is that according to the official account - with a thin atmosphere - the Martian sky should theoretically be very black. There is no evidence to show that there is enough dust continually suspended in the clear sky to create the haze needed to produce an orange sky we see in the official pictures - the ones labelled as showing the true Martian sky colour.
The same process we find Earth works on Mars - the basic physics does not change.
What is more likely, is that the sky we see in the Martian pictures is much thicker than what we have been told.
This thicker atmosphere would account for 'wash features' on the surface plus many of the images we find with blue-grey sky colours. The orange clear sky colours would be the image 'enhanced' pictures released by NASA, not the true colour pictures. At present many scientists are having trouble explaining the liquid water related phenomena (http://rt.com/news/water-flowing-mars-nasa-evidence-470/) because water would evaporate rapidly in the officially endorsed low pressure environment.
