What Exactly Has Been Found in the Grand Canyon?

As Always, do your own research:

Ancient Egyptians in the Grand Canyon — Another Smithsonian Cover-up

One of the most intriguing archaeological discoveries in America comes from the rocky cliffs of the Grand Canyon.

What makes it even more interesting is the fact that the Smithsonian itself covered it up and hid this mysterious discovery of an ancient civilization living below the canyon.

The World Explorers Club led an investigation regarding the authenticity of this discovery after they found an intricate story on the front page of the Phoenix Gazette from April 5, 1909.

It was an accurate description of an expedition led by Professor S.A. Jordan of the Smithsonian, surfacing with great archaeological finds from a remote cave in the Grand Canyon.

Maybe the most interesting is the attitude of the Smithsonian, claiming to have zero knowledge about this discovery and its discoverers.

When asked about the newspaper article regarding a Smithsonian excavation in the Grand Canyon where Egyptian artifacts had been found — and whether they could offer more information — a representative of the institution said:

“The first thing I can tell you before we go any further, is that no Egyptian artifact of any kind have ever been found in North or South America. Therefore, I can tell you that the Smithsonian Institute has never been involved in any such excavations.”

No one from the Smithsonian could offer any information about the discovery or either G.E. Kinkaid and Professor S.A. Jordan. It was like the entire article from the 1909, Phoenix newspaper was a shameless hoax.

But, considering the fact that it appeared on the front page, mentioned the famous Smithsonian Institution and some of its archaeologists, and it also contained a very detailed story written on numerous pages, many believe the newspaper was a legitimate source.

So, why are they covering this up? After all, we are talking about a monumental discovery that would completely change the current belief that there was no form of communication or travel over the oceans in pre-Colombian times.

Also, the belief that all American Indians were the followers of Ice Age adventurers who came across the Bering Strait would become questionable.

The idea of ancient Egyptians coming to Arizona in an ancient past is denied even though the Smithsonian Institution seems to have proof of it. Why won’t they reveal this information?

Is it because this astounding discovery would overwrite current academic teachings? Or maybe because of the interest to preserve their current status as keepers of forbidden knowledge.

The Tower of Ra

Following these events, in the pursuit of finding the truth, historian Carl Hart, editor of World Explorer, acquired a map of the Grand Canyon from a bookstore in Chicago.

Looking over the map, he was surprised to find that a considerable portion on the north side of the canyon has Egyptian names. The field around Ninety-four Mile Creek and Trinity Creek had areas named after Egyptian gods like Tower of Ra, Tower of Set, Osiris Temple, Horus Temple or Isis Temple.

Also, the Haunted Canyon area had some unfamiliar places on the map, such as the Cheops Pyramid, the Buddha Cloister, Buddha Temple, Shiva Temple and Manu Temple. Were any of these places related to the other Egyptian findings in the Grand Canyon?

The Isis Temple

The World Explorers Club then called a state archaeologist at the Grand Canyon. He said that the names were just a coincidence and that the early adventurers enjoyed Egyptian and Hindu names.

But one thing was certain – that area was restricted to hikers or other foreigners, because of dangerous caves and unsafe environment.

Could these hidden caverns contain the actual truth and, if so, for how long will it be sealed?

If we take a look at the bigger picture, there is a lot of leaked information which points us into a different direction than what we were taught by the public school system and television. We have a different notion of “truth” and we are also aware of all the odd jobs going on.

One thing is certain: history has a lot of gaps, and the existing evidence might be a paved road over an otherwise dusty foundation, representing the real history of humankind.

Reference: UFOholic.com

from:   http://humansarefree.com/2017/12/ancient-egyptians-in-grand-canyon.html

Rethinking T Rex

T. Rex couldn’t stick out its tongue, new research shows

June 20, 2018, University of Texas at Austin
T. Rex couldn't stick out its tongue, new research shows
Reconstructions of dinosaurs at museums and theme parks often show their tongues wildly waving–a feature that is incorrect, according to new research led by The University of Texas at Austin and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Credit: Spencer Wright

Dinosaurs are often depicted as fierce creatures, baring their teeth, with tongues wildly stretching from their mouths like giant, deranged lizards. But new research reveals a major problem with this classic image: Dinosaurs couldn’t stick out their tongues like lizards. Instead, their tongues were probably rooted to the bottoms of their mouths in a manner akin to alligators.

Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin and the Chinese Academy of Sciences made the discovery by comparing the hyoid bones—the bones that support and ground the tongue—of and crocodiles with those of their extinct dinosaur relatives. In addition to challenging depictions of dino tongues, the research proposes a connection on the origin of flight and an increase in tongue diversity and mobility.

The research was published June 20 in the journal PLOS ONE.

“Tongues are often overlooked. But, they offer key insights into the lifestyles of extinct animals,” said lead author Zhiheng Li, an associate professor at the Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.He conducted the work while earning his Ph.D. at the UT Jackson School of Geosciences.

The researchers made their discovery by comparing the hyoid bones of extinct , pterosaurs and alligators to the hyoid bones and muscles of modern and alligator specimens. Hyoid bones act as anchors for the tongue in most animals, but in birds these bones can extend to the tip. Because extinct dinosaurs are related to crocodiles, pterosaurs and modern birds, comparing anatomy across these groups can help scientists understand the similarities and differences in tongue anatomy and how traits evolved through time and across different lineages.

The comparison process involved taking high-resolution images of hyoid muscles and bones from 15 modern specimens, including three alligators and 13 bird species as diverse as ostriches and ducks, at the Jackson School’s High-Resolution X-Ray Computed Tomography Facility (UTCT). The fossil specimens, most from northeastern China, were scrutinized for preservation of the delicate tongue bones and included small bird-like dinosaurs, as well as pterosaurs and a Tyrannosaurus rex.

T. Rex couldn't stick out its tongue, new research shows
Tongue and hyoid reconstructions from living taxa. Credit: Li et al. 2018

The results indicate that hyoid bones of most dinosaurs were like those of alligators and crocodiles—short, simple and connected to a tongue that was not very mobile. Co-author and Jackson School Professor Julia Clarke said that these findings mean that dramatic reconstructions that show dinosaurs with tongues stretching out from between their jaws are wrong.

“They’ve been reconstructed the wrong way for a long time,” Clarke said. “In most extinct dinosaurs their tongue bones are very short. And in crocodilians with similarly short hyoid bones, the tongue is totally fixed to the floor of the mouth.”

Clarke is no stranger to overturning dinosaur conventions. Her 2016 study on dinosaur vocalizations found evidence that large dinosaurs might make booming or cooing sounds, similar to the sounds made by crocodiles and ostriches.

In contrast to the short hyoid bones of crocodiles, the researchers found that pterosaurs, bird-like dinosaurs, and living birds have a great diversity in hyoid shapes. They think the range of shapes could be related to flight ability, or in the case of flightless birds such as ostriches and emus, evolved from an ancestor that could fly. The researchers propose that taking to the skies could have led to new ways of feeding that could be tied to diversity and mobility in tongues.

“Birds, in general, elaborate their tongue structure in remarkable ways,” Clarke said. “They are shocking.”

That elaboration could be related to the loss of dexterity that accompanied the transformation of hands into wings, Li said.

T. Rex couldn't stick out its tongue, new research shows
Incredible fossils discovered in Northeast China with the hyoid bones preserved. The blue and green arrows are pointing to the hyoid apparatus. Credit: Li et al. 2018

“If you can’t use a hand to manipulate prey, the tongue may become much more important to manipulate food,” Li said. “That is one of the hypotheses that we put forward.”

The scientists note one exception linking tongue diversity to flight. Ornithischian dinosaurs—a group that includes triceratops, ankylosaurs and other plant-eating dinosaurs that chewed their food—had hyoid bones that were highly complex and more mobile, though they were structurally different from those of flying dinosaurs and pterosaurs.

Further research on other anatomical changes that occurred with shifts in function could help improve our knowledge of the evolution of birds, Clarke said, giving an example of how changes in the tongues of living birds are associated with changes in the position of the opening of the windpipe. These changes could in turn affect how birds breathe and vocalize.

However, the researchers note that the fossil record as yet can’t pin down when these changes to the windpipe occurred.

“There is more work to be done,” Li said

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-rex-couldnt-tongue.html#jCp

Towards Decentralization

Is This The Century of Secession?

By Jon Rappoport

Here is the political question of our time: Will it be one future for all, or many futures side by side? Read on.

—Any movement toward secession is a good thing, no matter how ill-conceived. It puts a different idea in minds: defect, decentralize, opt out, strive to become more self-sufficient. This idea can spawn many new strategies, over the long run.

For example, there is a lot of noise about California seceding from the Union.

One plan would split the state up into three parts. This is currently the strongest initiative, because those three parts wouldn’t actually secede; they would become new states.

However, Congress has to OK the formation of new states, and it will never do so.

All this interesting and fertile chaos obscures something else that is happening in California. The Mercury News reports (4/24/18):

“At least 14 Southern California cities and two counties have passed ordinances, and in some cases filed lawsuits, against the state’s controversial sanctuary laws that largely prohibit local and state authorities from cooperating with federal immigration officers [who want to deport illegal immigrants].”

“While the anti-sanctuary wave is rolling across some of California’s most Republican strongholds [Orange and San Diego counties], they aren’t an aftershock from the 2016 election: Democrat Hillary Clinton trounced Trump in Orange County by 8 percentage points and San Diego County by 20 percentage points [if you believe the legitimacy of the vote count].”

According to the Mercury News, here are the local entities that have rebelled against California sanctuary-immigration policy:

Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Beaumont — Riverside County
Dana Point — Orange County
Ripon — San Joaquin County
Los Alamitos — Orange County
Laguna Niguel — Orange County
San Juan Capistrano — Orange County
Aliso Viejo — Orange County
Mission Viejo — Orange County
Yorba Linda — Orange County
Newport Beach — Orange County
Westminster — Orange County
Huntington Beach — Orange County
Orange — Orange, County
Fountain Valley — Orange County
Escondido –San Diego County

This is where the action is. This movement has legs. It could spread even further.

For example, suppose these rebelling communities get together? Suppose a few leaders have working imaginations? Who knows what they might come up with?

Suppose a few communities in CA decide they don’t like the state’s mandatory child-vaccine law, and they want to refuse its provisions?

One idea (even an unworkable one) gives birth to other ideas. A contagion begins. For example, people consider the original notion of limited government and a Constitutional Republic. Unconscionable government meddlers are seen as meddlers and criminals. A wave builds. People experience glimpses of freedom. They hunger for more. They feel something new stirring in their bones.

They contemplate the possibility that doom is not inevitable.

What would 1776 look like, and how might it play out, today, in a state (California) that once celebrated cutting-edge innovation, before an elite fungal infection rolled in?

The best estimate of the 13 colonies’ population in 1776 is 2.5 million. A federal Republic was designed for a small group, not 325 million people. Jefferson envisioned a ladder of independent Republics—from village to ward to county to state to federal—each emphasizing freedom of the individual, each hamstringing the power of government to the strictest degree possible.

He was not alone. The whole freedom movement of the time was conscious of the danger of unchecked government and corporate control.

It fell to state legislatures to limit corporations by chartering them to do business. If a corporation harmed the public good, the legislature could, without a trial, exile it from the state. This was in line with the prevailing concept (eventually overturned by corrupt judges and business monopolists) that a corporation was not a person, and did not have the rights of an individual.

Any effort in the direction of DECENTRALIZATION is a good thing. We are long overdue in that regard.

And as far Europe is concerned—the countries who birthed the idea of individual freedom after centuries of struggle—from whom the American Founders took their political innovations—the present European Union is a lurching monster—it is a direct contradiction to the profound concept of liberty. It should be repealed on every front and summarily dumped and left at the side of the road—a relic of fascism that once posed as a purveyor of the public good.

DECENTRALIZATION really becomes fascinating when you consider the formation of intentional communities based on political ideas of every stripe. The inhabitants themselves decide the principles that apply. Some version of share and care and equality for all? A Constitutional Republic? A monarchy? Experiments proliferate and stand and fall on their own. With the advance of technology, it’s possible to outfit a local community with its own power supply, its own digital platforms, etc., on behalf of increased self-sufficiency.

The octopoid reach of overweening central governments loses strength. New cultures evolve, side by side. Whatever shapes the political structures of communities take, the underlying effort is pro-independence.

That would be authentic secession.

The vector moves toward the individual and away from the collective.

On the education front, this is already happening, as parents, disgusted with the crime, drugs, social indoctrination, and political correctness in public brainwashing centers, are opting for home schooling.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know the so-called Health Freedom movement has been expanding for many decades. It is based on the concept that every person has the right to manage his own health and seek out unconventional treatments. Despite government efforts to corral the population into Big Pharma medicine, citizens have broken out of that mold. In a big way.

Then there is “alternative news.” Untold numbers of decentralized outlets have bloomed across the world. Of course, they are labeled “fake news,” because the mainstream monopolists are terrified they are losing their grip on the minds of populations. In 2001, when I launched my site, nomorefakenews.com, I was acutely aware of mainstream brainwashing in the arena of information. I defected from print journalism and went out on my own. Seventeen years later, I’m still here.

Decentralization on every front is occurring. It isn’t always pretty, and it isn’t always on target, but that’s what you get when you get freedom. Life pushes through worn ground and explores new possibilities.

It all comes back to the individual mind. Is that mind free and wide-ranging or is it programmed? When free minds cooperate, the choices are extensive, and success is possible in many directions.

DECENTRALIZATION IS ALL ABOUT IMAGINATION. That is the key. When individuals conceive the futures they want, by imagining and projecting them, doors and windows into the future open. Not one future for all—but many futures side by side.

One future for all is the totalitarian nightmare. The Globalist nightmare.

Cracking that monolith is the job of this century.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2018/06/is-this-the-century-of-secession.html

What. DOES Facebook Know About you?

The 18 things you may not realise Facebook knows about you: Firm reveals the extent of its spying in a 454-page document to Congress

  • Facebook knows your exact mouse movements and battery status
  • It can tell if your browser window is ‘foregrounded or backgrounded’
  • In some cases, it monitors devices around its users or on the same network 
  • The details were revealed in document of answers to Congress following Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance in April over the Cambridge Analytica scandal

WHAT ARE THE 18 METHODS USED BY FACEBOOK TO TRACK USERS REVEALED IN LETTERS TO CONGRESS?

1. ‘Device information’ from ‘computers, phones, connected TVs, and other web-connected devices,’ as well as your ‘internet service provider or mobile operator’

2. ‘Mouse movements’, which can help distinguish humans from bots

3. ‘App and file names’, including the types of files on your devices

4. ‘Device operations’ such as whether a window running Facebook is ‘foregrounded or backgrounded’

5. ‘Device signals’, including ‘nearby Wi-Fi access points, beacons, and cell towers’ and ‘signal strength’ as well as Bluetooth signals

6. ‘Other devices that are nearby or on their network’

7. ‘Battery level’

8. ‘Available storage space’

9. ‘Plugins’ installed

10. ‘Connection speed’

11. ‘Purchases’ Facebook users make on third-party websites

12. Contact information ‘such as an address book’ and ‘call log or SMS log history’ for Android users with these settings synced

13. Information ‘about how users use features like our camera’

14. The ‘location of a photo or the date a file was created’ through the file’s metadata

15. ‘GPS location, camera, or photo’ information found through your device’s settings

16. Purchases from third-party data providers as well as other information about your ‘online and offline actions’

17. ‘Device IDs, and other identifiers, such as from games, apps or accounts users use’

18. ‘When others share or comment on a photo of them, send a message to them, or upload, sync or import their contact information’ text

The creepy ways Facebook spies on its users have been detailed in a bumper document presented to Congress.

They include tracking mouse movements, logging battery levels and monitoring devices close to a user that are on the same network.

The 454-page report was created in response to questions Mark Zuckerberg was asked during his appearance before Congress in April.

Lawmakers gave Zuckerberg a public grilling over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but he failed to answer many of their queries.

The new report is Facebook’s attempt to address their questions, although it sheds little new light on the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

However, it does contain multiple disclosures about the way Facebook collects data.

Some are unsurprising, such as the time people spend on Facebook, while others may come as a shock to the majority of users.

Device information

Facebook tracks what device you are using to access the network.

To do this, it will log the hardware manufacturer of your smartphone, connected television, tablet, computer, or other internet-connected devices.

Facebook also tracks the operating system, software versions and web browser.

If you’re using a smartphone, it will keep a record of the mobile carrier, while internet service providers (ISPs) will be stored for users using a Wi-Fi or Ethernet connection to access Facebook.

In some cases, it will monitor devices that are using the same network as you.

‘Facebook’s services inherently operate on a cross-device basis: understanding when people use our services across multiple devices helps us provide the same personalized experience wherever people use Facebook,’ the firm wrote in the lengthy document.

According to Facebook, this is done, for example, ‘to ensure that a person’s News Feed or profile contains the same content whether they access our services on their mobile phone or in a desktop computer’s web browser.’

Facebook also says this information is used to curate more personalized ads.

 

to find out more, go to:    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5834371/The-18-things-not-realise-Facebook-knows-YOU.html

Zero and the Honeybee – Sweet!

A couple days ago, a quite interesting study was published that claims to identify the fact that bees are capable of understanding the mathematical concept of “zero.”

The study reportedly confirms that the honeybee is fully capable of understanding the quantitative value of nothing. Not only that, but they are gifted with the ability to correctly place zero at the beginning of a line of sequential numbers: they can understand zero, one, two, ect.

Of all insects out there, this is supposed to be the first concrete evidence to prove that the brain of an insect has the capability of understanding the concept of zero. This discovery has implications for the understanding of insect brains, but it also has implications about the evolution of complex number processing in living beings, according to articles reporting on the study.

Scientists say there are four distinct stages of understanding the concept of zero in both animal learning, and human culture, psychology, and history.

Stage one is a being understanding that zero means the absence of something, such as zero food, or zero air. A simple amount of visual processing ability can probably ensure a being can understand zero at this level.

Stage two is when a living being understands the difference between “nothing” and “something” with the concept of zero. For example, the absence of daylight once the sun sets is an understanding of zero as “something” vs “nothing.”

Stage three of understanding zero is defined as an understanding of the fact that a numeric value can be assigned to zero, and that zero belongs at the low end of a chronological sequence of numbers. The number line goes zero, one, two, three ect.

Stage four, the most advanced stage, is when a being fully understands that zero can be assigned a symbolic representation of “nothing,” for example 3 – 3 = 0.

So where do honeybees fall in these categories? Honeybees have officially achieved stage three in that process.

Believe it or not, it’s an elite few species across the entirety of life that are capable of understanding “zero” to this degree. The ability to learn or spontaneously develop an understanding of the concept of zero has so far only been observed in honeybees, vervet monkeys, rhesus monkeys, one African gray parrot, and a single chimpanzee.

This is definitely the first time such an advanced understanding of mathematics has been observed in any insects.

So why is zero so important? Throughout the history of humanity, it has apparently been demonstrably significant for a culture to understand it.

For centuries, the concept of zero as a number with a quantitative value went unnoticed. One early example is the Chinese using counting rods to mark a blank space, to represent a place holder in values.

By 628AD as far as we know, zero had a written record and people recognized it as a number by itself. An Indian mathematician named Brahma Gupta wrote about this in his book Brahmasputha Siddhanta.

His work constituted the first written record to provide an actual framework for people doing math to use zero when making calculations.

(Image credit: pixabaybooksfact, huffingtonpost, sciencebuzz)

from:    https://themindunleashed.com/2018/06/study-proves-honeybees-can-understand-a-complex-mathematical-concept.html

Highway Art as Environment

Take a drive down any interstate in the United States and what will you see? Billboards, dozens and dozens of billboards. Not only do the advertisements distract commuters, they block stunning scenes of natural landscapes. For these reasons, artist Jennifer Bolande painted surreal landscapes on a collection of billboards that blend into their backgrounds. 

The billboards were installed along the Gene Autry Trail in the sunny state of California. From the right vantage point, commuters could see larger-than-life photographs blend into their majestic backgrounds. 

The project, Visible Distance / Second Sight, was created by Bolande for part of Desert X. The outdoor exhibition of art exhibitions and site-specific work took place across the Coachella Valley between Feb. 25 through April 30, 2017.

Credit: Jennifer Bolande

Explains the DesertX project page:

“Each photograph is unique to its position along this route and at a certain point as one approaches each billboard, perfect alignment with the horizon will occur thus reconnecting the space that the rectangle of the billboard has interrupted.

In the language of billboard advertising this kind of reading is referred to as a Burma-Shave after the shaving cream company of the same name who used sequential placement to create messaging that could be read only from a moving vehicle.

Credit: Jennifer Bolande

Within the desert empire of roadside signs, Bolande chooses to advertise the very thing so often overlooked. Looking up at the billboards our attention is drawn back to the landscape itself, pictured here as a stuttering kinesthetic of real and artificial horizons.”

Credit: Jennifer Bolande

A major objective of Desert X was to raise awareness about global and local issues, ranging from climate change to starry skies, to immigration and tourism to gaming and golf.

Credit: Jennifer Bolande

from:    https://themindunleashed.com/2018/03/artist-replaces-billboards-with-photos-of-the-landscapes-theyre-blocking.html

Where Has Your Privacy Gone?

The US Government Just Destroyed Our Privacy While Nobody Was Paying Attention

(ANTIMEDIA) — While the nation remained fixated on gun control and Facebook’s violative practices last week, the U.S. government quietly codified the CLOUD Act, its own intrusive policies on citizens’ data.

While the massive, $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill passed Friday received widespread media attention, the CLOUD Act — which lawmakers snuck into the end of the 2,300-page bill — was hardly addressed.

The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD) “updates the rules for criminal investigators who want to see emails, documents and other communications stored on the internet,”CNETreported. “Now law enforcement won’t be blocked from accessing someone’s Outlook account, for example, just because Microsoft happens to store the user’s email on servers in Ireland.

The CLOUD Act will also allow the U.S. to enter into agreements that allow the transfer of private data from domestic servers to investigators in other countries on a case-by-case basis, further globalizing the ever-encroaching surveillance state. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has strongly opposed the legislation, listed several consequences of the bill, which it called “far-reaching” and “privacy-upending”:

  • Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people’s communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
  • Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
  • Allow the U.S. president to enter “executive agreements” that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
  • Allow foreign police to collect someone’s data without notifying them about it.
  • Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it’s a U.S. person’s or not, no matter where it is stored.

The bill is an update to the current MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty), the current framework for sharing internet user data between countries, which both legislators and tech companies have criticized as inefficient.

Some tech companies, like Microsoft, have endorsed the new CLOUD policy. Brad Smith, the company’s president and chief legal officer, called it  “a strong statute and a good compromise,” that “gives tech companies like Microsoft the ability to stand up for the privacy rights of our customers around the world.”

They echoed the sentiment of lawmakers like Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In February, he said of the bill:

“The CLOUD Act bridges the divide that sometimes exists between law enforcement and the tech sector by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to access data throughout the world while at the same time creating a commonsense framework to encourage international cooperation to resolve conflicts of law.”

But one of the biggest complaints from privacy advocates, however, it that the new legislation places too much unmitigated power in the hands of governments with abysmal human rights records while also giving too much discretion to the U.S. government’s executive branch. Noting that the executive branch will decide which countries are human rights compliant and that those countries will then be able to engage in data collection and wiretaps without any further restrictions or oversight, the ACLU warned:

Flip through Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch’s recent annual reports, and you can find a dizzying array of countries that have ratified major human rights treaties and reflect those obligations in their domestic laws but, in fact, have arrested, tortured and killed people in retaliation for their activism or due to their identity.”

The organization pointed out that no human rights organizations have endorsed the CLOUD Act, adding that “in the case of countries certified by the executive branch, the CLOUD Act would not require the U.S. government to scrutinize data requests by the foreign governments — indeed, the bill would not even require notifying the U.S. government or a user regarding a request.”

Further, the ACLU says, if a foreign government’s human rights record deteriorates, there is no mechanism to revoke its access to data. Considering the U.S.’ existing record on supporting regimes that severely restrict basic rights like freedom of expression, the expanded access the CLOUD Act provides is undoubtedly worrisome.

Also predictable is the government’s stale justification for expanding its power. As the CLOUD Act claims, it is purportedly to “protect public safety and combat serious crime, including terrorism” — even if it further empowers governments that support and commit said terrorism.

In an age where the government already engages in mass surveillance and is eager to disable the people’s efforts to protect their privacy through encryption technology, it is unsurprising, albeit dangerous, that Congress continues to encroach on what little is left of safeguards against unwarranted intrusions.

from:    http://theantimedia.com/us-government-privacy-cloud-act/

Website is asking for support:

We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you.  (Go to link to support)

Does Your Opinion Matter?

Got Gold? Got Silver? in AZ

Banksters

ARIZONA LEGALIZES GOLD AND SILVER AS CURRENCY

Yesterday, you’ll recall, I blogged about my high octane speculation, or perhaps one might even call it a high octane suspicion, that the human trafficking scandals that have erupted in almost every country of the west and which have spilled over into other countries, might be a large component of what I have been calling a hidden system of finance. And as China, Russia, and other nations of the BRICSA bloc have been buying up bullion, and negotiated bi-lateral currency and trading agreements, something else has been happening, quietly, and far from the attentions of the lamestream presstitutes of the corporate controlled globaloney media. And no, I’m not talking about the efforts of Germany or other countries to repatriate, and get an accurate audit, of their gold reserves on deposit in foreign central banks.

I’m talking about the quiet “revolt of the states” taking place in the USSA.

The Empire of the United States is in a bit of an economic quandry, for it doesn’t make much that other people want to buy any more. Agriculture remains one of the USSA’s primary non-military exports, but much of that food supply is now tainted with GMO products, and the growing revolt against them around the world might conceivably dent that in the future. Other than this, America doesn’t export much that other people want to buy. If one has a few billion dollars of pocket change laying around, then one might want to buy an aircraft carrier, but increasingly, with new and much less expensive Russian missile technologies about to come into operational use, these big behemoths might end up being nothing but “missile magnets,” as a US Navy friend of mine put it to me once during a recent conversation. Tanks? Well, Germany has an equivalent one, so why feed your hard earned defense dollars to the American beast when you can feed it to the smaller German beast? And for that matter, Russia has a better tank than either the USSA or Germany. They probably aren’t selling, but at least you can try.

What about energy? Natural gas and such? Well, the USSA’s sanctions game with Russia has as its unstated and hidden goal the sale of energy to Europe, a nice way to keep those pesky Frenchmen and Germans under the American thumb. The problem there is, it’s more expensive than getting it from Russia, and the Germans are, understandably, not too happy about that. Even Frau Merkel woke up from her multicultural slumber long enough to tell her lackey, Mr. Junker, to express some profound displeasure. Go back to sleep now, Angela. All is well, Europe continues to crumble.

Aircraft? Well, sure, for a few tens of millions, one might want to buy an F-35. Trouble is, its performance is far below what was touted making it an expensive waste. How about a very expensive Aegis class missile frigate? The problem there is, obsolescent Russian Sukhoi fighters appear to be able to turn them off, completely. What about a nice Patriot anti-missile system? The problem there is, the new class of Russian ICBMs can defeat it, since they can change flight paths even in the descent stage, as can their 24 MIRVed warheads. But fortunately, the never-to-be-trusted-always-Byzantinely-scheming-Russians aren’t selling that on the open market. (“Park it in my back yard, guys. Thanks!”)

As all this is happening, I recently blogged about the Pentagram study that acknowledged that, yes, since 9/11, everyone in the world has pretty much had it with the USSA’s unipolarism. Their solution? Double down: more arms, more militarization of the American economy, and, of course, more surveillance of Americans.

Perhaps the Pentagram’s study was motivated by the growing revolt of American states against the cultural and political swamp of psychopathy that Washington, District of Cesspool, has become. It’s a story we’ve covered here before: more and more state legislatures are passing resolutions recognizing bullion as legal Constitutional tender. Texas took an even bigger, bolder step, by creating a state bullion depository, a move which was followed by discussions of similar measures in Utah.

Now, Arizona joins, according to this article shared by Mr. B.H. (copy and paste into your browser):

The backing of the USSA’s Federal Reserve notes is, of course, nothing but American military power. And if that military power is increasingly looking like a “risky” investment to foreign nations, then the dollar’s days as a reserve currency are numbered. And some American states are seeing this, and acting. Hence, the Pentagram’s recent study might be casting a nervous glance, not on foreign violence, or even random domestic violence, but at the growing movement of quiet revolt in the states themselves.

… it makes one think, just for a moment, that it was a shame General Beauregard didn’t march into Washington, as some of his subordinate commanders urged him to do after the First Battle of Bull Run, but in any case, with all the new and abhorrent human trafficking going on, one wonders if, in fact, the South really did win…

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/08/arizona-legalizes-gold-silver-currency/

Monsanto Pushes to Remove Negative Studies

Study of toxic effects on rats by Roundup

Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports

Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.

In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”

Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”

In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”

Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.

Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”

Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”

A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto

The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.

The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”

Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.

Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.

The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.

A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”

In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”

Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.

Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study

It’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.

A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that “a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini’s claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers”.

The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.

Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that “unfortunately”, three “potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)”. These are potential demands for
•    2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops
•    2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and
•    2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.

In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study “found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops”. GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.

In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study “actually finds nothing – so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it – but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response.”

In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, “This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests.” But he adds, “We also need a coherent argument for this issue.”

EU regulators side with Monsanto

To the public’s detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing awaywith even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto’s GM MON810 maize.

Apology required

A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an “emeritus editor”. Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal’s editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.

But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini’s paper belongs.

Now that Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.

from:    http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/17764-uncovered-monsanto-campaign-to-get-seralini-study-retracted