Titanic conspiracy, due diligence, natural law and mind control

The night of April 14 through April 15 marks the anniversary of the catastrophic sinking of the famous RMS Titanic, along with the appalling loss of over 1,500 lives in the icy waters of the North Atlantic.  

After leaving the US Army and reading more about the details of the Titanic catastrophe, and in particular the contrasting actions of Captains E.J. Smith of the Titanic, Stanley Lord of the Californian, and Arthur H. Rostron of the Carpathia, I often wondered why the actions of these three captains were not used as a valuable leadership study for officers.  Later, after encountering some of the analysis which challenges the official story (that is to say, the "conspiracy theory" which examines evidence that the Titanic disaster was actually deliberate, at least in the sinking of the ship itself if not the horrendous loss of so many lives), the fact that such an obvious potential study in action and inaction in the face of disaster was never actually mentioned in all the days I spent at West Point or in the Regular Army as an officer on active duty becomes (perhaps, if any of those theories are correct) more understandable.  

For the record, such leadership studies and discussions were a nearly constant feature of life both as a cadet at West Point and an officer in the 82nd Airborne and 4th Infantry Divisions.  We studied and discussed (over and over, on not just one but on multiple occasions) the actions of the officers involved in the Breaker Morant incident during the Boer War (for example), or of the officers involved in the airborne invasion of Holland (which were dramatized in the movie A Bridge Too Far).  But the actions of the officers involved in the Titanic disaster were never even mentioned.  Perhaps this is because those actions took place on ships at sea (perhaps officers in the Navy discuss them all the time -- I don't know).  However, it is also possible that they are not discussed because there appears to be strong evidence suggesting the possibility that something more was at work than an accident at sea, and that too much examination of the facts of the case would suggest this possibility even to young officers or cadets without much -- or any -- knowledge of the sea.

It is a fact that the US Congressional investigation, conducted by a Senator who was famously not personally familiar with the ocean or with maritime operations (and who was lambasted in the media for that fact, particularly by the media in Great Britain), uncovered the fact that Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian (the ship closest to the Titanic on the night that the Titanic sank) was told by his officers during the night of rockets being fired by a ship nearby, but that he neither came to the deck nor even ordered his wireless operator to be awakened to turn on the wireless set; had he done so, the wireless operator would have heard the multiple distress signals being broadcast by the wireless operators on Titanic. 

Further, the US Congressional inquiry, as well as the subsequent British inquiry, determined that there was a "suspicious lack of any entries about rockets in the Californian's log" and that the pages of the "scrap log" -- an informal log which the officers use to record entries prior to recording them in the official log for the record -- pertaining to the night of April 14 to 15 were missing, while the rest of the log was intact (the quotation is from page 194 of Daniel Allen Butler's book Unsinkable, which notes that the transcript and official findings of both the American and British formal inquiries into the disaster call attention to this same suspicious fact regarding the log of the Californian)*. The captain of the Californian's failure to get up from his nap on the settee in his chartroom, or even to order the wireless to be activated and the wireless operator to be roused upon multiple reports of white rockets being fired nearby, is well-nigh inexplicable, and it is clear that both inquiries found his actions inexcusable and culpable and said so.

It is also curious, as some of the documentaries examining the possibility of a conspiracy in the Titanic disaster have noted, that the passenger liner Californian was making its way from England to Boston without any passengers on board, and that it had stopped for the night quite close to the point where Titanic would eventually founder.  Some astute analysts of the disaster have wondered at the fact that Californian was sent on that mission despite the fact (well-known to Titanic historians) that there was a major coal strike going on throughout Great Britain, and that coal was difficult to come by at the time that Californian and Titanic left England.

Lord's inexcusable inaction could be contrasted with the commendable -- and, in fact, heroic -- action of Captain Arthur Rostron of Carpathia, who immediately ordered his ship to steam at full speed towards the reported location of Titanic the moment his wireless operator perceived that Titanic was in distress.  While Californian was probably eleven miles away, Carpathia was about fifty-eight miles away, and it took Rostron about four hours to arrive on scene -- the Titanic sank only two hours after Carpathia began steaming towards her.  Nevertheless, Rostron and his ship's crew were responsible for rescuing those in the lifeboats when they arrived, and the captain of the Carpathia made several correct decisions in order to get there as quickly as possible, including cutting off heat and hot water to the rest of the ship in order to maximize the steam available for locomotion, and doubling the lookouts both aloft and on deck in order to watch for ice as the steam plowed through the ice fields at night towards the site of Titanic's distress call.

Rostron's clear-headed and decisive action also contrasts sharply with the aimless inaction of the captain of Titanic, and with the haphazard and desultory loading of lifeboats on the stricken ship.  The videos included on this page, however, contain the analysis of those who suggest that there is evidence that the Titanic was deliberately sunk, possibly as an insurance scam -- a theory which would explain the lack of real concern among the captain and officers, if they had been told that Californian would be standing by in the vicinity in order to pick everyone up before the ship went down.  

Many of those who believe Titanic was sunk deliberately believe that it was actually Titanic's sister ship Olympic which was sunk -- that Olympic had been badly damaged by the same Captain Smith in an earlier event for which her captain was found culpable, and that because of this culpability, the insurance coverage would not pay for the repair of the fundamental structural damage on the Olympic.  Instead of just "eating the loss" (and probably going out of business), this theory proposes that the owners of Olympic and Titanic switched the ships, dressed the damaged Olympic up as Titanic, and then sank it on purpose on its maiden voyage.  Those holding this theory often posit that Californian was maneuvered into place to await the rescue of the crew and passengers, and that Lord either erroneously failed to realize that the signals being sent were from the ship he was supposed to rescue (perhaps because the pre-arranged signals were supposed to be colored rockets and all those reported by his officers were white rockets), or did not see the signals because one or both ships were in slightly the wrong place (this theory is harder to maintain, in light of the fact that an engineer of the Californian went and made a sworn affidavit that the officers on his ship had said they had seen rockets and had reported them multiple times to their captain, who remained on the settee in the chartroom the entire night, and in light of the missing pages in the Californian's scrap log, which probably mentioned the rockets).

A more sinister theory suggests that, although the captain and officers of the Titanic had been told a ship was coming to rescue them, Lord had been told not to do so in order to deliberately cause the loss of life of some of those aboard Titanic, in particular those with a powerful voice against the formation of a central bank in the United States (a central bank which was, in fact, created in the year following the disaster).

Thus, while the Titanic disaster was never used as a leadership laboratory for cadets or officers while I was at West Point or in the US Army, this horrendous tragedy should be carefully examined for the possibility that the "conventional narrative" may be very far from the truth of what actually took place.  The videos embedded on this page (links to those videos are here, here and here) present numerous pieces of evidence which suggest the strong possibility of conspiracy in the sinking of the ship.  Among the evidence which suggests this possibility are minute differences between the Olympic and Titanic which suggest that the ship which sailed on April 12 may have been the damaged Olympic and not Titanic, the fact that several notable passengers including J. P. Morgan (a strong advocate for the creation of a central bank in the US) booked passage on the ship and then made excuses to miss the voyage, the fact that Titanic had trouble finding enough men to shovel coal in the engine rooms despite the fact that work was scarce elsewhere and times were difficult with high unemployment, reports that Titanic listed suspiciously to one side just as the damaged Olympic was known to do, and many others, in addition to the very suspicious activities of Captain Smith, Captain Lord, and the desultory fashion in which the lifeboats were loaded (which directly contributed to the death toll being even larger than it might otherwise have been).

On the other hand, at least one of the videos (this one) presents some strong evidence which suggests that Olympic and Titanic were not in fact switched, and indeed concludes at the end that such a switch never did happen.  Even without a switch, it is still possible that Titanic (the real one, in this case) was sunk deliberately for other reasons, although without the insurance scam and switch excuse, getting the captain and crew to go along with a plan to deliberately sink the ship would seem to be much more difficult and perhaps impossible (if Smith was culpable for the damage to Olympic, and faced with intense pressure to go along with the insurance scam to prevent the business failure of the White Star Line due to his own error, his decision to go along with such a plan -- especially if he had been told that the Californian would be nearby to prevent loss of human life -- might be more easily understood).

Whatever the reader's actual conclusion about these momentous events, the importance of doing proper "due diligence" and not simply rejecting the possibility that history may be different than we have been led to believe should be overwhelmingly obvious from the foregoing discussion.  There is a regrettable tendency among some individuals to loudly denounce any investigation into the possibility that conspiracies of powerful men (or women) could arrange tragic catastrophes for their own nefarious purposes, and to say that such investigation is somehow unseemly, or even an insult to those who died or whose lives were horribly altered by such events.  However, this impulse is completely wrong-headed, and it is even possible that some of those protesting so loudly against such inquiry have their own reasons to try to steer others away from conducting such due diligence.  To the extent that these major events impact each of our lives, we have every right to do our own examination of the evidence and to refuse to simply take someone else's analysis of the situation as the "final word" simply because conventional opinion tells us to.  

Furthermore, trying to find out the true picture in no way does disrespect to those who did in fact lose their lives in those events (such as the over 1,500 souls who perished in the Titanic disaster), or to their family members.  In fact, if the events and motives behind such incidents were radically different than the world has been led to believe, then papering over the truth with a less-disturbing lie would be in no way more respectful to the memories of those who died, or to their grieving relatives and friends.  Those who lost loved ones would most likely want to know the truth, and those who perished deserve the truth and not a fabrication that serves the interests of those whose machinations may have been responsible for those deaths.

Further, if in fact powerful forces are at work behind such historical events as the Titanic disaster, then there are dire implications for everyone alive today, because it means that there are people who will not balk at the outright murder of over a thousand innocent men, women and children in order to achieve their selfish and illegal ends.  If this is in fact the case, then others are at risk if such hideous crimes are allowed to be whitewashed by history, and the villains left to continue to use similar tactics again.  If those crimes enable those murderers to gain even more power and control, it is even possible that failure to discover those crimes makes others even more vulnerable to the possibility of future actions by those who have already demonstrated their willingness to kill innocents in order to get their way.

It is only by searching out the truth of history and making it known that such incidents can be stopped, by good men and women who believe that no one has the right to violate natural universal law by murdering others, and who refuse to tolerate or condone or overlook such heinous violations and crimes against nature and humanity.

This year, as the fateful anniversary of April 14-15 approaches, supporters of natural law everywhere should make the effort to examine the evidence surrounding the awful sinking of the Titanic in 1912, both for the sake of those who lost their lives that night and for the sake of those alive in the world today, a world that was profoundly changed by that disaster.

Furthermore, whatever their conclusion as to the evidence surrounding the Titanic, we should all commit to the same level of due diligence into other disasters which profoundly alter the course of human history and the world in which we live, and to rejecting those who tell us that the "official narrative" is the only possible account of these major events, and that anyone who dares to question the official narrative should be marginalized, discredited, and ashamed of themselves for even daring to look at the facts for himself or herself.  These are the witting or unwitting voices of mind control.  

Far from being a reason for shame or ridicule, such investigation is the only way to honor those whose lives have been harmed or ended as a result of such incidents, and the only way to seek justice if in fact there is enough evidence to determine that conspirators have been at work, and to prevent such conspirators or those who emulate them from doing even worse in the future. 

* Note that Daniel Allen Butler's Unsinkable does not put forward any actual conspiracy theories such as those discussed in this post nor condone them in any way; however, his description of the actions of the captain of the Californian, and the findings of the American and British inquiries, certainly describe  evidence which those investigating the possibility of conspiracy would find very pertinent to that investigation.

Chemtrails and methane hydrates: a chilling theory proposed by Dane Wiginton

Previous posts on this blog have discussed the "chemtrail" or "geoengineering" phenomenon, which is often dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" (see for example the patronizing Wikipedia article on the subject).

The first direct mention of this topic on the pages of this blog was on July 03, 2013, in a post entitled "Due your own due diligence: Geoengineering."  That post noted that while many "debunkers" loudly deny that any deliberate spraying is taking place, "if deliberate geoengineering is taking place without informing the human beings who are potentially impacted by that activity, then there are potentially enormous ramifications.  Because the potential ramifications are so severe, everyone should take the time to investigate this issue for himself or herself."

Less than six months later, an article appeared in California newspapers describing deliberate "cloud seeding" operations involving the use of aircraft spraying chemicals such as silver iodide into the atmosphere in order to impact weather patterns and precipitation!  Here is a blog post from November of 2013 discussing that article, which openly admits to ongoing aircraft-based climate modification programs, quoting people involved in this aerial spraying program (one of whom has the official-sounding title of "director of weather modification").

In spite of the clear evidence that such spraying is in fact taking place, on such a scale that some individuals actually have job titles like "director of weather modification," Wikipedia and other sites continue to make fun of the "chemtrail conspiracy theory" and assert that "This theory has been refuted by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal contrails" (screen shot below from Wikipedia entry "Chemtrail conspiracy theory," accessed 03/19/2014):



The fact that these spraying programs are going on is undeniable: the real questions are "Why?" and "What impact will these programs have?"  The illegality of such programs should not really be in question, as discussed in the previous post entitled "Who has the right to spray silver iodide on his or her neighbors?" -- a question which natural law answers with a resounding: "No one."

Recently, Dane Wiginton of Geoengineeringwatch.org appeared on Red Ice Radio to outline a frightening thesis which he believes explains the deliberate, worldwide spraying campaigns, and it is a bombshell.

Every individual who cares about investigating this topic should listen to it in its entirety, and visit Geoengineeringwatch to learn more about it, but Dane's thesis in short is that the perpetrators of these massive spraying campaigns have seen data suggesting that warming temperatures worldwide, and particularly warming ocean temperatures, are releasing methane hydrates which are trapped in ice beneath the surface of the world's oceans, and that these methane hydrates entering our atmosphere will contribute to a cycle of further warming, releasing even more methane hydrates in a runaway cycle that could threaten all life on earth.  The massive, unauthorized, unannounced, secretive, and illegal spraying campaign (according to Dane's theory) is the desperate attempt by state actors to slow the cycle before it is too late.  (Another place to hear the interview is on this page from Geoengineeringwatch itself).

Geoengineeringwatch has several articles discussing the methane hydrate threat, many of which can be found on this page (which is a page of search results for the term "methane" on that website).  This article in particular, entitled "Methane and the risk of runaway global warming," gives a good outline of the potential danger Dane describes in his interview and in other talks and presentations which can be found on the Geoengineeringwatch site.

Methane hydrates are very real, and they are actually a phenomenon which Dr. Walt Brown discusses in some detail in his books about the hydroplate theory.  As the Geoengineeringwatch articles explain, our planet contains massive reserves of methane hydrates, most of them trapped in subsurface ice along the continental shelves of most of earth's continents, as well as beneath the Arctic ice cap.  Dr. Brown's book explains that origin of these vast quantities of methane hydrates poses something of a problem for conventional geological theories, but (as with so many other pieces of evidence on our planet, some of which are listed at the end of this post*) the hydroplate theory has a very satsifactory explanation for these methane collections.

At the bottom of this page in the online version of his book on the hydroplate theory, Dr. Brown describes the earth's methane hydrate reserves:

Since 1970, methane has been discovered inside ice molecules mixed within sediments lying up to 1000 feet below the deep ocean floor off coastlines.  The ice molecules form microscopic cagelike structures encasing one or more methane molecules.  The total energy value of this methane-ice combination, called methane hydrate, is at least twice that of all the world's known coal and oil combined! 

Later, in the section of this page entitled "Recovery Phase," Dr. Brown describes the forces which he believes led to the creation of all these methane hydrates -- the massive sediments which were released during a catastrophic worldwide flood poured off the continents at the end of the catastrophic flood event and into the massive depressions of the ocean basins, which had been created as a consequence of the sequence of events he describes in the previous phase of the catastrophe:

Sediments, mixed with organic matter and its bacteria were swept with draining flood waters onto the new ocean floors.  There, the bacteria fed on the organic matter and produced methane.  Much of this methane combined with cold, deep ocean waters to become vast amounts of methane hydrates along coastlines.

Elsewhere (in caption below the image of flaming ice, which is burning because it contains methane, and which is shown at the bottom of the page with the first methane hydrate quotation above), Dr. Brown explains that "water will freeze at slightly warmer temperatures if it is under high pressure and contains dissolved methane," and that "such temperatures and pressures exist 2,000 feet or more below sea level.  There, vast methane deposits are found trapped in ice on and under the deep seafloor, primarily along coastlines."  These principles of chemistry and physics explain the mechanisms which caused the methane hydrates to form, and Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory and the evidence that the earth once experienced a catastrophic global event which flooded the earth and which caused massive amounts of sediments infused with the remains of pre-flood vegetation explains the original source of the methane.

Whatever the source of the methane, however, Dane Wiginton's theory that the massive chemtrail campaign is a desperate attempt to prevent this methane from escaping due to warmer ocean temperatures has some logical coherence, and deserves to be examined further to see if it fits the available evidence better than alternative explanations for the undeniable geoengineering efforts that have been taking place for many decades, but which appear to have accelerated in recent years.

If readers choose to reject his explanation, then the question remains: what reason do we propose in its place?  The reason for the spraying can be debated, but the fact of the spraying should be beyond debate at this point.  If the situation really is as dire as Dane Wiginton and the articles on Geoengineeringwatch.org suggest, then investigating this issue is extremely important for every man and woman on the planet.

For those who argue that the recent freakish waves of cold weather, snow and ice experienced by the eastern US should dispel any arguments that the earth or its oceans are heating up, Dane presents evidence in his talk and on his site that these "polar vortices" and other unusual winter weather events are being deliberately and artificially engineered to hit the eastern portion of North America, while simultaneously creating warmer and drier conditions along the western portion of the continent and up into Canada, Alaska and the Arctic itself.  He argues that California's current historic drought conditions are probably part of this phenomenon.  He also believes that if the chemtrails are in fact being sprayed in order to try to stop a runaway methane-hydrate release, they are actually doing more harm than good and will have the effect of destroying the earth's natural systems and preventing the planet from healing itself, while threatening to create all kinds of new and unforeseen problems at the same time.

Like so many other issues of great importance facing men and women on the planet today, there appears to be an active disinformation campaign surrounding the existence and purpose of geoengineering, and individuals will have to do their own research and analysis and arrive at their own conclusions, without "outsourcing" that analysis to traditional media outlets (or to websites such as Wikipedia).  The correct way to proceed is to examine the evidence, examine the competing theories which attempt to explain that evidence, and conduct analysis to determine which theory best explains the preponderance of the evidence available at this time.  This process is recommended by Dr. Brown himself (who invites readers of his theory to conduct that type of analysis on all the assertions that he makes using the hydroplate theory), and it applies to the subject of chemtrails no less than it does to the subject of the earth's geological features and formations.

Below are some photographs of palm trees under severe duress due to the ongoing drought conditions in California, with chemtrails visible in the background.  Below those photographs is a "footnote" containing links to previous posts discussing evidence worldwide which supports the hydroplate theory.

* Some of the evidence supporting the hydroplate conclusions, discussed in previous posts:

• evidence for earth's "Big Roll" found in Antarctica, the Arctic, and 90 East Ridge.  One amazing piece of evidence is the presence of unfrozen lakes trapped deep beneath the ice of Antarctica.  Another is the evidence of ancient palm trees under miles-thick ice sheets in Antarctica.
• The strata found around the world.  See also here.
• The Grand Canyon (see also here and here and here).  Also, the extensive piles of petrified wood found in the same part of the world.
• Fossils (any fossils), but especially fossils such as those discussed here and here and here and here.  And don't forget the crinoid fossils found at the top of Mt. Everest, or the Titanosaurs in Antarctica.
• Extensive undersea canyons found all over the world which were probably carved by runoff from the flood event before they were covered up by the rising ocean.  Here are some more.
• The findings of what may well be undersea ruins from human civilizations at depths that cannot be explained simply by sea level rise after an Ice Age.  Here is another discussion of the same topic.
• Recent reports of the discovery of vast offshore fresh groundwater reserves under the seafloor.
• The phenomenon of "deep earthquakes."
• Discoveries about the spin in the earth's core.
• The discovery of plant fossils in deep ocean trenches.  The very existence of deep ocean trenches, especially those with "arc-and-cusp" shapes.  Also, the gravity anomalies detected above the deep ocean trenches.

And many, many more.

Galileo Galilei

February 15 is the birthday of Galileo Galilei -- born this day in Pisa, Italy in 1564, four hundred fifty orbits of the earth around the sun ago.  Special thanks to my very good friend J. Y., originally of N. Z., for reminding me of this very important anniversary of Galileo's birth, and sending along this link to the Galileo birthday writeup in the Sydney Morning Herald by past President of the Astronomical Society of Victoria, Perry Vlahos.

Galileo, of course, was possessed of a tremendously curious and incisive mind, and a crucially important figure in the history of physics, astronomy, and science in general.  Perhaps one of the most important paradigm shifts he introduced, and the one which had the most profound impact upon the world, was his almost single-handed invention of the scientific method: the concept of using experiments and allowing the evidence to suggest the hypotheses and theories that explains the evidence, in marked contrast to the methods in use for centuries previous.

As Professors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain in their outstanding investigation of quantum physics entitled Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, Galileo pioneered a new approach that propelled human investigation forward in a way that had not been possible previously, when theories were deemed acceptable or not based on religious dogma:

The Church had to stop Galileo's call for independent thought. [ . . .] Found guilty of heresy by the Holy Inquisition, and given a tour of the torture chambers, Galileo recanted his claim of a sun-orbiting Earth.  For his last years, Galileo lived under house arrest -- a lesser penalty than that of another Copernican, Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake.
[. . .]
Galileo's ideas were obvious -- to him.   How could he convince others?  Rejecting Aristotle's teaching on the motion of matter was not a minor issue.  Aristotle's philosophy was an all-encompassing, Church-enshrined worldview.  Reject a part, and you appear to reject it all.

To compel agreement with his ideas, Galileo needed examples that conflicted with Aristotle's mechanics, but examples that conformed to his own ideas.  Looking around, he could see few such cases.  His solution: create them!

Galileo would contrive special clear-cut situations: "experiments."  An experiment tests a theoretical prediction.  This may seem an obvious approach, but in that day it was an original and profound idea.
[. . .]
Some faulted Galileo's experimental method.  Though the displayed facts could not be denied, Galileo's demonstrations were "merely contrived situations."  They could be ignored because they conflicted with the intuitively obvious nature of matter.  Moreover, Galileo's ideas had to be wrong because they conflicted with Aristotelian philosophy. 

Galileo had a far-reaching answer: Science should deal only with those matters that can be demonstrated.  Intuition and authority have no standing in science.  The only criterion for judgment in science is experimental demonstration.

Within a few decades, Galileo's approach was accepted with a vengeance.  Science progressed with a vigor never before seen.  25-26.

The authors go on to demonstrate that the results of the foundational experiments of quantum physics, while clearly going against "the intuitively obvious nature of matter" as well as the received wisdom and apparent "authority" of the classical physics that preceded them, create a paradigm shift as fundamental as that which Galileo and his successors accomplished in their day.

While quantum physics is now generally accepted, there are many other areas in which received wisdom and the reigning "authority" continues to try to trump the evidence, or even to suppress the evidence, in order to try to prevent the acceptance of paradigm-shifting new perspectives.  Because of this, the spirit of Galileo will always be necessary to enable mankind to honestly search for the truth, and to face the implications of the results of the evidence, no matter what that evidence appears to tell us.

-----------


Previous posts mentioning Galileo:

• "There is no such thing as quasi-crystals, only quasi-scientists"
• "How did the Maori know Saturn has rings?"
• "Copernicus, Proclus, and the lost knowledge of the ancients"
• "Who's unscientific? Vicious critics of Jenny McCarthy and her new role as co-host of The View"

It might also be pointed out that without Galileo, there would probably have been no Sherlock Holmes and his version of the "scientific method," and without Sherlock Holmes, there would probably have been no Scooby Doo.

As the above-linked previous blog posts point out, there are many in the "establishment" today who like to invoke Galileo as a way of stifling the very kind of evidence-based dissent that Galileo stood for.    On the four hundred fiftieth anniversary of his birth, it is a good time to consider the spirit of following the evidence, rather than the dictums of the "authority" figures who want to quell dissent by their insistence that the matter is already "settled."

Comet ISON rapidly approaching perihelion, and some thoughts on fear-mongering, manipulation, and thinking for yourself

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON) is plummeting towards the Sun, and is now approaching perihelion (its closest point of approach).

The comet will slingshot around the sun at 2pm Eastern time on November 28th (which is 11am Pacific time, and since Pacific standard time is 8 hours behind Greenwich time, that means it will be 1900 Greenwich or Universal Time).

For intrepid observers who wish to try to observe the comet at or near perihelion, this helpful article from Sky & Telescope explains how to do it.  Note that you will have to block the Sun with a solid object, and use your naked eye.  Do not use a telescope or binoculars, which magnify the light and channel it right into your eyeball, and which can cause serious permanent damage.

Of course, you will have to be on a section of the globe that is facing towards the sun during the hours that Comet ISON is making its slingshot turn around the Sun -- that is to say, it will have to be daylight where you are, although if the Sun is just dropping below the horizon of the Earth's curvature, that would be a very handy "object" that you could use to block out the Sun and look for the comet.  If it is night-time where you are when the comet is reaching perihelion, you will be unable to see the comet's perihelion turn from that location using normal vision, since the entire bulk of our planet will be in your way.

That article also says that the comet will be within one "sun diameter" of our daystar during the three hour period from 1700 UT until 2000 UT (which is from 12 noon Eastern time or 9am Pacific standard until 3pm Eastern time and 12 noon Pacific).

Depending on the comet's condition after its "sungrazing" journey around the turn, it could become a spectacular object in the night sky (visible just prior to sunrise and just after sunset), and in some scenarios could become bright enough to see during full daylight.  And, as we have been told over and over, conditions could also lead to a scenario in which Comet ISON doesn't become very spectacular at all.

The video embedded above shows NASA footage of Comet ISON approaching the Sun over the  five-day period from 20 November through 25 November, composed of HD images snapped by the STEREO-A spacecraft and its Heliospheric Imager.  Here is a link to a page about the STEREO spacecraft (there are two of them, working in tandem, as you might expect) containing an outstanding graphic animation which shows where STEREO A was located when it took the sequence shown above.  The still-frame shot below shows where STEREO A was in relation to Comet ISON, the Sun, the Earth, and the planet Mercury on November 24 (near the end of the video sequence shown above).

Using the upper diagram, you can see why the Sun is located just out of the field of view to the right edge of the video above, and why Mercury is seen to the left and our planet Earth to the right.

In the video at top (not shown in the animation or the screenshot) you can also see very clearly Comet 2P/Encke, the comet with the shortest period of all known comets (only 3 years per round trip).  It is actually visible from the beginning of the video, heading "downwards" as if it wants to intersect the more "horizontal" path of Comet ISON.  Encke does not show much of a tail until towards the end of the video, so it looks in the video much the way a satellite looks moving through the night sky to a viewer on earth -- but it is a comet, not a satellite.

There are actually five comets visible in the night sky from the northern hemisphere right now for those using binoculars or small telescopes, including C/2013 R1 Lovejoy (the most easily-visible of them all right now, discussed briefly in this previous post, and currently visible to the naked eye in the pre-dawn morning sky near Bootes the Herdsman, who sits near the Big Dipper smoking a pipe which is very close to the handle of the Dipper),  Comet C/2013 V3 Nevski (just discovered this month!), Comet C/2012 X1 LINEAR, Comet 2P/Encke, and Comet ISON.  Descriptions of these comets, and directions for locating them in the sky, can be found on the Comet Chasing page from Skyhound, the makers of SkyTools 3 observing software.  The Comet Chasing page also describes a comet visible with small telescopes and binoculars to viewers in the southern hemisphere, as well as other comets visible only for those with larger telescopes.

Until the discovery of Comet Nevski, the appearance of four comets in the sky at the same time (with one of them, ISON, getting so much notoriety from various commentators) was prompting some comparisons to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (who are found in the book of the Revelation or Apocalypse -- both words literally mean "the unveiling," although the word "Revelation" is the way to say "unveiling" that is descended from the Latin, and the word "Apocalypse" is the Greek way to say it).  They are described in Revelation chapter 6.

Here is an article from Clyde Lewis of Ground Zero Media that pulls together an impressive array of connections between the comets, predictions in the Revelation, the Maya calendar cycle that was the subject of so much discussion at the end of last year, and worrisome current events (including volcanic eruptions).  The article also points out that elsewhere in the Revelation (in fact in Revelation chapter 8:10-11), a great star is described which fell from heaven, "burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters" -- the name of this star is called Wormwood.

While not mentioned in that "Four Horsemen" article, there have been several troubling articles appearing on various internet sites arguing that dangerous levels of radiation or radioactive materials from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster are now reaching the west coast and beginning to play havoc with marine wildlife.  However, some analysts have challenged some of these sensationalist claims, such as this article from deep-sea biologist Andrew David Thaler published on the Southern Fried Science blog.  Personally, I do not buy all of Andrew Thaler's arguments in this article, and believe some of those arguments are not well supported (at one point, he engages in a blatant ad hominem attack with no other evidence cited besides the ad hominem attack itself).

This controversy highlights the importance of doing some of your own "due diligence" when it comes to investigating matters that might be of great importance to your future.  When it comes to questions about the status of the fallout from the Fukushima disaster or questions about whether the current array of comets (and Comet ISON in particular) have anything to do with ancient apocalyptic prophetic literature, it is probably advisable to avoid being swept up by those who want to stir up fear (for whatever reason).  At the same time, while being wary of "fear mongering," it is equally important to avoid making the opposite error of complacency, or of too-rapidly dismissing possible dangers that might really be associated with these events.  For instance, just because some articles about the impact of the Fukushima radiation might be deliberately misleading and designed to create the maximum amount of fear and uncertainty among the widest possible number of people, it does not mean that we can dismiss the dangers of Fukushima altogether, or brand everyone who sounds an alarm bell on the subject as a "fearmonger."

For the record, none of the above statements should be interpreted as an accusation that Clyde Lewis's "Four Horsemen" article is being deliberately misleading or engaging in speculative fearmongering.  His article draws a number of interesting connections to a variety of ancient and modern subjects, and he tells his readers several times during the article that it is not meant to be read as a declaration that the apocalyptic doom some were trumpeting at the end of 2012 was "off by a year" and due at the end of 2013, but that on the other hand he thinks all these matters are worth being aware of.  That seems to be a responsible enough way to approach the subject.

However, I personally believe that the Maya calendar event of December 2012 referred to an astronomical event caused by the phenomenon of precession, and that "end of the world" prophecies  in sacred traditions around the world and across millennia generally refer to the end of a precessional age, not to physical or geological catastrophes that take place on the planet (they are referring to events in the sky).  Previous posts explaining the concept of precession include this one (which contains a video) and this one (which should make the impact of precession on the position of the stars completely clear).  For discussions of the Maya Long Count and 2012, and the connection to precession, see "The Maya Long Count and Galactic Alignment: the work of John Major Jenkins," and "The Staggering Implications of the Maya Long Count," among other posts from last year.

Similarly, I believe that most if not all of the events described in the book of the Revelation (or the Apocalypse) also refer to celestial phenomena.  For some discussion of this subject, see "The Scorpion and the Smoky Abyss."  That article discusses some verses in Revelation which some have taken to be referring to literal events on earth (for example, identifying the "locusts" of Revelation chapter 9 as helicopters in some horrific modern war that was being described by a vision given in ancient times), but which probably refer to constellations (the locusts of chapter 9 probably refer to the zodiac constellation of Sagittarius).  As Clyde Lewis states in the article linked above, the Four Horsemen have very clear astronomical connections as well.

However, just because those ancient sacred texts may not have been written to be understood in a strictly literal manner does not mean that certain people might not be using them as a script to try to follow: after all, the fact that millions of people believe that those ancient texts refer to literal events could give a huge boost in potential "fearmongering impact" to anyone who wanted to manipulate current events in conjunction with widely-known ancient verses.

Here is a link to a recent interview on Red Ice Radio with Richard C. Hoagland, who states during the second half of the interview that he believes Comet ISON might actually have been manipulated by humans who have access to extremely advanced forms of space travel (the so-called "secret space program") in order to arrive on specially-selected dates at a location and elevation which would produce significant numbers when measured from the site of major ritualistic events in early 2014 (such as the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics).

Whether or not you agree with this theory (I personally have not seen enough evidence to make a dogmatic assertion either way on that one, although it is certainly worth investigating), all of the above discussion seems to argue the importance of understanding the principles of the mechanics of the celestial objects whirling through our solar system, as well as the connections to the ancient sacred traditions of mankind, all of which reveal an extremely sophisticated scientific understanding of celestial phenomena, as well as a level of interest in these phenomena which implies their belief that these events are of more than just "academic interest" to men and women living on this planet.

When it comes to issues of major potential impact on our lives, we owe it to ourselves to do some analysis of our own and reach our own conclusions, and to avoid letting others tell us how to think, or manipulate us through fear.

Who has the right to spray silver iodide on his or her neighbors?

Here is a link to a post on this blog published in July of this year, urging readers to do their own due diligence on the possible existence of "geoengineering," just as this blog urges doing "due diligence" on any subject that might have a serious impact on their lives.

For many years, the suggestion of the possibility that the long-lasting trails of visible clouds etched across the sky by high-flying aircraft might be deliberately sprayed from those aircraft was viciously derided as a "conspiracy theory."

Those who believed that these trails, which many of us have seen on different days, sometimes criss-crossing one another so vigorously that they leave clouds that eventually grow to blanket the entire sky, are the result of the deliberate spraying of chemicals often refer to them as "chemtrails." The word "chemtrails" is a take-off on the word "contrails," which itself is a contraction of the words "condensation trails," and which refers to the simple condensation of water vapor in the exhaust of aircraft engines, leaving brief trails behind a high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.

True contrails do not stay in the sky for hours after the aircraft goes by -- in fact, they usually remain visible for only a few seconds, and an observer can watch the back of the contrail line disappearing just about as fast as the aircraft is moving at the front end of the line.

However, those who dismiss the notion that trails such as those pictured in the image above could be the result of the deliberate spraying of chemicals refuse to call them "chemtrails."  Instead, they refer to the very idea of "chemtrails" as a "conspiracy theory," and say that this phenomenon simply represents "persistent contrails."  For example, here is a screenshot of the Wikipedia entry which will come up in the US if you search Wikipedia for the word "chemtrails" -- it is not even an entry on "chemtrails" but is instead entitled "Chemtrail conspiracy theory":

Although Wikipedia disingenuously purports to be a neutral source of information, the term "conspiracy theory" is a very loaded phrase, and its use here is clearly an attempt to prejudice the reader against the possibility that these persistent clouds produced by aircraft could be anything nefarious.  The use of this phrase suggests that anyone who entertains such a possibility is simply "paranoid," looking for conspiracies where none exist.  The entry insists in calling these aircraft trails "persistent contrails," and in the first paragraph declares: "This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, as there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory."

Well, that settles it -- if the "scientific community" (whoever they are) has not found any "scientific evidence," then anyone who believes that these trails could be the result of chemical spraying must be a "conspiracy theorist" who deliberately ignores Science.  Notice that this sweeping assertion that "no scientific evidence" supports the "chemtrail theory" is completely un-footnoted; the reader may assume from this confident declaration that "the scientific community" has been hard at work examining the evidence, and conducting tests, to find out if there is anything to support this theory, but no such experiments are described and no such evidence is offered.  This statement is completely worthless -- in fact, it is quite possibly dishonest, which makes it worse than worthless, and reflects somewhat poorly on the standards and impartiality of Wikipedia as a source.

Just eleven days before the screenshot of the above Wikipedia entry was taken, the Sacramento Bee published an astonishing article entitled "Cloud seeding, no longer magical thinking, is poised for use this winter."  The article informs us that "cloud seeding," which consists of the spraying of silver iodide from aircraft or from ground-based aerosol sprayers, was "once considered fringe science" but has "now entered the mainstream" and is practiced all the time in California!

In fact, quotations from people whose careers appear to involve the routine practice of such spraying make it sound like cloud seeding has been going on for years, and has gotten so advanced that it is far more efficient than it was back in "the old days" of cloud seeding!  One Jeff Tilley, whose job title is "director of weather modification"(!) for the Lake Tahoe Basin and eastern Sierra Nevada, tells us: "The message is starting to sink in that this is a cost-effective tool.  The technology is better; we understand how to do cloud seeding much better.  And because we understand how to do it more effectively, it's definitely taken more seriously."

Somebody better call Wikipedia -- apparently someone has some "scientific evidence" about spraying chemical compounds from aircraft, and their evidence shows that we're getting "better" at doing it!  There's so much evidence that it is going on, in fact, that people have careers as "directors of weather modification," although you'd never suspect that if you read the Wikipedia article above. 

The quotations from the article do not really give any context to the words "better" and "more effectively" --  presumably these words are comparisons to past versions of cloud seeding, and if so then it means that these programs have been going on for some time, just like all those "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" were alleging.

Another quotation later in the article comes from an individual who is a civil engineer at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and who "manages the utility's cloud-seeding program."  This is astonishing.  For years the suggestion that aircraft are spraying chemicals into the sky has been derided as the province of conspiracy theorists who obstinately ignore the settled opinion of the unanimous "scientific community" (whoever they are), and now we discover that a municipal utility district in the capital of the country's most-populous state has the job of managing a cloud-seeding program?

The article is accompanied by a drawing of an aircraft spraying lines of silver iodide particles into the air (see here).  Apparently, the planes launch this silver iodide using propane (not something I'd want to have on an airplane with me in large quantities).  Below that is a map of California, showing the areas that this practice is going on.  

Most of the regions being sprayed are indeed lined up west of the Sierra Nevadas, which jives with the assertion in the article (and the drawing insert) that the spraying is intended to produce snowfall, increasing the snowpack in the mountains, the runoff from which feeds the water reservoirs and rivers that water the entire state.  

However, there are two large conspicuous regions shown on the map along the Central Coast beginning in Monterey and stretching all the way down to the area north of Los Angeles which are also being sprayed.  I happen to live, raise my family, and grow my garden right underneath one of these ominous grey blobs designated as "cloud-seeding projects" on that map, and I can assure the reader that there is no snowfall being "seeded" by the spraying over the sunny coastlines of Monterey, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo!  

This in and of itself casts serious doubt on the possibility that this article is being completely candid and truthful in its statements.  That, and the fact that the article treats the spraying of silver iodide as (yawn) something that's been going on for a long time and not as a revelation that completely contradicts the dominant storyline that anyone who suggests that airplanes spray chemicals into the sky is a quack and a conspiracy theorist, show that this article is not being completely forthcoming.

Of course, the article does not directly state that this "cloud-seeding" program has anything to do with the chemtrails that one sees in the sky.  Its diagram shows a little turbo-prop plane dispensing the silver iodide, not a big jet like the ones that appear to be responsible for the chemtrailing, but that diagram is just a drawing, not a photograph -- we don't really know what kind of aircraft they are using because the article never says.  Furthermore, if these "cloud-seeding" programs that are now admitting to spraying silver iodide are not the same programs that are leaving the chemtrails shown in the photograph above, then this only leads to the question, what else is being sprayed from those other aircraft and leaving those other trails?

But what kind of airplane or airplanes are being used is not the point -- the point is that this article declares that silver iodide is being sprayed from planes, and that it has been going on for some time (long enough for people to have careers with titles such as "manager of the cloud-seeding program" and "director of weather modification").  In fact, it has been going on long enough for some of those career weather modifiers and cloud-seeding program managers to be able to declare that the technology has gotten "much better," and that they are now modifying the weather "more effectively" than ever before. 

This admission brings us, at last, to the real point: who on earth believes that they have the right to spray silver iodide in massive quantities over the people (and animals, and food crops) of California?

Who cares how "effective" or beneficial the outcome of this spraying is supposed to be -- does anyone think they have the right to spray chemicals over their neighbor?  Do I have the right to spray chemicals over my neighbor's house if I believe that doing so is "good for him" (or good for the collective)?  Do I have the right to sneak into his house and put chemicals in his food if I think that they are good for him?  If so, is it OK to lie about it if my neighbor asks me if I am sneaking around putting chemicals into his air or onto his food, and call him a kook and a conspiracy theorist for even suggesting the idea (even though I am, in fact, sending such chemicals his way)?

To ask the question is to answer it -- an individual does not have the right to spray his neighbors with chemicals, or to put chemicals into his neighbor's food.  Saying that those chemicals are "good for him" or "good for all of us" does not change that.  It is a violation of my neighbor's innate rights as a man or a woman -- and as such it is a form of violence.  It is a deliberate disregard for natural law (those certain unalienable Rights with which all Men and Women are endowed by their Creator -- see below).

The question then arises, does a government (whether it is a municipality or a state or any other government) somehow get the right to spray chemicals on people, even if we admit that individuals may not spray chemicals on one another?  The answer is a resounding no.  One does not get the right to violate the natural law and do violence to another man or woman (let alone a large number of men and women) just because one says he is now part of a "government."  

he authors of the Declaration of Independence were very clear on this point in 1776.  The second paragraph of that declaration begin with these magnificent and famous words:

We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed [. . .] 

These lines assert that governments are never rightly instituted to trample upon the Creator-endowed rights of Men and Women -- they are only instituted to secure those Rights.  The Declaration of Independence unequivocally rejects the idea that the just Powers of any instituted government can include the violation of the unalienable Rights.  

The idea, then, that a government can be in any way justified by spraying chemicals on its citizens (and their livestock, and their food crops) is completely false.  There is also the little phrase at the end of the quoted passage above about the "Consent of the Governed," which is a bit difficult to argue in the case of the spraying that apparently has been going on for years over California, since this program has been a big fat secret and anyone who suggests that it is taking place is marginalized and labeled a conspiracy theorist who doesn't care about the settled opinion of the "scientific community."

The proper response to this blatant, callous, massive, deceptive, and long-running policy of violating the rights of the men and women of California should be outrage.  Outrage similar to the outrage that many people demonstrated during the Vietnam War.  Outrage similar to the outrage that many people in various parts of the US demonstrated when legislators recently threatened to pass laws taking away their right to bear arms (which would also be an illegal violation of natural law and the unalienable Right to protect one's own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness).  

Has anyone been demonstrating any such outrage over the revelation that they are being deliberately and routinely sprayed with silver iodide (and who knows what other chemicals)?  There does not seem to be much evidence of it, for some reason.

Many people in California spend a lot of time and extra expense shopping for and purchasing organic foods, because they are suspicious of chemicals being routinely sprayed on their foods.  They may even spend a lot of time and effort and some extra expense growing their own foods in their own gardens.  Many of them would be outraged if they were told they could not eat organic food any more, or if the government insisted on spraying chemicals over their organic food before they took it home to consume it.  But they don't seem to be upset about having silver iodide (and who knows what else) sprayed over themselves and their food on a routine basis.  

Many people in California also avoid tobacco products such as cigarettes, because they fear the chemicals with which the tobacco is usually treated, and the idea of inhaling substances which may be harmful to their bodies and their health.  They pass laws against smoking in places that young children might be forced to breath in the chemicals and smoke that might be harmful to their young bodies.  Many of them would be outraged if they were told that someone was going to come into their homes and their cars and their children's schools and preschools and daycares, and smoke big cigars and cheap cigarettes and fling the ashes all over their gardens.  But they don't seem to be upset about having silver iodide (and who knows what else) sprayed over their homes and their gardens and their places of business (and their surf spots).

Many people in California spend a lot of time worrying about global warming, or climate change, or how much carbon their cars are emitting, or how much environmental impact their lightbulbs are having, and they seek to limit the impact they and their "carbon footprint" are having on our incredibly beautiful planet, the planet that will have to sustain the lives of their children and their children's children and all of the amazingly diverse life forms with which we share our planet earth.

They would be outraged if they were told that, while they were spending extra money to buy hybrid vehicles and low-impact lightbulbs and going out of their way in a thousand different ways every day in order to stop global warming or climate change or the pollution of the air and the forests and the rivers and the oceans, airplanes were being flown over huge portions of the state and dumping silver iodide (and who knows what else) over the Pacific Ocean and the Sierra Nevada and the foothills and the forests and the valleys, and which certainly has an impact on the climate, because it is deliberately designed to have an impact on the climate.  But there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming number of people worrying about the airplanes spraying at this time (Wikipedia doesn't even seem to be aware that it is going on).

The photograph at the top of this page was taken in one of the coastal regions south of Monterey which are shown to be areas with "cloud-seeding programs."  So were the other photographs below.  The fact that aircraft spraying substances that leave these kinds of chemtrails in an area prominently identified in the Sacramento Bee as having a "cloud-seeding program" suggests that the spraying described in the article and the chemtrails shown in the photographs might be related.  But so far, we do not have any official admission that chemtrails are the product of these deliberate weather modification programs.

We do, however, now have official admission that silver iodide spraying from airborne aircraft for the purpose of weather modification (geoengineering) is taking place.  This activity is unconscionable.  It is even more unconscionable that this activity has been going on in secret for so long, and that anyone who suggested the possibility that such spraying was taking place was branded a conspiracy theorist.  

All people everywhere should be outraged, even though the article only says it is happening in California, and the map only shows some parts of California as being part of the spraying program (the population centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles are notable free of such programs, according to the map).  Those who have been writing about and documenting chemtrails and geoengineering for many years have shown evidence that this deliberate clandestine spraying is taking place in many other parts of the US, and in many other parts of the world.  

The truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence are timeless truths.  They do not go in and out of style -- they outline rights that are inherent to all men and women, in all times and in all places.  The massive, deliberate, secret, program of spraying (and the accompanying campaign to marginalize anyone who points it out and to label them as an unscientific quack) is a clear demonstration that governments which are supposed to be instituted to secure those rights and to derive their just powers from the consent of the people are not doing so: that in fact they are trampling on those rights instead of protecting those rights.  

If they think they have the right to spray chemicals on people, in secret, while denying it and slandering those who point it out, what else do they think they have the right to get away with?

Those who are aware of this ongoing conspiracy must give them notice that they are in violation, and that they must stop it.  

Who's unscientific? Vicious critics of Jenny McCarthy and her new role as co-host of The View

This week, it was announced that Jenny McCarthy, a well-known and outspoken critic of the safety of vaccines for some children, has been selected as a co-host of the popular daytime television talk show The View, sparking immediate howls of outrage from those who apparently believe that such opinions should be banned from being broadcast to the masses, whom they do not deem worthy of making their own decisions on important subjects such as vaccinations.

Here is a link to a segment broadcast today on taxpayer-supported National Public Radio, in which only quotations from those calling McCarthy's concerns "baseless" are given airtime, and which ends with the smug observation that View host Barbara Walters had taken some time off this year due to chicken pox, which is now preventable with a vaccine.  The written transcript of that segment can be found here.

During the segment, a university professor calls McCarthy's views "baseless" and says her information "has no scientific support whatsoever."  The author of a book critical of those who question the safety of vaccines is reported to have said that "McCarthy's celebrity ensured her books receive coverage even as the link between autism and vaccines is given credence by no medical authority."  

The university professor adds that it ends up being pretty irresponsible to propound a course of action that actually can endanger the children of your listeners," which presumably means that he is against the selection of McCarthy as a regular co-host on a popular television show, because airing differences of opinion "can endanger" children.

Other popular media outlets did not just imply that those who hold different views about vaccinations should not be given a voice on popular television shows: they came right out and said it directly, often with a great deal of vitriol.  Time magazine's TV critic James Poniewozik published an article entitled "Viruses Don't Care About Your View: Why ABC Shouldn't Have Hired Jenny McCarthy."  In it, he says that, "to legitimize McCarthy’s dangerous anti-science because she will probably get crazy attention and ratings is irresponsible and shameful."  

He then goes further and states that "muddying a vital question of public health by framing it as a 'controversy' that you can hash out in a roundtable" may be the most dangerous aspect of having McCarthy on The View.  In other words, according to Time's TV critic, viewers cannot be allowed to believe that there is any debate about this issue, and to even so much as hire someone who has an alternative belief on a "vital question" is irresponsible.  According to those who see themselves as the gatekeepers of what subjects are open for debate, certain questions are off-limits, and they will decide which questions may be debated and which cannot.

Poniewozik ends his article by referring to Galileo and saying that some questions are already settled, as scientific fact, including the link between viruses and disease.  But this argument is disingenuous -- McCarthy is not necessarily arguing that a virus cannot cause a disease.  She is arguing that there may be a link between some vaccines and harm to some of those who receive them, and that parents should become informed on the issue.  

Furthermore, while one can point to Galileo and say, as Poniewozik does, that "The Earth didn’t revolve around the sun only for Galileo," there have been other beliefs that once had "no scientific support whatsoever" and which were argued only by a tiny minority which later became mainstream.  For example, see this previous post on the scorn that was heaped upon Alfred Wegener just a hundred years ago when he proposed his theory of continental drift, or this post from 2011 entitled "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists," which was a withering barb leveled by a fellow scientist at the work of a man who later became the 2011 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his work proving the existence of quasicrystals.

Here are some other scornful articles from around the media world blasting McCarthy and the idea that the safety of vaccines can be questioned: one from Slate calling her a "notorious anti-vaxxer," one from someone calling herself "MD Mama" at Boston.com who says that McCarthy's "claims" are "made up," and one from New Yorker entitled "Jenny McCarthy's dangerous views" which concludes that "Executives at ABC should be ashamed of themselves for offering McCarthy a regular platform on which she can peddle denialism and fear to the parents of young children who may have legitimate questions about vaccine safety."  The author of the Slate article made the added point that, even if McCarthy does not mention her vaccine views, the very fact that she is now a co-host on The View will give her "a tacit credibility to the viewer."

Such virulence reveals the low opinion that those who consider themselves "opinion-makers" have of the general public.  It also reveals their view of the proper role of the media, including daytime talk shows such as The View that purport to discuss subjects from various perspectives.  They clearly see their fellow media outlets (and presumably their own media outlets) as platforms for disseminating the right view of certain important subjects, and wish to make sure that no "dangerous" dissent on certain topics is ever given even "tacit credibility."  

In other words, their view of mainstream media outlets is as organs for the dissemination of propaganda, speaking with one voice on some subjects so that the watchers do not get any ideas or look into certain issues for themselves.  We can identify vaccines as one of these subjects on which many in the media apparently believe no alternative views can afford to be heard.  What might some of the others be?

For her part, Jenny McCarthy's non-profit organization, Generation Rescue, has a website on which an FAQ page gives what appear to be her actual positions on the subject.  There, the organization's position on vaccination is stated in this manner:

Generation Rescue firmly believes that all parents have the power of choice – to vaccinate or not – and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision. We encourage all new parents to educate themselves about vaccinations so they can stand with confidence behind their decisions. Parents need to discuss vaccination options directly with their child’s pediatrician.

Now there's a set of assertions that critics can rightly label as "dangerous views" and "irresponsible" -- the idea that "all parents have the power of choice -- to vaccinate or not -- and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision."  

As noted above, one need not deny that there is a link between virus and disease to want more information on the safety issues surrounding a specific vaccine, or the preservatives used for a specific vaccine, or the vaccine schedule currently being recommended for young children.  For instance, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that others which are recommended (such as the chicken pox vaccine) might not be worth the potential risk.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that the number of vaccines that are now given to infants in rapid succession might be safer if the vaccinations were spread out over a period of months instead of all being given on a single day.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that combining three different vaccines into a single shot administered all at once (such as the DPT vaccine) might be dangerous, and they might wish to seek ways to have these vaccines administered separately instead of all together.

The idea that parents should become more informed on this subject should not be controversial, but some people apparently believe that the mere sight of McCarthy on The View is intolerable because it could cause viewers to start to investigate such issues on their own, and to think for themselves instead of listening to the unified message that they and their fellow media outlets are trying to shape for their audiences.

Finally, many of the critics referenced above condescendingly come right out and say that McCarthy has no right to speak out on this subject because she is not a doctor and because she is an actress and a model.  In just about every crime mystery, this type of argument is put forward by "the authorities" who think they have the crime all figured out, and are upset when an "outsider" such as Sherlock Holmes or the gang from Scooby Doo show up.  They want to marginalize and attack outside voices that threaten the establishment (which they represent, and from which they derive all of their authority and livelihood). 

Jenny McCarthy has just as much right to speak out about this subject as any other human being, and as she is also a mother and someone who believes her child may have been harmed by a vaccine, she has every right to try to become as informed as possible on all sides of the issue, and to share what she believes with other parents of children who are concerned about these issues.  

Additionally, to imply that no medical doctors have any questions at all about the safety of vaccines is simply untrue.  Here are several links to doctors raising various concerns about the safety of the current vaccine methodology, from the website of Dr. Joseph Mercola (another figure that the establishment would like to marginalize and discredit): 

• an article on issues surrounding the DPT vaccine, with discussion of the work of Dr. Peter Aaby.
• an article on issues related to vaccines containing aluminum, with discussion of the work of Dr. David  Ayoub.
• an article discussing safety issues related to mercury derivatives in flu shots, with links to articles saying that the government of Finland suspects a connection between health problems in some children given a flu vaccine and the contents of the vaccine.
• an article discussing studies conducted by university researchers demonstrating that the effectiveness of an HPV vaccine had been fraudulently overstated, and linking to a list of adverse events associated with individuals who received that vaccination reported in the US Health and Human Services Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (which lists all events reported, some of which may be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine).

The data in these articles suggests that the vaccine question may not be such a "closed case" as the authorities -- and those in the media who for some reason want to control all debate on this subject -- want people to believe.  This subject is an outstanding example of a subject in which certain parties do not want anyone to question the official story, and in which those seeking to quell independent investigation on the part of parents or other concerned citizens will resort to throwing around the term "science" to imply that their position is unassailable and that any men or women who question their position are akin to those who believe the earth is flat or that it does not revolve around the sun.

Whatever your position on this particular issue, we should all agree that this kind of name-calling and stifling of debate is reprehensible and ugly.  In fact, it may well be termed "irresponsible" and even "dangerous" -- the very terms the media critics are using to describe Jenny McCarthy's selection as a co-host of The View.  This type of behavior threatens open inquiry and the search for the truth in a wide variety of subjects, from medicine to history to geology and biology, as discussed in this blog in many other posts.  In this way, it is also extremely unscientific -- yet another term that the critics are applying to Jenny McCarthy, but which actually applies to them.

Do your own due diligence: Geoengineering

Here is a topic which positively begs for due diligence.  The phrase "due diligence" is shorthand for the following general idea: On subjects that could seriously impact your life, you should take the time to look into those subjects yourself, rather than simply taking someone else's word for it.

For example, if someone comes up to you and asks you to invest what to you would be a substantial sum of money in some business venture that they have heard about, you should probably conduct some of your own "due diligence" rather than simply basing your decision on hearsay. 

The above video makes assertions which, if true, could seriously impact people's lives in a very negative way.  The assertions are so serious, in fact, that it is worth taking the time to watch the entire presentation.

The video presents substantial evidence to support its assertions.  It is, of course, possible that for some reason the video is presenting false information, made to sound plausible through the creation of false charts, photographs, and other deception.  While it is difficult to imagine a motive for creating such a deception, it is certainly possible.  Readers are encouraged to watch the video, and then look into the issue for themselves. 

Some websites have emerged to "debunk" the information in the above video.  Here is one list of counterpoints offered by critics of the above assertions.  Many of the arguments on that page appear to be challenging technical details of some of the assertions made in the video regarding impacts and effects, while ignoring the bigger question of whether deliberate geoengineering is actually underway.  If deliberate geoengineering is actually being conducted, and being conducted without the knowledge of the populations being exposed to that activity, that would seem to be the bigger issue.  That question should be addressed, rather than haggling over whether or not some of the compounds allegedly being used for such geoengineering are harmful or not.

Elsewhere, the same "debunkers" actually do appear to argue that deliberate geoengineering is not taking place, saying that aerial spraying is a myth and blaming "ship trails" caused by ocean-going vessels for the cloud patterns discussed in the above video.  Again, this is a very important topic, and readers should examine competing explanations for themselves and decide which proposed explanations best fit the evidence at hand.  

If in fact no deliberate geoengineering is taking place, then perhaps there is no cause for concern in that area.  On the other hand, if deliberate geoengineering is taking place without informing the human beings who are potentially impacted by that activity, then there are potentially enormous ramifications.  Because the potential ramifications are so severe, everyone should take the time to investigate this issue for himself or herself.  The video above is a good place to start, followed by the counter-arguments presented in the pages linked above (and elsewhere on the internet).  

After that, the documents library at the Geoengineering Watch website presents numerous papers published over the years relating to this subject.  A visit to that library to read some of those documents would certainly seem to be in order.  After all, prior to making a monetary investment in an company, it is advisable to spend at least as much time as the above research would take, examining the financial statements and other filings and materials related to that company prior to investing money in it.  That's because "due diligence" is called for regarding subjects that could seriously impact one's life (such as the potential loss of money from a careless investment).  It would seem that the subject discussed above is deserving of at least that much due diligence, and possibly more.