Saturday, March 28, 2015
Even though I am such a big fan of science fiction, I usually lean toward skepticism in real life. Like UFOs, ghosts, tales of Bigfoot, people who profess to like me, I am doubtful. That skepticism includes belief in Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). Now, I do not entirely discount its existence out of hand, but I do believe that the way this material world is designed, it really doesn't allow for some things to occur.
Yet, with that said, I often wonder why so many science fiction writers with brains double the size of my poor waste of skull space have so often visualized a future human race in which ESP does exist. Apparently, it is an accepted possibility. Plus, there have been documented cases of what seem to be actual ESP experiences. Oh, there are plenty of hoaxes, as well. I think an exploration of the topic is in order.
Extrasensory perception involves the reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy, clairaudience, and clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or retrocognition. ESP is also sometimes referred to as a sixth sense. The term implies acquisition of information by means external to the basic limiting assumptions of science, such as that organisms can only receive information from the past to the present.
Parapsychology is the study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP. Parapsychologists generally regard such tests as the ganzfeld experiment as providing compelling evidence for the existence of ESP. The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results, and considers ESP a pseudoscience.
In a telepathy experiment, the "sender" looks at a series of cards while the "receiver" guesses the symbols. To try to observe clairvoyance, the pack of cards is hidden from everyone while the receiver guesses. To try to observe precognition, the order of the cards is determined after the guesses are made.
In all such experiments order of the cards must be random so that hits are not obtained through systematic biases or prior knowledge. At first the cards were shuffled by hand, then by machine. Later, random number tables were used, nowadays, computers. An advantage of ESP cards is that statistics can easily be applied to determine whether the number of hits obtained is higher than would be expected by chance. Rhine used ordinary people as subjects and claimed that, on average, they did significantly better than chance expectation. Later he used dice to test for psychokinesis and also claimed results that were better than chance.
In 1940, Rhine, J.G. Pratt, and others at Duke authored a review of all card-guessing experiments conducted internationally since 1882 titled Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years. It included details of replications of Rhine's studies. Through these years, 50 studies were published, of which 33 were contributed by investigators other than Rhine and the Duke University group; 61% of these independent studies reported significant results suggestive of ESP. Among these were psychologists at Colorado University and Hunter College, New York, who completed the studies with the largest number of trials and the highest levels of significance. Replication failures encouraged Rhine to further research into the conditions necessary to experimentally produce the effect. He maintained, however, that it was not replicability, or even a fundamental theory of ESP that would evolve research, but only a greater interest in unconscious mental processes and a more complete understanding of human personality.
One of the first statistical studies of ESP, using card-guessing, was conducted by Ina Jephson, in the 1920s. She reported mixed findings across two studies. More successful experiments were conducted with procedures other than card-guessing. G.N.M. Tyrrell used automated target-selection and data-recording in guessing the location of a future point of light. Whateley Carington experimented on the paranormal cognition of drawings of randomly selected words, using participants from across the globe. J. Hettinger studied the ability to retrieve information associated with token objects.
Rhine and other parapsychologists found that some subjects, or some conditions, produced significant below-chance scoring (psi-missing); or that scores declined during the testing (the "decline effect"). Some such "internal effects" in ESP scores have also appeared to be idiosyncratic to particular participants or research methods. Most notable is the focusing effect identified in the decade-long research with Pavel Stepanek.
Personality measures have also been tested. People who believe in psi ("sheep") tend to score above chance, while those who do not believe in psi ("goats") show null results or psi-missing. This has become known as the "sheep-goat effect".
Prediction of decline and other position effects has proved challenging, although they have been often identified in data gathered for the purpose of observing other effects. Personality and attitudinal effects have shown greater predictability, with meta-analysis of parapsychological databases showing the sheep-goat effect, and other traits, to have significant and reliable effects over the accumulated data.
The study of psi phenomena such as ESP is called parapsychology. The consensus of the Parapsychological Association is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and astral projection are well established.
A great deal of reported extrasensory perception is said to occur spontaneously in conditions which are not scientifically controlled. Such experiences have often been reported to be much stronger and more obvious than those observed in laboratory experiments. These reports, rather than laboratory evidence, have historically been the basis for the widespread belief in the authenticity of these phenomena. However, it has proven extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to replicate such extraordinary experiences under controlled scientific conditions.
Proponents of the ESP phenomena point to numerous studies that cite evidence of the phenomenon's existence: the work of Russell Targ and Harold E. Puthoff, who were physicists at SRI International in the 1970s, as well as J. B. Rhine at Duke University and many others, are often cited in arguments that ESP exists.
The main current debate concerning ESP surrounds whether or not statistically compelling laboratory evidence for it has already been accumulated. The most accepted results are all small to moderate statistically significant results. Critics may dispute the positive interpretation of results obtained in scientific studies of ESP, as they claim they are difficult to reproduce reliably, and are small in effect. Parapsychologists have argued that the data from numerous studies show that certain individuals have consistently produced remarkable results while the remainder have constituted a highly significant trend that cannot be dismissed even if the effect is small.
Skeptics claim that there is a lack of a viable theory of the mechanism behind ESP, and that there are historical cases in which flaws have been discovered in the experimental design of parapsychological studies.
Critics of experimental parapsychology hold that there are no consistent and agreed-upon standards by which "ESP powers" may be tested. It is argued that when psychics are challenged by skeptics and fail to prove their alleged powers, they assign all sorts of reasons for their failure, such as that the skeptic is affecting the experiment with "negative energy" or their cellphone is causing interference. Claims of successful use of ESP are viewed by most skeptics as examples of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
And so, what do you think? Are there unknown ways to communicate and manipulate the space around us? Do you believe in things you can't see? Like radio waves? Nuclear reactions in the sun? Moon landings? God? Or, do you just believe what you can see with your own eyes?
Posted by TommyBoy at 1:24 PM
Friday, March 27, 2015
by Paul Craig Roberts
According to a Nobel economist and a Harvard University budget expert, Washington’s 14 years of war on terror has cost Americans a minimum of $6 trillion. That’s 6,000 billion dollars. This sum, together with the current PayRoll tax revenues is enough to keep Social Security and Medicare in the black for years to come. Without the vast sum wasted on the war on terror, Congress would not have an excuse to be trying to cut Social Security and Medicare for budget reasons and to privatize the old age pensions and health care of people, thus turning Medicare and Social Security pensions into fee income for Wall Street.
Combating terrorism is the excuse for squandering a minimum of $6,000 billion dollars. What were the terrorist events that serve as a basis for this expenditure?
There are five: 9/11, the London transport system bombings, the Spanish train bombing, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and the French Charlie Hebdo rifle attack.
In other words, 5 questionable events in 14 years.
But were they terrorist events?
There are many reasons to suspect these “terrorist attacks.” Governments have always resorted to false flag events in order to serve secret agendas. The Czar’s secret police set off bombs in order to create grounds for arresting labor agitators. We know from Operation Gladio that Western intelligence services did the same thing in order to blame European communist parties and block their electoral gains. Washington lived in fear that a communist party would gain executive power in some European country.
The 9/11 Truth movement, consisting of 2,300 architects and engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, military and airline pilots, first responders, and former government officials, have blown the official 9/11 story out of the water. No person with a brain believes the official story. The chairman, co-chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission have written books stating that information was withheld from the commission, that the military lied to the commission, and that the commission “was set up to fail.”
Now we have claims from an imprisoned Al Qaeda member that Saudi Arabia financed 9/11. There is a secret government document, whose 28 pages allegedly point to Saudi involvement, that some lawmakers think should be released. At this point we have no way of knowing whether this is another layer of cover, another red herring to divert attention from the collapsing 9/11 story to the Saudis, whose country is also on the neoconservative list of Middle Eastern countries to be overthrown. When Washington lies and withholds information, the American people cannot know what the truth is.
Myself and a large number of observant and astute persons have asked questions about the Boston and Paris events. Our reward, of course, has been ad hominem attacks. For example, a non-entity of whom no one has ever heard used Salon, known as A Voice For The Government, to call me a series of names for asking the obvious questions that every journalist should be asking.
The only reason to read Salon is to continue your brainwashing experience as a good patriotic American should. I mean, how dare you contemplate disbelieving your honest, caring, loving, humane, moral, life-preserving, truth-telling government, which takes special care to spare human life everywhere, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Ukraine.
You can take it as a general rule that anytime you see an ad hominem attack on someone who raises questions that the questions are dangerous and that the government is using its well-paid trolls to discredit the skeptic who raised the questions.
The Charlie Hebdo and Boston bombing have in common that the police decided to kill the alleged perpetrators rather than capture them–just as a person alleged to be Osama bin Laden was gratuitously murdered in the raid on the “mastermind’s compound” in Pakistan. Dead men tell no tales. They can’t contradict the story.
The obvious question is, like the question about Osama bin Laden’s alleged murder by a Seal in Abbottabad, Pakistan, why were such valuable intelligence resources killed rather than captured? But the Western print and TV media have not made a point of this obvious question. One of the alleged suspects in the Charlie Hebdo affair, Hamyd Mourad, when he heard via social media that he was the driver of the getaway car of the Charlie Hebdo killers, had the wits to quickly turn himself into the French police before he could be murdered as a terrorist. The frame-up of this intended victim failed. http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/looking-mourad-hamyd
I have seen nothing in the news questioning how the official story can be so wrong about Hamyd Mourad and still be right about the alleged brothers who conducted the attack. The evidence connecting the brothers to the attack is the claim that they left their ID in the get-away car. This reminds me of the passport initially said to have been found in the ruble of the twin towers that was used to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators of 9/11.
We are only two months short of two years since the Marathon bombing and the surviving brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is only now being brought to trial. Additionally, both he and his attorney are under gag orders. Why? http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/01/06/boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-silent/
According to the official story, Dzhokhar wrote his confession on the side of a boat in which the severely wounded, unarmed 19-year old was hiding from execution. That such an unlikely story could become part of American reality demonstrates the stupidity of both the authorities and the American public.
It is entirely possible that Dzhokhar’s attorney has learned from the Lynne Steward case that any lawyer who defends his Muslim client will be himself sentenced to federal prison for not cooperating with the government’s agenda.
But these are speculations. What facts do we have? None, of course, from Washington. Washington needs no facts. Washington is the Imperial Power. Washington’s word rules, the facts be damned. The print and TV media do not dare to contradict Washington on any important point or raise any embarrassing questions.
Concerning facts, we have the non-investigated report that a high-ranked French police official, for reasons unknown, killed himself in police headquarters while writing a report on the Charlie Hebdo affair based on his investigation.
Police officials spend their lives hoping for a major, big time case, participation in which makes their career memorable. No police official benefiting from such an opportunity would deny himself of it by committing suicide. Did the investigation not support the official story? Was the police official Helric Fredou not compliant with cover-up orders? The media has not asked these questions, and I have seen no reports about the content of Fredou’s report. What does his report, finished or unfinished, say? Why isn’t this of media interest?
Moreover, the family of Helric Fredou is unable to get the autopsy report of Helric’s “suicide” from the French government. I have seen no news reports of this fact in the US print and TV media. Here is the only report that I can find: from Kevin Barrett on Veterans Today: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/
Let’s turn now to one of the last remaining investigative reporters, Russ Baker. In an interview with Lew Rockwell on January 30, 2015, investigative reporter Russ Baker points out that no evidence has ever been presented that the Tsarnave brothers killed a MIT campus cop or highjacked a motorist. He points out that these stories helped to inflame the situation and to firmly place in the public’s mind that the brothers were dangerous and guilty of the bombing, while launching the police on a revenge killing.
One aspect that suggests pre-planning is the quick appearance of 10,000 heavily armed militarized units from a number of police and federal agencies. How (and why) was this varied force so quickly and easily assembled? The complete lockdown of Boston and its suburbs, and the eviction of people from their homes at gunpoint in order to conduct house by house searches for the one wounded brother still alive, is a response so outside of the normal range of responses as to raise questions that the media avoided asking.
Another suspicious incident is the “spontaneous” street party giving thanks to the militarized forces for saving Boston from the 19-year old kid found bleeding to death under a boat by a local resident. This party took place within a very short time just after the kid was found and seems inconsistent with lead times for organizing street parties, especially coming out of a locked-down situation when so much is disorganized.
Lew Rockwell has given me permission to repost his January 30, 2015, transcription of his June 4, 2013 podcast interview with Russ Baker, “Suppressing the Truth About the Boston Bombings.” I have edited the long interview for length, but here is the link to the full interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/no_author/suppressing-the-truth-about-the-boston-bombing/
ROCKWELL: Well, good morning. This is the Lew Rockwell Show. And it’s great to have as our guest this morning, Mr. Russ Baker. Russ is an award-winning investigative reporter. I mean, an actual investigative reporter. I think that’s, unfortunately, a dying breed. He’s written for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Village Voice, Esquire, and many, many others publications. To me, most importantly, he’s the author of a great book called Family of Secrets:The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces that Put It in the White House and What Their Influence Means for America, and an updated paperback under the title of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. Russ has his own site, of course, RussBaker.com, also WhoWhatWhy.com, which continues his investigative reporting outside of the mainstream media.
Russ, is anybody but you questioning the information shutdown that’s taken place in Boston?
We saw the clamp down on the freedom of movement. We’ve seen the increasing encroachment of military troops into our American cities. We see the public getting softened up and being made to become more and more comfortable with living in kind of a military state almost.
ROCKWELL: Now, you’ve actually been on the ground in Boston?
BAKER: I spent the last two weeks there. I’ll be going back again. I can’t stay there full time. I’m based in New York now, not in Boston. But I did spend two weeks there, and it was very, very instructive and I got a sense of a bunch of things. I met with and even drove around with journalists from major newspapers and radio shows; some good people, but I could see the limitations. There really is almost nobody there digging deeply into these problematical issues. And when I say problematical issues, what I mean is it is the job of the media to just find out what happened. It is not our job to pass along what somebody else says happened. That’s not our job. And the media there, the major newspapers, the TV and the radio, by and large, just said what the authorities told them. In a few cases, places like “The Boston Globe,” they do more than that, a little bit more than that; they’ve tried to talk to people. But I can tell you from my own experience that a lot of this stuff is being controlled.
We’ve done four pieces. We have another one coming up in a few days. That’s going to be about this carjacking victim, which is a very, very important piece of this story that has not been investigated by the media. Another one we just did recently is about the shooting of an MIT police officer named Sean Collier. That story was treated — it was not examined, Lew, in the context of what that story was. That story was actually a kind of a propagandistic moment. And those of us who study and read history remember that back in the Nazi era, there was the killing of a police officer, a Horst Wessel, and they even created a song for the Nazi movement, the “Horst Wessel” song. Killings of police officers that are magnified like this — and if you go to WhoWhatWhy.com and read that article, there’s a photo of all of these baseball players at a stadium standing with their hats off and their heads bent in a giant projection of this one police officer. And what is that for? Because, tragically, police officers are killed in the line of duty all the time. Why all of the focus on this one police officer? I have never, Lew, seen a news organization ask that question. Why are we focusing on this police officer? And more importantly, what actually happened with this police officer that would make us interested in him?
But absolutely, it’s made into a huge political deal, as Will Grigg puts it, with a Brezhnev-style funeral any time a cop is killed, whereas, if some poor store owner or whatever is killed in the line of duty, his family cares and that’s about it.
BAKER: I agree with you, that’s true. I guess what my point was that even in agreeing with you that there are not that many police officers killed, there still are nationally probably some.
ROCKWELL: Oh, sure. Actually, about 40 to 50, which is terrible.
BAKER: But what interests me here is this particular police officer.
By the way, there were two police officers shot; one died and one almost died. And they’re both very strange cases. And so, first of all, I was struck by the fact that they wanted to make it a big deal about this police officer’s death. Biden flew in and addressed his funeral. It’s literally said that thousands of law enforcement people came from all over the country to attend the funeral of this man they didn’t know. Now, it is logical to ask, “Why would people attend a funeral of a person they didn’t know?” It’s for some reason. And what it really comes down to is it’s propagandistic. And what this is, is this is focusing the public and it’s very strongly sending out a message that the system is taking care of you and you have to honor the system. “This person died for you.”
And what’s very interesting was, if you go into that article and you read all the detail of what I investigated — and we’ll be doing more on this — first of all, when Officer Collier was killed, we were essentially told either explicitly or implicitly that he had been killed by these two brothers. Now what’s very interesting is, at the time that he was killed, all we knew was that these two brothers, whose names were not even public yet, were pictures from a video, wearing backpacks, walking along with dozens, hundreds of other people wearing backpacks and walking. And so it was the death of this police officer that set everything into motion.
The next thing that happened is this carjacking. And an unknown person, whose name is still not public, has said that he was carjacked by these brothers and that they told him, “We planted the bomb and we killed that cop.” Now, those are two things that there is no hard evidence that they did either of them, but now you’ve got killed the cop and then you have a carjacking with an unnamed person saying these guys told me they did it. And then one of them is killed; the other one, I believe, they attempted to murder him. So what you would have had, Lew, is you would have had a situation where both of these suspects would be dead, an unknown witness would connect them to both of the things, the whole thing would be over; and that military, that huge military police response would have been accepted, and we would be used to the idea that there will be more of these things.
ROCKWELL: Well, that’s right. And of course, then we had the younger brother writing out his confession on the side of the boat in the dark.
BAKER: Well, in the dark, but this guy was basically gravely injured. According to the story, which is a little bit strange, of the man who owned that boat, when he went out to check, he saw blood there. I mean, this guy was already in a pool of blood before they called the cops. Because we know he’s gravely injured in the hospital. So the likelihood that he was in any shape, you know, to sort of heroically prop himself up and go to these incredible lengths to scrawl out a confession virtually with his dying breath is a little bit hard to believe.
At the end, I think the notion was that they thought this guy was going to die. With those shots that they fired, given the fact that he hadn’t fired a single shot at them, you have to assume that at least one person in that group, whether it was local police or it was the FBI people on the scene, was shooting to kill. That was the intent, it seems. And so this confession, if it’s even real — and we haven’t seen that in that confession. And other thing we’ve been reporting is that that confession was reported to us by John Miller, a senior correspondent at CBS News. It’s very, very important to remember that John Miller’s last major job was that he was a top official of the FBI. He was a lead spokesman for the FBI. He loves the FBI. He’s very, very close with them. And this is the man who is now back in journalism telling us this story. He also has been a key figure throughout. He got one of those so-called exclusive interviews with the unknown carjacking victim. So in other words, this entire narrative is being constructed essentially by the FBI or its allies.
ROCKWELL: I always think of the FBI as the American secret police. And if you called them that, then when you see this sort of thing going on, it seems to me you ought to take things with maybe not a grain of salt but a cup of salt.
And so I have to agree with you. I mean, in some respect, of course, one wants an agency like the FBI to be there, but that doesn’t mean we have to apologize for the grave structural, philosophical and other problems with it. The FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, local police, all of these institutions are absolutely riddled with problems. And, you know, my attitude as a journalist is many institutions are riddled with problems, many aspects of the federal government, but also private industry, big corporations, riddled with problems, abuses and so forth. And it is not our job as journalists, and I don’t think it’s our jobs as citizens, to just accept what anybody tells us and to just blindly trust when they say, whether it’s the FBI or it’s your bank.
ROCKWELL: tell us what happened in the alleged fire or bomb or whatever the heck it was at the Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston.
BAKER: You know, that’s a strange one, because we were told that that happened almost at the same time of the marathon bombing, within a short time of that, on the same day. We still haven’t gotten a straight answer on what happened. I’ve been doing a little bit in the way of inquiries and, I have to say, I have questions about that. I don’t think that the authorities are being forthcoming. And even more disturbing than the bombing itself, the potential damage there or attempted damage to priceless research materials that people like I need to continue to investigate what happened to John F. Kennedy, what happened to American 50 years ago, and how it’s impacting us today, which I believe it is. The past certainly is prologue. But not only am I concerned about that but, you know, there was no coverage — the media dropped it. Go and Google this thing, you’ll see zero, almost. I mean, nothing from the local Boston media or the national media. I mean, WhoWhatWhy is a little, tiny non-profit and we’re looking into it. And these giant news organizations have nobody asking these questions.
The second thing is this thing at the library on the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. There are many, many disturbing parallels. You’ve got, in both of those stories, the suspects had recently been in Russia. Remember that? They both had been in Russia.
Strange families. Both the Tsarnaevs and Lee Harvey Oswald had been being monitored by the FBI. Both of them had relatives, or other people they were associated, with ties to the CIA. I mean, is this all coincidental? Does somebody have a particularly sophisticated and sick sense of humor? I mean, what are we looking at here? Of course, you’re not even allowed to ask these questions.
Another story going up probably today is how The New York Times, instead of investigating any of these things, they quickly have somebody roll out a story talking about conspiracy theorists and how anybody who has questions about things basically is sort of mentally ill, which is a very, very important contradiction. If you ask any questions and you don’t accept the conventional narrative that everything is just fine, there is something really, really wrong with you.
But, you know, my continuing efforts to look into these giant traumas, what happened to Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy and Walter Reuther, you know, union leaders who died in a strange plane crashes and so on, there’s so much of this, and it is disproportionately reformers who get taken out. Very, very few corporate-cozy conservative politicians, who also, by the way, fly in private planes all the time, never seem to have an accident. But this stuff we need to look at.
ROCKWELL: Russ, before we go, I want you, to the extent you can, tell us about the book you’re working on now.
BAKER: Well, you know, I generally don’t talk too much about what I’m working on. But I will say this. In terms of subjects and major interests to me, I continue to be very interested in the John F. Kennedy assassination. Would have loved to have something out on the 50th anniversary of his assassination, but that story is so layered and so complicated, some people believe we could never get to the bottom of it. I think we can. I think we can put enough pieces of the things together to figure out what happened. And I think that solving that is absolutely essential for us to understand what kind of society we really live in, to kind of wake up. And you know, people say, though, “This is so depressing, I don’t want to hear about it,” but that is not a way to empower yourself. You empower yourself by educating yourself, by having your eyes open, by understanding how things work. And that is really the beginning to go about and correct these things, because this country has always — and Franklin Roosevelt said this and Woodrow Wilson said it. They always warned us that they didn’t really run the country. Franklin Roosevelt very famously said in a letter to somebody, he said, as you and I both know, the real power in this country resides in the financial circles on Wall Street. And that’s true. And I’m continuing to look at Obama and how people like that get to the top and people like Hillary Clinton, and who are behind them, and why it is that, whether we have a Democrat or a Republican, even though there are real substantive differences, primarily on social issues, when it comes to the big global issues and the big financial issues, essentially, we see very, very similar policies and appointments made. What is really going on in this country? Why is it that we actually seem to live under a kind of a one-party state? And that is what my continuing efforts, my books, and, most importantly, my work at WhoWhatWhy.com, which really is the main focus of my efforts in my life today. It’s to build a meaningful journalistic institution that can train a whole new generation of journalists, funded entirely by the public, with no corporate influence or government influence, asking questions with neither fear, nor favor, and doing what we’re supposed to be doing, really, as journalists.
Any American who has read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States knows that government in America has not served the interests of the people but the agendas of the rich and powerful.
War and “security” make large claims on the US budget and on civil liberties. Having established the precedent of locking down a major city in order to search for one suspect, this power was used recently to lock down New York because of a snow storm. People in northeastern US certainly know how to deal with snow, but suddenly they are told they cannot leave their homes or be on the streets because of snow.
What has changed that suddenly a snow storm produces a political response comparable to a declaration of martial law?
What will the next excuse be?
Are Americans being trained to accept arbitrary curtailments on their freedom of movement?
Pay attention. The likelihood is that you are being conditioned for narrowing the dimensions of your freedom.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.
Posted by TommyBoy at 10:09 AM
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Unless the State gives a defendant all the financial, and expert, resources they themselves possess, non-millionaire defendants don't stand a chance for justice.
Due to a government-run railroad trial aided by extensive propaganda as well as a complicit FBI investigation, people have already determined that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty for bombing the Boston Marathon two years ago. Remember that? When they sealed off the city and brought in troops and searched from house to house without warrants just to prove they could? Remember that? Well, from nothing more than the repeating of official sources only by the mainstream media, the American public is convinced of his guilt.
The truth is, there are mounds of evidence of his innocence that the American people have not been told. The MSM has been conspicuously absent except, of course, in conveying the "official" story.
No wonder there's a problem getting a fair jury in Tsarnaev's trial and no wonder there's so little understanding or respect for the law. You expect a fair trial just because you're in America? Oh, come on. Grow up.
Listening to the prospective jurors comments live on the Tsarnaev case is frightening. Many said they've already been convinced by the media that he's guilty. And they have no concept that what they're saying is evidence of their indoctrination.
Perhaps we should just allow the media to decide what is evidence or what is true-- reporting only from government sources and ignoring the gagged defendant and gagged defense lawyers. Why should trials even be necessary?
Dzhokhar's pack is caved in--almost empty--it holds no 6 quart Fagor pressure cooker dangerously loaded with fireworks and shrapnel.
Per the American Pyrotechnics Association: there were no fireworks effects in the blasts, extracting fireworks powder is too dangerous and it could not have caused the extent of the damage (esp. in the amount claimed) at the marathon.
The Feds claimed in April 2013 that they had "forensic evidence" from the kitchen and bath that the Tsarnaev brothers made fireworks extracted bombs from pressure cookers in Tamerlan's apartment. In a court filing in May 2014 the Feds admitted they had no evidence of any bomb making or bombs in any location associated with the brothers including vehicles. What? The press reported they did.
|Make it fit the narrative...|
Yet from April 2013 the Feds claimed and media repeated that the brothers made fireworks extracted pressure cooker bombs in Tamerlan's apartment from online sources. People still repeat this and believe it even though it's a complete falsehood. Furthermore, the Feds knew back in April 2013 that it was a lie--it was used as propaganda along with many other lies. And they knew the hospital "confession", in which the officials stated that Dzhokhar "admitted" he and his brother made bombs in Tamerlan's apartment from online sources was a false confession made under extreme duress--they knew that in April. But the public believed that he'd confessed to being the bomber.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence vs the official story and there's much more evidence not reported. Think people. Read outside the MSM. Go to The Boston Bombings: What Happened? WhoWhatWhy, Scott Creighton, David Liffton, Firedoglake, SOSadm and dozens of other sites for information that's being kept from you. It might open your mind to questioning what you've been fed about this case. And other cases as well as some well-publicized national incidents over the last few years.
Whoever said, "Whoever controls the media controls people's minds" was frighteningly correct. Just take an honest look at what is happening all around us.
Posted by TommyBoy at 11:55 PM
|Frank P. Ramsey|
A typical result in Ramsey theory starts with a mathematical structure that is then cut into pieces. How big must the original structure be in order to ensure that at least one of the pieces has a given interesting property? This idea is called Partition Regularity.
For example, consider a complete graph of order n; that is, there are n vertices and each vertex is connected to every other vertex by an edge. A complete graph of order 3 is called a triangle. Now color every edge red or blue. How large must n be in order to ensure that there is either a blue triangle or a red triangle? It turns out that the answer is 6.
Another way to express this result is as follows: at any party with at least six people, there are three people who are all either mutual acquaintances (each one knows the other two) or mutual strangers (each one does not know either of the other two).
Two key theorems of Ramsey theory are:
Van der Waerden's theorem: For any given c and n, there is a number V, such that if V consecutive numbers are colored with c different colors, then it must contain an arithmetic progression of length n whose elements are all the same color.
Hales-Jewett theorem: For any given n and c, there is a number H such that if the cells of a H-dimensional n×n×n×...×n cube are colored with c colors, there must be one row, column, etc. of length n all of whose cells are the same color. That is, if you play on a board with sufficiently many dimensions, then multi-player n-in-a-row tic-tac-toe cannot end in a draw, no matter how large n is, and no matter how many people are playing. Hales-Jewett theorem implies Van der Waerden's theorem.
A theorem similar to van der Waerden's theorem is Schur's theorem: for any given c there is a number N such that if the numbers 1, 2, ..., N are colored with c different colors, then there must be a pair of integers x, y such that x, y, and x+y are all the same color. Many generalizations of this theorem exist, including Rado's theorem, Rado-Folkman-Sanders theorem, Hindman's theorem, and the Milliken-Taylor theorem. A classic reference for these and many other results in Ramsey theory is Graham, Rothschild and Spencer.
Results in Ramsey theory typically have two primary characteristics. Firstly, they are non-constructive in that they may show that some structure exists, but they give no process for finding this structure (other than brute force search). For instance, the pigeonhole principle is of this form. Secondly, while Ramsey theory results do say that sufficiently large objects must necessarily contain a given structure, often the proof of these results requires these objects to be enormously large – bounds that grow exponentially, or even as fast as the Ackermann function are not uncommon. In many cases these bounds are artifacts of the proof, and it is not known whether they can be substantially improved. In other cases it is known that any bound must be extraordinarily large, sometimes even greater than any primitive recursive function; see the Paris-Harrington theorem for an example. Graham's number, one of the largest numbers ever used in serious mathematical proof, is an upper bound for a problem related to Ramsey theory.
Theorems in Ramsey theory are generally one of the two types. Many theorems, which are modeled after Ramsey's theorem itself, assert that in every partition of a large structured object, one of the classes necessarily contains a large structured subobject, but give no information about which class this is. Occasionally, the reason behind such Ramsey-type results is that the largest partition class always contains the desired substructure. The results of this kind are called either density results or Turán-type result, after Turán's theorem. Notable examples include Szemerédi's theorem, which is such a strengthening of van der Waerden's theorem, and the density version of Hales-Jewett theorem.
Posted by TommyBoy at 3:19 PM