Connect with us

Alternative News

Report Sheds Light On The Rockefeller Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the authority of global warming. Why would they do this? Are these people really concerned about our planet or simply profiting and justifying heightened states of security for ulterior motives?

  • Reflect On:

    Why are there so many brilliant scientists publishing papers and making points but are never given any attention? Why are they ridiculed and character assassinated by the mainstream? What is going on here?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

New Related Article: Greta Thunberg Wants You To Be Scared & Big Business Will Make a Killing off it.

advertisement - learn more

The climate is changing, and it has been changing for a very long time. In fact, the climate has always been changing, and there are a myriad of factors that influence climate change like solar activity and much more. If you’re not educated on climate science, it’s easy to adopt the “doomsday” perspective that’s often dished out by mainstream media. However, when you look at what actual climate scientists are saying, it doesn’t seem like anyone on either side agrees with the media’s “climate hysteria” narrative.

-->Watch a free sneak peek of our new course: Our latest course focuses on how to improve your critical thinking and become more aware of bias. Click here to check it out!

The main argument among those who ascribe to the hysteria perspective is that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been since we started to record them, currently sitting at approximately 415 parts per million (ppm). It’s not like climate scientists disagree on the idea that CO2 causes some warming of our atmosphere, that seems to be a fact that’s firmly established in scientific literature. But what’s never mentioned is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than what they are now; in fact, CO2 levels have been in thousands ppm and Earth’s temperature has been much warmer than it is now. The idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for shifts and changes in the climate is not scientifically valid, yet policy initiatives that do nothing for our environment are being produced and put forward, putting large sums of money in the pockets of some very powerful people.

“Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.” – Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State (source)

CO2 causing a temperature increase is the backbone of the global warming argument, but does CO2 even cause the temperature to increase, or does an increase in temperature cause a rise in C02?

“The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?” – Dr. Tim Ball, (source) former professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg

advertisement - learn more

William Happer, American physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, is one of what seems to be thousands of academics to go unheard by the mainstream media who shares the same perspective:

In every careful study, the temperature first rises and then CO2 rises, and the temperature first falls and then CO2 falls, temperature is causing changes of CO2 at least for the last million years, there’s no question about that. (source)

He also pointed out the major ice ages in Earth’s past when C02 levels were also extremely high, much higher than they are now, and did so to show how the correlation between C02 and temperature is “not all that good.”

In their paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999), they show how CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousands of years, but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other, but offer no explanation. The significance is that temperature may influence C02 amounts. At the onset of glaciations, temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall, suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times as well.

In 1988, the NASA scientist James Hansen told the US Senate that the summer’s warmth reflected increased carbon dioxide levels. Even Science magazine reported that the climatologists were skeptical.

The reason we now take this position as dogma is due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector. One person who benefited from this was Maurice Strong, a global bureaucrat and wheeler-dealer (who spent his final years in China apparently trying to avoid prosecution for his role in the UN’s Oil for Food program scandals). Strong is frequently credited with initiating the global warming movement in the early 1980s, and he subsequently helped to engineer the Rio Conference that produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others like Olaf Palme and his friend, Bert Bolin, who was the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were also involved as early as the 1970s. – Dr. Richard Lindzen (source)

Since 1999, this theory has been discussed in numerous scientific papers, but not one shred of evidence exists to confirm that a CO2 increase causes ‘extreme warming.’

Doubling COinvolves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure. The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all. Lindzen (source)

Another quote stressing this point:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control. Lindzen (source)

The quotes above comes from Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he is actually the lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change (the organization that’s pushing the global warming and climate change agenda).

A number of times, Lindzen and many others have been quite outspoken regarding the conclusions of this document that are drawn by politicians, not scientists. There will be more on that later in the article.

According to Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist:

The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causing ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…(source)

In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, specifically in their findings titled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ Here was one of their recommendations:

Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

If we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

  1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
  2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”
  3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary.’ Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:

  1. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another great point made by Lindzen:

How did we get to this point where the science seized to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on. (source)

Below are some more comments by him regarding the politics of climate science. It’s something I compare to the politicization of medical science and the corporate takeover of medical science by big pharma. Medicine is another area where we see brilliant minds creating awareness and publishing papers that, for some reason, get ridiculed and the authors are subjected to character assassination.

The 97 Percent Claim

The mainstream media and people who support the idea that humans are warming the planet often quote the fact that ’97 percent of scientists agree with them.’ First of all, this is not true, and again, we don’t know if humans are warming the planet.

“This claim is actually a come-down from the 1988 claim on the cover of Newsweek that all scientists agree. In either case, the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people. The claim is made by a number of individuals and there are a number of ways in which the claim is presented. A thorough debunking has been given in the Wall Street Journal by Bast and Spencer. One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger. Nonetheless this is portrayed as support for catastrophism. Other dodges involve looking at a large number of abstracts where only a few actually deal with danger. If among these few, 97% support catastrophism, the 97% is presented as pertaining to the much larger totality of abstracts. One of my favorites is the recent claim in the Christian Science Monitor (a once respected and influential newspaper): “For the record, of the nearly 70,000 peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in 2013 and 2014, four authors rejected the idea that humans are the main drivers of climate change.” I don’t think that it takes an expert to recognize that this claim is a bizarre fantasy for many obvious reasons.” – Richard Lindzen, from his paper “Straight Talk About Climate Change,” where he goes into greater detail.

This is a deep topic and there are many points to make. Here’s a great video by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University, explaining the 97 percent myth and where it came from.

Below is a video from Lindzen that sums up the issue quite well.

The Other Side of The Coin

A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the ‘humans changing the climate’ narrative in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Not long ago, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics (as Lindzen mentions above, many of these papers are being published by scientists outside of climate physics), according to the authors.

A recent article that presents more scientific studies was published in the Guardian, titled ‘No Doubt Left About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, say experts.’

Why So Much Conflicting Information?

Obviously, there is an ongoing debate surrounding climate change, and many people still think something fishy is going on here. It’s similar to the vaccines argument, or a host of other issues that never receive any attention from the mainstream media. Instead of presenting the concerns of scientists from the other side, or the side often labelled ‘skeptics,’ these scientists are often heavily ridiculed by mainstream media.

A great example is this dialogue, which is quite old now, between Lindzen and Bill Nye. It’s not hard to see that Nye has no idea what he is talking about, and he’s simply being used because, at that time, he had a large following.

The reason why so many people are unaware of the arguments made by climate ‘skeptics’ is because their points are never presented by mainstream media in the same way the other side’s are. The media controls the minds of the masses, but thankfully this is changing.

 We Here At CE Care Deeply For The Planet

We here at CE care deeply about our planet and creating harmony on it. Since we were founded in 2009, we’ve been creating massive amounts of awareness regarding clean energy technologies and the harmful industries polluting and destroying our planet. The issue is not with finding solutions, we already have those for the most part, the issue is with the systems we have that prevent these solutions from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, we have been heavily involved with multiple clean energy projects and assisting them in coming into fruition.

Opposing the ‘doom and gloom’ global warming narrative does not mean we do not care for our environment; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We feel that politicians meeting every single year for the past few decades have done absolutely nothing to clean up our planet, and instead have been coming up with ways to simply make money off of green technology that cuts CO2 emissions.

If the people in power, with all of their resources, really wanted to change the planet, it would have happened by now.

While our focus is on CO2, not nearly enough attention and resources are going into re-planting our planet, cleaning up our fresh water lakes and oceans, and changing our manufacturing habits to cause less waste and less pollution. If anything, this should be our main focus, especially when it’s not really clear that C02 is an issue.

Environmental and species protection should be our first priority, but it’s not. I believe this green revolution is a distraction and, in many ways, further harms our environment by taking our focus off of what’s really important and putting it on something that is not impacting our planet in a negative way.

The Rockefeller Report

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“The global elite have always benefited in some way shape or form from crises, we’ve seen it over and over again with war.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?” – Michel Chossudovsky, Canadian economist and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa

You can access the full report here. It was published by the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in 2016.

An Example of Other Factors Influencing The Climate – A Coming Ice Age?

Nils-Axel Mörner from the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute states,

By about 2030-2040, the Sun will experience a new grand solar minimum. This is evident from multiple studies of quite different characteristics: the phasing of sunspot cycles, the cyclic observations of North Atlantic behaviour over the past millennium, the cyclic pattern of cosmogenic ra-dionuclides in natural terrestrial archives, the motions of the Sun with respect to the centre of mass, the planetary spin-orbit coupling, the planetary conjunction history and the general planetary solar terrestrial interaction. During the previous grand solar minima—i.e. the Spörer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821)—the climatic conditions deteriorated into Little Ice Age periods.

The idea that solar activity is not affecting Earth’s climate is extremely fishy and doesn’t make much sense when you go through the literature, but it seems to be brushed off within mainstream academia, and hardly studied. It definitely made me scratch my head when IFL Science, for example, put out a statement saying “The Sun simply does not have that large an effect on our climate compared to human activity.” This is a very ridiculous and irresponsible statement. It’s also important that readers recognize there isn’t even any course to back up such a false claim.

Don’t believe what is written, research what is written. What’s worse is the ridicule factor, the way mainstream publications attack any narrative that presents an explanation for climate change that is not human induced. Something is very wrong with this picture, regardless of your stance on the ‘global warming’ phenomenon. There is more on this later in the article.

The paper  by Morner  goes on to make some very important points:

So as you can see, the comment from IFL science quoted above, again, is simply not true. I’ve provided one of many sources available here, and I encourage other writers to do the same.

The author goes on to conclude:

During the last three grand solar minima…global climate experienced Little Ice Age conditions. Arctic water penetrated to the south all the way down to Mid-Portugal, and Europe experienced severe climatic conditions…The Arctic ice over expanded significantly…By 2030-2040, we will be in a New Grand Solar Minimum, which by analogy to past minima must be assumed to lead to significant climatic deterioration with ice expansion in the Artctic..We now seem to be in possession of quite convergent data…This precludes a continual warming as claimed by the IPCC project, instead of this, we are likely to face a new Little Ice Age.

According to the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS,

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. (source)

A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.

Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.

Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

Is There An Agenda At Play Here?

In a recent episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, Joe and CE team member Richard Enos dig deep into the science and break down the agenda behind the carbon tax and the related carbon emissions trading scheme. What becomes clear in our overall discussion is that the conclusions of scientists are not really getting out to the general public. All efforts are geared to try to make people believe that human activity through the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, and that the science behind this is solid and well-established, even though it isn’t. If you haven’t signed up already for CETV, go here so you can get access to the full discussion.

CETV is a platform we created to combat internet censorship, which is another topic. Why are they silencing and ridiculing certain narratives? Why not just oppose them with information and evidence?

The Takeaway

Many things in our world, including science, have become extremely corrupted. We see it with medical science and the influence from big pharma, and we see it with regards to federal health regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA being compromised by corporations. Climate science is no different, which is why we see the mass ridicule of those who oppose the agenda by mainstream media.

Our Earth needs help, it needs to be cleaned up, and deforestation must halt as we are experiencing massive species extinction. None of this has anything, in my opinion, to do with human CO2 output.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Another EX-CIA Director Comments on UFOs & Shares A “Paranormal” Story

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ex CIA Director James Woolsey comments on the reality of the UFO phenomenon and shares a story about an aircraft being stopped in mid-air at 40,000 feet.

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications of the masses becoming aware of such phenomena?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

For anybody who has heavily researched the evidence behind “paranormal phenomenon”, it’s common that hearing about other paranormal phenomenon is simply “normal.” After all, the evidence does suggest paranormal events happen all the time, culture simply hasn’t caught up to realizing how normal these events are. Those who recognize how normal these events are include scientifically minded people, like Dr. Jessica Utts, former Chair of the Department of Statistics and professor at the University of California, Irvine.

“What convinced me was just the evidence, the accumulating evidence as I worked in this field and I got to see more and more of the evidence. I visited the laboratories, even beyond where I was working to see what they were doing and I could see that they had really tight controls…And so I got convinced by the good science that I saw being done. And in fact I will say as a statistician I’ve consulted in a lot of different areas of science; the methodology and the controls on these experiments are tighter than any other area of science where I’ve worked.”  (source)

That was her take on remote viewing, a phenomenon where people are trained to view details about places and objects from a position very far away. This illustrates the non local nature of our consciousness. The remote viewing studies Utts is talking about are incredibly rigorous and yielded repeatable results time and time again.

When it comes to numerous experiments at the quantum level, consciousness has been shown to have some sort effect on physical/material reality as well. There are also topics such as precognition, telepathy and more examples of mind/matter interaction, like “distant healing” which are quite intriguing.

What I find the most intriguing are the examples of people with “special” abilities. I came across much of this documentation via the CIA’s electronic reading room. Examples of children and people with psychokentic ability, able to “break through spatial barriers” by teleporting small objects in small containers from one location to another, perform “paranormal writing” and more, all done under controlled double blind conditions.

When it comes to the topic of UFOs, they’re going mainstream with extreme legitimacy as well. This has many people concerned that mainstream media and government disclosure will result in perception manipulation regarding the phenomenon. Many long time researchers feel we will get a sanitized version of disclosure. That is to say, many key details will be left out purposefully, yet the government will claim all has been told.

Having studied the subject for approximately 15 years now, I can tell you that the phenomenon is quite vast and touches upon all aspects of humanity. There is a lot to the UFO story that I don’t think people will ever hear about from governments and intelligence agencies. If you want to go through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here

The former Director of the CIA, John Brennan (2013-2017) was recently asked about the UFO phenomenon and expressed his belief that we may be dealing with some other form of life.

He stated the following:

I think some of the phenomenon we may be seeing continues to be, um, unexplained, and um, might in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that, um, we don’t yet understand, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say, um, constitutes a different from of life.  (source)

James Woolsey, another retired CIA director 1993-1995 also spoke up on the subject an interview with John Greenwald, founder of The Black Vault, a resource for declassified documents pertaining to UFO related phenomenon.

In the interview he describes an interesting paranormal event that happened to a plane that was “frozen” and stopped in the air at 40,000 feet. He also makes a number of comments about the UFO phenomenon.

“…A friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at 40,000 feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft. What was going on? I don’t know, does anybody know? We’ll have to look into it. There have just been enough things like that that have occurred…”

Why This Is Important: Paranormal phenomenon and the study of parapsychology has the potential to create a major paradigm change for humanity. In fact, it’s happening right now, we’re living in it and part of this phenomenon involves non material science. I believe this field represents the next scientific revolution and will push humanity to open up to a broader view regarding the nature of reality, who we are and how we relate to our universe. There is still so much we have to discover.

The UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon is not even the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to learn, and it is my hope that the phenomenon itself somehow sparks humanity to ask itself deeper questions about the human experience and why we live the way we do, when we have the potential to do so much better and create a planet where all life can truly thrive.

Again, it is also my belief that mainstream media and government may try and shape the perception of the masses when it comes to this phenomenon, as they do with so many other topics.

Many decades ago, the mentor of Wernher Von Braun, Hermann Oberth (both seen in the picture above), the founding father of rocketry and astronautics, also known as the ‘father of Spaceflight’ stated his belief that “flying saucers are real” and that “they are space ships from another solar system.” He went on to say that “I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries.” He wrote these words in “Flying Saucers Come From A Distant World”, The American  Weekly, Oct 24, 1954

According to a paper published in the Journal History and Technology titled Extraterrestrial encounters: UFOs, science and the quest for transcendence, 1947–1972,

At the Internationaler UFO/IFO-Kongress, hosted in Wiesbaden and organized by Karl Keit (1907-2001), credulous UFO-impresario and president of the Deutsche UFO/IFO-Studiengemeinschaft (DUIST), Oberth repeated claims first made in 1954 that he was no longer willing to exclude the possibility that UFOs could indeed be of extraterrestrial origin. Having examined all existing arguments, Oberth proclaimed in front of ‘many hundreds of people who apparently believe that the Earth has been visited by emissaries from outer space,’ as The Times wrote, that he was now convinced that flying saucers were ‘very real,’ and carrying visitors from outer space.

Oberth later repeated that ‘the UFOs are a kind of sentinel, here simply to observe and report; because a humankind which is as gifted as inventors and researchers as we are, yet has remained politically and morally on our stage of development, constitutes a threat to the entire cosmos.’

Perhaps he’s right? Perhaps there are multiple groups observing? Perhaps some are concerned for multiple reasons? The UFO/extraterrestrial topic is a deep one, and endless discussions and questions can emerge from it, especially when discussing the benevolent/malevolent narratives.

If you’d like to go deeper and comb through our article archive on the subject, you can do so here.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Chris Sky Enters Big Chain Stores Without Mask & Films It: His Version Of Non-Compliance

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Chris Sky, a social media 'influencer' has gained a lot of attention lately due to the fact that he is demonstrating non-compliance when it comes to the various covid measures that are being put in place.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there such a large group of people, who see issue with governmental measures, taking action to stop them? Does it show we don't agree on our collective approach? Does it show we don't agree on the threat level of COVID-19?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Is non-compliance a solution? Of course it is, what other way can a citizenry function against what are perceived to be tyrannical authoritarian measures that are imposed on them? What’s so difficult about non compliance today when it comes to COVID-19 is that we have a population that’s completely separated on what’s happening.

On one hand, you have a large group of people who believe that COVID is extremely dangerous, this includes a number of people, doctors scientists and journalists. On the other hand you also have a large group of people, doctors, scientists who believe that the measures being used to combat COVID are not warranted given the fact that it has a 99.95 percent recovery rate, and strong protection from antibodies.

Of course, death is not always the key concern, overloading hospitals and ICUs is a key detail, however, places who have not introduced lockdowns don’t seem to be having a problem with overloaded hospitals, why? Perhaps we don’t know the answer, but it’s something to consider. After all, we are repeating waves of lockdowns over and over and yet the ‘problem’ is not going away, why?

Part of what separates the two camps seems to be the amount of censorship that journalists, doctors and scientists are receiving for presenting peer-reviewed science, information, data and opinions that, in many ways, completely contradicts what we are being told by our governments and mainstream media.

There are countless examples of censorship. For example, A letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that:

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

It was published by Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute. He received so much backlash and hatred for his discovery that he has now quit his work on COVID.

Even the (at the time) executive editor of the British Medical Journal published a piece explaining how:

“science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. There are many examples, especially when it comes to “alternative treatments.”

Why is it that a government scientist, or a scientist who ‘agrees with the narrative’ gets all of the attention and virality they want, but when some of the world’s leading experts in the field share data and science contradicting this information they are censored? Mainstream media is a major source of information for people. It’s one reason why so many people, including healthcare professionals, are completely unaware of important information pertaining to the pandemic when it comes to al’ things covid such as  the vaccine, as well as the effectiveness of masks and more.

Lockdowns are another great example, despite a wealth of science and data showing that lockdowns do nothing to stop the spread of covid and may actually kill more people than covid, not many people are aware of this perspective. When the mainstream does address, it, they simply label it as a “conspiracy” and as a result, mainstream media watchers repeat this rhetoric, especially when you try and have a conversation with them. At the end of the day things aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, which strongly suggests, in my opinion, that people should be able to free to choose what they would like to do and that governments should be making recommendations, not mandates.

What Happened: Below is a video of Chris Sky, in conjunction with BlockTalkTO, entering into various stores showing how he chooses non compliance when it comes to mask wearing. To be clear, Chris Sky is demonstrating an example of how some might choose to not comply with these COVID measures, we say this because many have criticized him for his approach and tone with store workers. That said, it would certainly be difficult to remain calm and cool in tense situations like this.

Chris makes it quite clear to workers that he is not breaking any laws and is choosing to push back against the loss of his rights. As you will see below, not everyone in the store will agree with his approach and the nature by which he handles his encounters. Which brings up the question, how else could this situation be approached? Can it even be approached without tensions running high?

You can check out his Instagram account to see his multiple encounters at the Toronto airport showing and explaining that one doesn’t have to comply and that one supposedly can’t get in trouble for not complying.

Why This Is Important: As tensions rise due to such a deep level of division and confusion, many notice the mental health effects of this reality. Since it’s not customary in our mainstream culture to have tools of physiological regulation, we tend to lack the capacity to do much more than simply survive day to day. We might avoid looking at information that might challenge narratives that are effortless to receive –  like that of mainstream media.

As a society, we are failing to have appropriate conversations about ‘controversial’ topics. Even information that is backed by a tremendous amount of evidence, if it conflicts with what one believes, it doesn’t really register. This happens to all of us on both “sides.”

For example, The COVID pandemic is bringing a stark reality into question that suggests governments may be withholding clinically proven effective treatments for COVID, contributing to the needless deaths, all while favoring the rollout of a highly profitable vaccine. Many people can see this and begin asking questions about intentions of leaders. While at the same time, many could not fathom the possibility that governments would do such a thing, and so it’s labelled a conspiracy and the topic is avoided entirely – regardless of looking at the evidence. Can you see the division this could create?

The Takeaway: So, what are we to do when we are forced into measures that may not be in our best interests? In my opinion, given the fact that so many agree with them, and so many don’t, it seems freedom of choice is the best answer. The challenge is, when governments claim that the solutions require very large numbers of the population to be involved for them to work, say 80% – 100%, do we really have a choice? Is it our duty to comply for the safety of all? Perhaps in a highly dangerous situation, but the point being made by many professionals is that COVID is not that dangerous situation, and most don’t recognize this possibility due to unfair coverage by mass media.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. (Propaganda)

This is why non compliance, in a peaceful manner, is such a revolutionary act and always will be. Which is why we must couple non compliance with sound reasoning. To this point, it’s hard to say that COVID is as dangerous as it’s being made out to be, and many places around the world have no locked down and their hospitals are fine. Why is this the case?

Society must have controversial conversations in a meaningful way. Chris Sky is inviting us to have controversial conversations in his own way. We are not getting anywhere by taking authoritarian actions that harm the well being of general society and our ability to stay connected as communities. Mainstream culture is expecting everyone to side with the idea that fringe ‘conspiracy theories’ are undermining truth in society, yet mainstream culture does not want to take responsibility for its role in this phenomenon via censorship and corporate favoritism.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Leaked Videos & Pictures of ‘Pyramid Shaped UFOs’ Above U.S. Navy Destroyer Ship

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Filmmaker Jeremy Corbell has obtained unclassified slides and videos of UFO encounters with a Navy destroyer showing what appear to be triangle or pyramid shaped UFOs

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications for humanity if we are being visited and have been visited for a long time by life from elsewhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: A few years ago, the Pentagon released video footage of a military encounter of UFOs with Navy fighter pilots, the Navy has since confirmed the authenticity of the videos and the pilots involved in the encounter have gone on record speaking about their experience, as have hundreds of other military pilots from around the world who have experienced the same thing. Last year, the Navy released even more official documentation with regards to recent incidents with unidentified aircraft encounters. This recent slew of bizarre events in 2019 remain unexplained according to a recent statement by the Chief of Naval Operations.

So what’s the latest news regarding these incidents? According to filmmaker Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell, who became more well known in the field due to his recent documentary on supposed UFO whistleblower Bob Lazar,

On May 1st 2020 a classified briefing was generated about the UFO / UAP presence, via the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Those familiar with the briefing articulated to me that the goal was to de-stigmatize the UAP problem and to promote more intelligence collection regarding UAP incursions and encounters with active military deployments. This UAP briefing was a build-on to a previous ONI briefing, generated October 18th 2019. Both were distributed across a wide range of intelligence networking platforms (such as SIPRNet, JWICS and various Intelink systems).

I was able to obtain information regarding these and other UAP related briefings – as well as – two unclassified slides and some of the most intriguing military captured UAP footage I have ever seen.

The context surrounding this content is important to understand – as its evidentiary value is best demonstrated through the lens of provenance. I want you to understand why this new evidence is worth your full attention – if it’s not inherently obvious to you.

Mystery Wire has also confirmed this leak, and has recently published more photos that’ve been taken by Navy pilots. I came across this video from a tweet recently tweet by Christopher Mellon, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Why This Is Important: Gone are the days when UFOs were considered a conspiracy theory. We are talking objects performing maneuvers that no known aircraft can perform that defy our understanding of aerodynamics and physics. Today in the mainstream they are referred to as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP), and multiple governments have, including most recently the U.S. government, released video footage, pictures, and millions of pages of previously classified documents pertaining to military encounters with these objects. This topic has been seriously covered in the New York Times, and CNN among other “mainstream” media outlets.

Reports and incidents of “crashed craft” have also gone mainstream.

This has us here at Collective Evolution quite concerned, as we do believe there is a strong possibility for mainstream media to take a real phenomenon and manipulate the masses perception around it, as they do and have done with so many other topics. You can read more about that concern, here.

The UFO phenomenon can be a complicated one to understand. Collective Evolution has been diving into the topic in depth since our inception in 2009. If you’d like to access our article archive on the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon, you can click here.

This field is no doubt filled with deception, hoaxes and misinformation, despite the fact that we are dealing with what appears to be a very real phenomenon. It can be hard to sift through all of the information that’s out there and determine what’s false and what may be real. The very fact that intelligence agencies have spread disinformation across this field, for years, is a testament to that.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, why does mainstream media all of a sudden present this topic seriously? Why don’t they give any air time to researchers in the field who have been diving in depth into this topic for decades? Are they trying to control our perception of the phenomenon? Will they present the phenomenon in a manner and light that is not truly indicative of the truth? For example, many believe this onslaught of legitimacy given to the topic as of late within the mainstream will be used to present the phenomenon as a “threat” for ulterior motives. Painting the issue with a threat narrative would be very suspicious, given the fact that the behaviour of these objects do not seem threatening at all, but rather evasive and curious, if anything.

According to Richard F. Haines, a senior NASA research scientist for more than two decades, in 50 percent of the cases he’s come across, the objects appear to come within the vicinity of our aircraft, performing fascinating maneuvers and demonstrating what appears to be curiosity. He mentions that the phenomenon seems to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid our aircraft as to not create any sort of potential for a collision. When I saw this part of the interview, it reminded me of the following quote from General Nathan Twining in 1947.

The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious…The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability, (particularly in roll), and the actions which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.” (source)

The quote below comes from Renowned UFO researcher, scientist, mathematician, and astrophysicist Dr. Jacques Vallée who recently made an appearance on the Joe Rogan show to discuss the UFO phenomenon. The F18s he’s referring to come from the encounter released by the Pentagon a few years ago that shows Navy pilots attempting to intercept a UFO, also mentioned at the beginning of the article.

We have to stop reacting to intrusions by UFOs as a threat…there is more…this should not be looked at specifically as a threat…With the phenomenon that we observe if they wanted to blow up those F18s they would do it. Obviously that’s not what it’s all about, and this idea of just labelling it all as a threat because it’s unknown, that’s the wrong idea. (source)

The Takeaway: This topic has huge implications. I’ve said it a million times before, it leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. Just as there was evidence for the fact that UFOs were real when the topic was considered a “conspiracy theory” there is, in my opinion, abundant evidence suggesting that some of these objects originate from some other type of life.

“There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases – perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies – for which there is no explanation…We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to.”  Margaret Mead (“UFOs – Visitors from Outer Space?,” Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

What are the implications of humanity coming to terms with the idea or fact that we are being visited and have been visited by life from elsewhere for quite some time?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!