Unspun News 170831 (1 Viewer)

[Bernie]

Bernie submitted a new article.

Unspun News 170831
WORLD
“This is what rightly should be termed the War on Cash. (…) If we are foolish enough to swallow the propaganda for complete elimination of cash in favor of pure digital bank money, we can pretty much kiss our remaining autonomy and privacy goodbye. George Orwell’s 1984 will be here on steroids.” Another piece of the jigsaw …..
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/21/a-sinister-war-on-our-right-to-hold-cash/

“North Korea: Donald Trump says 'talking not the answer' as Kim Jong-un urges more missiles”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...ic-as-north-korea-talks-more-missiles/8857840

“Syria and Lebanon Defeating The ISIS Terrorists”. A very...
Click here to continue on to the original article. (You can comment if logged into a transients.info Roundtable Forum account.)

 

[Kevin C]

The strange sounds in the sky and the blue whales changing frequency are clear signs of the shift in consciousness. Whales reside underwater, and sonar has been used for almost 100 years, so there should be no difference in behavior. Only a shift in "universe" frequency - as shown through the rise in the Schumann resonance - would affect blue whales in that manner. It's like humans 100 years ago and now - we have loudspeakers, concerts, etc., but we did not change our ways of life in a radical manner. The physical plane has no way to explain this using the "scientific method".
The same way the "scientific method" explains and extrapolates "climate change". For those who are "climate change" advocates and think "science" is behind it (AND actually believe the human race can significantly affect climate as opposed to the sun/gamma radiation/solar wind), please read up on the history in the US of "science" behind the climate since the 60s:
60-70s: ice age, by 2000 something, we will all be frozen.
80-90s: CFCs, by 2000 something, we will all die since the ozone layer will disappear
90-00s: global warming, by 2005 (Al Gore), all ice will melt, water will flood whole world (or something like that, not sure the exact year)
10s: climate change, by 2025, world will be underwater (a mod of global warming).
AND... all were "discovered" by PhDs and "science". And by using bias, extrapolation, data smoothing (Excel/Origin anyone?) Those who have worked in corporate R&D and science research labs will understand how "politicized" the system is. It comes down to who funds your research (even if you have the best technology - see Tesla - it will not be successful if nobody funds or supports it).
FYI - I am a system/CS/EE engineer and financial mathematics by education, went through a EE PhD program and worked in a semiconductor research lab (finished with MS). So, if anything, I should be an avid supporter of the "scientific method". But my experience has taught me that it doesn't matter, what matters is who funds your research and supports your technology, which means you may be pressured to "massage" your data/results to support your funding. A true picture of Ouroboros, snake eating its tail.

 

[Carl]

But my experience has taught me that it doesn't matter, what matters is who funds your research and supports your technology, which means you may be pressured to "massage" your data/results to support your funding.

Common in the corporate world Kevin. If you tell or bring hard data to some higher-ups something that contradicts their believes, their intentions or the programs they are pushing, their instincts are to kill quickly the one that brought the bad news rather that analyze the data with an open mind. It is common in politics too, plus I have seen so many "science" articles promoting something and then when I checked the sponsor it become obvious that "coincidentally" the sponsor would benefit handsomely from the results, which is basically what you experienced.

 

[Snowmelt]

A true picture of Ouroboros, snake eating its tail.

thanks for this image in relation to this topic.

 

[Kevin C]

But my experience has taught me that it doesn't matter, what matters is who funds your research and supports your technology, which means you may be pressured to "massage" your data/results to support your funding.

Common in the corporate world Kevin. If you tell or bring hard data to some higher-ups something that contradicts their believes, their intentions or the programs they are pushing, their instincts are to kill quickly the one that brought the bad news rather that analyze the data with an open mind. It is common in politics too, plus I have seen so many "science" articles promoting something and then when I checked the sponsor it become obvious that "coincidentally" the sponsor would benefit handsomely from the results, which is basically what you experienced.

Corporate is even worse, haha. The publicized think tank spats for Google in the political realm are nothing compared to the internal technology side. If you know how to sweet talk and schmooze the right people, you will climb fast/quickly without knowing anything in engineering (see Marissa Mayer).
Yes, always check the sponsor of the study/research before reading it.