LISTEN VT RADIO | JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

 

Note: While I have not authored this article, it appears to me to be extremely important for readers of Veterans Today and to represent another effort by powerful institutions to deprive American citizens and the world’s population the benefits of a new form of free energy technology to keep gas and oil profits up. — Jim Fetzer

 

A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT to squash cold fusion at all costs. If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it!

A funeral party or wake to mock cold fusion was held by biased hot fusion scientists at MIT before their experiment to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results was even complete!

 

The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion

By Hank Mills with Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Due to the fact that commercially-ready cold fusion technologies like Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) exist and can produce kilowatts of power, I’m not too interested in previous systems from years ago that could only produce a couple watts of power (or less).

However, I am very interested in the events that took place immediately after the birth of Cold Fusion in 1989, when Pons and Fleischmann announced the existence of their technology to the world.

Although cold fusion systems at the time were not ready for the market place, they proved the effect was real — a fact the establishment could not allow the public to accept.

Immediately after the announcement was made, the “mainstream” scientific community went on the attack. The late Eugene Mallove was in the middle of it, being employed at MIT in the news office — before resigning in protest of the institution’s misconduct.

In a featured article for Infinite Energy Magazine, Mallove detailed exactly what took place that led to his resignation, and the depth of hatred that many professors at MIT had for Pons and Fleischmann’s work.

The article titled, “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report” also looks at how the replication performed by the institution’s Plasma Fusion Center actually did produce positive results, how data from the experiment was altered by unknown individuals at least twice, and how the hot fusion scientists in charge of such tests were far too biased to conduct proper research.


The article
is the most detailed piece of documentation I have ever seen in regards to the early years of the war against cold fusion. If you think the suppression Pons and Fleischmann faced was bad, you don’t have a clue until you have read this article.

The Replication Attempt

 

To start with, those in charge of the replication attempt were members of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. Their work with hot fusion Tokamak brought the university many millions of dollars in funding from the government, and maintained their job security. If cold fusion were to be accepted as a real phenomenon, it could have made hot fusion research appear to be near worthless.

The question in the minds of representatives in Washington, DC would have been, “Why should the taxpayers finance the construction of giant reactors to experiment with hot fusion reactions that produce nuclear waste and lethal amounts of radioactivity, when cold fusion research only requires a small fraction of the funding, while producing no waste and little radioactivity?”

In the minds of the MIT professors, such as MIT Plasma Fusion Center Director Ronald R. Parker, that question could never be allowed to cross the minds of those that paid for their employment.

So in an effort to belittle cold fusion research so no one would take it serious, the members of his department (including some scientists from others) took every opportunity they could to attack Pons and Fleischmann. For example, consider how….

A funeral party or “Wake for Cold Fusion” was held by the Plasma Fusion Center, before their replication test of Pons and Fleischmann’s setup was even complete. They held another such party afterwards.
Mugs belittling cold fusion were given out by Ron Parker, the head of the MIT hot fusion research group, who was supposed to be doing serious research to determine if cold fusion was a reality or not. The mugs read, “The Utah University: Department of Fusion Confusion” and had mocking instructions for cold fusion on the back.

Ron Parker would use the test results to discredit cold fusion, while at a celebration of the death of cold fusion stated to Eugene Mallove (after being shown evidence in support for cold fusion) stated that the data from the MIT replication was “worthless.”

How examination of the data from MIT’s replication showed obvious evidence of tampering.

In fact, the corrected data showed excess heat. Yet it was still used to discredit cold fusion research for many years.

How the former President of MIT, Charles Vest, refused to order an investigation into how the Plasma Fusion Center handled the replication, and their obviously unscientific behavior — such as partying for the death of something instead of doing unbiased research.

Even worse, years later he signed onto a Department of Energy report stating that cold fusion did not deserve funding for research, yet hot fusion deserved millions of additional dollars and was a “bargain.”

Conflicts of Interest

 

Conflicts of interest were ignored from the very start. For example, those who had the strongest need for cold fusion to be proven not to work (hot fusion scientists), were tasked with the replication of the effect.

It would be like giving a cigarette company the order to conduct a study on the reality of lung cancer, or the lumber industry the job of determining the usefulness of industrial hemp.

What the hot fusion scientists were going to say was obvious!

How some scientists were so closed minded they stated that if cold fusion was real, Pons and Fleischmann should be dead from radiation poisoning.
In addition, some scientists went so far as to personally attack them. In one case, a scientist stated that even if a thousand tests showed excess heat, that the results would not vindicate Pons and Fleischmann.

 

“Words to Eat”

 

MIT Professor Ronald George Ballinger may hold the all time record for making a foolish statement against cold fusion.

He wrote in 1991: “It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.”

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Ronald R. Parker and Ronald G. Ballinger had a phone call with Nick Tate of the Boston Heraldin 1989. They were talking to him about a potential story about cold fusion, hoping that he would write a hit piece.

In their conversation, which is transcribed in the article, Parker uses the fraud word in his description of their work. He also talks about how he is setting up another “blast” against cold fusion with Bob Bazell, a reporter with NBC.

When Tate reported in the Boston Herald on May 1 that the MIT scientists had called Pons and Fleishmann’s work a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Pons and Fleishmann were viciously attacked at the meeting of the American Physical Society.

In a retrospective piece written in 1991, Tate asserted that: “Some say those comments set the tone for the national criticism of the Utah work that followed.”

Meanwhile, when Tate’s article in the Boston Herald revealed that Parker had described Pons and Fleishmann’s work as being a “possible fraud” and “scientific schlock”, Parker rushed to deny he had made such statements. Probably, he realized that in his rush to discredit cold fusion he had crossed the line, and committed slander.

In order to avoid possible legal repercussions, in a media advisory from the MIT News Office, Parker specifically denied making such assertions to Tate during their telephone conversation. However, Tate had recorded the phone call, and therefore had rock solid evidence that Parker had made those statements.

Years later, Tate allowed Eugene Mallove to listen to the recording, which revealed the truth about what was said. It was too late, the damage to cold fusion’s reputation was done.

Where things stand

In summary, Mallove’s article paints a damning picture of MIT scientists and professors hell-bent on discrediting cold fusion. Out of desperation to protect hot fusion research, they went so far as to tell blatant lies, alter data, hurl personal insults, conduct celebrations of the “death” of cold fusion, and organize journalists to write hit pieces to try and dismiss Pons and Fleischmann’s work in the public eye.

Then the leadership of MIT turned away and ignored the misconduct and potentially criminal behavior, even when they were specifically alerted to it. Years later, these same individuals (working in other positions with the DOE and DOD) continued to promote the idea that cold fusion was “garbage.”

If you want to know the TRUTH about why it has taken twenty plus years for a commercial cold fusion technology to be developed, you should read this article. It is a tragedy beyond measure that an institution like MIT would allow such inappropriate behavior.

Everyone involved has blood on their hands from all the people on this planet that have died due to the suppression of this technology.

Literally, due to their suppression of cold fusion, children have needlessly starved, millions have suffered dehydration due to a lack of clean water, the environment has been trashed, and the global economy has been almost destroyed.

If the suppression of cold fusion by MIT had never happened, we might not even have an energy crisis today!

And this is but one of many such stories about the suppression saga from 1989.

The suppression from back then has had phenomenal staying power due to the brainwashing that pronounced “cold fusion” to be “junk science,” no matter what.

Ignored are thousands of replications worldwide, with several making significant gains toward marketplace viability, and the E-Cat actually reaching the marketplace on October 28 of this year with a 1 MW unit.

So now, when people attack Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, it’s hard to tell whether they are acting as a function of that brainwashing, or as a present-day disinformation agent, or if they have honest misgivings of a scientific basis.

Gratefully, Rossi keeps moving forward despite these negative statements.

A few individuals in the mainstream are coming around and waking up to the reality of cold fusion, like NASA’s Dennis Bushnell who claims cold fusion is the number one most promising alternative energy technology on the planet.

However, to protect hot fusion research, protect the status quo, and to keep the public from realizing how the scientific community suppressed cold fusion, he calls the phenomena LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). In addition, he claims there is no fusion in cold fusion, in order to try and make the technology seem more mundane, and more acceptable.

There were enemies of mankind in 1989 that wanted to prevent the proliferation of cold fusion, and there are still such enemies today. Reading about how cold fusion research was attacked from the very start can help us prepare for attacks from these in the future.

We cannot let greedy, selfish, and power-hungry monsters and their countless minions suppress cold fusion for another twenty years or more. There are too many lives at risk. Simply put, the future of our civilization is at stake.

Hank Mills has contributed a large number of stories to Pure Energy Systems web site at PES.com.

Sterling D. Allan is the Founder and CEO of PES Network, Inc., and of the New Energy Congress.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=174958

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice

Posted by on Dec 30 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Corruption, Editor, Government, Legislation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for VA Loan Now
Education
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
body mind baja

COMMENTS

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback


Comments Closed

19 Comments for “The History of MIT’s Blatant Suppression of Cold Fusion”

  1. Here is the really important connection. The same physics, with quaternion algebra as the base, is behind the whole deal — cold fusion, energy from the vacuum, anti-gravity, all the things Tesla did, the Hutchison Effect, whatever HAARP is doing, a major element of the Twin Towers disintegration, scalar weapons and force fields, etc. It’s the same basic technology and it has been suppressed (which means “kept from public knowledge”) for over 100 years.

  2. Curiouser and curiouser… Scholars for 911 Truth figurehead Dr. Steven E. Jones was right in the middle of the Cold Fusion fanfaronade.

    Did Dr. Steven Jones help cover up Cold Fusion & now 9/11?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASyX1SP2UM

    Stephen E. Jones, 9-11 “researcher”, was a government agent- sent in by an informant at the Department of Energy- to. undermine the work of 2 legitimate scientists, who threatened the control of the military-industrial complex, and the hegemonic rule of the people who Own America.
    http://letsrollforums.com/suppression-cold-fusion-and-t14541.html?s=dbd39c988140964a94373ea30c233026&p=127656

  3. A great book on the subject is “The Reality of Cold Fusion” by Tadahiko Mizuno, a Japanese scientist working on the subject in the late 1990′s. Deals mostly with the science and not the politics, but his struggles make you realize how corrupt the “science” establishment is, especially in the USA.

    There is a small group of people who don’t want technology or human advancement unless THEY can control it for THEIR purposes. Not humanitarian ones, either.

    Another great book, which touches on the same topic, by accident, is “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes. Shows the same machinations of the same people to keep control, in this case Leo Szillard and the zionist cabal who invented the thing, then freaked out when they found themselves losing control of its use.

  4. Mr. Fetzer. The Article, also known as “DA Article” has nothing in it to support your proposition. Although I will not defend individual members of MIT’s faculty or its administration because academia in general, is full of intrigue, pride, vanity, egos, and consequent childish in fights.

    However, you are misleading your readers with something that most of them probably cannot judge by themselves. The cold fusion was a bad experiment, and they did the “mission accomplished!” press conference in such a hurry that they forgot that there were taking a risk.

    Heated debates among academics are commonplace. There is no question of libel: It plain silly! Otherwise, the courts will have nothing else to adjudicate. How many academic cases you have seen which went to a court for libel adjudication? I want citations.

    Let me also assure you, that in real academic institutions, the power does not lie with the President, or the administrative people. These people do not have the stature to challenge the icons who teach there. The only exception is when they act to protect the institution from blatant cases of “Moral Turpitude”; they cannot touch a tenured professor who has earned his spurs.

    No professor worth his salt will ever agree to an administrative position: the administrators are all those people who have somehow managed to secure tenure but then failed to thrive. This the way we take care of our mistakes: we give them a title and a desk, and promote them to oblivion. Administrators; are the dirty little secret of the academia. After all these people slipped past the vetting process; so they have to be protected but not empowered. If you think they can order real faculty around, you could not be more wrong.

    Please recall, how Larry Summers got himself kicked out of Harvard: he thought because he did a little stint as a bureaucrat, he had earned the right to run roughshod over his superiors.

    This article reminds me of someone writing here that the finding of U-235 in some hair samples proved its use in “explosively formed projectiles” used in Iraq: because it made hotter plasma! not one person challenged this assertion. People buy into this type of innuendo ideas with gusto.

    Misinformation is as bad as disinformation.

    Happy New Year to everyone

    Nasir

    • Nasir,

      Thank you for posting your comments. I of course did not author this piece myself, but I have republished it because of the importance of the subject and the travesty that appears to have been committed in this case. After 35 years in academia, I can confirm your observations about the pettiness and vanity of many academic disputes (which are so ferocious, it has been said, because the sakes are so small)! What I would appreciate is more science and less politics. You are not quite right about the relationship between administration and faculty, even though what you say SHOULD BE RIGHT, in practice, the administration has far more influence than it justifiably ought to exercise. Please offer more substantiation, because others who are also posting here have endorsed what this article presents and are planning to send more substantiation or offer more evidence that it is correct.

      Jim

      • Your comment about the relationship of Administration to Faculty applies even more so in Corporate America.

        When people figured out just how much POWER administration types, MBAs, managers and the like can wield, all while being totally devoid of any expertise, integrity, training or discipline, or even hard work, well……. we’ve all seen what happens. You get a country that is viewed (rightly so) as a parasite on the face of the planet.

        There ARE people here who are capable of great things, but the parasites have won, at least for the foreseeable future.

        Academia is a microcosm of the killing of American enterprise which has been happening for a long time and perpetrated by the same people, broadly speaking.

      • Dear Mr. Fetzer, thank you for responding. First, I will try a semi logical argument,; then if you still want we can go formal. I can name the names cite cases.

        Of course, since you were talking about premiere research institutions, I am taking it that you have personal experince teaching at one these research universities.

        I am not aware of the goings on at the second tier schools or the community colleges. For the sake using my own experience and that of my colleagues, let’s also not talk about liberal arts faculties; they don’t bring in the money so they don’t wield equal power and rarely achieve that iconic level that I was referring to.

        Of course, you know that Einstein was at Princeton, and I don’t think that anyone could have touched him—despite the fact that he did not produce anything of significance during his years at Princeton. If there is one person in history who was a singular, most famous and most glaring example of a of recruitment failure: It has to be him! However, he did bring in the money, so he was untouchable. Next, Carl Sagan, again at Princeton, not much body of work, great science enthusiast (big pothead) brought in tons of students, no significant scientific accomplishments. Let me mention some other names that may be familiar to your readership.

        Let me mention some other people of high accomplishment who might be familiar to your readership. Laurence Tribe at Harvard Law; Strang , Chomsky, and The late Jin O Kong MIT; Yariv, at Caltech, Chew, at University of Illinois; Saad (now Minnesota). I am trying to be inclusive here.

        The above-mentioned are some of the more familiar people who bring in the research money, the students, and hone the next generation of teachers: they are the real institution! It is not the buildings, or history, or the administration, which makes these institution great: it is these people. I used some names to highlight some of the people generally known to your readership. At any given time on a campuses of such institutions; there are hundreds of professors who command similar degree of respect among their peers and in their academic community.

        Do you know of any Chancellor, President, Dean, or any Heads of Department (who did not quickly resign) who has a body of comparable work?

        You cannot conduct great research, and try to schedule leave schedules, budgeting, generate executive reports. Hence, this job falls to the people who are not conducting active research. Would you rather mediate fights between faculty members, or do your research in your own lab. And yes, the labs are not open to the administrative interference. Do you know how the administration and arts faculty is paid? Whose money it is? Who brings it in? That is the compact: take the money and get lost!

        Thank you for your attention,

        Happy New Year

        Nasir

        • Nasir,

          No, I did not mean questions about the academy. I meant about cold fusion. I missed Einstein as an undergraduate at Princeton, where I was in the Class of 1962 and he had died in 1955. Carl Sagan may have visited Princeton, but he spent most of his career at Cornell. I have taught at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (twice), but spent the last 19 years of my career on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota, where I was one of the first ten to be appointed as McKnight Professors in 1996. I know all about higher education, but I am not an expert on cold fusion. If you have more to contribute on that subject, please feel welcome.

          Jim

          • My apologies, I knew carl from JPL. It is comforting to know that we have people who have spent time in academia. I am a 6 and18 (thes days) guy. I have sent a request to Mr. Gordon for privilages to write on VT. It is really frustrating when you have to carry out the debate in the comments section. Hardly a place to format, spell check, and use careful diction. So mistakes like this are kind of the price we pay for living in the footnotes :-( Now, I hope you did not disagree with my basic thesis.

            I am intimately familiar with the cold fusion issue. No one ruled it out, no one has claimed it is impossible. It is just that the Utah thing experiment could not be duplicated. If the president, said something, it was not his opinion. Yes, I remember people scurrying around in panic. However, you cannot keep a lid of this type of thing. I know people, who would have left the country to experiment outside. That paper was detailed, and there was enough information available for those who wished to conduct the experiment on their own to go ahead and replicate it.

            You know the story of Helicobactor Pylori; you cannot supress or cow people into submission. The cold fusion was not supressed, it did give a scare to people, but it was not suppressed!

            There are things that you can supress, and there are others that you cannot. This was one of them.

            Thank you for your attention,

            Nasir

        • Nasir: Professor Fetzer is correct, Sagan never taught at or attended Princeton. He graduated from Chicago, then did a stint at Harvard, and was hired into my alma mater (what’s left of it) by a good friend Professor Tommy Gold. You might note that I specifically mention Sagan here (for the obvious associative reason):

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/31/the-new-march-to-a-new-cosmology/

          Sagan and I used to go round-n-round on lots of subjects, especially the utter nonsense called “the big bang,” goo that carbon dioxide drives global climate, etc. I was at a party in Cayuga Heights, just off the Cornell campus, when a serious aerospace engineer, employed by a local NASA contractor called Ithaco Space Systems, declared in a too-loud voice, “Carl, you seem to be on tv more than you are in the lab?!” The party goers choked . . .

          You are correct about Einstein; you might also note my discussion of him at the VT.com link above. We’re working in fixing all of this, and soon:

          http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/events-5/eu2012-encore/

          • Prof. Sheriden? My apologies about the careless mistake. I have explained the reason to Prof. Fetzer.

            I am a relative newcomer to VT; never had the time really. I will read your articles. It is good to know when you are in sane company. I am absolutely scandalized, by “nuke’em people”. When people launch into invective at the drop of a hat, I take it as lack of linguistic skill, and a hit to move on. VT is in “listed under Conspiracy Theories” in my browser. It appears to have a potential to where in can move to a less sordid description.

            Yes, Carl was big pictures guy; perhaps with the help of a turbocharged his corpus collosum. I must confess we shared one or two joints to turbocharge mine; it did not work for me.

            This is indeed a pleasent surprise to find that we have balance here.

            Thank you for your attention,

            Have a Happy New Year,

            Nasir

          • Nasir, read my “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK”, which is on-line. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. You have been brainwashed into not thinking about collusion between the government and intel agencies, not to mention the press. Carl Bernstein wrote about this, “The Media and the CIA”, ROLLINGSTONE (1977), and William Colby confirmed, that the CIA owns everyone of significance in the main stream media. Those of us who are serious about this know the difference between research and speculation. Indeed, in relation to cold fusion, we are attempting to sort out whether or not its existence and potential has been concealed by collusion between multiple individuals, which, like most American conspiracies, would be economic, killing the project rather than killing the scientists, which can be equally effective.

  5. I still have the Newsweek from when they started the discrediting, made the cover. Back in 08′ was the first time I ever publically said cold fusion worked and exists in mixed company. I knew what was comming, it’s just like saying “Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 while as an employee of the CIA”. One person actually backed me up, and we talked about it for a long time after. We also talked about the Smithsonian coverup of 8′-17 foot tall humans that walked all over the world 10-20k of years ago. But that’s another thing.

    The main lie about Pons and their experiments to me was alway about o4 contamination. They said it seeped into the jars from the atmosphere. Yeah, the atmosphere. That’s how ridiculous these people are. Read Michael Cremo’s “Forbidden Archeology”. He aptly names this phenomenon as the “Knowledge Filter”. He really nails it when you talk about suppression of information off any kind. It comes in many forms. I see it in people every day. You must run into this hourly after thinking about what you write about. Keep up the great work.

  6. I read this article yesterday sadly another example of how the future wellbeing and potential of mankind to progress and grow is being hampered and stifled to maintain the hegemony and priveledges of a few.

    The authors specifically drew the readers attention to this comment which I repeat here FYI.

    Comment

    In addition to the comments down below, on December 29, 2011 6:43 AM MST, the following came in by email from Dr. Mitch Swartz of MIT who has been holding cold fusion conferences there nearly since 1989.

    Nice column. Thank you for taking an interest in this important subject, and letting me know.

    I will try to find some of the published papers which I did on this in FUSION FACTS (the first), and then the two articles from ICCF-4; and send them to you.

    Also, consider that the bad action was conducted by one, or a few, individual(s). That is not ‘MIT’. And this was in the past, although your column does correctly note the important, negative impact to the present.

    Supporting the above, and in that light, we are having an IAP course at MIT on CF. (see the COLD FUSION TIMES or IE), and have had numerous Colloquia on CF.

    Hopefully, you will come to one some time.

    Best regards,

    Mitchell

    Source
    http://pesn.com/2011/12/27/9601994_History_of_MITs_Blatant_Suppression_of_Cold_Fusion/

  7. You know, I read articles like this and one word comes to mind: treason. Not just lowly treason against your country but treason against an entire planet and it’s ability to sustain life. How people who witness such pure evil fail to take justice into their own hands is beyond my comprehension.

    • Interesting you make that observation about treason. I have just drafted a petition to impeach Obama if he signs the NDAA for 2012 for a third party. I only had 800 characters to work with. Check out http://obrag.org/?p=51825&cpage=1

      PETITION TO CONGRESS: TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

      The Oath of the President of the United States declares that he will faithfully execute the laws of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      By signing NDAA for 2012, President Obama will have authorized the arrest and the indefinite detention without trial of citizens and residents of the United States, which is both immoral and cruel and violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including

      • Article 1, Section 9, the privilege to petition for habeas corpus;

      • Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure;

      • Fifth Amendment prohibition of loss of liberty without due process;

      • Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial with representation.

      NDAA also violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. has signed. We therefore declare that, if President Obama signs NDAA, he should be impeached by Congress forthwith.

      • I’m in! Once he’s out of office, I hope we can try him for treason and deal with him appropriately.

      • Yes Jim, I’m glad to see you also have lost the blinders about obama. Well, maybe not, perhaps he can still salvage his image of the great Hope, but I’m no longer sure. Perhaps we have all been fooled by the illusion. It is said that when he went to chicago he went straight to the money people while still being visible with the poor. I don’t know, but to have allowed everything to go so far, can we still deny what our eyes see? If he is moral, and he still finds he can do nothing other than kowtow to the powers that control life and death of the politician, he should quit. Otherwise he is just a cog with the image of the fusion of races that is really just another just another hitler, mussolini,, franco, or what have you.
        I think you are hoping that your eyes deceive you, just as I was, but when the picture keeps getting darker, I do not think it is my sight. It may be the reality, and to hope otherwise is just to continue the delusion.
        Quadaffi, whatever he was, was killed (or gotten rid off) by obama and the other powers that be that you tend to write against. For that fact alone I respect the man, even if you guys continue to say how bad he was (which may be true). They are all bastards, but really, why did they kill him?
        I don’t know Jim. It’s the toad in hot water situation. Add the fire slowly and the toad won’t move till it’s dead. Maybe we are already dead and we just don’t know it.
        And the choice is worse. Can we hope anymore or is that just for fools?

  8. Thanks Jim, very interesting article. Screams of insanity in regards to replacement energy solutions, and I wonder why its not picked up in other tech centers around the world and exploited.

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. NEO – Gang in a Ballot Box – a Safe Haven for Misha’s Alumni?
  2. Is the President Being Blackmailed?
  3. Lavrov Condemns Kiev’s Instant Breech of Agreement
  4. Veterans Push To Test Marijuana As a Life-Saving Treatment for Crippling PTSD
  5. US Threatens Russia
  6. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – April 23, 2014
  7. Obama Administration Launches Online Veterans Employment Center
  8. Meet Dave, Your Christian ‘Dyno-Rod’
  9. Press TV – Who Wins the Battle over Ukraine ?
  10. “Gitmo unconstitutional result of 9/11 false flag”
  11. Soap Stories, Gas Chambers, and the Magic Number (Part VII)
  12. NEO – Saudi Arabia: Preparations for Regime Change
  13. Prophet or Profit? Nikola Tesla’s Vision vs J.P. Morgan’s Greed
  14. Veterans Today was Right – Ukraine Jewish Registration Flyer was Fake
  15. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – April 22, 2014
  16. The Iran/Iraq War: Mutual Assured Destruction
  17. Body-Mind Restoration: ‘Too Good To Be True’ for Addiction and Disease?
  18. Kevin Ryan: 9/11, Mind Control and the Holocaust
  19. US Squandering Prestige for Denying Visa to Aboutalebi
  20. Lee Wanta, American Hero
  1. stephanaugust: "Former intelligence insider Wayne Madsen and other pundits have speculated that Obama is being blackmailed over gay sexual activity in his past." Find a close up of Michelle Obama in a ...
  2. Jim Fetzer: Right! Let's let Kevin Ryan, Steve Jones and others continue to peddle the rubbish that it was done by blowing the buildings apart using a method that cannot blow ...
  3. Jim Fetzer: So you think Kevin Ryan should respond to proof that nanothermite cannot pulverize concrete or decimate steel by REAFFIRMING that it can? that A&E911 should rest content with showing ...
  4. stephanaugust: A substantial argument. ;) I put it on my watch list, because books for which amazon.de says "not found" are always interesting.
  5. williammartin: Hell Brian, and all along Obama was telling us that it was his EARS for the reason of his being bullied. I guess if he had like millions of others griped ...

Veterans Today Poll

When will the New World Order One World Government officially be announced?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives