The 100-Year Starship? A Cover-up?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 25, 2017

Mr. M.D. spotted this one, and I have to admit, I’m intrigued, not the least because it is not me suggesting space-cover-ups of an epic scale this time, but Faux News itself. And this one raises so many questions and high octane speculations I simply have to blog about it.

First, a little context: I’m of that generation old enough to remember the beginning of the “space race” and its context in the Cold War of the 1960s and 1970s. Russia launched its now famous Sputnik satellite in 1957, the year I was born. It was the beginning of a new era, for the little satellite was the first man-made object to be placed permanently in space. (The first man-made objects in lower outer space, believe it or not, were the projectiles from the giant German Paris Gun that shelled Paris from 70 miles away in 1918). I remember President Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warning speech when he left office; I remember President Kennedy’ speech calling for a manned lunar landing and safe return of humans before the decade was out. Most importantly, however, I remember the hype we were served up in school, on at least a weekly, if not daily, basis: according to our Weekly Readers, we were on the verge of a whole new era of space exploration; lunar landings today, lunar colonies tomorrow, Mars exploration and colonies before the century was out.

Accompanying all this hype were the “artists’ renderings” of what all of this was supposed to look like.

And it would all be accomplished by chemical rockets… and I remember the embarrassment of many teachers as the more precocious among us pointed out the difficulties of doing all these splendid things with chemical rockets.

With that in mind, now the article:

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

Now, permit me to pass directly to my high octane speculation of the day, for what is interesting here is the whole implicit assumption hovering in the background here, that assumption being that were going to colonize planets, or for that matter(to turn to the other favorite meme) mine asteroids, with chemical rockets. The rub is, by that method, manned missions to Mars are probably a one way trip:

The 100-year ship would leave Earth with the intention of colonizing a planet, but it would likely be a one-way trip because of the time it takes to travel 35 million miles. That’s a daunting prospect, partly because of the ethical dilemma, and partly because it may be the only recourse.

“The human space program is now really aimed at settling other worlds,” Worden said during his talk. “Twenty years ago you whispered that in dark bars and got fired.” (Worden actually was fired, he confessed during the talk, under the Bush administration.)

Since that revelation, hundreds of news reports about the program have theorized that the substantial budget indicates the Hundred Year Starship is a dramatic shift for the stalled space program, not just a research project; others suggest it is a serious attempt to find a way to Mars. And NASA? The space agency seems to be dodging all questions.

The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. Yet fuel adds more weight — in fact, every pound you add to a ship requires 4 pounds of fuel. The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship’s bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip.

In other words, someone at NASA has stated the obvious, which has raised the whole point of Faux’ News’ article: is something being covered up?

Perhaps, but the question is, what is being covered up? The article suggests only one possibility, namely, that the cover-up extends to the “one-way” nature of any Mars manned missions. But that cover-up is always with the implicit hidden assumption: the only way of getting there from here is via chemical rockets. But what if that “what” is something much bigger? A technology that could get us “there and back” again, without the same constraints on time, fuel consumption, and so on? Indeed, Mr. M.D. accompanied his article with another “find”, this time of a sixty-plus page NASA-sponsored study of using zero-point fields to create a very different form of propulsion, one which the authors of the paper, Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, put this way: “The purpose of this paper is to discuss a new physics concept that no longer falls in the category of ‘purely hypothetical,’ but rather has a theoretical foundation and is relevant to radically new propulsion schemes: the zero-point field (ZPF) as the basis of inertia and gravitation.”(p. 55)  Of course, to readers of this website, NASA’s study of various advanced propulsion schemes, is not a new thing.

Indeed, those studies have arisen precisely because of the recognition that chemical rockets are quite simply impractical as a means to the permanent human presence in deep space, be it for colonization or commercial activities (such as asteroid mining). It was, indeed, the impracticality of rocketry in general – whether in the fantasias of Oberth, Tsiolkovsky, or von Braun – as a basis for these activities that led German physicist Burkhart Heim to propose radically different physical theories in the first place. NASA’s advanced propulsion studies are simply an extension of the principle, but in that extension, there is a backhanded admission: “rockets won’t do the job, folks.”

So is the Faux News article really about a cover-up? Or is it about something much subtler, is it about an admission? I would argue that it is about the admission: about driving into the public eye what most already know: rocketry, whether the launch-and-return capabilities of Elon Musk, or the new hype about manned missions to the Moon and Mars, is not up to the job. Something else is needed, and all the indications publicly are that NASA is exploring those possibilities. The question is, do those possibilities actually represent a nascent capability? As readers of this website are aware, I’ve suspected for some time that the capability is there.

It’s why I’ve long suspected that, behind the current hype of asteroid mining, the actual creation of laws to deal with mining of celestial bodies, and the current drive to colonize the Moon, that there is a real technology – though currently hidden – driving the memes. What’s interesting now is that Faux News, by running such a story, may have caught the scent, for by suggesting cover-up, it is also suggesting conspiracy. Whether it will do its journalistic duty and pull on that thread and deal with all the implications it poses, remains to be seen.

But if it does not, sooner or later, someone else will. And that’s when the fun begins.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Cocktail of lies: How MSM creates the myth of Russian meddling

Source: RTAmerica
March 7, 2017

For many months now, mainstream media has been buzzing with accusations of Russian nefariousness and Kremlin ties. RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky breaks down exactly what’s in the mix.

Hollywood strike? Sounds good!

Source: RT America
February 16, 2017

A bunch of celebrities signed their names on an anti-Trump ad by a group called RefuseFacism.org in the New York Times, and that somehow turned into reports of a “Hollywood strike.” While the strike is fake news, The Resident thinks it sounds like a real good idea.

Brand New Elite Whistleblower Smashes Global Warming Science

Awarded Climate Medal By Obama – Now He Finds Enormous Fraud & Exposes It

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 6, 2017

A highly respected, medal-winning climate scientist just wound up and threw a giant monkey wrench into global warming science.

His name? John Bates. His target? A recent fraudulent study that claimed the uncomfortable “pause” in warming was really no pause at all. That study, pretending warming had never stopped, was timed to help negotiating nations at the Climate Summit in Paris. It was timed to help them enact draconian economic measures to reduce warming.

But, Bates reveals, that study was cooked on several counts. It was such a mess no self-respecting scientist would sign on to it. However, scientists did sign on to it. And a prestigious journal, Science, published it. Apparently, the brains at Science were on vacation. Or they were determined to play ball and assist the Globalist plan to drastically reduce CO2-producing energy production in nations across the globe, thus escalating poverty, in order to “save us” all from frying.

Here are choice quotes from David Rose’s exclusive Daily Mail article that exposes the far-reaching deception:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.”

“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed [fraudulent] report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

“The [fraudulent] report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.”

“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.”

“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the [fraudulent] Pausebuster paper.”

“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.”

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation…in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

“Both datasets [used in the fraudulent study] were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”

“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.”

“The paper [fraudulent study] relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.”

“None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.”

“Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.”

“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”

“The [fraudulent] paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported [warming] ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.”

“But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.”

“Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer’.”

“Moreover, the…software [used in the fraudulent study] was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”

“Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Revisiting The Rosin Affidavit: The White House’s Asteroid…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 20, 2017

Mr. S.D. shared this story, and it’s one worth paying attention to, for while there was all the ruckus and fuss as last year closed about the Machiavellian super-criminal-mastermind Vladimir Putin – the Fu Manchu of Russia – and his evil plots to hack Any and All Elections Everywhere, another quiet story slipped out and almost no one noticed, though NBC news did do a nice article on it:

NASA’s Bold Plan to Save Earth From Killer Asteroids

But the real news was this document released last month (Dec., 2016) by the Obama Administration, and if one reads between the lines a bit, it’s a real whopper doozie:

National Near Earth Objects Preparedness Strategy

Before we get to exactly what the whopper-doozie consists of, however, it’s worth recalling the affidavit of Dr. Carol Rosin, a former professional associate of Dr. Wernher von Braun at Fairchild Industries after the latter resigned from NASA. Rosin is, as many regular readers of this website are also aware, an advocate for the peaceful uses of outer space, and has been advocating against the weaponization of space. And well might Dr. Rosin do so, for she also has gone on record about a “plan” that Dr. von Braun disclosed to her prior to his death, and an interesting – and discomfortingly “familiar” – plan it is. According to Rosin in her “Affidavit” first communicated to Dr. Steven Greer of “UFO disclosure” fame, Dr. von Braun told her that the plan to weaponize space would first appeal to the Communist threat, meaning Russia’s thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the USA(Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, anyone?), then the appeal would be to terrorists, then would come “nations of concern” with emerging nuclear arsenals and crazy kooky leaders (North Korea, anyone?), then would come asteroids (notice how asteroid defense is the topic of the day?), and finally, of course, would come the extraterrestrial threat, and the need to defend ourselves against it. Of course, at that time and for a long time afterward, many people thought Dr. Rosin was…well, just a little bit “out there.” Not this author. And she, or rather, Dr. von Braun, has been proven incredibly accurate…

… for we’re now at the penultimate stage of “the plan to weaponize space.” The real question now, is, weaponize it with what? Defend Earth from “near Earth objects” with what?

This is where it gets really interesting, for note the first thing about this paper: the title of the paper is not “National Near Earth Asteroids Preparedness Strategy,” but rather “National Near Earth Objects Preparedness Strategy.” In other words, the wording itself can be taken as indicative of the last two phases of Dr. Rosin’s Affidavit of what she maintains Dr. von Braun told her. I’ve met Dr. Rosin and on occasion corresponded with her, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt her or her integrity. If she says von Braun told her about this plan, then he told her about it. And the proof of this, it would seem to me, is in the title of this “national preparedness strategy” paper. Language means things, and has to be parsed very carefully, especially when coming from officialdom: “near Earth objects” could mean just about anything that’s out there, from asteroids, to asteroids being “steered” toward us, to objects not natural at all, like UFOs and spaceships.

So what’s the whopper doozie? Direct your attention to page 8 after reading the rest of the document, where a great deal of discussion is given to reconnaissance technologies that can sense the mass and chemical composition of “near Earth Objects” and be able to be launched from Earth or near Earth orbit quickly in order to determine the nature of the threat and therefore the appropriate technological response. I submit that even though this has obvious applications to asteroid detection and defense, it’s that “quick response” part that suggests that their is a dual purpose to this technology.

Then, beginning on page 8, one reads:

Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption:

Several studies over the last two decades have pointed out that technologies exist that may be capable of preventing a NEO impact, and that true preparedness may need to include the ability to deflect (turn away) or disrupt (break into small pieces) a NEO headed towards Earth. The NEO population is quite diverse, a fact which presents significant unknowns when considering how to develop technologies capable of deflecting or disrupting the object. Observations, including optical and planetary radar (when objects are accessible for observation), over many years may improve our understanding of the composition, mass, and behavior of any particular object (see Goal 1, above), which in turn could improve design of deflection technologies.

Disruption of the NEO may be required if there is little warning time or if the object is very large. Technologies to deflect the NEO away from Earth can be used, but to either disrupt or  deflect a very large object, research and development of high-energy solutions is required.

The following objectives would improve deflection and disruption capabilities:

  • Develop capabilities for fast-response focused reconnaissance and characterization.

The objective of Goal 1 is to provide timely, high -certainty, actionable warning that a NEO threat exists, but because of the diversity of NEOs an effective deflection or disruption mission may need more detailed information on the specific threat. One candidate concept for this objective would be a capability to rapidly launch, intercept, and conduct reconnaissance on a NEO, to provide up-close imagery, composition , and mass measurements (e.g., passive (visible, thermal,multi/hyperspectral) and active (radar, LIDAR, etc.) imaging techniques) in order to determine ways to enhance the effectiveness of any subsequent deflection or disruption missions.

  • Research deflection and disruption capabilities for NEOs of varying size, mass, composition, and impact warning times.

With enough warning time, a NEO impact can be prevented. To address most impact scenarios, prevention capabilities should include the ability to achieve timely effects and feedback, for example: to launch a deflector or disruptor that can rapidly reach the object; conduct rendezvous and proximity operations when needed; and deploy kinetic impactors or other technologies. Additionally, deploying an instrumented means to measure the deflection over time can provide assurance of mission success. Where practical, real world demonstration

of the deflection or disruption technique to test effectiveness and reduce uncertainties should be pursued, particularly when this can be done as a part of a mission to an asteroid or  comet with broader science and exploration objectives. An assessment of the technical, policy, and legal issues with regard to delivering and triggering a high-energy device to deflect or disrupt NEO impact threat objects will be required.

  • Research technologies required for deflection and disruption concepts.

Given the potential short time between first detection and potential NEO impact, precursor reconnaissance of the object may not be possible. To improve mission success, some key technologies to be developed include:

o Rapid assessment capabilities for ground -based, orbital, and deep-space systems.

o Fast orbit transfers to maximize momentum transfer for kinetic impactors or maximize distance from Earth at point of intercept for deflection missions. High-acceleration maneuvering, near the point of intercept, is critical for optimized intercept locations and course corrections immediately before intercept.

o Algorithms and on-board artificial intelligence for short-notice disruption missions to self-assess the optimal time and location for interception or disruption. (Emphases added)

Note two things here, and they both relate to the high octane speculation I’ve been advancing in recent years. That speculation – that hypothesis – may be very simply stated: with the inevitable commericalization of space goes its inevitable militarization and weaponization, as competitors will need to protect themselves not only from each other, but from “anyone else” out there. Thus, the detection equipment being argued for in this paper could readily serve two purposes: both reconnaissance of objects for their potential commerical value, for note the idea in the paper of assessing the composition of such objects, and reconnaissance for their potential threat. And all of this is for rapid deployment. Thus, commercialization and commerce are clearly implied.

And that commercialization brings us chin-to-chin with the militarization aspects of the paper, for note the references to “kinetic impactors,” which we may take to mean masses shot at an object as such extreme velocity that even a small inert mass would, through the energy of the velocity itself transferred to the object, destroy it, according to the well-known formula we learned in elementary school, F=ma(or if one prefers the Newtonian, non-relativistic version, E=mv). In other words, what is euphemistically being described here is an electromagnetic railgun, scaled up a bit perhaps to lob a big enough mass fast enough to take out small to medium or medium-large asteroids. Thus, once one has parsed this little statement to realize that only such a technology would fulfill the requirements of a “kinetic impactor” able to “disrupt” a “near Earth object” (which, again, could be anything, from a near Earth asteroid, to a human satellite from Earth, to…well, you know…) then the “other technologies” being talked about while not-being-talked about in vague language leaves one wondering just what else is in the classified version of this document (and trust me, there probably is one). A hint is supplied later with the reference to “delivering and triggering a high-energy device to deflect or disrupt NEO impact objects will be required.” High energy “device” is an obvious code, in my opinion, for a thermonuclear weapon, for “device” is the favored euphemism for such bombs. But again, the ambiguity of the language could suggest high energy devices of a very different sort, namely, exotic energy weapons of a non-nuclear-bomb nature, that have to be “delivered” to an operational range that makes them effective, and then “triggered.”

To put all this country simple: the document is talking about the weaponization of space, folks, and that means that the final stage in Dr. Rosin’s affidavit has taken another step closer.

See you on the flip side..

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
______________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

 

CIA Bases Congressional Russian Hacking Report on Possibilities, Not Truth

politician

Source: TheDailyBell.com
January 8, 2017

Intel report warns Moscow will try to influence elections in countries allied to US. The declassified version of the report warned that other countries were also vulnerable to attack. – Independent

Intelligence in the US is becoming even more emphatic about the Russian threat to elections, claiming that Russians will start to disrupt the elections of other countries like they are disrupting American ones.

The trouble with this is that intel agencies, specifically the CIA, have not yet proven that Russia has done what the CIA claims it has done.

On Friday, it claimed that Russia had attacked the US with specific hacks. But at least one top official knowledegable about hacking pointed out that using such eminently traceable hacks was unlike the Russians. The entire report was false, he claimed. The Russians wouldn’t have use such easily detected means to accomplish a hacking. If they’d actually done it, they be subtle not obvious.

But a highly classified report, given to president Barack Obama, and sections of which were made public on Friday, reveals that the CIA, the FBI and the NSA all concurred that Russia used cyber warfare and state-funded social media “trolls” to spread negative information about Hillary Clinton and to help Mr Trump win the election.

Russia reportedly gained access to the Democratic National Committee servers from May 2015 to June the following year and passed on Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s and Ms Clinton’s emails to WikiLeaks. In return, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was given a platform on state-run media outlet RT to criticise the US.

The CIA called the attacks “multifaceted”. Mr. Putin has denied anything to do with the attacks. The report has also been dismissed by Trump, but he has said cybersecurity should be strengthened nonetheless.

The reality is that the CIA probably needs something to do with its time and fighting against Russians seems like a good way of bolstering the CIA’s importance.

The CIA like much else, is at least partially controlled out of London’s City, by the bankers there. These are the same central bankers that have installed monopoly cental banks around the world. The CIA, from what we can tell, at the top, has people who work directly with these London financiers.

The CIA’s proof regarding Russian hacking is considerably mitigated by the CIA’s lack of ability to say forthrightly that the Russians did the things they say they did. If the Russians did it, the CIA should say so clearly and simply. It will not.

Now with the same lack of evidence, the CIA is warning about overseas targeting of US allies. There is no more certainty regarding these arguments than CIA suppositions that the US itself has been targeted.

Conclusion: None of this is backed up by conclusions, only by theories that may well have a political component to them. The CIA is making work for itself and upping the level of fear-based rhetoric without any proof what they are saying is true.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com