“Frankenskies”: New Film Raises Big Questions On Climate Engineering.

By Jerry Alatalo

n 1962 United States President Lyndon Johnson in a commencement address at Southwest Texas State University talked to graduates about “..controlling the weather”, and “..controlling the world”. Just to what extent the U.S. military has advanced since 1962 in the area of weather warfare is unknown except by those in the military working directly in the alleged programs.

Learning the truth will require men and women willing to take the same severe personal risks as Daniel Ellsberg (Vietnam War), Julian Assange (government/corporate crimes), Edward Snowden (government surveillance), Chelsea Manning (Iraq War crimes), John Kiriakou (illegal torture), Scott Bennett (terrorist financing), Brad Birkenfeld (banking corruption), and others determined to speak the truth.

Mr. Matt Landman directed the film “Frankenskies” about the history, development, and facts concerning the phenomenon termed climate engineering, geoengineering, and other various scientific designations. His choice to balance the amount of time in the film to information from both “sides” of the debate over weather control was a good one, adding seriousness and weight to the effort. The final effort, 120-minute film production’s quality is excellent, and a superb example for others to follow in comparison to other small-budget, independently made documentaries.

The topic of weather control technologies, for researchers, is one which can lead one down some very deep, multi-directional, even sometimes strange rabbit holes. Thankfully – and wisely, in light of its very controversial subject – Mr. Landman keeps the film’s focus inside the boundaries of logical, academic and/or scientific reasoning. The result is a very strong film message viewers will find close to impossible to ignore or forget.

Many people will immediately react to mention of weather control with labels of “conspiracy theory”, but they might experience an extreme change of perspective and attitude after watching “Frankenskies”.  They surely will come away with facts and details they’ve never seen mentioned or reported by the corporate media, but for “conditioning”, surprising reports – such as the 12 new cloud formations (or species of clouds) added institutionally recently. The film’s information has neither been transparently shared by government and/or military officials but for recent revelations – again, described in the film as a form of societal “conditioning” for what’s ahead.

What inclines one to lean toward the explanation that weather modification is essentially a tool for war? …The unanimous unwillingness by elected representatives in the U.S. Congress in responding to concerns expressed by large numbers of their constituents on the matter. Add to that government avoidance of historical facts presented in Mr. Landman’s film, and the logical conclusion to arrive at is that nations and high-level military/intelligence officials have been using weather control technology since the 1950’s as a weapon of war.

“Frankenskies” has already, just hours after posting, begun going viral on the internet. The question now becomes one of gathering sufficient momentum, creating a state of affairs making impossible continued government dismissal of legitimate concerns, and leading to where honorable action brings about open public meetings exposing the truth of the matter.

***

To  those appreciative of his work and wishing to send financial support to Matt Landman for making his next film “Frankenskies II”, please visit:

https://www.gofundme.com/frankenskies

(Thank you to Matt Landman at YouTube)

President Donald Trump: Show The World Your Evidence.

By Jerry Alatalo

“Power must never be trusted without a check.” (Letter to Jefferson, February 2, 1816)

– JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826) Second President of the United States

hile plans at the United Nations for investigating the chemical atrocity in Idlib province Syria were in the infancy stage and not yet begun, the American president directed the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria from warships in the Mediterranean Sea. Mr. Trump told Americans and the world it was to deter and punish the Syrian military for carrying out the chemical attack.

Among the many questions which have become raised after Donald Trump ordered a military attack on a Syrian airbase inside that country, the one that is receiving greatest attention and focus is: “Where is Donald Trump’s evidence, and why isn’t he providing it?”

It’s a simple question, really. In the context of fundamental legal theory when one of the sides in a legal argument wishes to present their case to the jury, it is common knowledge that party needs to bring evidence, or proof to back their claims and assertions. However, the response to it by U.S. President Donald Trump is much more complex, and for decades Middle East scholars, researchers, writers and people of the region have dealt with and experienced associated consequences of U.S. geopolitical actions.

As of yet, Donald Trump has not made his case – provided evidence, or proof – justifying attacking Syria to Americans and people around the Earth. His choice as Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has not provided evidence either in the last two United Nations Security Council meetings, convened to focus on the Idlib chemical atrocity and U.S. missile response.

Here is what Donald Trump said shortly after ordering the missile attacks on Syria:

“My fellow Americans… Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians using deadly nerve agent. Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this barbaric attack.”

“No child of God should ever suffer such horror. Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interests of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council. Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.”

“Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed, and we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.”

“Good night and God bless America, and the entire world. Thank you.”

***

“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons…”

Donald Trump’s address was extremely concise, wholly non-specific with regard to legal aspects of the military decision and action, while adding up to only a few hundred words. Perhaps Mr. Trump never anticipated Americans and people around the Earth wishing to hear him describe his legal perspective, and see his evidence making the case that Assad was responsible.

We the jury – citizens of America and the world – demand Donald Trump present any and all evidence he used to back the decision for launching cruise missiles on the sovereign nation of Syria…

This is an urgent demand.

(Thank you to Press TV News Videos)

 

The American Left and the Reality of 911: Beyond Their Wildest Dreams

The 9/11 events which occurred on September 11, 2001 remain the world’s greatest unsolved crime.

The ongoing moral and ethical failure of humanity to gather the will and determination necessary to address the crime which birthed 15 years of literal hell on Earth – destroying the lives of untold millions of innocent men, women and children – represents the most disturbing assault on human integrity, common decency, and respect for life of the 21st century.

OffGuardian

by Graeme MacQueen, from sott.net

Noam Chomsky: Bastion of the intellectual left in the US – and hopelessly ignorant of 911

On November 23, 1963, the day after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Fidel Castro gave a talk on Cuban radio and television.[1] He pulled together, as well as he could in the amount of time available to him, the evidence he had gathered from news media and other sources, and he reflected on this evidence.

The questions he posed were well chosen: they could serve as a template for those confronting complex acts of political violence. Were there contradictions and absurdities in the story being promoted in the U.S. media? Who benefitted from the assassination? Were intelligence agencies claiming to know more than they could legitimately know? Was there evidence of foreknowledge of the murder? What was the main ideological clash in powerful U.S. circles and how did Kennedy fit…

View original post 6,411 more words