Mami's Shit: Spingola Speaks 2014.02.20

Mami's Shit: Spingola Speaks 2014.02.20

FauxCapitalist
said... 

 

Deanna was all substance in this show about SH.

She made an important critique of Sofia Smallstorm's presentation, and I have made some notes.

However, I still find Robbie Parker's reaction suspicious, and why is the girl on Obama's lap wearing the same dress as the allegedly dead child, Emilie Parker, with her hair parted in the same way, and what can we really know about Adam Lanza when he allegedly killed his own mother and destroyed his own computer, and they still posit no motive?

22m - Said Smallstorm used 12 of Fetzer's 14 points about SH in the jan 2013 vt article, said what a coincidence -- it's almost like they were working with each other
25m - Said Mike Powers, who appeared on joyce riley's show in january 2013, is a fraud
33m - Flattery to sell Smallstorm's documentary
said she fell for flattery of joining Scholars for 9/11 Truth, because who wouldn't want to be a scholar
35m - Called it a ploy for Fetzer to call the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth
37m - Misleading audio from Smallstorm's video
39m - Someone in video is Mark S. Mann -- marksman?
44m - Fake bus driver video when flowers are in full bloom saying he saw no crime scene footage?
46m - It's normal not to see crime footage
47m - She claims there's no christmas decorations when there were
49m - She said Sandy Hook never has been about 2nd amendment rights
1h13m - Looped video of the same people going in and out of the school, because of silver car moving around
- Questioned whether Smallstorm and Klein were so negligent or they thought the majority of truth seekers were too gullible -- said shame on them
1h15m - Claim that Christmas trees just happened to be there to mark deaths of children, firefighter said they had been doing that for 13 years -- she called it pathetic research

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story? | Jon Rappoport's Blog

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story? | Jon Rappoport's Blog

First, I’m not doubting the documents Ed Snowden has brought forward. I’m not doubting the illegal reach of the NSA in spying on Americans and the world. 

But as to how this recent revelation happened, and whether Ed Snowden’s history holds up…I have questions.

Could Snowden have been given extraordinary access to classified info as part of a larger scheme? Could he be a) an honest man and yet b) a guy who was set up to do what he’s doing now?

If b) is true, then Snowden fits the bill perfectly. He wants to do what he’s doing. He isn’t lying about that. He means what he says.

Okay. Let’s look at his history as reported by The Guardian.

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. The sequence here is fuzzy. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this training program? Does he need to demonstrate some exceptional ability before Special Forces puts him in that program?

Snowden breaks both legs in a training exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming Army service? Just asking.

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs? 

Circa 2003 (?), Snowden gets a job as a security guard for an NSA facility at the University of Maryland. He specifically wanted to work for NSA? It was just a generic job opening he found out about?

Also in 2003 (?), Snowden shifts jobs. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma. He’s a young computer genius?

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a very wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? Again, just asking. He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED by now. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep banking secrets to the Agency.

Snowden is this naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?”

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the presidency, might make good changes.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? He had that much access to classified data?

Anyway, in 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work for a private defense contractor. Apparently, by this time, he knows all about the phony US war in Iraq, and yet he chooses to work for a sector that relentlessly promotes such wars. Go figure.

This defense contractor (unnamed) assigns him to work at an NSA facility in Japan. Surely, Snowden understands what the NSA is. He knows it’s a key part of the whole military-intelligence network, the network he opposes.

But he takes the job anyway. Perhaps he’s doing it so he can obtain further access to classified data, in advance of blowing a big whistle. Perhaps.

Snowden goes on to work for two private defense contractors, Dell and Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is again assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but he claims to have so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. Hmm.

These are red flags. They raise questions. Serious ones.

JFK: CO-EXISTING by Saul Heller (The Realist, Issue No. 47, February 1964)

CO-EXISTING by Saul Heller (The Realist, Issue No. 47, February 1964)

All original content copyright © The Realist Association and its contributing writers and artists -- Paul Krassner, Editor. Posted with Permission. Visit paulkrassner.com

---

The Stargate Conundrum

The Stargate Conundrum

Rouse and I shared the same brainwave when the subject turned to Courtney Brown: “I had this same question a few years back when Courtney Brown, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory University published Cosmic Voyage: A Scientific Discovery of Extraterrestrial Visiting Earth. Why would Dr. Brown risk an academic career, in a field like political science, to publish what is, in my opinion, one of the more outlandish and wild hypotheses in a field that is replete with them? What could he possibly hope to gain in a few royalties that could offset damage to his career? Fortunately, Dr. Brown provides the answer on page 257 of his book: ‘I should remind the readers at the outset that I am a professor of political science. One of the specialties within the discipline is public opinion and mass behavior, which directly relates to governmental concerns regarding the subject of ETs and UFOs.’” We are well warned about this when he writes about how there are Martians living, surviving, on Earth, in a secret location – though he of course knows where. “There are Martians on Earth, but one must think clearly about the implications of this before ringing the alarm bell. These Martians are desperate. Apparently they have very crude living quarters on Mars. They cannot live on the surface. Their children have no future on their homeworld. Their home is destroyed; it is a planet of dust.” We can only wonder when the next TV marathon whereby the public will donate money for the poor conditions is going to occur. But, wait…
The subtitle of the book was “A scientific discovery of extraterrestrials visiting Earth.” The science used was “scientific remote viewing”. The opening words of the book were: “This is a book about two extraterrestrial civilizations that either already have or soon will have an important evolutionary impact on human life on Earth. This is not a book about scientific remote viewing. Nonetheless, since scientific remote viewing has been used to obtain the data […] it is necessary to briefly outline the history.” Even if it is totally coincidental, it is a standard debunking technique: link the subject to be discredited with outlandish claims, and the subject itself will become discredited. Mud sticks. Remember Geller and The Nine?
Rouse concluded: “He published a book, (mass communications) with an interest in ‘mass behavior’ (social psychology) and measures the effect ‘public opinion’ (survey research). When Dr. Brown published his book, he was employing the classical methods of Psychological Warfare. He didn’t write his book to persuade anyone of his outlandish assertions, he just wanted to gauge the reaction, possibly as a front for someone else, or some agency.” Remember: Rouse wrote that, not I…