Tuesday, March 31, 2015

A Must-See! A farmer saw a hole in a rock -- the INSIDE has stunned the whole world

A Farmer Saw A Hole In A Rock and The INSIDE Has STUNNED The Whole World


You might not believe it at first but you'll soon realize how it has room for a skyscraper with 40 floors AND contains both jungle and a river. The Son Doong cave in Vietnam is the largest one in the world and a tour inside this place is something out of the ordinary. Tag along in this underground world and be astounded by how marvelous and beautiful nature can be.

The enormous cave is situated in the Vietnamese national park Phon Nha-Ke Bang, 280 miles south from the country's capital city Hanoi.


Monday, March 30, 2015

Interesting findings in Gallup Poll

Fascinating poll results, but why would this be? Denial is fear-based. What do the better educated conservatives fear most, which would make them deny even what is before their very eyes and confirmed by 97% of the world's scientists (climate change/global warming)?  My guess is loss of money and prestige/power.  I mean, doesn't it always come down to this? 

Gallup Finds: Among Conservatives, Education Increases False Belief
by Eric Zuesse | March 30, 2015

100% agreement among scientists does not exist on anything, not even on basic laws of physics; but there are some scientific topics where the degree of expert consensus is near 100%, and human-caused (or "anthropogenic") global warming is one of them, with more than 97% of the scientific experts in the field agreeing that this phenomenon is real. (See this paper, which is the most-rigorous study to-date, of expert opinion on the subject, quantifying the extent of this consensus; this is a study of 11,944 papers that have been published on the matter, and it finds that more than 97% of the peer-reviewed papers that have expressed an opinion on whether "anthropogenic global warming" exists, have said that it does. A contrarian tried to debunk that paper and reduce the consensus down to 91%, which is still high, but there were errors in his paper, and he even admitted: "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis.")

Consequently, a poll which was published by Gallup on 26 March 2015 is especially fascinating, because it correlates political ideology plus education-level, with acceptance of this particular scientific consensus; the poll-report's title is: "College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming." It says that: "Republicans with higher levels of education are more likely than those in their parties [it should be the singular noun here, 'party'] with less education to say that the seriousness of global warming is 'generally exaggerated.' By contrast, Democrats with some college or more are less likely than those with less education to believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated."

In the United States, there happens to be extraordinary ideological polarization by political party, with almost all conservatives preferring the Republican Party, and almost all progressives preferring the Democratic Party, whenever an electoral choice between those two parties is offered and the time has come for citizens to register a vote at their ballot box. Consequently, the Republican-Democratic distinction is a fair and very practical measure of conservative-progressive orientations among the U.S. population. (This isn't to say that the Democratic Party is progressive, just that it's not nearly as consistently conservative as is the Republican Party — and this Gallup poll provides yet further confirmation to that.)

Here, then, are the exact findings, by Gallup, in this poll: 74% of Republicans with a college degree say that human-caused global warming is exaggerated, compared to 57% of Republicans with only a high-school education or less.

By contrast, among Democrats: only 15% of Democrats with a college degree say that human-caused global warming is exaggerated, compared to 27% of Democrats with merely a high-school education or less.

So: more education moves Republicans further into fantasyland, where they already are, and moves Democrats further into reality, where they aready are.

So: not only are a vastly higher percentage of Democrats than of Republicans accepting the overwhelming (97+%) scientific consensus; but, when the findings are further broken down by education-level, the resultant finding is that whereas among Democrats, education increases truthful beliefs, the opposite is the case among Republicans: education increases false beliefs, among Republicans.

This finding adds further weight to the finding that was reported in a classic study in empirical psychology, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," published in 2003, by four famous researchers. They found that conservatives absorb information that supports their particular opinions, but filter out and ignore information that contradicts their opinions. They called this phenomenon "motivated social cognition"; and, whereas this phenomenon exists to some extent among all people, they found that it exists far more among conservatives than among non-conservatives. Among non-conservatives, there exists enough open-mindedness to enable education to improve the accuracy of the given individual's beliefs. That is also what this new Gallup poll is finding: whereas conservatives just become more dead-set in their false beliefs the more information they encounter; non-conservatives actually tend even in the exact opposite direction — to change their minds, when they encounter evidence that contradicts what they had formerly believed.

(To explain this: For conservatives, the confirmatory 'information' that they pay attention to is usually not actual data that confirm the given belief, but is instead another person's opinion that 'confims' his or her own opinion — it's merely opinion that's built on opinions instead of on actual data. That's how myths are passed around and 'supported.' And myths are especially important to conservatives.)

Actually, there are lots of empirical studies that lend further weight to this view: There is an overwhelming body of empirical literature that shows that the more conservative a person is, the more bigoted he or she is likely to be. Again: conservatives, far more than non-conservatives, just filter out what doesn't fit their existing beliefs. Also, see this, and this

All of the evidence supports the view that conservatism is basically a falsehood-sustaining belief-methodology. That's what it's really all about: sustaining false beliefs.

And that's why the opposite of conservatism is progressivism: change toward a truer view of the world. That's what progress is. That's what it consists of.

And that's why progressives tend to have truer beliefs than conservatives do.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Parkinsons And Aspartame --- The Michael J. Fox Link

Parkinsons And Aspartame? The Michael J. Fox Link

I wonder how many know that Donald Rumsfeld is the one responsible for aspartame being OK'd by the FDA after they first banned it.  Before he joined up with the Reagan regime and then the Cheney/Bush regime, Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, where aspartame was created.  Once he attained power in the Reagan administration, he was able to lift the ban on aspartame (known by the FDA to create brain tumors!) and push aspartame into our food and drinks--one more thing to "thank" the "compassionate conservatives" for.   God help us all if Ted Cruz or any other Tea Party candidate gets to be President.  It will be Reagan/Duhbya Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld days all over again.

Read below about how aspartame was approved to be put into our food and drink supply (much more info. about the dangers of aspartame is contained in the link above):

The Politics of Aspartame and Why It Is Still Legal

In January of 1980, the F.D.A. advisory board banned aspartame, because their research showed that it caused brain tumors. This decision could only be overturned by the commissioner. Then, in November 1980, Donald Rumsfeld was hired as part of the transition team for President Ronald Reagan, prior to which, he had been the President of Searle (the company that created aspartame). On the first day of the new administration, the previous F.D.A. commissioner's authority was suspended, and Rumsfeld assigned Dr. Arthur Hayes as the new head of the F.D.A. Hayes was previously just a defense contractor, but he had a close relationship to Rumsfeld because they had worked together under the Nixon Administration in close contact with the President of Pepsico. Hayes' first decision was to approve aspartame for dry foods, and by the end of 1983, he had approved aspartame for soft drinks too. He was later forced to leave the agency, due to media pressure for his acceptance of corporate "gifts". The defense contractor then went to the Searle public relations firm as its "senior medical adviser". Shortly thereafter, Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million "bonus" for his help in ramrodding the F.D.A. into unbanning aspartame and allowing it into our food and drinks, where it remains today.


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Most inspiring story EVER!!!

God bless this man!  Through his absolute dedication to an "impossible" task, he accomplished his goal, inspired his community, and now, with the publication of his story, he has inspired the whole world!


Which One of These Is Not Like the Other?



A mom and daughter who need help desperately

So much trouble is happening for this mom and her daughter.  I hope they are able to get Olivia to a place where she can be diagnosed and helped. It sounds like the mom Helen needs help, too, with her own health.  What a terrible dilemma.  If everyone who reads about this could give just a little bit, that little bit could go a long way toward helping them.  Please pass this along for others to read.  Thank you!


To donate, visit tinyurl.com/weber15


Monday, March 23, 2015

Suppressed human history now being revealed - a most important video

This is an educational wake-up film that should be viewed by everyone on the planet. The film is 1 hr. and 39 minutes long -- if you can't make time to watch it in entirety, just click on the link -- and go to 39 minutes into it -- watch a bit of that and skip to 43 minutes -- then 54 minutes, then 1:00 -- I guarantee you will hear valuable information from credible scientists, physicists, astronauts, high military and government officials, etc., etc.  These knowledgeable people want the urgent message to get out to the public that we ARE being visited by extraterrestrials.  The details they speak of may surprise or shock you -- but it is essential that we all learn about this information because it is a portent of coming change on this planet. 

Listen to and watch Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper (astronauts), Dr. Stanton Friedman (nuclear physicist), and many, many others who, as you will quickly discover, are very credible as they give information that is about to transform the way we think and act on Earth.  A new paradigm is heading our way, and these people are in the vanguard, trying to prepare us for it. To ignore them and their message is not even an option for intelligent people anymore. If you are someone who has previously laughed at the stories of aliens and UFOs, believing all the government attempts at coverup, you are in for an intense education, if you can overcome your tendency to roll your eyes and ridicule what you have thus far ignored. I think it very possible that you will come away from viewing this film with an entirely different view.  It is hard to ignore the earnestness and honesty of the men and women in the film -- and their impressive credentials.

'The Day Before Disclosure' is a film about the witnesses who were laughed at, the researchers and reporters who weren't believed and the governmental and military personnel that were sworn to silence.   If you find this film valuable, please forward this message to friends.




Saturday, March 21, 2015

Oh so important! Paul Krugman writes another must-read column

Educating the masses about the deceptions that are taking place before our eyes in broad daylight is imperative for the survival of our country--and our world.  The following by Paul Krugman is just one piece of the puzzle, but it is an extraordinarily important piece!  The blatant political deceit that he describes MUST be acknowledged and seen through!  PLEASE READ and pass along!


Sunday, March 15, 2015

Science vs. Denial -- which one is winning? VERY SAD NEWS for us and the planet

By Edward Helmore, The Guardian
(The last two sentences state the irony of ironies....read all the way through to get the full meaning.....)

For Naomi Oreskes, professor of scientific history at Harvard, there's no more vivid illustration of the bitter war between science and politics than Florida's ban on state employees using terms such as "climate change" and "global warming". No matter that the low-lying state is critically vulnerable to rises in sea level, or that 97% of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is occurring and human activity is responsible, the state's Republican governor, Rick Scott, instructed state employees not to discuss it as it is not "a true fact".

In one sense, news of the Florida directive could not have come at a better time – a hard-hitting documentary adaptation of Oreskes's 2010 book Merchants of Doubt is just hitting US cinemas. In another sense, she says, it is profoundly depressing: the tactics now being used to prevent action over global warming are the same as those used in the past – often to great effect – to obfuscate and stall debates over evolutionary biology, ozone depletion, the dangers of asbestos or tobacco, even dangerous misconceptions about childhood vaccinations and autism.

Scott's de facto ban is, she tells the Observer, "a grim state of affairs straight out of a George Orwell novel. So breathtaking that you don't really know how to respond to it."

It is also a display of just the kind of prevarication and intransigence that Oreskes studied to establish her formidable scholarly reputation. Each argument – if that is the correct term – has followed a strikingly similar path, and in each case, scientists have been drawn into debates that have little to do with a sound-science, rigorous exchange of knowledge.

Directed by Robert Kenner, best known for the hard-hitting Food, Inc., and backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, the Merchants of Doubt film exposes the tactics of climate change "experts", who are often in the employ of thinktanks funded by industries invested in maintaining the status quo.

It's a fascinating look at how overwhelming certainty acquired through rigorous scientific enquiry has been time and again upended and delayed by a small group of spin doctors. As one scientist points out in the film, they have to prove their case while their opponents only have to sow the seeds of doubt. Nowhere is that more keenly felt than in climate change, with a massive disconnect between public acceptance and the political will to act.

"The scientific community feels it worked incredibly hard on this issue," Oreskes says. "It has done exactly what it is supposed to do, which is study the question carefully from many angles, publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, explain it to the public and in reports. Yet it has gained no traction. Or worse – scientists are facing active attempts to deny, discredit, harass and, in some cases, sully their reputations."

The political split on the issue grew last week when secretary of state John Kerry warned climate-change deniers and obfuscators – presumably including 2016 presidential contender Jeb Bush (who accepts global warming but not that it is disproportionately caused by human activity) – that there is no time to waste on debating the subject. Fail to act, he said, and future generations will want to know how world leaders could have been "so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn".

As a historian of science, Oreskes is better-positioned than research scientists to challenge the situation. She recently suggested that the threat of climate change is so extreme, and time to curb its accelerating effects so short, that the scientific community should abandon its conservative, 95% confidence standard – which, she argues, is an unfair burden of proof that has no actual basis in nature. The science community is unlikely to back Oreskes in that opinion but her point is clearly made: there is no debate, and by entering the semantics of a debate, you've already lost.

Yet the cost to moderate Republicans of bucking approved party thinking are well-known. The filmmakers visit Bob Inglis , a South Carolina congressman who lost his seat four years ago after being targeted by the Tea Party following a radio interview in which he said he believed humans were contributing to climate change.

Oreskes's study in Merchants of Doubt centered on a group of distinguished scientists, veterans of the cold war arms race, who came out in support of the tobacco industry and later cropped up opposing climate-change science. Since the research science on both issues is so clear, how could they be confused on the subject?

"We found that they really believed they were defending the freedom, free-market capitalism, liberty and lifestyle they believe go with a laissez-faire economy," says Oreskes. "It's essentially a slippery-slope argument. If you allow the government to regulate tobacco or restrict the use of carbon-based fuels, it's a step toward tyranny."

And that, Oreskes points out, goes back to Milton Friedman, and Freidrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom . "The original argument was authentic, if misguided. In recent years it has been cynically manipulated by the Tea Party and others supported by vested interests." (Oreskes mentions Charles and David Koch, the industrialists who have already pledged to contribute $1bn toward influencing the 2016 elections.)

In short, it's a perversion of American notions of freedom, one that scientists are ill-equipped to counter. "The argument is, if you allow government to impose a carbon tax, then you're going to surrender your liberty, personal freedom and individual choice," says Oreskes. "That helps explain why this is such an American pathology. It plays into the cultural valences of individualism and choice."

At times, the argument has become entirely obfuscated and contorted by politics. It was, after all, George HW Bush who introduced the idea of carbon emissions trading . Liberals and Democrats opposed it. When it was found to work, and environmentalists embraced it, conservatives turned against it. That showed that Republicans have no serious interest in negotiating on this issue, says Oreskes. "They rejected their own principles!"

Clearly there's more than enough blame to go round. In the US, one green advocacy group recently ran ads asking: "How many light bulbs does it take to change an American?"

Oreskes comments: "If you tell people it's about changing them, it's not helpful. We need to say, 'Look, this is a problem we could actually fix if we stopped being in denial about it.'" She argues that the media is also to blame. The idea of presenting balanced arguments – to give an opposing view – does not serve an issue such as climate change well, especially when social media has power to transmit discredited or perilous misconceptions. "Sometimes the evidence and the data are all on one side," Oreskes points out.

Last week she found herself on the receiving end of climate deniers' outrage. Ninety-year-old Fred Singer, profiled at length in Merchants of Doubt, threatened to sue Oreskes and Kenner, following a pattern of response often used to raise the profile of climate contrarians.

But it is becoming harder to imagine a happy conclusion. In her most recent book, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future , Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine looking back on the world in 2093 from the year 2393. It's a dismal view of floods, droughts, mass migrations and the depopulation of entire continents. In Merchants of Doubt Oreskes writes that industrial society has been "dining out" on fossil fuels for 150 years, and now we've equated ideals of freedom with the right to a lifestyle that those fuels permit.

Even those who profess to be on the green side of the debate, including Hillary Clinton, are prevaricating on their opposition to the XL pipeline , designed to carry dirty tar sands oil into the US from Canada. Prevarication paid off for the tobacco industry, which profitably resisted science and government regulation for half a century, and it is paying off now for the oil industry. Rising temperatures are making previously inhospitable regions, including the Arctic, accessible to exploration and drilling.

But it's with no pleasure that Oreskes reports that the very groups that most detest regulation will ultimately see more of it when the consequences of inaction on climate change become unavoidable.

"This story is riven with ironies, and that's one of the most profound if we don't get this situation under control."


Thursday, March 12, 2015

Ballet performance done to PERFECTION

Wow! Incredible what this dancer can do with his body...his performance takes your breath away:


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Pilots, doctors and scientists are now telling the truth about chemtrails

In the video link below are powerful and to-the-point 
testimonies, given by a group of 
fully-credible scientists and pilots 
(many ex-US Military), who testify as 
to the difference between condensation 
trails and chemtrails and the dangerous 
compounds that are accumulating in 
our soil and water, as a result of 

Alan Buckmann, a former military fish 
and game biologist explains that chemtrail 
weather manipulation represents a health 
hazard to us all, as the compounds being 
found in their wake are hazardous and 
unnatural, such as unbonded aluminum.

It is explained that the reason why you 
don't hear about it on the mainstream 
news is because geoengineering, 
colloquially known as "chemtrails" are a 
Black Budget Program - that is apparently, 
global in scope.

More gripping details are contained in this redacted 
version of a longer testimony produced by 
Dane Wigington of GeoengineeringWatch.org, 
a man who has dedicated his retirement 
and his life savings to exposing this threat
to the public's health.