07 May 2007

Airport Security

I recently had the... opportunity... to fly through the UK. It was a brief stopover on my way somewhere else. Flying these days is an absurdity designed to insult our intelligence. First, there is the new regulation that liquids must be placed inside a clear plastic freezer bag. The bag keeps the items separate from the rest of your belongings on any bag you carry on. This rule is the aftermath of last summer's accusations that the invisible but omnipresent 'Islamic terrorists' had a plan to make explosives in an aircraft toilet, a dastardly plot that was, fortunately, foiled by the heroic efforts of British intelligence.

Well, more than one expert has written on the absurdity of making explosives on an airplane without the necessary laboratory equipment, but that information doesn't make it onto Fox News, the BBC, or the mainstream newspapers.

The long and the short of it is that flyers are forced to put their toothpaste, shampoo, perfume, bottled water, and any other liquid into plastic bags. And we are supposed to think that we are safer for it. In France, certain soft cheeses, such as camembert, must also be put into the plastic bags.

I arrived in the UK with two bags: the first a small bag with my clothes and the second a bag with papers, books, and my laptop. I had no trouble getting onto the plane in France with them. That changed in the UK. Arriving at the security checkpoint before having my bags scanned, I was stopped and told that I was only permitted one carry-on bag. A new rule, I was told. I stopped, more than a little non-plussed by the remark. I said I hadn't had any problems in France with the two bags. I said to the security agent that I only had one carry-on bag, the clothes bag, but the other was more a briefcase. The reply was that I had two bags and only one was permitted. Well, quite obviously I wasn't in France, or Kansas, anymore. Fortunately, the woman security agent was friendly. She asked if the book bag would fit into the larger clothes bag. I knew there was no way it would fit, but I duly unzipped the clothes bag and placed the book bag on top. Very little of the book bag was on the inside of the clothes bag. I made a move to try and force it more deeply inside, but before I could do anything the woman said, "See, now you only have one bag!" I looked up to see if she was joking. She smiled and said, "You see, you have one bag. You can proceed".

So I proceeded... on to the scanning machine, carefully holding my 'one' bag in my arms so that it wouldn't fall apart into two bags. Arriving at the scanner, they asked me to remove the book bag from the clothes bag to send them to be x-rayed separately. And so they stayed for the rest of the trip, through the x-ray machine, through the wiping down to check for explosives, and as I walked to the gate, one bag on each arm.

An hour later I was out of the UK. What can you say about such absurdities? It is clear that the entire 'airport security' scam has nothing whatsoever to do with 'terrorism', Arab or otherwise, and a lot to do with programming the population to accept greater and greater levels of interference in their lives. The message is "Big brother is ubiquitous: get used to it". The trouble is that no individual can do anything abut it: One by one we move through the airports, and any pointed remarks about the ridiculousness of it all only brings down the potential for being detained as a 'suspicious character', never to be permitted to fly again.

We have accepted each move put into place by the pathocrats against our rights and liberties, preferring to feel secure against a non-existant enemy. Hard-fought gains of freedom have been thrown out the window with little thought.

The planet is being put into lock down mode. What are you doing about it?

The Masks are Falling

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about an evening spent watching the Al Gore global warming film An Inconvenient Truth sponsored by the local branch of Attac, a French association active in questions of globalization. Last week was an evening with another group, the monthly Repas UFOlogique in Toulouse. I have been attending these meetings fairly regularly for almost two years, but not because of any particular interest in UFOs. Once you look at the data and see that a small percentage of the sightings cannot be explained by any known technology, and you study the reports that have come down through the ages of strange phenomena reported in the skies, you come to understand that our reality is a lot weirder than they teach us in school or in the mainstream media. After that, to chase after some nuts and bolts craft that might be peopled with god knows what, well, no thanks.

But there are open and friendly people there each month, and it's a chance to get away from the computer for an evening....

So the subject of the evening was the recent opening of the files of Le groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés [Geipan], a working group within the French research network called the CNES. The files the group are putting on-line are the reports from the Gendarmerie made by individuals who have seen something curious in the skies. None of the information was ever classified. They amount to police reports of unexplained sightings. In other words, nothing special: no declassified documents from the government, the military, or the French intelligence agencies.

However, there has been a certain amount of press about the publication of this material on the web, and so this evening there was a journalist from the Depêche du Midi, the local paper, coming to cover the Repas UFOlogique and the presentation by a member of Geipan. Before the presentation started, the journalist moved from table to table (the meetings are held in a restaurant, which is why they are the 'Repas' UFOlogique) asking the participants about their interest in UFOs.

When she got to my table, the other person present began to say that he wasn't interested in UFOs more than that. He was interested, however, in the reasons the governments of the world lie about UFOs and why they refuse to publish their classified info on the subject. If there is nothing there, if UFOs are nothing more than swamp gas or sightings of Venus, then what do they have to hide? He then brought up the subject of 9/11, pointing out that once again the government had lied, and that it was an inside job.

The journalist then turned to me. I said I agreed. I was there because I am an editor at Les Editions Pilule Rouge, and we publish books that attempt to bridge the gap between science and the mysterious. I concurred that it was the way governments treated the question that was intriguing, once one admitted that there was 'something' there. I said that the study of history shows that myth and legend is replete with appearances by creatures who appear to have a mastery of space and time, beings that we label gods or fairies. My working hypothesis was that UFOs were manifestations of these beings, not ETs from other plantes. History also shows that these beings don't have our best interests at heart... and that led to more talk on 9/11 and the coming cyclic catastrophe...

Well, the poor journalist was having her head spun six ways to Sunday by then, but she continued to ask questions, and, wanting to be helpful, I continued to answer them.

Then, the organizer of the evening came running over to the table in a fit. She grabbed the journalist and said, "This is suppose to be a story about the meeting tonight, not about conspiracy theories. I don't want you to report anything that he (pointing to me) has been saying." And the two of them moved away.


Talk about the mask falling. The organizer, who until then had been extremely friendly with me for as long as I had been going to the meetings, showed another side. I was simply answering the questions I was asked, and WHAM!

Then the conference started. The speaker knew his stuff and took a scientific approach. When members of the audience said, "Yes, but given what we know, these unexplained sightings have to be extra-terrestrial...", he said that, no, all forms of human technology haven't been ruled out. There are top secret programmes that have billions of dollars of financing that could produce such technology. The true believers in the crowd didn't want to hear that. As the speaker said, "When you say 'we don't know of any human technology like this, therefore it must be ET', you lose me at the 'therefore'. That is where science confronts conviction".

And he is correct. That is where science does meet conviction, but it also shows that science has blinders because there is a lot of info that can be used to support the non-human working hypothesis from history, as Laura has shown in The Secret History of the World.

After the conference was finished, the organizer came over to me and explained that if I wanted to get any publicity, I could phone the newspaper myself and arrange an interview. By then I was so disgusted with the entire evening that I muttered under my breath, "Whatever...", the first time I have ever descended to valley-girl speak....

On the sidewalk after the restaurant closed, the discussion continued. I was talking with a regular participant, and we were discussing the way things seem to be speeding up and the world is becoming more openly polarized between those who want to believe their subjective interpretation of the world, which amounts to believing an illusion, or, to be more blunt, the lie, and those who are working to see the world as it is. The masks are starting to fall as quickly as the meteorites.

The evening was an excellent example.