Mainstream Media Chemtrails

They're trying SO hard to make this seem normal. It's not. Normal. Or entertaining. Or even remotely humane. I've seen stuff like this more and more in movies and shows nowadays. They point to a plane or refer to it in some way and yup, it's got chemtrails spewing out of it near the engines. There are dispensing canisters located beside the engines. Or you see a few streaks of chemtrails across the sky and it all just seems normal. It's NOT! Go back to any television or movie production pre-1960 and you will NOT see any of these streaks or intersecting lines in the skylines! They didn't exist back then.

While I'm thankful the geoengineering idea isn't so hush hush now, it still appears that we need to wake up more of our friends to the reality of what this means. The UN has blatantly announced that without geoengineering like weather modification(available at weathermodification.com company for instance) then we're in for another Ice Age. It's not a theory. It's a conspiracy. All the higher ups have known about it for sixty+ years and have been doing all sorts of research on us like we're lab rats.

I want to get off the wheel now. 

I've had enough. 

Between the Folds

Origami! RNA sequencing. Tissue paper crumpling. Wet molding. Computer models and designs for airbags. Sacred geometry. Sound intriguing?

Between the Folds is a beautiful documentary I watched a few months ago and I wanted to make sure I posted something about it here since I mentioned origami and DNA folding in a recent previous post.

Look for it on YouTube, Hulu, Netflix(how I watched it) and any other place which might have documentaries of a scientific or artistic nature. 

This movie inspired me to look up origami online. I made my first paper crane that day. It had some wobbly wings and one crooked assed beak but ya know what? It was fun and it reminded me to have fun with simple things around me like paper.

Between the Folds follows several artists in their ever changing craft but also explores the real scientific boundaries which are being crossed by... origami scientists! They're in Harvard and Yale and Princeton. These folks aren't slouches and they're radically changing our understanding of physics. 

Watched this with my kids and they both loved it. Go find it!!

The Theory is Broken

Continuing with the discussion for intelligent design from the previous post, here is a documentary I watched and highly recommend.  "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"  It takes you through it step by step very thoughtfully. I really enjoyed it. Leave me a comment and let me know what you think.

In the movie caption area/description there is a linked list of all of the sections of the documentary; they're about 9-10 minutes apiece. (These were posted back when YouTube had a 10 minute limit on films, which they've done away with a few years ago.) The third and forth 'movies' are the most convincing sections of the intelligent design argument in my opinion. It's a building argument, though, so make sure you watch the whole show and not just a few parts. The scope of the argument will leave you awestruck and then dumbfounded as to why exactly we're still arguing about this with all our technological prowess today. 

The scientists interviewed acknowledge there are religious implications for intelligent design but they don't dwell on it or try to beat you over the head with it. They're concerned with the study of molecular biology and the origin of the simplest forms of it. 

The source code for DNA is a given difficulty for those Darwinians who want to state a simple view that it all just arranged itself through chance or some built in(who built it??) magnetism. But 'irreducible reductionism' is really the very heart of the issue. Darwinians want to say that things are 'borrowed' from other sections or previously existing varieties of the type of machine present today in the cell. But where did those previous machinations come from? Who told them to change? If something happens slowly then how does it survive in the meantime with a changed environment which is demanding those changes for survival now? You can only break components of a machine's parts down so far before the argument is moot. You can't build something out of nothing! And I think that last part is what makes Darwinian's crazed. They want to say you can put a bowl full of mud with all the basic amino acids and proteins, add ... something(?!)... and voila! There will be life. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it'll never work. People have tried zapping mud with electricity quite a few times. 

This is the most simple break down of the argument in it's all it's complexity:

"Without DNA there is no self replication. But without self replication there is no natural selection. So you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing you're trying to explain." ~Stephen C. Meyer

This is why David Hawkins will never move beyond anything but screeching at the masses about how 'illogical' the God theory is: The burden of the theory of origin lies with the previously existing machine, not the one we have today. We don't know where the previous one came from but surely that one had a progenitor with the same parts somewhere in it's makeup. We think. We're pretty sure. We're not even sure where 95% of those other parts came from but.. whatever. Oh and the nucleus? The first cells probably didn't have them or need them. (I think my brain just did a 180 and came to a screeching halt with that asshat argument. With no instructions then who or what tells the cell to make changes?!)

Yeah, it's a pretty narrow lensed scope Darwinians are looking through. If it doesn't fit, toss it! But that's how they say natural selection occurred. If that's the case then where did all those billions upon billions of potential choices come from? Something inside the cell decided these things. What is it?  

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."      ~Charles Darwin

Holy cow. Really? Isn't that rather ironic in the context of the argument being given about something as simple as the bacterial flagellum(tail/propeller) which is necessary for all life on our planet?

I ask the following question for all those in education or who have children being educated: why are we still teaching this?
 

Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins

This evening I watched Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary. It's a look at how evolutionists(Darwinists) have placed a stranglehold on academic discussion on intelligent design. Their reasoning? If you allow intelligent design discussion then we'll end up back in the Dark Ages where science is lost to religion.

Here's the full length movie on YouTube.


The academics Ben Stein speaks with on Darwinism make a valid point while getting to the meat of the argument itself: Darwin never explained the ORIGIN of man at all, just what he thought happened after the atoms were already arranged! And that is the place there Darwinists and Creationists painfully collide. Midway between them, leaning a little more right than left, you have intelligent design. "Something awfully smart created those first atoms! So intelligent that we're unraveling layers upon layers of mysteries within the atom itself every year!" 

The sentiment expressed continually throughout the film is that the continued study of Darwinism for scientists eventually leads to atheism. I want to say that I can see this would be true for at least those academics and scientists who don't have a backbone and/or only want to climb the academic ladder to stardom and money. Or at least tenure and a somewhat comfortable retirement plan. However, I have also personally known many teachers, scientists, and those who began as scientists but left the field who have said that the further they looked at science overall then the more religious they became-- not the reverse. But if they had only the confines of Darwinism to use as a template for all their accepted work then yes, they'd have suffered a crisis of faith or just seen their curiosity wither and die. I think perhaps this may be the intent of the establishment.  Those teachers I knew who became more spiritual at the end did leave the field for other private studies. They knew their career was at stake because they could not in good conscience teach something they knew was false.

One of the highlights of the film came at 1:27(that's one hour and twenty-seven minutes) Richard Dawkins explains why he believes in intelligent design! It's a riot because afterwards Ben Stein asks him to clearly state that he does not believe in any god or God of any religion whatsoever. However Richard Dawkins doesn't even hear what he'd previously admitted. He wasn't tricked into anything. There was no slick sophistry involved. Here's part of the conversation. To see the full thing you'd have to watch the movie : 




Richard: "So it couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously." 

Whoooahhh! Wait. Isn't that what the anti-creationists aka. DARWINISTS are trying to shove down everyone's throats including the Big Bang Theory?! That somehow this... thing... just happened and there was nothing intelligent about it?!  But a so-called hard core atheist thinks that someone super smart(elsewhere in the universe, of course) designed us(is he hearing himself?!), planted our genome here on this planet and then ...... sped off back to whatever lovely world they came from. But of course that race of super smart beings or being evolved by some Darwinian process themselves, because you know Darwinism has to play into our genesis at some point right?

Chicken and egg, Richard. I'm calling bullshit on that, my friend. Who made that first race of beings who supposedly made us? ... if they did indeed evolve Darwinian style and were not spontaneously sprouted from some God's head fully formed.

The logistics of this argument make my head spin! It seems quite obvious to me at this point that the most obvious questions are not being asked in the classroom and unfortunately for the child who does want to ask .... I think their teacher may be inclined to not engage the child in conversation at all because they fear for their job.

An idea I've been pondering and refining for some time now: Man created religion as a way to explain the mysteries of God Science. Within gnosis we're able to see the forest(we live in it) AND the trees(we dream them) because we soar above it through his eyes to see what it is he wants to share. That intrinsic and basic connection we share with him is what gives us our sense of wonder, our sense of awe about the universe and even the trees and butterflies. Being the body of the All itself, how can we not be amazed?

Volcano Energy? Hot Mamma!

While this article made me grin from ear to ear with how elated the scientist(s) must feel who created this technology I feel the urge to warn-- PLEASE for the love of all that is holy don't let some dumbshit scientist near Yellowstone with this tech!!!! That is one caldera that will kill us all anyway and we haven't found a way to delay the inevitable yet.

Not sure what I'm talking about with Yellowstone? Look up "caldera" + "Yellowstone." I haven't met a geo-scientist yet who doesn't break out in nervous, sweaty shakes at the mention of it. It's real.

Now onto the 'groundbreaking' goodness that is geothermal energy:

Project to pour water into volcano to make power

By JEFF BARNARD | Associated Press

Geothermal energy developers plan to pump 24 million gallons of water into the side of a dormant volcano in Central Oregon this summer to demonstrate new technology they hope will give a boost to a green energy sector that has yet to live up to its promise.

They hope the water comes back to the surface fast enough and hot enough to create cheap, clean electricity that isn't dependent on sunny skies or stiff breezes — without shaking the earth and rattling the nerves of nearby residents.

Renewable energy has been held back by cheap natural gas, weak demand for power and waning political concern over global warming. Efforts to use the earth's heat to generate power, known as geothermal energy, have been further hampered by technical problems and worries that tapping it can cause earthquakes.

Even so, the federal government, Google and other investors are interested enough to bet $43 million on the Oregon project. They are helping AltaRock Energy, Inc. of Seattle and Davenport Newberry Holdings LLC of Stamford, Conn., demonstrate whether the next level in geothermal power development can work on the flanks of Newberrry Volcano, located about 20 miles south of Bend, Ore.

"We know the heat is there," said Susan Petty, president of AltaRock. "The big issue is can we circulate enough water through the system to make it economic."

The heat in the earth's crust has been used to generate power for more than a century. Engineers gather hot water or steam that bubbles near the surface and use it to spin a turbine that creates electricity. Most of those areas have been exploited. The new frontier is places with hot rocks, but no cracks in the rocks or water to deliver the steam.

To tap that heat — and grow geothermal energy from a tiny niche into an important source of green energy — engineers are working on a new technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems.

"To build geothermal in a big way beyond where it is now requires new technology, and that is where EGS comes in," said Steve Hickman, a research geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif.

Wells are drilled deep into the rock and water is pumped in, creating tiny fractures in the rock, a process known as hydroshearing.

Cold water is pumped down production wells into the reservoir, and the steam is drawn out.

Hydroshearing is similar to the process known as hydraulic fracturing, used to free natural gas from shale formations. But fracking uses chemical-laden fluids, and creates huge fractures. Pumping fracking wastewater deep underground for disposal likely led to recent earthquakes in Arkansas and Ohio.

Fears persist that cracking rock deep underground through hydroshearing can also lead to damaging quakes. EGS has other problems. It is hard to create a reservoir big enough to run a commercial power plant.

Progress has been slow. Two small plants are online in France and Germany. A third in downtown Basel, Switzerland, was shut down over earthquake complaints. A project in Australia has had drilling problems.

A new international protocol is coming out at the end of this month that urges EGS developers to keep projects out of urban areas, the so-called "sanity test," said Ernie Majer, a seismologist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. It also urges developers to be upfront with local residents so they know exactly what is going on.

AltaRock hopes to demonstrate a new technology for creating bigger reservoirs that is based on the plastic polymers used to make biodegradable cups.

It worked in existing geothermal fields. Newberry will show if it works in a brand new EGS field, and in a different kind of geology, volcanic rock, said Colin Williams, a USGS geophysicist also in Menlo Park.

The U.S. Department of Energy has given the project $21.5 million in stimulus funds. That has been matched by private investors, among them Google with $6.3 million.

Majer said the danger of a major quake at Newbery is very low. The area is a kind of seismic dead zone, with no significant faults. It is far enough from population centers to make property damage unlikely. And the layers of volcanic ash built up over millennia dampen any shaking.

But the Department of Energy will be keeping a close eye on the project, and any significant quakes would shut it down at least temporarily, he said. The agency is also monitoring EGS projects at existing geothermal fields in California, Nevada and Idaho.

"That's the $64,000 question," Majer said. "What's the biggest earthquake we can have from induced seismicity that the public can worry about."

Geologists believe Newberry Volcano was once one of the tallest peaks in the Cascades, reaching an elevation of 10,000 feet and a diameter of 20 miles. It blew its top before the last Ice Age, leaving a caldera studded with towering lava flows, two lakes, and 400 cinder cones, some 400 feet tall.

Although the volcano has not erupted in 1,300 years, hot rocks close to the surface drew exploratory wells in the 1980s.

Over 21 days, AltaRock will pour 800 gallons of water per minute into the 10,600-foot test well, already drilled, for a total of 24 million gallons. According to plan, the cold water cracks the rock. The tiny plastic particles pumped down the well seal off the cracks. Then more cold water goes in, bypassing the first tier, and cracking the rock deeper in the well. That tier is sealed off, and cold water cracks a third section. Later, the plastic melts away.

Seismic sensors produce detailed maps of the fracturing, expected to produce a reservoir of cracks starting about 6,000 feet below the surface, and extending to 11,000 feet. It would be about 3,300 feet in diameter.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management released an environmental assessment of the Newberry project last month that does not foresee any problems that would stop it. The agency is taking public comments before making a final decision in coming months.

No power plant is proposed, but one could be operating in about 10 years, said Doug Perry, president and CEO of Davenport Newberry.

EGS is attractive because it vastly expands the potential for geothermal power, which, unlike wind and solar, produces power around the clock in any weather.

Natural geothermal resources account for about 0.3 percent of U.S. electricity production, but a 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology report projected EGS could bump that to 10 percent within 50 years, at prices competitive with fossil-fuels.

Few people expect that kind of timetable now. Electricity prices have fallen sharply because of low natural gas prices and weak demand brought about by the Great Recession and state efficiency programs.

But the resource is vast. A 2008 USGS assessment found EGS throughout the West, where hot rocks are closer to the surface than in the East, has the potential to produce half the country's electricity.

"The important question we need to answer now," said Williams, the USGS geophysicist who compiled the assessment, "is how geothermal fits into the renewable energy picture, and how EGS fits. How much it is going to cost, and how much is available."