The Pentagram and 5G

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
October 14, 2020

Most regular readers of this site are well aware that there’s a debate going on about the real vs the stated purposes of the 5G rollout, and most are also probably aware that there are serious health and environmental impact concerns about the technology. As I’ve blogged about the subject on previous occasions, one thing that has always stood out to me was its potential for weaponization. After all, with antennae all over the landscape, it would be possible to convert the antennae in a region, or for that matter, over the whole country, into a very large phased array antennae system, for the purposes of multiwave interferometry in a particular place, and to use it in a variety of nasty ways, from induction of disease, to mind manipulation, “crowd control”, and worse. Some people even hypothesize that it could be used to vaporize bodies, though that would take an extraordinary amount of energy. But my point in raising these topics is to reinforce my point that there could very well be a hidden purpose to the whole thing.

With that as background, E.E. spotted the following article in RT and passed it along, and if even only a small percentage of it it true, then it’s still a “whopper doozie”:

Pentagon to dish out $600mn in contracts for ‘5G dual-use EXPERIMENTATION’ at 5 US military sites, including to ‘aid lethality’

The title of the article is disturbing enough, but the article itself, quoting the military, clearly states that the whole 5G project has a “dual use” capability, and that a component of this is to increase the “lethality” of the system:

The US military has partnered with more than a dozen companies for “large-scale experimentation” with 5G technology, including efforts to enhance the “lethality” of certain systems, in what’s slated to be a $600 million project.

Dubbing 5G tech a “foundational enabler for all US defense modernization,” the Pentagon announced the massive research initiative on Thursday, which will hand hundreds of millions to 15 private contractors to conduct testing at five US military installations.

“Today, the Department of Defense announced $600 million in awards for 5G experimentation and testing at five US military test sites, representing the largest full-scale 5G tests for dual-use applications in the world,” the Pentagon said in a statement, adding that it would bring together experts from several industries and disciplines.

The article goes on to mention that the network is for “distributed command and control”, a curious statement but one which would synch quite well with the topic I blogged about yesterday, namely, the use of rockets as a logistical delivery system capable of landing supplies anywhere in the world within an hour, a system that I dubbed LOBSTER. It’s just the sort of distributed command and control system one would need (in addition to Global Satellite Positioning) to make such a system work.

But then there’s this:

One effort spearheaded by AT&T at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada will apply 5G to “distributed command and control” systems in order to “aid in Air, Space, and Cyberspace lethality,” enhancing communications for mobile command centers in combat scenarios.

Now, without even having to indulge in my high octane speculation about the system being a potential Very Large Phased Array capable of all sorts of nastiness from mind manipulation to literally shutting down biological systems by shutting down their organic “electrical network” – just think heart attacks here or (here it comes) respiratory difficulties – even without those things as lurking possibilities, one can easily see how such a “distributed command and control system” would enhance “lethality” of more conventional weapons.

But it’s that reference itself that disturbs; read it again:

One effort spearheaded by AT&T at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada will apply 5G to “distributed command and control” systems in order to “aid in Air, Space, and Cyberspace lethality,” enhancing communications for mobile command centers in combat scenarios. (Boldface emphasis added)

Just what-the-dickens is “cyberspace lethality”? Well I can think of a few things, such as using a phased array to bring down regions of the internet, or to interfere with hardware functioning, or even to broadcast “noise” or false data into computer networks to inhibit processing, and so on. But there’s that other potential, mentioned long ago by Lt. Col (US Army, Ret.) Tom Bearden, that signals can me modulated directly into computers remotely that can induce heart failure, and so on.

Even if these speculations are wrong, there’s one thing one should take away from this: 5G is not simply about the internet of things or faster speed or greater bandwidth. Underneath all the wonderful jonquils and daisies and snake oil that the commercials on TV right now are touting about the wonders of 5G, there’s a military component and purpose to it all. That should give everyone pause.

See you on the flip side…

cover image credit: Computerizer, Pixabay w/ modification of copyright-free image

Richard Dolan w/ James Fox: New UFO Documentary “The Phenomenon”

Richard Dolan w/ James Fox: New UFO Documentary

by Richard Dolan
October 09, 2020

After much anticipation, filmmaker James Fox’s latest documentary, The Phenomenon, was released on October 6, 2020.

This film has a great deal of new video that even experienced students of the UFO subject have not seen. Without a doubt this will widely be recognized as one of the best UFO documentaries to appear in some time. James meets with Richard Dolan for a live video interview to discuss what makes his film unique.

See the trailer for The Phenomenon Movie

Available Digitally Worldwide: https://geni.us/ThePhenomenon

Of Chemtrails, Genetics, Nanotech, Space Travel and the Fires

Source: Giza Death Star

by Joseph P. Farrell
October 15, 2017

This has been a strange week, not only for news, but for the very bizarre synchronicities of stories people are finding and sharing with me. In fact, when I sit down to schedule blogs for the coming week, I always do so with a mixture of eager anticipation and trepidation, for the synchronicities and patterns that result can be mind-blowing and, at times (such as now), very disconcerting, for sometimes the dots don’t have to be connected; they’re already connected by the pattern of articles people send me.

Yesterday, for example, I blogged about the strange anomalies surround the fires in Sonoma county, California, and also posted three additional “tidbits” of videos showing some very strange things indeed: melted metal, which means the fires burned much hotter than the average house fire, and the grizzly detail that some unfortunate victims’ bodies were so charred that dental records and other identifiers had to be consulted for the purpose of identifying the victims. Other strange anomalies appeared to be in evidence, such as trees close to buildings completely burnt out, but the trees were not burned. In another strange case, one man posted a video of a tree burning from the inside out.

Add it all up, and one isn’t looking at a typical “wild fire,” but at something perhaps altogether different. In my main blog yesterday, one reviewer posted an article hypothesizing some sort of electro-static cause, based on the “electro-acoustic” work of Nikola Tesla in the late 19th century. In that reviewer’s estimation, one possible cause for the bodies having burned so quickly and so hot was their absorption of the metal particulates from all the chemtrail spraying in California. Increased metal content increases the electrical and heat conductivity. Essentially he was implying that chemtrails were large scale geoengineering, and that since humanity is a part of the wider ecosystem affected by such activity, that local humanity had been modified and that the result was the strange mixture of damage pattern: burned out, melted homes, unrecognizable human victims, trees either untouched or burning from the inside out, and so on.

Well, one of the strange stories that was passed along this week by a few regular readers here was this story about NASA’s plan to genetically modify human DNA to survive long-term exposure to the radiation in outer space for long term voyages… such as to Mars:

Nasa wants to alter the DNA of Mars astronauts in the 2030s to protect them from cancerous space radiation

The essence of the scheme is country simple:

It is also considering making more advanced tweaks or alterations to the DNA of its astronauts, although the moral implications of such a radical step will need to be addressed.

This includes epigenetic modifications, which alter the way genes are read by the body without making changes to the underlying DNA code.

Using such a technique would allow Nasa’s scientists to turn up the volume on one genetic instruction or mute another.

This may help to prevent cancers, dementia and other radiation related illnesses from developing, as well as boosting the body’s resilience to its effects.

Now, I’ve blogged about NASA’s DNA-altering scheme before, because it raises certain implications. “Apollo hoaxers”, for example, can point to this as yet more “proof” that we may not have gone to the Moon as advertised, or maybe not at all. After all, they point out, how does one get through the Van Allen belts? The problem with the “argument” is, of course, the old “x-ray” machine problem. Prolonged, or recurrent and regular exposure, creates the problem, not a “once-through” affair. The implication of NASA’s plan, however, is that there’s more than one way to deal with the problem of space-radiation, and that’s through genetic modification, which raises an intriguing question: what if we’re just now being told about an approach that was actually used back then? After all, if one can imagine black projects coming up with all sorts of exotic secret space technology, then that might very easily include medical technologies far in advance of the publicly known ones: was a certain small segment of humanity modified in the black projects, “breakaway civilization” world in order to be adaptable not only to space travel but to the technologies of exotic propulsion, which might themselves involve high exposure to radiation? (And, while we’re at it, is this possible “modified humanity” the real secret behind all the public nonsense over the years about “ET-human hybrid” stories, such as the Dulce, NM stories?) Such a view would be the biological variant of former Lockheed Skunk Works Ben Rich’s alleged statement, “We found an error in the equations” and “now we can take ET home.” It’s rather like saying “We found an error in the sequencing code and now we drive ET home ourselves.

“Such modifications as NASA is suggesting and entertaining imply their opposite, that one can modify human DNA and cellular structure to be, not increasingly resistant to radiation, but decreasingly resistant to it; one might, for example, modify the human organism to become increasingly electrically- and heat-conductive, for whatever purpose. One might, in fact, experiment on whole human populations with a variety of approaches to see which works best – for whatever purpose – under certain conditions, such as extreme ambient electrostatic fields or radiation.

All of this is high octane speculation, to be sure, which brings me to today’s daily installment of it: what if, in order to study such epigenetic modifications, it was first necessary to test the opposite effect under the most extreme conditions, in order to learn the techniques of how to do it? Such might be one purpose, of many others, for the spraying, with some of the (intended, or unintended) consequences being the strange anomalies of the victims of the fires. After, they’ve conducted secret tests on human populations before, without their knowledge and permission.

In other words, they’ve been tacitly willing to subject people, without their will or consent, to possible suffering and death, to serve some “larger agenda.” It’s the old Nazi “space medicine”, on steroids…

See you on the slip side…

Fatebuntur Stoici Haec Omnia Dicta Esse Praeclare

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Immo videri fortasse. Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis? Praeteritis, inquit, gaudeo. Ergo infelix una molestia, fellx rursus, cum is ipse anulus in praecordiis piscis inventus est? Hi autem ponunt illi quidem prima naturae, sed ea seiungunt a finibus et a summa bonorum; Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Erat enim Polemonis. Ita multa dicunt, quae vix intellegam. Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens. Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Crasso, quem semel ait in vita risisse Lucilius, non contigit, ut ea re minus agelastoj ut ait idem, vocaretur.

Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Quae est quaerendi ac disserendi, quae logikh dicitur, iste vester plane, ut mihi quidem videtur, inermis ac nudus est. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Nam e quibus locis quasi thesauris argumenta depromerentur, vestri ne suspicati quidem sunt, superiores autem artificio et via tradiderunt. Semovenda est igitur voluptas, non solum ut recta sequamini, sed etiam ut loqui deceat frugaliter. Aliter enim explicari, quod quaeritur, non potest. Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? Nunc dicam de voluptate, nihil scilicet novi, ea tamen, quae te ipsum probaturum esse confidam.

In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum.
Dat enim intervalla et relaxat.
Dicimus aliquem hilare vivere;
Sed nonne merninisti licere mihi ista probare, quae sunt a te dicta?
Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus.
Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti.

Quo minus animus a se ipse dissidens secumque discordans
gustare partem ullam liquidae voluptatis et liberae potest.

Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur?

Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis.
Sed quia studebat laudi et dignitati, multum in virtute processerat.
Nam si quae sunt aliae, falsum est omnis animi voluptates esse e corporis societate.

Tum ego: Non mehercule, inquam, soleo temere contra Stoicos, non quo illis admodum assentiar, sed pudore impedior;

Aut etiam, ut vestitum, sic sententiam habeas aliam domesticam, aliam forensem, ut in fronte ostentatio sit, intus veritas occultetur? Quid enim mihi potest esse optatius quam cum Catone, omnium virtutum auctore, de virtutibus disputare? Conferam avum tuum Drusum cum C. Res enim concurrent contrariae. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Idem fecisset Epicurus, si sententiam hanc, quae nunc Hieronymi est, coniunxisset cum Aristippi vetere sententia. Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit;

Itaque ne iustitiam quidem recte quis dixerit per se ipsam optabilem, sed quia iucunditatis vel plurimum afferat. Qui potest igitur habitare in beata vita summi mali metus? Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Quantam rem agas, ut Circeis qui habitet totum hunc mundum suum municipium esse existimet? Nam si propter voluptatem, quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti? Nam prius a se poterit quisque discedere quam appetitum earum rerum, quae sibi conducant, amittere. An tu me de L. Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Sic igitur in homine perfectio ista in eo potissimum, quod est optimum, id est in virtute, laudatur. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. Recte, inquit, intellegis. Fieri, inquam, Triari, nullo pacto potest, ut non dicas, quid non probes eius, a quo dissentias. Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter.

Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem; Aliena dixit in physicis nec ea ipsa, quae tibi probarentur; Bestiarum vero nullum iudicium puto. Paria sunt igitur. Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere. Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus; Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Utilitatis causa amicitia est quaesita. Si de re disceptari oportet, nulla mihi tecum, Cato, potest esse dissensio. Quam si explicavisset, non tam haesitaret. Paria sunt igitur. Ratio ista, quam defendis, praecepta, quae didicisti, quae probas, funditus evertunt amicitiam, quamvis eam Epicurus, ut facit, in caelum efferat laudibus.

Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet Consectetur

Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur sodales ligula in libero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed dignissim lacinia nunc. Curabitur tortor. Pellentesque nibh. Aenean quam. In scelerisque sem at dolor. Maecenas mattis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed convallis tristique sem. Proin ut ligula vel nunc egestas porttitor. Morbi lectus risus, iaculis vel, suscipit quis, luctus non, massa. Fusce ac turpis quis ligula lacinia aliquet. Mauris ipsum.

Nulla metus metus, ullamcorper vel, tincidunt sed, euismod in, nibh. Quisque volutpat condimentum velit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nam nec ante. Sed lacinia, urna non tincidunt mattis, tortor neque adipiscing diam, a cursus ipsum ante quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Ut fringilla. Suspendisse potenti. Nulla metus metus, ullamcorper vel, tincidunt sed, euismod in, nibh. Nunc feugiat mi a tellus consequat imperdiet. Vestibulum sapien. Proin quam.

Etiam ultrices. Suspendisse in justo eu magna luctus suscipit. Sed lectus. Integer euismod lacus luctus magna. Quisque cursus, metus vitae pharetra auctor, sem massa mattis sem, at interdum magna augue eget diam. Nunc feugiat mi a tellus consequat imperdiet. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi lacinia molestie dui. Praesent blandit dolor. Etiam ultrices. Sed non quam. In vel mi sit amet augue congue elementum. Morbi in ipsum sit amet pede facilisis laoreet. Donec lacus nunc, viverra nec, blandit vel, egestas et, augue. Vestibulum tincidunt malesuada tellus. Ut ultrices ultrices enim.

Curabitur sit amet mauris. Morbi in dui quis est pulvinar ullamcorper. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi lacinia molestie dui. Nulla facilisi. Integer lacinia sollicitudin massa. Cras metus. Sed aliquet risus a tortor. Donec lacus nunc, viverra nec, blandit vel, egestas et, augue. Integer id quam. Morbi mi. Morbi in dui quis est pulvinar ullamcorper. Quisque nisl felis, venenatis tristique, dignissim in, ultrices sit amet, augue. Proin sodales libero eget ante. Nulla quam. Aenean laoreet. Vestibulum nisi lectus, commodo ac, facilisis ac, ultricies eu, pede.

Integer euismod lacus luctus magna

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer nec odio. Praesent libero. Sed cursus ante dapibus diam. Sed nisi. Nulla quis sem at nibh elementum imperdiet. Duis sagittis ipsum. Praesent mauris. Fusce nec tellus sed augue semper porta. Mauris massa. Vestibulum lacinia arcu eget nulla. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur sodales ligula in libero. Sed dignissim lacinia nunc.

Curabitur tortor. Pellentesque nibh. Aenean quam. In scelerisque sem at dolor. Maecenas mattis. Sed convallis tristique sem. Proin ut ligula vel nunc egestas porttitor. Morbi lectus risus, iaculis vel, suscipit quis, luctus non, massa. Fusce ac turpis quis ligula lacinia aliquet. Mauris ipsum. Nulla metus metus, ullamcorper vel, tincidunt sed, euismod in, nibh. Quisque volutpat condimentum velit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos.

Nam nec ante. Sed lacinia, urna non tincidunt mattis, tortor neque adipiscing diam, a cursus ipsum ante quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Ut fringilla. Suspendisse potenti. Nunc feugiat mi a tellus consequat imperdiet. Vestibulum sapien. Proin quam. Etiam ultrices. Suspendisse in justo eu magna luctus suscipit. Sed lectus.

Integer euismod lacus luctus magna. Quisque cursus, metus vitae pharetra auctor, sem massa mattis sem, at interdum magna augue eget diam. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Morbi lacinia molestie dui. Praesent blandit dolor. Sed non quam. In vel mi sit amet augue congue elementum. Morbi in ipsum sit amet pede facilisis laoreet. Donec lacus nunc, viverra nec, blandit vel, egestas et, augue. Vestibulum tincidunt malesuada tellus. Ut ultrices ultrices enim. Curabitur sit amet mauris. Morbi in dui quis est pulvinar ullamcorper.

Nulla facilisi. Integer lacinia sollicitudin massa. Cras metus. Sed aliquet risus a tortor. Integer id quam. Morbi mi. Quisque nisl felis, venenatis tristique, dignissim in, ultrices sit amet, augue. Proin sodales libero eget ante. Nulla quam. Aenean laoreet. Vestibulum nisi lectus, commodo ac, facilisis ac, ultricies eu, pede. Ut orci risus, accumsan porttitor, cursus quis, aliquet eget, justo.

Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ista ipsa, quae tu breviter: regem, dictatorem, divitem solum esse sapientem, a te quidem apte ac rotunde; Hic ego: Etsi facit hic quidem, inquam, Piso, ut vides, ea, quae praecipis, tamen mihi grata hortatio tua est. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Hominum non spinas vellentium, ut Stoici, nec ossa nudantium, sed eorum, qui grandia ornate vellent, enucleate minora dicere. Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Quid de Pythagora?

Quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes, Chrysippus
etiam, sed sic, ut, si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil
aliud legere debeat.

Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone
pendere?

Quamquam ex omnibus philosophis Stoici plurima novaverunt, Zenoque, eorum princeps, non tam rerum inventor fuit quam verborum novorum. Earum etiam rerum, quas terra gignit, educatio quaedam et perfectio est non dissimilis animantium.

Bonum negas esse divitias, praeposìtum esse dicis? Nihilo beatiorem esse Metellum quam Regulum. Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Ita fit illa conclusio non solum vera, sed ita perspicua, ut dialectici ne rationem quidem reddi putent oportere: si illud, hoc; Si longus, levis. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.

Nam si beatus umquam fuisset, beatam vitam usque ad illum a Cyro extructum rogum pertulisset.

Cognitio autem haec est una nostri, ut vim corporis animique norimus sequamurque eam vitam, quae rebus iis ipsis perfruatur. Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali. Atqui perspicuum est hominem e corpore animoque constare, cum primae sint animi partes, secundae corporis. Equidem e Cn. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est. Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus? Nam quid possumus facere melius? Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc?

In ipsa enim parum magna vis inest, ut quam optime se habere possit, si nulla cultura adhibeatur.
Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia.
Quis contra in illa aetate pudorem, constantiam, etiamsi sua nihil intersit, non tamen diligat?
Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus;

In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? At certe gravius. Gracchum patrem non beatiorem fuisse quam fillum, cum alter stabilire rem publicam studuerit, alter evertere. Quis tibi ergo istud dabit praeter Pyrrhonem, Aristonem eorumve similes, quos tu non probas?

In eo autem voluptas omnium Latine loquentium more ponitur, cum percipitur ea, quae sensum aliquem moveat, iucunditas.
Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L.
Ne amores quidem sanctos a sapiente alienos esse arbitrantur.
Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset.