Насколько я мог это сделать, я пытались выяснить из Интернета, является ли эта статья эквивалентный в любой части на Русских. Почему Русские? Потому что “страны, что у них есть с соглашениями о совместном обмен данными космической на месте с ВВС США являются Австралия, Япония, Италия, Канада, Франция, Республика Корея и Соединенное Королевство. он также «имеет соглашения с Европейским космическим агентством и европейской спутниковой организацией Eumetsat (согласно Википедии)”Так в них нет России.
На российских веб-страницах представлены десятки статей о работает HAARP и ее влияние на атмосферу. Но я не смог найти никаких исследование об влиянии “Космический забор”. Это тривиально для российских властей? Даже если мы отбросить реальность об сторону этого проекта, который является проектом по нейтрализации систем обороны(против НАТО) на планете, почти полный контроль над миром, единственная планета, которой люди могут жить сейчас, попадет в руки определенного сегмента. Были ли любой кусок письменном виде в этих статей исследованы на предмет точности? Являются ли этих утверждений воспринятыми как фантастические истории? Если нет, то почему это не было выявлено до сегодняшнего дня, являются ли эти утверждения истинными или нет? По крайней мере, в присутствии Организации Объединенных Наций, очему срочная сессия по этому вопросу не задана Россией? Если такое будущее строится, почему Россия тратит столько денег на космическую отрасль? В любом случае, если эти утверждения верны, и если трудах станут реальностью, будущий контроль над планетой будет полностью в руках Запада. Результат попытки сохранить мир с миром глобального капитализма, если такое будущее произойдет, история напишет вам как тех, кто не шумел и кто не взял на себя ответственность из-за капиталистических требований. Вы знаете об этот?
Вот они все в этой статье:
…
The neoliberal, eugenics-driven lunatics are in charge all right! If this so called “singularity” does take place, then any hope for humanity will be gone for good, since there will be no individuals/rebels left to, once again, save the herd from itself:
Space Fence: Connecting the Surveillance and Transhumanist Agendas The Space Fence
The Space Fence is not just to track and catalog space debris. It’s an overarching program that connects the geoengineering, surveillance and transhumanist and AI agendas.
The Space Fence is a massive, planetary-wide, space surveillance system currently being constructed that aims to monitor you all the way down to your DNA. Officially, the Space Fence is, according to Wikipedia, a 2nd generation space surveillance system being built (started in 2014) by the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin to track artificial satellites and space debris. Its budget is US$1.594 billion, it’s expected to be operational in 2019 and the Space Fence facility will be located in the Marshall Islands along with an option for another radar site in Western Australia. The Space Fence is a resurrection of a program started by Reagan in the 1980s called SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), commonly known by its nickname “Star Wars.” However, like many exotic weapons of the New World Order, it has a cover purpose and a real purpose. This article exposes the grander implications of the Space Fence – and how it connects to other technology that could be used to enslave you.
What is the Space Fence?
Although the USAF and Lockheed Martin tell us that the purpose of the Space Fence is to detect, track and catalog space debris, we must acknowledge that the MIC (Military Intelligence Complex) is at the helm of the New World Order and is routinely engaged in psychological operations against the rest of the population. The Space Fence is the answer to the prayers of a control-freak conspiratorial class. It will have the capacity to surveil everything on Earth. Like Skynet in the fictional Terminator films, it could become surveillance beyond comprehension. How? The Space Fence is designed to operate in LEO (Low Earth Orbit). It is designed to be one big interconnected machine, run by AI and joined to current (weaponized) technology by interacting with cell phone towers, Gwen Towers, Nexrad Towers, metal particulates and more to create a giant wireless network that manipulates us through the ionization of our atmosphere.
According to Elena Freeland, author of Chemtrails, HAARP, and the Full Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth who is soon to release a book on the topic, the Space Fence will eventually develop into a conductive Saturnian ring around the Earth’s equator. From there, it could be used to facilitate a complete lockdown on planetary communications (including our DNA communications, since we are electrical creatures), in line with the MIC’s C4 objectives (Command, Control, Communications and Computers). Freeland states that the Space Fence will have the power to totally transform the entire environment of the planet. It thus is a tool of the AI/Transhumanist agenda to merge man into machine.
….
Space Fence: Ionization and Conductivity
The Space Fence seems to tie many aspects of the worldwide conspiracy together. Two aspects to pay attention to are ionization and conductivity. To ionize is to create polarity within a substrate. Some things are naturally non-ionized, so to ionize them is take them out of their natural state. To make something conductive is to change it so that it can conduct electricity. The NWO controllers have been unleashing a torrent of light and heavy metals (aluminum, barium, strontium and more) into our environment – and thus into our bodies – for decades via industrial output, chemical-laden products, vaccines and chemtrails.
Ionization and conductivity crop up again and again when investigating the Space Fence. The reason the NWO conspirators are so obsessed with these concepts is because they have weaponized them. Ionization is linked to weather control. Ionospheric heaters (the most famous of which is HAARP) are now deployed around the world to heat and ionize layers of the atmosphere. Once ionized, it can be directed in line with geopolitical goals of the controllers, which can equate to earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and droughts. In 2014, we were told that HAARP was being shut down, however since HAARP-like technology is the ultimate weapon of the globalists, does anyone in their right mind really think they are just going to give it away due to lack of funding or because they are supposedly finished with it? Former HAARP insider Billy Hayes (who worked on constructing the original installation in Gakona, Alaska) claims there are over 200 HAARP-like facilities around the world which are fully operational.
Conductivity is linked to both mind control and holographic manipulation (a la Project Bluebeam). It is theorized that, with nano metal particulates everywhere including inside of people’s bodies, the masses are easier to mind control, since the metals act as receivers of wireless transmissions. There is evidence that the more metal particulates in the air, the easier it is to project holograms onto it (e.g. see the 36:30 minute mark of this Elena Freeland presentation). As this Leak Project video revealed, HP (Hewlett Packard) is literally releasing billions if not trillions of nano sensors (smart dust) into the environment. Is one of the purposes to prepare for a Project Bluebeam scenario?
…
Our Ionized Atmosphere: Plasma, the 4th State of Matter
The ionization of our skies means that the air is transformed into plasma, the 4th state of matter. Plasma is defined as “an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons in proportions resulting in more or less no overall electric charge, typically at low pressures (as in the upper atmosphere and in fluorescent lamps) or at very high temperatures (as in stars and nuclear fusion reactors).” In simple terms, it is ionized air. Plasma keeps our atmosphere thick. It is a medium where electrons can be moved around. Altered plasma means dramatic earth changes via the troposphere and magnetosphere. According to Freeland, the Space Fence will also ionize the outer part of our planet.
Was the SDI only put on hold until they worked how to ionize the atmosphere (see Bernard Eastland’s patents for HAARP), then re-activated?
In this context, you can look at Space Fence as the controlling hub which is designed to capitalize upon and control the tremendous transforming and terraforming of our planet which is happening right before our eyes. How can inundating our world with billions of metal particulates, nano chips and smart dust possibly be a good idea?
New Delhi: While the world is yet to see what an alien really looks like, an Oxford study suggests that our extra- terrestrial neighbours may be more like us than we think.
Hollywood films and science fiction literature have projected aliens as other-worldly, monster- like beings and that is what we have conformed ourselves to think.
However, for the first time, the study published in the International Journal of Astrobiology shows how evolutionary theory can be used to support alien predictions and better understand their behaviour.
The same processes and mechanisms through which humans were shaped – like natural selection – is potentially what shaped aliens as well, scientists said.
The theory supports the argument that foreign life forms undergo natural selection, and are like us, evolving to be fitter and stronger over time.
“A fundamental task for astrobiologists (those who study life in the cosmos) is thinking about what extra-terrestrial life might be like,” said Sam Levin, a researcher in Oxfords Department of Zoology.
“But making predictions about aliens is hard. We only have one example of life – life on Earth to extrapolate from.
“Past approaches in the field of astrobiology have been largely mechanistic, taking what we see on Earth, and what we know about chemistry, geology, and physics to make predictions about aliens,” said Levin.
In the new study, researchers offer an alternative approach, which is to use evolutionary theory to make predictions that are independent of Earths details.
“This is a useful approach, because theoretical predictions will apply to aliens that are silicon based, do not have DNA, and breathe nitrogen, for example,” Levin said.
Using this idea of alien natural selection as a framework, the team addressed extra-terrestrial evolution, and how complexity will arise in space.
Species complexity has increased on the Earth as a result of a handful of events, known as major transitions.
These transitions occur when a group of separate organisms evolve into a higher-level organism – when cells become multi-cellular organisms, for example.
Both theory and empirical data suggest that extreme conditions are required for major transitions to occur.
The study also makes specific predictions about the biological make-up of complex aliens, and offers a degree of insight as to what they might look like.
“We still cannot say whether aliens will walk on two legs or have big green eyes.
But we believe evolutionary theory offers a unique additional tool for trying to understand what aliens will be like, and we have shown some examples of the kinds of strong predictions we can make with it,” Levin said.
…
After reading the news, WD has commented on it like that:
“There was no need too much study on it, I would have given some details as being an alien expert!”
Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer scientist and research leader at the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), and USC Viterbi School of Engineering research assistant professor.
By leveraging state-of-the art bot detection algorithms, Ferrara and co-author Alessandro Bessi, a visiting research assistant at USC’s ISI, have made a startling discovery: a surprisingly high percentage of the political discussion taking place on Twitter was created by pro-Donald Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton software robots, or social bots, with the express purpose of distorting the online discussion regarding the elections.
The researchers analyzed 20 million election-related tweets created between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21. They found that robots, rather than people, produced 3.8 million tweets, or 19 percent. Social bots also accounted for 400,000 of the 2.8 million individual users, or nearly 15 percent of the population under study.
“The presence of these bots can affect the dynamics of the political discussion in three tangible ways,” writes in a recently released paper titled, “Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion,” appearing the journal First Monday.
“First, influence can be redistributed across suspicious accounts that may be operated with malicious purposes. Second, the political conversation can become further polarized. Third, spreading of misinformation and unverified information can be enhanced.”
“As a result, the integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election could be possibly endangered.”
Interestingly, Trump’s robot-produced tweets were almost uniformly positive, boosting the candidate popularity. By contrast only half of Clinton’s were, with the other half criticizing the nominee, according to the research paper. South Carolina produced the most fake campaign-related tweets, the study reports.
Because of social bots’ sophistication, it’s often impossible to determine who creates them, although political parties, local, national and foreign governments and “even single individuals with adequate resources could obtain the operational capabilities and technical tools to deploy armies of social bots and affect the directions of online political conversation,” the report says.
The “master puppeteers” behind influence bots, Ferrara added, often create fake Twitter and Facebook profiles. They do so by stealing online pictures, giving them fictitious names, and cloning biographical information from existing accounts. These bots have become so sophisticated that they can tweet, retweet, share content, comment on posts, “like” candidates, grow their social influence by following legitimate human accounts and even engage in human-like conversations.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, has decided to find out whether its fabled grantsmaking process discriminates against African-American scientists.
Armed with new data showing black applicants suffer a 35% lower chance of having a grant proposal funded than their white counterparts, NIH officials are gearing up to test whether reviewers in its study sections give lower scores to proposals from African-American applicants. They say it’s one of several possible explanations for a disparity in success rates first documented in a 2011 report by a team led by economist Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas, Lawrence. The so-called Ginther report also noted that black researchers are more likely to have their applications for an R01 grant—the bread-and-butter NIH award that sustains academic labs—thrown out without any discussion by study sections and that black scientists are less likely to resubmit a revised proposal for a second review.
NIH is also faced with the problem of low participation rates by minority scientists. Only 1.5% of its R01 applications come from African-American scientists. (The average applicant submits three applications, although whites submit at a higher rate than blacks.)
The bias study would draw from a pool of recently rejected grant applications that have been anonymized to remove any hint of the applicant’s race, home institution, and training. Reviewers would be asked to score them on a one-to-nine scale using NIH’s normal rating system. Richard Nakamura, head of the Center for Scientific Review in Bethesda, which manages the NIH grantsmaking apparatus, said he hopes to award a contract later this year for an outside firm to conduct the analysis.
The exercise is one of three “experimental interventions” being launched in the coming months as NIH continues to wrestle with the implications of the Ginther report. In 2014, in the first round of what NIH Director Francis Collins touted as a 10-year, $500 million initiative to increase the diversity of the scientific workforce, NIH gave out 5-year, $25 million awards to 10 institutions that enroll large numbers of minority students and created a national research mentoring network.
A second intervention starting later this year will tap that fledgling mentoring network to tutor two dozen minority scientists whose R01 applications were recently rejected. The goal of the intervention, which will last several months, is to prepare the scientists to have greater success on their next application. A third intervention will educate minority scientists on the importance of resubmitting a rejected proposal, because resubmitted proposals are three times more likely to be funded than a de novo application from a researcher who has never been funded by NIH.
NIH officials recently updated the Ginther study, which examined a 2000–2006 cohort of applicants, and found that the racial disparity persists. The 35% lower chance of being funded comes from tracking the success rates of 1054 matched pairs of white and black applicants from 2008 to 2014. Black applicants continue to do less well at each stage of the process.
Ironically, because the pool of black applicants is so small, it wouldn’t take much to eliminate the disparity: Only 23 more R01 applications from black researchers would need to be funded each year to bring them to parity. But that’s not good enough, says Hannah Valantine, NIH chief officer for scientific workforce diversity, who presented the new data today to the director’s advisory council.
“We want to narrow the gap in a sustained way,” Valantine said. She cited other factors believed to depress the number of applications by black scientists that NIH hopes to address in partnership with universities, including fewer institutional resources or a heavier teaching load.
One issue that hung in the air was whether any of the disparity was self-inflicted. Specifically, council members and NIH officials pondered the tendency of African-American researchers to favor certain research areas, such as health disparities, women’s health, or hypertension and diabetes among minority populations, and wondered whether study sections might view the research questions in those areas as less compelling. Valantine called it a propensity “to work on issues that resonate with their core values.” At the same time, she said the data show minorities also do less well in competition with their white peers in those fields.
Collins offered another possibility. “I’ve heard stories that they might have been mentored to go into those areas as a better way to win funding,” he said. “The question is, to what extent is it their intrinsic interest in a topic, and to what extent have they been encouraged to go in that direction?”
Referring to the tiny pool of minority applicants, one council member asserted that many African-American undergraduates who do well in science choose medicine over research when contemplating their future because they aren’t familiar with academic research as a possible career. Valantine said the data show that applications submitted by African-Americans are evenly divided between those who have M.D.s and those with a Ph.D. But she acknowledged that understanding “the science of diversity” is a huge challenge for her office and for NIH. “It’s probably more complex than any other thing that we do,” she said.
A young scientist supports scientists of the poorest countries with Sci-Hub database and challenges the monopolies.
Alexandra Elbakyan was born in Kazakhstan in 1988, while USSR was on the edge of falling apart. She was interested in science since childhood because of Soviet science books which she described with her own words “expository the miraculous events as scientific way with breaking down the superstitions”. She studied computer science and neuroscience, at this time she developed a interest in to be hacker.
Elbakyan knew the difficulties of doing scientific research in Kazakhstan, that is not in a Western country. So, she knew the answer that is given to a gradute student in Kazakhstan, Turkey, or in Kenya, Mexico, when this student achieves to the article which looks forward to read: “You have to pay $ 30 to read this article.”
Whereas, it is possible to access to these articles through university libraries of Western countries. Thereby the scientists in many poor countries, they had to ask for these articles from their acquaintances in rich countries with request and gratitude.
Sci-Hub
Elbakyan knew both the problem and the solution. After a while, she worked in a computer security company in Moscow, after she worked in a neuroscience project in Freiburg (Germany), then she was in Atlanta (USA). And when she returned to Kazakhstan in 2011, she had decided to Sci-Hub project that will shake the academy.
She began to copy the e_articles and books to her creation Sci-hub database with the ways which she kept in secret. Through this database, which can be easily searched, researchers and scientists anywhere in the world could have limitless access to the articles.
Elbakyan is describing this database with these words:
“We are fighting against inequalities in access to information in the world.”
Elbakyan against the Elsevier giant
As long as Sci-Hub came to be known, the world scientific publications monopolies began to grumble. As a result of the lawsuits filed by Elsevier which is biggest and aggressive one of them, in 2015 at US, sci-hub.org address was closed. But Elbakyan was prepared for this. The database has been moved to sci-hub.io. Currently it continues to serve on web page, sci-hub.bz.
According to a news which was published last month in the journal Science, Sci-Hub currently contains 50 million scientific sources. Its daily downloading average is 200 thousand.
If the searching source is not in the database, it can be brought through the interfaces which are accessed by Sci-Hub.
Tehran is the city where most downloading made. There is highly demand Sci-Hub from the scientists in the countries which have limited resources of libraries but many researchers are trained, like Iran. Due to the database of Sci-Hub, it is possible to guess that many researchers life becoming easier.
“Illegal?”
Interesting thing is, there is highly rate downloads from the US and Europe. For the possible reason of this, it is stated that the Sci-Hub is the ease of downloading when it compared to download the article on the university library sites.
Elsevier and other companies, clearly blame to Elbekyan with being theft and hacker. They claim that she stole the articles from the libraries of Western countries with fake email addresses.
Elsevier is pushing for bringing her to the United States and she trails in here for the hacking crimes. The young scientist, was forced to hide address due to these threats. Also she has to a break her neuroscience researches in this case.
Threats are not taken lightly: Three years ago, again for the reason of sharing scientific resources, an American hacker Aaron Schwartz was asked 35 years imprisonment. Schwartz had put an end to his life in 2013.
However Elbakyan is satisfied. Despite all the slanders Sci-Hub is tremendously popular into scientific community. 88% of the respondents who joined to a survey within the scope a published news in the journal Science said that they support to Sci-Hub. Even over 50 years old readers who never used the Sci-Hub database, have indicated their supports at similar rates.
Elbakyan also says that the servers of Sci-Hub are in safe with the financial supports that she gets. She is sure that the project will continue even if she would be imprisoned.
She opposes the likening to Robin Hood and she says:
“What Robin Hood made was illegal. To share the books and articles can not be illegal.”
News sources:
Michael S. Rosenwald, 30 March 2016, The Washington Post, “This student put 50 million stolen research articles online. And they’re free.”
John Bohannon, 28 April 2016, Science News, “The frustrated science student behind Sci-Hub”
John Bohannon, 28 April 2016, Science News, “Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone”
John Travis, 6 May 2016, Science News, “In survey, most give thumbs-up to pirated papers”
“Universal Science”
“Science is universal and for all mankind” is a popular claim. If any student who stepped into the research life in Turkey realizes that it is a clearly lie: You can not access freely to scientific articles as electronical enviroinment.
If your university library has rich sources or the article that you wanted to read has been published in “open access” journal, you are in luck. Otherwise, you have to pay tens of dollars to access to the article.
In this case, most of people begs to the author of article or colleagues in a rich country for sending pdf or the article, or gives up to read.
The sad side of this, the scientific studies are being carried out by high incidence of public support in the world. But it comes to the sharing and publishing of the results of the researches, the things are changing. In here there are a number of monopolized companies like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley etc. They work with incredible profit margins up to 40%.
If the aim of science had been really to serve to all mankind, the scientific publishing would have been carried out by public institutions without profit making purpose. This is a simple solution for humanity, but bad solution for capitalism.
This article was quoted from Turkish journal bilimsol.org (bilimsol is translated in English as scienceleft)
The remote-controlled robots that were sent into the site of the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan have reportedly ‘died’, thanks to incredibly high amounts of leaked radiation destroying their wiring.
The robots – which take years to manufacture – were designed to swim through the underwater tunnels of the now-defunct cooling pools, and remove hundreds of extremely dangerous blobs of melted fuel rods. But it looks like that’s not going to happen any time soon.
…
As we reported in January, Tepco successfully removed 1,535 spent fuel-rod assemblies from the cooling pool in the reactor 4 building, which was a relatively easy job because that reactor had lower radiation levels, so human workers could oversee the retrieval process more closely.
Reactor 3, which is where our poor, recently deceased robots had been sent, contains far higher levels of radiation, and humans can’t get near it. It’s estimated that there are 566 fuel-rod assemblies that need to be removed from just this one reactor.
“The fuel rods melted through their containment vessels in the reactors, and no one knows exactly where they are now,” Reuters reports.
As soon as the robots got close to the reactors, the radiation destroyed their wiring and rendered them useless, causing long delays, Masuda told the press organisation, adding that because each robot has to be custom-built for each building, it takes two years to develop every single one.
Humans’ closest living relatives may have a drinking habit: Scientists spied intoxicated wild chimps soaking up palm wine with leaves and squeezing it into their mouths.
Alcohol consumption is seen across nearly all modern human cultures that have access to fermentable materials. This prevalence led scientists to suggest what is known as the “Drunken Monkey Hypothesis” — that alcohol consumption might have provided a benefit of some kind to the ancestors of humanity, and perhaps also to the ancestors of chimpanzees, humanity’s closest living relatives.
…..
The researchers saw 51 instances in which 13 chimps used leaf sponges to drink fermenting sap. “I was fascinated by this behavior,” study lead author Kimberley Hockings, a behavioral ecologist at Oxford Brookes University in England, told Live Science.”To harvest the palm wine, chimpanzees at Bossou use a leafy tool as a spongy drinking vessel.”
The sap averaged about 3.1 to 6.9 percent alcohol, or 6.2 to 13.8 proof. For comparison, beer averages between 3 and 6 percent alcohol, and wine can contain 7 to 14 percent alcohol, with dessert wine having nearly 19 percent alcohol content, according to the University of Notre Dame. The chimps often drank the booze in large quantities — about a liter (34 ounces, or about three average-size beers) of fermented sap on average. Males accounted for 34 of the 51 instances of drinking — one adult male in particular accounted for 14 of the 51 instances.
Transhumanists believe that the time has come for humans to take control of their own evolution. Many of them are fully convinced that we can use emerging technologies to “fix” the flaws in the human race and ultimately eradicate sickness, disease, poverty and war.
A few people who contribute to the development of humanity in terms of ideas, were in existence on the planet Earth. Carl Sagan is one of them. My advice, read his books, give his books to your friends, they read also. And discuss. Thus, you will be one step closer to understanding the universe and own planet.
By the way, my favorite his book is “The Demon-Haunted World/Science as a Candle in the Dark”
People love to believe in a religion. There are many religions on this planet. A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world’s population is religious, and 36% are not religious. /Source Wikipedia/ However, three of them comes to the forefront prominently. And, Christianty, Islam and Judaism are blocking the development with pressuring continuous to the humanity. This means a further aspect; the majority puts the pressure on the minority, in a way contrary to the scientific facts. The world date is 2014, and the people can believe in these, leaving aside all scientifically thoughts:
-A virgin can give birth. / virgin Mary-Christianity
-A man can rises to the sky against to the gravity. / Mohammed- Mi’raj- Islam
-A man can divide a river into two parts. / Moses- Judaism
Yes, if the god really exists he should have good excuse for the answer to this question: Why he didn’t upgrade the capacity of human brain?
unnecessary news from earth 