Secret History of the World

If you really want to know what is going on buy this book! No other comments are necessary.

Who is "Jeff Rense"?

Ever wonder who Jeff Rense is? Check out this article form WingTV
Who is "Jeff Rense"? And if you want to delve further into this rabbit hole find out what Rense.com is Not Talking About visit the Signs of the Times Forum. While your there you also want to check out what is being said about abovetopsecret.com, The project SERPO Hoax which are also covered on Laura Knight-Jadczyk blog!


Who is "Jeff Rense"?
by Victor Thorn & Lisa Guliani


During our recent research of Mr. Jeff Rense, we’ve noticed an odd fact that others in this field have also pointed-out. There is virtually zero information on the Internet about “Jeff Rense.” This anomaly exists despite what Rense himself touts as a long-heralded career in the mainstream media prior to entering the alternative media (including assignments as an 'award-winning' news anchor and news director, print journalist, author, and talk radio show host).

But there’s virtually nothing on the Web to substantiate his past journalistic and broadcast career, which is peculiar being that he’s supposedly been in this business for over two decades. No independent articles, interviews, or profiles other than those originating from his own website; and not even any photos except for variations of the cartoonish one on his website. It’s like his entire tenure as a newsman has been whitewashed down the Orwellian Memory Hole. How can that be, especially when there is a plenitude of information on others like Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, etc?

In addition, no one that we've ever encountered has ever physically seen Jeff Rense; he never appears at public events; and no one that we've ever spoken to can even produce a phone number for him (which is odd considering how many guests he's had on his show over the years).

So, considering the nature of “conspiracy research” and the paranoia surrounding it (both founded and unfounded), we feel that transparency among the people who comprise the alternative media is essential to maintain legitimacy. It’s hard to imagine that anybody would argue this point.

So, we are making two simple requests of Jeff Rense:

1) Could you please provide the patriot community with a complete resume of your past career in the broadcasting/communications field, including places of employment, dates, addresses, plus contact names and numbers?

2) Could you please provide the patriot community with past photographs of yourself with others in your field that can be verified as to place and date (preferably from newspapers, magazines, company brochures, etc)?

We aren’t casting any aspersions or suspicions on Mr. Rense with the above questions, for once we obtain this information we will be able to continue our research. At this point, the most glaring problem we face is a void of specific, independently verifiable data regarding Jeff Rense’s past career.

So, as soon as we receive the above-requested information from Jeff Rense, we will continue our research and keep you updated on our findings.

New Doctored Video of Pentagon Attack Release - Confirms Boeing Was Not Involved

Signs of the Times for Wed, 17 May 2006


Signs Editorial:
New Doctored Video of Pentagon Attack Release - Confirms Boeing Was Not Involved
Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
17/05/2006
It only took four and a half years, but finally the U.S. government has seen fit to confirm what so many of us have been saying all along - Pentagon security cameras recorded no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.
The videos comprise the footage from each of the two security cameras stationed close to each other at one end of the Pentagon. The first video contains nothing new given that it is simply the footage from which 5 stills were taken and released in early 2002 by the Pentagon, the extra footage merely being the scene after the impact. The second video comprises previously unseen footage from the security camera that is slightly closer to the impact point. The Pentagon alleges that in this video the "nose cone" of a plane can be seen in one frame. It should be noted that the security cameras appear to be the standard type installed in train stations and airports around the world. Most people will have seen footage from such cameras showing people walking in "jumps", which is due to the fact that the camera records a still image every 2 seconds or so.

Basically then, while the mainstream press is trumpeting the line that "the Defence Department has released "the video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon", nothing could be further from the truth because there is still no evidence of a Boeing 757 in the security camera footage. If mainstream press reporters were to be honest (for once in their lives) the most they could state would be that: "the DOD has released a video of the attack on the Pentagon in which something appears in one frame of the footage and the U.S. government claims that this 'something' is the nose cone of Flight 77."

Let's take a look at this "nose cone":



This, ladies and gentlemen, is "Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon". This, is supposed to "finally put to rest" the "conspiracy theory" (backed up by massive evidence) that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. This, is apparently the best the DOD can do, or is prepared to do, to convince the world that they are telling the truth about what happened on 9/11. It doesn't say much for their confidence in their own story, does it.

Below is a zoom of the same "nose cone":



Is it more clear now? Can you see Flight 77 in all its glory? All we can see is an amorphous white blob that looks more like a car than the nose cone of any aircraft. Obviously the images are too grainy to be of any use to anyone. At this point then, the most we can say is that an amorphous white blob with definite Islamic terrorists leanings hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

The above image comprises one frame and 2 seconds (7 and 8) of the footage, the next and subsequent frames show the explosion, there is nothing in between, at least not on this camera footage. On the footage from the second camera, from which the original five stills were cut, an image of "Flight 77" moving between the right most edge of the camera angle and the Pentagon facade is visible. Perhaps you remember it. For old times' sake, let's have a look:



As you can see, this image, along with the new image of the "nose cone" appears to back up the idea that it was indeed an amorphous white blob that hit the Pentagon. Case closed? Well there is still the problem of where the hell the plane is in the above still. If, as the government claims, this image shows Flight 77 a few dozen feet from the Pentagon, we are still left with the question of, "where the hell is the plane!?"

The side of the Pentagon is 971 feet long and the "blob" or smoke trail in the above image is no more than 750 feet (250yards) from the camera. Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flying into the World Trade Center towers? The WTC planes were approximately the same distance from the observers on the ground as the "blob" in the above image was from the camera. So why can't we see a large 757 in the above image?

To sum up: At this stage, absent any new future video from the DOD, the U.S. government's "evidence" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon consists of:

the "nose cone" frame

the white smoke trail or "blob" frame

the explosion at the Pentagon frames.

Convincing stuff, eh? This evidence is all the more suspect given the fact that the FBI confiscated tapes from at least two other video cameras in the area that would surely provide a more complete picture, but they refuse to release them.

The release of the DOD video footage comes at a very interesting time. Some readers may be aware that the pre-eminent Cannes film festival is just starting. Fewer however will be aware that the "Pentagon Strike" Flash animation is being shown at this year's festival. While we are not paranoid per se, we couldn't help but feel it was a little strange that the DOD would release their videos on the very day that our team set off to Cannes to promote the Pentagon strike flash. If we were "paranoid", we might say that the release of these videos is an attempt at pre-emptive damage control over potential exposure at Cannes. Of course, it will also simply help to raise the profile of all things 'Pentagonian', which can only help our team in Cannes.

A word on the response from alternative new pundits and 9/11 researchers about the new videos: Most appear to agree that there is nothing new in the videos that in any way discredits the sound allegations that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. A few notable editorialists however are attempting to revive the dead horse that is the claim that the "no Boeing at the pentagon" theory is one big government-sponsored Psyops. The theory goes that government spooks are deliberately fuelling the "no Boeing" theories in an attempt to draw in as many researchers as possible - a honey trap for conspiracy theorists if you will - and then, when enough have been lured in, destroy their reputations by releasing a definitive video that shows clearly that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

While possible, in a remote sort of way, I seriously doubt that if the U.S. government has had access to a tape for four and a half years that could prove categorically that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that they would have put up with so much rabble rousing from the "fringe" rather than simply quashing their claims from the outset. The simple truth is that the U.S. government has NO recourse to any evidence that can disprove the claims of serious 9/11 researchers because no such evidence exists.

Serious 9/11 researchers claim that a section of the U.S. government and military helped to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, that the WTC towers were deliberately demolished, and that Flight 77 was very obviously not the plane that hit the Pentagon. The U.S government, and the agencies that are tasked with preserving its hold on power, have been actively running interference over the threat of exposure of the truth about 9/11 by the alternative media for the past four years.

The decades-old tactic of the CIA's Counter Intelligence Programs where their agents infiltrate "movements" in an attempt to sow discord from within is a major part of this "running interference". It is noticeable therefore that the only area of discord among 9/11 "truth seekers" is the Pentagon attack and whether or not Flight 77 was involved. Let me put it bluntly: The success of government Psyops on 9/11 is measured not by how many people can be made to believe the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" claim but rather by how many 9/11 researchers can be convinced that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" claim is a government Psyop and should be avoided.

The attack on the Pentagon is the real Achilles heel of the official 9/11 story.

Let me explain:

Even in the event that evidence for the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC towers were to be publicly revealed and accepted, the U.S government could plausibly claim that 'al-Qaeda' somehow managed to plant explosives in the buildings, that this evidence had somehow been overlooked due to "incompetence" in the 9/11 investigation. The incompetence angle could be used, as it has been already, as a plausible explanation for many other areas that would ordinarily point to government complicity. The Pentagon attack, however, is a very different matter. If it were ever to be publicly revealed that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, there is simply no way that the U.S government continue to claim that "al-Qaeda did it" or lie its way out of it, because they would have to explain what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers. It is for this reason that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theory has been thoroughly attacked and maligned by government shills and many alleged 9/11 investigators.

The Pentagon attack holds the key to the entire 9/11 mystery, it presents the best opportunity to blow the lid completely off the entire sordid deal and reveal the very, very disturbing reality of the nature of the U.S. government and that other Middle Eastern agency and the roles they both played in wantonly murdering almost 3,000 American citizens on September 11th 2001.

Pentagon video release

Well after five years we finally get to see the government's so called definitive evidence via pentagon video. Is it me or does our government think we are that stupid. Isn’t this the same video we saw five years with a couple of new frames at the beginning and at the end? I also noticed the date/time have been removed in this release. This is shameful considering all the other cameras that were facing the pentagon that day that have yet to see the light of day. This smells of damage control!

See it Here

Book is all wrong, critics say

Sunherald

Book is all wrong, critics say
Author didn't bother to get his facts straight


By JEFFREY WEISS
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS

Experts agree: Dan Brown got most of his facts wrong.

Religion scholars have been whacking "The Da Vinci Code" like a low-hanging piñata. The swings have come from establishment Christianity - the Vatican and the Archbishop of Canterbury - and from the fringes of the faith - a member of the liberal Jesus Seminar and the agnostic historian Bart Ehrman.

At least 44 books debunking "The Da Vinci Code" are for sale at Amazon.com, several written by serious academics or well-known pastors. And with the movie starring Tom Hanks scheduled to open next week, surely more are in the pipeline.

All of which leaves this question unanswered: Why bother?

Why do serious people take the book so seriously? "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction. A novel. It says so right on the cover. That means the writer made stuff up.

The critics have at least 46 million reasons to want to set the record straight. That's the number of copies Brown has sold worldwide. And the movie may play to an even larger audience.

But popularity alone can't explain the cascade of criticism, even if you figure many of the authors are trying to sell their own books by hitching their wagon to Brown. "Star Wars" was an international blockbuster, and physicists didn't fill bookshelves explaining there's no such thing as a light saber.

George Lucas never claimed there was anything real in "Star Wars," though. Brown has tried to have it both ways. Charles Gibson, host of ABC-TV's "Good Morning America," pressed the author on the point in 2003.

"If you were writing it as a nonfiction book," Gibson asked, "how would it have been different?"

"I don't think it would have," replied Brown, who almost never grants interviews.

"I began the research for 'The Da Vinci Code' as a skeptic...

. (A)fter numerous trips to Europe, about two years of research, I really became a believer... "

A believer in what? The book's plot revolves around a centuries-old conspiracy to hide the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their descendants. The conspirators included Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci, who cleverly hid clues to the secret in his paintings. (Hence the title.)

The very first sentence in the book implies this is more than a mere tale. "Fact: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization." This arcane society, according to Brown's telling, has been the keeper of the secret about Jesus and Magdalene.

But the "fact" is almost certainly wrong. Last month, "60 Minutes" piled up evidence that a Frenchman - an anti-Semite with a history of criminal fraud - "created" the Priory as a hoax in the 1950s.

The book reeks of truthiness and smartiness, the appearance of being truthful and smart without necessarily being either. The protagonist is a Harvard professor (in a department that doesn't exist). The fast-moving plot is propelled by a series of clever puzzles based on famous works of art.

But the debunking books list factual errors large and small:

The glass pyramid at the Louvre has 673 glass panes, not 666. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Jews and say nothing about Jesus. They were discovered in 1947, not the 1950s.

The irrational number Phi is not precisely equal to 1.618.

If the figure to the left of Jesus in "The Last Supper" is really Mary Magdalene, as the book claims, then Leonardo left out an apostle. If it's really John, as most art historians claim, Leonardo was neither the first nor the only artist to paint him as a beardless, long-haired young man.

Brown's best "proof" of a romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene comes from the Gospel of Philip, one of the Gnostic gospels. In "The Da Vinci Code," the quote reads: "The companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth."

But Ehrman, a text scholar, says the only manuscript we have of that gospel is full of holes. And that all we have of that passage is "The companion of the (gap) Mary Magdalene (gap) more than (gap) the disciples (gap) kiss her (gap) on her (gap)."

If Brown can't get inarguable facts right, the experts say, what faith can readers place in his conclusions about the nature of Christianity?

Some critics say they're intent on tearing down the credibility of the book because many people, mostly ignorant of what is known of the early years of Christianity, accept Brown's fictions as gospel truth.

"In our experience, readers are taking it as true," said Ehrman, a religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina and the author of "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code." "Historians care about what happened in the past, and it's important... to separate the fact from the fiction."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is so concerned about the book that it's created a Web site, jesusdecoded.com, with official Catholic responses to the issues Brown raises in the book.

"A bishop came to me and said, 'I never had to read a novel because my parishioners came up to me to say I should read it,'" said the Rev. Francis Maniscalco, communications director for the conference.

Brown is muddling people's thinking in ways that could shake faith and affect the reputation of real institutions, said the Rev. Timothy Friedrichsen, a New Testament professor at Catholic University.

"Brown's work only confuses the matter, and in this reader's opinion, intentionally," he said. But Friedrichsen joked that Brown need not fear worldly retribution from the Vatican.

"He can, however, look at the bright side: The dark chapter in the church's history of the Inquisition is long past."

There is some evidence that readers are buying the bunkum.

Last year, pollster George Barna reported that 53 percent of American adults who finished the book said it had been helpful in their "personal spiritual growth and understanding."

Whatever that means.

A Canadian survey commissioned last year by National Geographic showed that 32 percent who read "The Da Vinci Code" believed its theories.

And last week, in a Catholic Digest poll, 73 percent of American Catholics said the book "did not affect their faith or opinion of the church in any way." Which means that up to 27 percent - about 14 million Catholics - may be vulnerable to having their faith affected by Brown's tale.

The author shrugs off his critics.

"It's a book about big ideas, you can love them or you can hate them," he said in a speech in Portsmouth, N.H., last month. "But we're all talking about them, and that's really the point."

That discussion is good news, even from the critics' perspective.

"As a scholar I'm very grateful to Dan Brown. People like me are in demand right now in a way we have never been before," said Gail Streete, a religious studies professor and expert on Mary Magdalene at Rhodes College in Memphis. "Most of the time nobody pays any attention to what we do."

Brown has made Darrell Bock of Dallas a successful author on several continents. Bock, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, is the author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code."

The book has hit best-seller lists in Australia, Brazil and Germany, he said. He's become a sought-after speaker at church and college events.

"People are finally engaging these topics, and want to engage on the level of substance," he said.

Robert Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar, an academic group that has tried to sift the Gospels for "historical truth" by rejecting accounts of miracles and other supernatural elements. He's also the author of "The Da Vinci Fraud." He's not angry at Brown for casting doubt on the official histories of Christianity. He's mad, he said, because Brown did it so badly.

For Price, the success of "The Da Vinci Code" is evidence that people are willing to entertain doubts about theology.

"It must mean people are a lot more open-minded than I ever figured they would be about it," he said.

The Rev. Kendall Harmon, an Episcopal theologian in South Carolina, compares Brown to Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity. Celsus inspired early Christians into thoughtful responses, he said.

"A Christian who reads 'The Da Vinci Code' and can explain to his or her friends why 'The Da Vinci Code' is wrong is a more effective Christian," he said. "As Celsus strengthened the early church, so Dan Brown is strengthening us."

Quotes

Forty-six million readers can't be wrong, but the book they're reading might be. Excerpts from scholarly critics of Dan Brown's blockbuster:

"There were numerous mistakes, some of them howlers, which were not only obvious to an expert but also unnecessary to the plot...

. Why didn't he simply get his facts straight?"

Bart D. Ehrman, "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code"

"It repeatedly misunderstands or misrepresents people, places and events."

Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, "The Da Vinci Hoax"

"What is the likelihood that Jesus was married? The answer here is short - none."

Darrell L. Bock, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code"

"This is why 'The Da Vinci Code' is so dangerous. Many readers assume that all of the... detail involving Christianity is true when it is not. Rather, the few factual references are heavily interlaced with fiction or outright falsehood."

- Hank Hanegraaf and Paul L. Maier, "The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?"

"... a startling number of blatant, glaring errors on matters great and small... "

Amy Welborn, "De-Coding Da Vinci"

"One can see why the issues of 'The Da Vinci Code' have people talking, arguing, searching - however... rewoven or spun out of whole cloth the religious history may be."

Dan Burstein, editor, "Secrets of the Code"

Quotes

Forty-six million readers can't be wrong, but the book they're reading might be. Excerpts from scholarly critics of Dan Brown's blockbuster:

"There were numerous mistakes, some of them howlers, which were not only obvious to an expert but also unnecessary to the plot...

. Why didn't he simply get his facts straight?"

Bart D. Ehrman, "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code"

"It repeatedly misunderstands or misrepresents people, places and events."

Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, "The Da Vinci Hoax"

"What is the likelihood that Jesus was married? The answer here is short - none."

Darrell L. Bock, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code"

"This is why 'The Da Vinci Code' is so dangerous. Many readers assume that all of the... detail involving Christianity is true when it is not. Rather, the few factual references are heavily interlaced with fiction or outright falsehood."

- Hank Hanegraaf and Paul L. Maier, "The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?"

"... a startling number of blatant, glaring errors on matters great and small... "

Amy Welborn, "De-Coding Da Vinci"

"One can see why the issues of 'The Da Vinci Code' have people talking, arguing, searching - however... rewoven or spun out of whole cloth the religious history may be."

Ex-Bush Official Exposes 9/11 As Inside Job

Signs of the Times for Wed, 10 May 2006
Government Gone Mad

Ex-Bush Official Exposes 9/11 As Inside Job

Monday, May 8th, 2006 RINF

An enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd packed the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium Saturday to hear ex-Bush Administration insider Morgan Reynolds prosecute top administration and military officials for the 9/11 inside job.

Reynolds indicted Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Meyers, confessed WTC demolisher and insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, and others for mass murder, Conspiracy, and other charges including high treason. The enthusiastic response from the overflow crowd was a de facto vote for conviction on all counts.

The former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, showed that the defendants conspired to create a false cover story of suicide hijackings in order to "blow the World Trade Center to kingdom come" with explosives-a shock-and-awe psy-op designed to coerce the American people into supporting a pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East, massive increases in military spending, and the rollback of Constitutional civil liberties.

Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin's work on 9/11.

Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush's Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon "give it up" and come forward with what they know, saying "Remember, you heard it here first." He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: "We need a Constitutional crisis!"

Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. He said that exposing the 9/11 fraud is the best way to stop Cheney's plan to stage an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, and the military draft and Pinochet-style prison camps and death squads for dissenters that might accompany it. Reynolds urged the audience to help educate the American public about the 9/11 inside job.

Personal contact with family and friends, the internet, alternative Media, and public events like this are all good educational strategies, he said, adding that a demonstration of 100,000 9/11 truth supporters at

Ground Zero next year would be hard for the Media to ignore. Politicians and the Media will help expose the 9/11 inside job, he said, only after the growing grassroots movement reaches critical mass. The organizers of Reynolds' talk urged audience members to come to the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago, 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, June 2nd-4th, 2006: http://911revealingthetruth.org

Companion Stars and Cometary Showers: Doomsday?

From
Laura Knight Jadczyk
Postcards from the Edge of Reality...

It's been another busy week at QFG HQ. I haven't had much time to write, but today I'm going to make up for it. There are a couple of items in the news that I want to talk about, but first I want to give some background.


Yesterday, someone posted in our forum the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been noticing trend in the design of the signs website. There is no longer the HEAVY Cassiopaean presence. I have nothing against Cassiopaean but, when I previously tried too show anyone this site they are like " Cassiopaeam= cULT", OR THIS IS WAY TO OUT THERE FOR ME. Now it is more in line with the flash video of the site.

Best news gathered from all over

Top notch commentary and highlighting of key points

Monthly roundups of news

And the POD CASTS

A fair and objective view on the world news and how things are going and why. We do not need it to be heavy relating to Cassiopaean, you can relate the news to cassiopaean on the cassipean site/yahoo group. You would have a much better target audience for it there. WE should be trying to get a target audience here of the GENERAL public. The Cassiopaean aspect of site use to dissolves any of the credit the site had. I love it now i can cite the site to everyone, no one thinks it some whacked out crazy persons site anymore.

Now, I know some of you might be mad at me for saying this, but we should continue this trend on the site.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's certainly gratifying to know that this individual realizes that we do have the BEST news gathered from allover, that our commentary is "top notch," and that he really likes the PodCasts. (They are going to be even better in the coming months - we have some great guests lined up for later in the summer). I'm even somewhat in agreement with him about the de-emphasizing of the Cassiopaean Experiment. Yeah, I know that there are people that can't deal with "the strange and mysterious" on any terms, but there are other people who, while not particularly interested in strange phenomena, could have benefitted from our work in other areas, but were "warned off" by the COINTELPRO that was launched against us almost as soon as I began publishing the material.

As it happened, another forum poster responded to the above quoted comments as follows:
...it sounds like you're embarassed about the basis of the work presented here, and since you don't grok it, you want that aspect to 'go away' so you can link the site to your friends without having to 'not explain' the Cassiopaean aspect. I find that absolutely fascinating since without the Cassiopaeans, none of us would be here presenting or discussing these topics today.

That is kinda the crux of the matter. All of that great news gathering, commentary, podcasts and so on would not even exist if it were not for the underpinning of the Cassiopaean perspective on the world which can be boiled down as follows:

Click Here for the rest of the story...