12.08.2009 Banned by the Catholic Church

If you go to this link and listen to it 3 times in a row…. you tell me why the church banned this ghost band?

http://margaretnoble.net/blog/banned-by-the-catholic-church/

Please leave your comments on the original page… and wait to see what happens….guess what the church was scared off???

lets see who posts the right answer before October 31 2010

USE THE FORCE LUKE

12.08.2009
Banned by the Catholic Church
Categories: Sound Oddities

800px-Shepard_Tones_spectrum_linear_scale

Sound Clip: Shepard Tone by Roger Shepard

This is a classic sound oddity and illusion. Or is it? There are some corrections to this post with much discussion, see below and follow the trail of comments to clarify the inaccuracies.

Originally posted:

“It is rumored to be called the “devil’s tone” by the Catholic church. The Shepard tone is a sound consisting of a superposition of sine waves separated by octaves. When played with the base pitch of the tone moving upwards or downwards, it is referred to as the
Shepard Scale. This creates an auditory illusion that continually ascends or descends in pitch, yet which ultimately seems to get no higher or lower.”

shepard_tone2

Corrections here and below in comments from Brent Williams:

“Hi Margaret.

“Baned by the Catholic Church“, about a Shepard-Risset Glissando. This post contained links to certain webpages, but when the post went up (even before it was moderated) the links were missing. Just in case you want to put them up for your readers, here they are:

The original source page for this sound file is here . It is in French.

You can find the Wiki source page here . This contains a little more info on the sound. This is where I confirmed that the sound is a minor chord of synchronised Shepard-Risset glissandi.

Read about Diana Deutsch here . She is currently a Professor at UCSD.

All the best, and please continue with your excellent website.

Brent Williams”
Categories: Sound Oddities -

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

$115M lawsuit launched against G20 police

Source: CNews

TORONTO – Two Torontonians are launching a $115-million class-action lawsuit against police on behalf of everyone detained during the G20 protests in July.

Miranda McQuade and Mike Barber, who were both arrested during the Summit, are suing on behalf of 1,150 people who were detained.

The statement of claim filed Thursday names the Toronto Police Services Board, the Attorney-General of Canada and the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board as co-defendants.

QMI Agency’s requests for comment from the co-defendants were not immediately returned.

“The wholesale violation of civil liberties which occurred during the G20 must be addressed by the courts to preserve our democracy,” said lawyer David Midanik in a statement. “These violations will escalate unless and until people are willing to stand up for their rights in a court of law.”

Read Full Article Here…

World Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation

Published on 09-02-2010

By Jurriaan Maessen – Infowars

It’s the eugenicist in the Discover Channel building multiplied by a million. Not simply a lone eco-terrorist saying “parasitic human infants” must die, but one of the largest international financial institutions demanding it. To make the contrast even more remarkable, James J. Lee scared the living daylights out of some Discovery Channel employees, the IMF & World Bank take hostage entire nations.

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

The report, literally saturated with dehumanizing proposals, is devoted entirely to the World Bank’s long-term strategies in regards to population control:

“(…) economic policy and performance in the next decade will matter for population growth in the developing countries for several decades beyond; population policy and change in the rest of this century will set the terms for the whole of development strategy in the next.”

To illustrate how serious the World Bank is in achieving the overall strategy objectives on population control, the report does not shy away from outright threats:

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:

“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”

“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”

To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):

“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

Under the header “Incentives and disincentives” (page 121), the World Bank proposes several more examples of government interference in the affairs of free humanity:

“To complement family planning services and social programs that help to reduce fertility, governments may want to consider financial and other incentives and disincentives as additional ways of encouraging parents to have fewer children. Incentives may be defined as payments given to an individual, couple, or group to delay or limit child-bearing or to use contraceptives. (…). Disincentives are the withholding of social benefits from those whose family size exceeds a desired norm.”

The report uses the example of China to make clear such measures can be highly successful if governments would only be willing to implement them:

“With the possible exception of China, efforts to raise the age at marriage by persuasion and edict have not been particularly successful.”

“In China the birth rate at the end of 1982 was estimated to be nineteen per 1,000 people, down from forty in the 1960s. The current figure, based on birth registrations rather than on a census, may slightly understate the actual birth rate; but it would still be well below current rates in South Asia, Africa, and most of Latin America.”

On page 124, the World Bank report further marvels at the Chinese government’s accomplishments:

“China has the most comprehensive set of incentives and disincentives, designed (most recently) to promote the one-child family. Since the early 1970s women undergoing various types of fertility-related operations have been entitled to paid leave: in urban areas fourteen days for induced abortion; ten days for tubal ligation; two to three days for insertion or removal of an IUD; and in the case of postnatal sterilization, seven extra days over the normal fifty-six of paid maternity leave.”

Bizarrely, the report even goes so far as to suggest introducing “sterilization vans” and “camps”:

“Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

Making clear that the overall World Bank population reduction strategy must be implemented in a country-specific manner, the report states:

“The specific policy agenda for each country depends on its political culture, on the nature of the problem it faces, and on what it has already accomplished.”

What does have to be global, according to the World Bank, is continuing urbanization: people nicely locked up in massive townships. The report explains:

“Living in small towns does less to reduce fertility than does living in larger cities. That many of these changes take time to have an effect only underlines the need to begin them now. At the same time, other measures that complement and speed socioeconomic change can hasten a decline in fertility.”

This report is completely in step with the strategies outlined by the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF as they move to depopulate the earth in a consorted global effort. The pretexts for fertility reduction given throughout the report are “sustainable development” and “poverty reduction”. The truth is, so states the World Bank itself, to introduce and further develop “policy measures to increase people’s welfare as well as (and as a means) to reduce fertility.”

International Center for 9/11 Studies Secures Release of Thousands of Photos and Videos from NIST

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

THE END OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA Man Arrested For Holding “Impeach Obama” Sign

Note: It is an absolute disgrace what the police and private security forces have become in the United States. Their brutality is escalating, and no one is immune as this video shows. A veteran exercising his free speech has no rights in America. For anyone who believes that this is acceptable because he is hurling an insult at the president, I would remind you that the president is not the government; the people are the government. If this type of free speech is restricted today — and you agree with it — your free speech will be eliminated tomorrow. — Michael Edwards
YouTube – brianstanfill

ADN coverage: http://bit.ly/bwE3u9
Frontiersman coverage: http://bit.ly/9V4gyn
Newsminer coverage: http://bit.ly/bEEq2K
Alaska State Fair official statement: http://bit.ly/cY5U2u

RELATED ARTICLE:
The Ultimate Betrayal:  Police and Military Working Together to Oppress Americans

Airport body scanners ‘could give you cancer’, warns expert

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:25 AM on 30th June 2010

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.

The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.

But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.

They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body – that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research, said although the danger posed to the individual passenger is ‘very low’, he is urging researchers to carry out more  tests on the device to look at the way it affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation.

He says children and passengers with gene mutations – around one in 20 of the population – are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA.

Dr Brenner, who is originally from Liverpool but now works at the New York university, said: ‘The individual risks associated with X-ray backscatter scanners are probably extremely small.

‘If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with  X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of  screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The  population risk has the potential to be significant.’

Following trials, the airport scanners were officially introduced at Manchester Airport in January, at Heathrow Terminal 4 in February and at Gatwick in May this year.

The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, according to the academic.

The cancer is usually curable and often occurs in the head and neck of  people aged between 50 and 70. He points out it would be difficult to hide a weapon on the head or neck so proposes missing out that part of the body from the scanning process.

‘If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children,  they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent  not to scan the head and neck,’ he added.

He recently aired his concerns to  the Congressional Biomedical Caucus in the US – members of Congress who meet to  exchange ideas on medical research.

Dr Brenner urged them to look at his  concerns but said it was important to balance any health issues against  passengers’ safety when flying.

He said: ‘There really is no other technology around where we’re planning  to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in  the radiation world.’

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Jason Bermas sets the bar for independent documentary films with Invisible Empire

Jason Bermas’ highly anticipated documentary Invisible Empire exposes the New World Order in their own words, by painstakingly showing how the elite have not only conspired to create a dictatorial global government in private, but have publicly stated their agenda hundreds of times in public.

By highlighting the words of people like Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Mullen, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and many many others, Invisible Empire dispenses with the conjecture and sticks to the cold hard facts. This movie is guaranteed to wake up even the most ardent skeptic to the manifestly provable acceleration towards an authoritarian planetary regime that intends to control and regulate every aspect of our existence.

Invisible Empire is all conspiracy and no theory – proving beyond doubt how the elite have openly conspired to insidiously rule the globe via the engines of the CFR, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group.

The film traces the lineage of the evolution of global governance from Samuel Zane Batten’s 1919 manifesto New World Order, through to Hitler’s vision of a 1000 year Reich, to the modern incarnation of the conspiracy which has its roots in the evil deeds of people like George H. W. Bush, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

Invisible Empire catalogues the primary criminal enterprises through which the agenda is financed, operated and advanced – government controlled drug-running, false flag terror, banking scams, and state sponsored assassination.

The most contemporary branch of the agenda to enforce neo-feudalism and top-down communitarianism, in total hostility to the notion of true freedom and individuality – the phony environmentalist movement – which is driven by the global warming fraud, is also blown wide open.

Invisible Empire also delves into the deepest and darkest offshoots of the wicked plan for global enslavement, including the move towards a microchipped population, prostitution rings run by and for the elite, as well as the bizarre occult practices power brokers embrace as part of their religion of power and domination.

Invisible Empire will be more than just a film– it is the culmination of years of research by Jason Bermas into the inner-workings and most revealing public statements by the New World Order and the most trusted stewards of their dark vision. Invisible Empire promises to unveil the long-term agenda for world control, just as Fabled Enemies and Loose Change Final Cut forever stripped away the facade of the official story of 9/11 and exposed the dark truth that lies behind.

He released the film for free on youtube…. but PLEASE SUPPORT THE FILMAKER AND BUY THE DVD

School Lockdown and 14 year old Charged with Terroristic Threats Over Facebook Post

UPDATE:  The 14 year old is one of only three black students at Johnson Central.  He was harassed and called racial slurs for 2 days then falsely accused of posting a threat on facebook about saying he would “shoot up the school” by one of the students who called him “nig**r” repeatedly.  The problem is the accused does NOT have a facebook account.  None of the students who called  him racial slurs were suspended.  The 14 year old accused has been held for over 8 days in jail with no bond and absolutely NO CONTACT with his mother or ANYONE for that matter.

PAINTSVILLE – Johnson Central High School and Johnson County Middle School were placed on lockdown Thursday morning, after a student allegedly made threats that led to his arrest by the Paintsville City Police.

The student, a 14-year-old freshman, was arrested at home and charged with terroristic threatening and disorderly conduct.

“We had a kid that threatened some students yesterday and we suspended that student,” said Johnson County Supt. Steve Trimble. “We followed up with a police report. There were a lot of things on the internet and Facebook, according to some information we received, and it was said that some threats were made that he might come back to school today.

“As a precautionary measure, we put our kids from the high school and middle school in the gym and put the schools on lockdown just to be safe. He never did come on our campus. We actually talked to him at his home to make sure he was there. When he was taken into custody, we sent our kids back to class. There’s no guarantee that he sent any texts or emails, but we are going to take even rumors of a threat seriously.”

According to Paintsville City Police Capt. Jason Arms, the student did not have any weapons when he was arrested.

“At no time did he have any weapons,” Arms said. “He was arrested for a threat that he was going to be bringing weapons to school.”

When the schools were put on lockdown, an emergency communication system sent messages and phone calls to parents to inform them of what was going on.

“The safety of our students and staff is our top priority,” said Trimble. “Everything else comes second.”

US creates terror groups, ex ISI-intelligence chief says

Source: Press TV

Former head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency Hamid Gol says the United States is seeking to create and train terrorist groups in the region.

In a Wednesday interview with Fars news agency, Gol said Washington had been making efforts to destabilize the region through supporting groups like the Pakistan-based Jundallah terrorist group.

Gol went on to say that such attempts by the US intelligence agencies were in particular directed at fomenting unrest in Iran.

“The US intelligence agencies pursued just one goal by forming Rigi’s group which was provoking unrests and instability in Iran,” Gol was quoted as saying.

He also accused Washington and its western allies of seeking to strain ties between Iran and Pakistan.

The remarks come days after Iranian security forces arrested Jundallah ringleader Abdolmalek Rigi while he was aboard a Kyrgyz airliner on a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan.

In his confession broadcast by Press TV in late February after his arrest, Rigi talked about offers of unlimited support by the US spy agency, the CIA, saying the Americans offered to “cooperate with us” and “promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan near Iran.”

Rigi’s group has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks in Iran. The group has carried out murder, armed robbery, kidnappings, acts of sabotage and bombings inside Iran.

Why the White House Won’t Release a Key Cyber Paper

Mar 4 2010, 5:58 PM ET

Even as the new government-wide cyber coordinator, Howard Schmidt, pledged to promote transparency as the government moves to protect cyberspace, the administration won’t release a legal memorandum that many, including the one-time head of its cyber security review, hoped would be made public.

The memo was drafted as an appendix to the White House Cyberspace Policy Review led by Melissa Hathaway, at the time the acting senior director for cyber issues at the National Security Council.  Hathaway has since left the government.  She has told colleagues that the White House overruled her decision to release the legal annex. Administration officials dispute the idea that it was her decision to make in the first place.

Speaking at last year’s RSA conference, Hathaway praised the review process for its “unprecedented transparency.”  A footnote in the appendix of the main report notes that the legal analysis was not intended to be of the type that would or could influence policy. And the report itself calls for a new interagency legal review team — the team that would produce products for internal, executive-branch only deliberation.

Hathaway, in discussing the review the next week, expressed enthusiasm about the legal review to an audience of intelligence professionals and journalists at a conference in Virginia.   Bob Gourley, a former senior intelligence official, blogged after the event that Hathaway  bragged about the comprehensiveness of the legal review. Gourley noted that the legal annex “captures some of some of the opinion of federal legal experts from across the government.”

Wednesday, Schmidt announced the declassification of part of the Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative, which has been shrouded in secrecy, even to members of Congress. Even though most of the information has been in the public domain, the declassification marked a step that the previous administration was unwilling to take.

A senior administration official said the legal report would not be released because its contents are classified. The official cited “national security” as the reason why the legal annex has not been released, said that the White House should have been given more credit for declassifying some information about the CNCI, and said that President Obama is committed to as much “transparency as possible.”  Congress has also asked the White House for a copy of the annex and as of a month ago had not received it.  Schmidt told an audience earlier this week that administration lawyers are working on about 40 discrete issues.

But two people who have seen the report say that although it covers sensitive matters like the legal authority the United States has to conduct offensive cyber warfare, a minimally redacted version could be released without compromising any intelligence program or strategy. The document poses many questions, these people said, and does not presuppose that the U.S. government has come to any conclusions. For example, a portion of the document about the laws of war is a straightforward, academic discussion about how they might or might not apply to cyber attacks.
According to these people, the report also includes a rigorous discussion about whether offensive cyber capabilities are best described as a traditional military activity (and therefore be subject to Title 10 of the US code) or an intelligence activity, which would impose a different set of legal requirements upon whatever action was being considered.  The analysis also ponders whether the U.S. might establish a “first use” doctrine of cyber offense.

The legal annex includes some discussion about the National Security Agency’s data collection and retention policies, most of which has already been declassified in other forums by the previous administration.  Among the more sensitive political issues that harass elected officials is the degree to which the NSA might have to monitor the dot.com domain in order to fully protect the country from major cyber attacks. To date, government officials have been reluctant to even acknowledge that the possibility would ever be discussed, which would require Congress to change current law.

From the administration’s perspective, because the questions raised in the analysis were brought forward by lawyers working for intelligence agencies, releasing the information would provide enemies with an insight into what capabilities the government might have or might want to develop.

“As vitally important as openness is, every organization also needs to have confidentiality around legal deliberations so that the client can get sound, unvarnished advice from counsel. That concern is particularly acute in matters of national security,” the official said in an e-mailed statement. “These deliberations concerned important legal issues facing the cyber review team, and should remain privileged.”

The official would not say whether the administration planned to discuss the complex legal issues in public at any point. Aside from offensive cyber warfare, these issues include the legal implications of the government working with the private sector, restrictions imposed by the 4th amendment, whether existing statues like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act need to be expanded.

In 2006, the Justice Department produced an unclassified white paper on the National Security Agency’s surveillance program that was well received, even as it protected sensitive programs and even as many legal experts profoundly disagreed with the analysis.  In 2009, it released an unclassified legal memorandum on a sensitive government program known as Einstein II, which was set up to protect servers on the dot.gov domain.

In February, at a symposium at the University of Texas at Austin’s law school, a CIA consultant gave an unclassified speech, which included CIA-approved Power Point slides, about the difficulties inherent in crafting a comprehensive legal approach. The consultant, Sean Kanuck, included several slides about the current questions the U.S. government is wrestling with, including what type of cyber attack constitutes an act of war, and whether offensive cyber security actions require the government to take into account the potential for human suffering on the other side.  (Kanuck said at the time that his presentation was not endorsed by the CIA and that his discussion did not necessarily reflect any specific internal deliberations.)

As with the NSA program, the cyber law terrain triggers extreme sensitivities, with journalists and commentators worrying about whether the government is planning in secret to take control of the Internet. They aren’t — but in refusing to open parts of the issue to public discussion, they are feeding the uneducated and impoverished public discourse on the subject.

“Why can’t we have a debate about nuclear weapons that it’s in the open and not have that debate about cyber?” said James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has consulted with the administration in the past about cyber security issues. “The answer they give is that we would give our adversaries notice of our red lines. Well, that assumes the enemies don’t know our  red lines already.”

Next Page »