Agents of the world's elite have been long engaged in a war on the populace of Earth. Greed is the motivation for this war, a greed so pervasive that it encompasses the planet and all of the beings on it, but in recent times a philosophy has been used to justify that greed. It is the philosophy of mass control, that ultimately aims at dictating every aspect of human life - even remolding man's perception of reality and himself. [Jim Keith, Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness]

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckolded husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.

In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen discusses the subject of denial which may shed some light on the subject.

Denial is a complex "unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality."

Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well as completely subconscious. An individual who is deliberately and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual level of lying, concealment and deception. Among the larger population of decent human beings, this is not our problem. It is certainly the problem with those at the top, who then exert a controlling influence on the masses of humanity, but when we talk about ordinary people, what we are dealing with is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and "institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation, whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, etc.

Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite of denial. "Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people are actively aroused by certain information. This information can be 1) factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective; it is obtained by impartial procedures; 2) personal and narrative truth including "witness testimonies." The timeline to which these remarks serve as an introduction, attempts to provide as many of these elements as possible.

I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments - including epistemological relativism - about the existence of objective truth, are generally a social construction and might be considered in the terms of the hypnotized man who has been programmed to think that there "is no truth" so why bother even looking for it?

Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our lives.

Cohen points out that "All counter-claims about the denied reality are themselves only manoeuvres in endless truth-games. And truth, as we know, is inseparable from power." Denial of truth is, effectively, giving away your power.

Now, let's take a brief look at science which is one of the mainstays of Official Culture.

As Ark has written, science seems to be controlled by money. Scientists, for the most part, HAVE to work on those things that get funding. There is nothing terribly unusual about that since that is a general rule for everyone. If you don't get money for your work, you starve and then you don't do any work at all. Yes, that's somewhat simplistic, but still relevant to the subject here.

The question is: what gets funded? Who decides? What is the context in which ALL science is being done? And then, of course, what is the context in which the "Bogdanov Affaire" has taken place?

Those who read this Timeline of secret and not-so-secret scientific projects - and those involved in them - may like to close their eyes to this evidence that science has most definitely been used in a very detrimental way in our world. After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.

So please, bear with me a moment here and let's apply a little logic to the problem.

The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy thinker." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?

In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.

Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don't hold your breath.

This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]

Consider this: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "national security state" to comply with the demands of the US.

Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

And maintaining the "status quo" in science HAS to be one of the main objectives of the Power Elite.

And how do they do that? By "Official Culture."

And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.

The fact is, I like to call it "Cosmic COINTELPRO" to suggest that it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."

Usually, when we think of COINTELPRO, we think of the most well known and typical activities which include sending anonymous or fictitious letters - which are sometimes later withdrawn with an "apology" after they have already accomplished the goal of destruction; publishing false defamatory or threatening information; forging signatures on fake documents; introducing disruptive and subversive members into organizations to destroy them from within, and so on. Blackmailing insiders in any group to force them to spread false rumors, or to foment factionalism is also common.

What a lot of people don't keep in mind is the fact that COINTELPRO also concentrated on creating bogus organizations and promoting bogus ideas.

In the scientific community, this can work in any numbers of ways, the most common being "proprietary organizations" that fund research that leads nowhere in order to keep someone with promising ideas busy. It is not stretching things to consider that "exciting new ideas" or areas of research might be promoted for the express purpose of vectoring scientists into following false and time-wasting research so as to prevent them making significant breakthroughs. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties. According to investigators, these FBI programs were noteworthy because all documents relating to them were stamped "do not file." This meant that they were never filed in the system, and for all intents and purposes, did not exist. This cover was blown after activists broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania in 1971. What we do not know is how far and wide the practice extends, though we can certainly guess.

There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.

So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In our opinion, the CIA is but one "arm" of the cult, just as Benedictines were but one order of the Catholic Church. To borrow from, and paraphrasing, Marchetti:

This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.

The late Jim Keith, one of the foremost writers and researchers on political conspiracy in the wold in recent times wrote in his book, Mass Control:

Agents of the world's elite have been long engaged in a war on the populace of Earth. Greed is the motivation for this war, a greed so pervasive that it encompasses the planet and all of the beings on it, but in recent times a philosophy has been used to justify that greed. It is the philosophy of mass control, that ultimately aims at dictating every aspect of human life - even remolding man's perception of reality and himself.

Although the lust for control can be discerned since the beginning of recorded history, a nexus of particular importance arose in Germany in the latter half of the 19th century. As the country increased in military and industrial might, becoming the strongest power in Europe, a revolution simultaneously took place in German philosophic and scientific thought that paradoxically would spread through the world to create positive technological change as well as to birth innumerable toxic children. According to one source:

The spread of materialistic philosophy of life was world-wide in this age, and the idolatry of power was not confinced to Germany, but its corrosive effect was particularly strong in a country that was not inured to power. [Germany, History Since 1850, Encyclopedia Americana, New York: Americana Corporation, 1963]

One aspect of this transformation, this "idolatry of power," was a negative transformation of the psychological sciences. In the late 19th century, earlier more humanistic approaches to understanding mankind were replaced by a scientific philosophy that would be employed less as a measure for the understanding of man than as a justification for a new feudalism and a mechanism of pure control.

The materilist overhauling of psychology was in great part ushered in by the work of the German psychologist Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt. Wundt was a professor of philosophy at the University of Leipzig, and in 1875 established the worlds first psychological laboratory there, a move that would eventually turn the world of more humanistic-oriented psychology on its head. Interesting, but Wundt's grandfather is documented as having been a member of the Illuminati secret society, making it not unreasonable to imagine that herr professor may also have been a member of that group.

Wundt, in reflection of a powerful materialistic groundswell in German thought that began with Schopenhauer at the beginning of the 19th century and that was to be later epitomized by Karl Marx, rejected in cavalier fashion the notion that man might have a soul or deeper significance than the merely physical, that he was in fact anything more than an animal. Following this line of reasoning, an approach that came to be known in psychology as Structuralism, Wundt insisted that all psychological studies should depend entirely on the study of body reactions. The truth of man, Wundt insisted, could be determined solely through mechanistic means: measurement, analysis, and dissection of bodies. After Wundt had thoroughly infused the psychological sciences with his materialist approach, many scientists - and the members of the ruling class that employed them - believed that they were justified in treating human beings as if they were pieces of meat, and as an overall plan of action, proceeded to do so.

The materialist psychological doctrine spread rapidly with at least twenty-four laboratories established by Wundt's students between the years 1883 and 1893, with more of the German's acolytes fanning out to infiltrate related fields, such as education. Wundt's materialistic approach would infect the thinking of most of the influential psycholgists, psychiatrists, educators, and social planners who would follow in the 20th century.

One man who marched to Wundt's dirge was the Russian, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Pavlov conducted a wide-ranging research into techniques of control, primarily using dogs for his experimentation. In the now-famous experiment, Pavlov fed his dogs, stimulating salivation, while at the same time ringing a bell. After doing this many times, Pavlov was able to stimulate salivation in reaction to the sound of the bell alone. Other of Pavlov's experiments involved rewarding dogs with pettying, or punishing them with pain. Using these kinds of approaches, Pavlov developed his theory of the conditioned reflex, demonstrating that animals are motivated by patterns of conditioned response, and that conditioning can be artificially induced. The results of Pavlov's experiments did not escape the social planners of his day, nor those who would follow. [Jim Keith, Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness]

Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo. It is obvious that they cannot completely control the propagation of the information assembled here in this timeline and on this website. So, how do they "keep secrets?" They don't. Everyint is right out there in the public domain. Anybody who wants to can do the research we have done and come to the realizations we have in this process. BUT, not everyone is able to withstand the OTHER weapon of Mass Control: Ridicule.

The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.

Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.

In "Zen And the Art of Debunkery," thinker and writer, Daniel Drasin describes the goals of true science, exposes the pseudo-scientific opposition to scientific advancement, then reveals some of the absurdities one must rely on to be a "natural" at COINTELPRO - whether one is receiving pay from the alphabet soup guys or not. A few of the items in his list are:

Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Maintain the idea that a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect." [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *any*thing.

In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

Practice debunkery-by-association. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the orthodox approach as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of the unorthodox approach as so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any unorthodox scientist as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus." [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!

Label any poorly-understood research "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries! [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis- replicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that "to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective. [John Baez: "Jadczyk has some unusual conspiracy theories which affect his interpretation of this case"]

If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."

Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge.

Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!" · Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.

Why is it so that scientists - most particularly physicists and mathematicians of a good and honest disposition - seem to be the ones who most actively resist the very idea that their profession MAY have been taken over and "vectored" by conspirators who do not have humanity's best interests at heart?

Why do scientists - those to whom the power elite MUST look for solutions to their "power problems" - think for one instant that their profession is exempt from conspiratorial manipulation and management?

That just isn't logical, is it?

In the physical sciences, very often machines and instruments are utilized to "take measurements." In order to achieve accuracy with even the most accurately tooled device, certain tests are undertaken to establish the "reading error" of the gadget. What we would like to suggest is that the "official culture" that establishes what may or may not be taken "seriously" is a planned and deliberate "reading error" built into the "machine" of science - our very thinking - the suggestions of the "hypnotist."

William March wrote in The Bad Seed:

[G]ood people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others doing the things they themselves are incapable of doing…

Without a historical context of science, there is little possibility that a sincere scientist - who is generally not much interested in history, based on my own experience - will ever be able to establish the "reading error" of his machine - his thinking.

There are only so many hours in the day, only so many days in the year, and only so many years in the life of a scientist. The amount of study that is necessary to discover the threads of "conspiracy," where they lead to and what they lead away from, is actually overwhelming. I know: I've spent about 30 years doing it. What's more, I began my research from a skeptical point of view that "conspiracy" was paranoid thinking and I was determined to find the way to demonstrate that there was NO conspiracy. Unfortunately, not only did my plan fail - my hypothesis was utterly demolished by the hard facts.

But what I did learn was that finding those "hard facts" was very difficult and time-consuming. And that is deliberate. After all, how good a conspiracy is it if it is so easily discovered? And it is clear that in such a high stakes arena as the Global Control agenda now being overtly pursued by the Bush Reich - after years and years of the "secret science" - whatever conspiracies exist, will be managed with all the resources and power of those elitists who wish to retain control. That is a formidable obstacle.

I would also like to mention the fact that, even though I am the one who has collected and sorted data, my husband, a mathematical physicist, HAS assisted me in analyzing it. At first he did it to humor me. And then, as he applied his knowledge of mathematics to the various problems I brought to him, he began to realize that science CAN be applied to these problems, and once that is done, it strips away the denial mechanism and one is left with the inescapable conclusion that nothing is as it seems and never has been. We live in an ocean of lies, disinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and smokescreens.

Too bad more competent scientists do not bring their skills to the solving of these problems. But that is precisely what the "Secret Cult" does NOT want to happen. And that is precisely WHY the most subtle and far-reaching of the "COINTELPRO" operations have been run on scientists themselves.

The possibility that COINTELPRO is in operation in regards to certain ideas that are being associated with the Bogdanov twins ought not to be taken lightly. Physics and mathematics are the numero uno professions that have been used - historically speaking - to support the power elite. It is logically evident that "they" have a vested interest in making sure that the money goes only to projects that 1) will augment their control; in which case such projects will be buried and no one will know about them; or 2) projects that do not threaten their control, in which case we may assume that they are funding research in the public domain that leads AWAY from the "important" issues.

In short, if it's popular, gets funded, is allowed out in the open, you can almost guarantee that it is smart but useless.

You can take that to the bank.

Here is where we come back to the context. If we take it as an operating hypothesis that there does exist a powerful elite whose interests are served by science, and who have a vested interest in public science never approaching the "secret science," we have adjusted our "machine tolerances" and can look at the problem in a different way.

First of all we might wish to ask: who benefits if one or the other proposition about the Bogdanov affaire proves to be the "right one?" If they have infiltrated the scientific community with a "fraud," what might be the result? If, on the other hand, they have brought up subjects that are truly interesting - even if they haven't got a clue about what to do with those subjects - what might be the result if they are ridiculed, flamed, and generally discredited?

"The main threat to Democracy comes not from the extreme left but from the extreme right, which is able to buy huge sections of the press and radio, and wages a constant campaign to smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian measure." - George Seldes

"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Senator

This timeline, prepared by a researcher of our Quantum Future School, [JH] with many linked sources, barely scratches the surface. It is our hope that readers will do additional research, and provide us with more links and connections to this spider web of Cosmic COINTELPRO that has blanketed the Earth with Lies, deception, confusion and tricks and traps - the magnets of Impending Global Destruction. See also: Star of Sorcerer's for additional connections.

We will continue to work on the project in hopes that by seeing the various threads together, more people will realize just how it all connects and how totally we have been duped, and how Evil the plans of the Controllers truly are.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

Use the links at the upper left of this page to navigate to each year in question. Any readers with material to contribute - and we want FACTS, not speculation - please send them to the address at the bottom of this page.

You are visitor number .