Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 30-06-2009

By Jameskeon

Skynet a little closer to reality.

  • Spooky computers closer to reality.
  • Why microbes are smarter than you thought.
  • Two wrongs make a double wrong.
  • Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist. The video in question.
  • Pope: scientific analysis done on St. Paul’s bones.
  • Eratosthenes and the radius of Earth.
  • Sphere UFO reported by three witnesses in two states.
  • How long ago? Part One. Part Two.
  • Researchers describe a new hominid.
  • Spacecraft finds uranium on the moon.
  • NASA reacquires original Moon landing footage.
  • World’s first ever self-watering plant discovered.
  • Carbon nanotubes continue to show promise in battle with cancer.
  • Climate war could kill nearly all of us, leaving survivors in the Stone Age.
  • Give up, you’ll never understand women.
  • How chaos drives the brain.

Quote of the Day:

Only some people get what they want. Those are the people who show up to get it.

Dianne Houston

Jameske
Related

40 Comments

  1. Bienvenido de vuelta.
    Welcome back, dude 🙂

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

  2. 7/7
    [quote]Frank Herbert’s series of Dune novels use Islamic concepts like “jihad” and other terms based on Arabic.

    A document on Muad Dib’s website reveals he believes he is the Messiah and that George Lucas wrote Star Wars after being told telepathically what to write, by the very “Force” to which the films refer.

    John Hill has now been arrested and is facing extradition to the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice for sending DVDs of 7/7 Ripple Effect to the judge and jury foreman in a trial linked to the attacks.[/quote]

    I’ve not seen the video this man made. I’m about to, and I may or may not agree with his conclusions; which will make me consider him a deranged lunatic —or not.

    But what I fail to understand is how, in the UK, sending a video is now considered a crime.

    Is there a stupidity test you need to pass to be admitted in Scotland Yard? By arresting this man they have granted him his most outlandish desire: they have made a martyr out of him, and now more people will be watching his video.

    Double Plus Fail!

    PS: And what’s up with BBC making Dune sound like a manual for would-be terrorists? Just because Frank Herbert employed words like “jihad” (which was originally intended to name the battle between men and machines) and “fedaykin”, but the main theme in the Dune novels is about transhumanism and the expansion of consciousness. Oh, right! it’s an evil book because it endorses drugs. My bad :-/

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. Britain is being turned into a prison island
      Strange idea maybe, but one way is to make all people living here criminals, one way or another, and many stupid yet simple actions are turning people into criminals, and given them a crimila record.

      Few prisons have been or are planned to be built, we are the most surveilled people in Europe, and serious criminals are being let out early to reoffend, and create so much havoc that normal law abiding people are afraid to go out of their doors.

      I am not surprised that someone has been criminalised for making a video.

      As it happens I got a book out of the library today, and whilst it is a fictional novel, it nevertheless mentions in one paragraph something that I think has relevance to what is happening in the UK today.

      I quote:

      “They’re using the new railways to flood Tibet with Chinese works. Tring to wipe out the local population by sheer weight of numbers. It’s a new form of genocidee. Genocide by overwhelming immigration.”

      Replace Tibet with the UK/Britain, replace Chinese with the EU and our British governmental personnel, replace railways with encouraging asylum seekers and EU economic migrants, and the slow destruction of everything that was great about the UK/Britain, and you will see that migration is becoming a form of genocide, one I have seen coming for so long, and you will appreciate why it is now so easy to become criminalised in this country.

      People just have to fill a waste bin too full in some part of the country to be given a fine, and if they refuse to pay to be taken to court and given a criminal record. Some police like to break what would be deemed petty laws, but when someone videos/takes photos of them doing it they turn on them and try to make them believe it is illegal to do so. Some people have said it is illegal to take photos of children at school plays, or other party events in public as they (the photo takers) could be paedophiles.

      Whilst some of the reasons given for banning/criminalising people may have some element of truth, these actions should be placed in a wider context, but invariably aren’t and the decisions are being made by people who have a very myopic view of life, even though they are in positions of importance, and they are invariably acting in a politically correct manner.

      Carol A Noble

  3. Addendum
    I must add that I love my country, and the people within it, I just don’t like what is being done to it.

    Also, the book is entitled “6 Sacred Stones” and is written by Mattew Reilly, an American.

    Carol A Noble

    1. Aussie Aussie Aussie
      [quote=Carol_Noble]Also, the book is entitled “6 Sacred
      Stones” and is written by Mattew Reilly, an American.[/quote]

      Actually, Matt Reilly is one of my compatriots. Born and bred in the land down under.

      And Granma Grail loves his books…

      Kind regards,
      Greg
      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things
      @DailyGrail

    1. Hmmm
      [quote][T]his is not about the UK wanting to silence those whose conspiracy theories actually are based on real evidence, actual events, actual facts and sensible ideas; it is about a man named John Hill who thinks he’s real smart and knows what’s really going on behind the scenes when he doesn’t and who uses half-truths and insensible fabrications to concoct a dangerous set of lies that form an even bigger lie! 7-7 was done by brainwashed youths, who cowardly and unjustifiably murdered dozens of innocent people of all types, and whose agenda is based on a totally false interpretation of Islam; a religion, like most others, whose real essence is peaceful![/quote]

      But do you think that he deserves to go to jail because of this? Because if that is so, why hasn’t anyone put David Icke behind bars? I mean, that guy is accusing the British royal family of being shape-shifting baby-eating reptilian aliens!

      PS: I originally wrote this comment on your own blog, Alienated; but I thought of copying it here as well so the rest of the TDG community can participate.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Yes…he may have to serve time, unless proven disordered.
        John Hill’s conspiracy theory is not like that of David Icke. David Icke is not likely to be taken credibly by anyone who would commit illegal acts of violence against innocent people, because of all his Reptile BS and other nonsensical garbage. Hill specifically alleges that UK government officials conspired to murder innocent people; which, to my way of thinking, is both absurd and very, very dangerous incitement! Icke’s style is different; he deliberately inserts ridiculous nonsense and what not! Icke is always clever in how he manipulates his words and language to avoid legal problems. Hill does not, and there is a huge difference between saying something that is truly ridiculous and something that masks as fact and even sounds credible to those who are not going to take the time to do their own homework, research and critical thinking!

        1. So let me get this straight:
          You’re telling me that a man should be held accountable for the actions committed by third parties indirectly influenced by his words?

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. No.
            Hill is alleged…and the existing evidence would seem to indicate so…to have sent his 7/7 C.T. production to an actual Judge and wittness involved in a case concerning 7/7 and as such he has, by legal standards, directly accused specific government officials of perpetrating serious crimes! If he is convicted and imprisoned it will not be because of simply expressing a personal opinion and conviction, but because of both the specific wording and the manner in which he has made his claims. It is one thing for Al Anybody to say “I think John Doe may have murdered someone, but I do not have any real proof” and an entirely different thing to say “John Doe is a murderer” and then include a video full of what Al Anybody claims are facts and evidence rather than questions and possibilities. He is also likely to be held guilty of inciting riot, etc….

          2. See? that’s what I don’t get
            I don’t get how a loony’s sending of his deranged video to a judge or a witness becomes such a dangerous act. Are the judge and the witness as children, that they can get deeply scarred or perturbed for life from viewing such toxic materials?

            And guilty of inciting riot? I’ve seen photos of gun shows held in America where people sell propaganda accusing Obama of being a Muslim terrorist and praising Adolf Hitler. Should the US follow the initiative marked by the UK, the American prison would be choked-full by now —maybe that’s the ONLY reason they haven’t followed their British friends’ example 😉

            Anyway, my argument still stands: if they didn’t want Hill’s materials to incite a riot, now that he has acquired social martyrdom, their fears are more likely to become true. When you turn to medieval methods (Inquisition), you obtain medieval responses.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. You seem not to understand…Well here goes my final effort…
            Hill is alleged…and the existing evidence would seem to indicate so…to have sent his 7/7 C.T. production to an actual Judge and wittness involved in a case concerning 7/7 and as such he has, by legal standards, directly accused specific government officials of perpetrating serious crimes! If he is convicted and imprisoned it will not be because of simply expressing a personal opinion and conviction, but because of both the specific wording and the manner in which he has made his claims. It is one thing for Al Anybody to say “I think John Doe may have murdered someone, but I do not have any real proof” and an entirely different thing to say “John Doe is a murderer” and then include a video full of what Al Anybody claims are facts and evidence rather than questions and possibilities. He is also likely to be held guilty of inciting riot, etc….
            Also, if Al Anybody were a nearby neighbor, friend, relative or other person who might really know about John Doe’s activities then his allegations might be credible. But Hill appears to be quite the contrary; and he has gone beyond mere hearsay in his specific wording and in having sent his POV to whom he sent it. If he is lucky he might get a serious slap on the wrist for wasting public time and money, but he would have to make a convincing effort to genuinely show remorse,to recant and to accept that he really was wrong in claiming factual knowledge and real evidence… Clearly there has to be a limit to Free Speech otherwise real free speech itself will become the victim of speech that can endanger public security and actual lives! There is a reason it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre, and why it should be illegal to use public spaces and public forums (as opposed to private spaces and forums) to incite hate and encourage violence against people who are otherwise likely to be innocent or against whom there has been no due process of law! Study law and you will learn plenty of useful things: you do not have to be a law student or become a lawyer to study the wide world of wise words!

          4. Careful
            [quote]Clearly there has to be a limit to Free Speech otherwise real free speech itself will become the victim of speech that can endanger public security and actual lives![/quote]

            Careful what you wish for, my friend. Because you might get it.

            And the problem is, who exactly do we appoint as regulator of free-speech, and how will this person base his calls?

            The Western world is attacking certain factions of the Muslim world of being medieval fools. But here they are acting just the same with their Inquisitional methods. Can’t we move forward to the XXIst century?

            You don’t want the Muslim youths who live in the UK to be come gullible fanatics susceptible to the propaganda of some lunatic? Then DON’T arrest the loony! The solutions is to APPROACH the youths and EDUCATE them. It’s a pain in the ass and it’s long-term, but there is no other way.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          5. My advice to Red Pill Junkie
            I suggest you read the fine works of Thomas Jefferson, especially his writings on Freedom of Expression (free speech) and the media.

            Imagine you’re a P.O. and someone in your district falsely claims, in a very convincing manner, that you murdered a gang member of theirs. It’s that simple!

            I consider myself an expert on Freedom of Expression and Free Speech…having practiced by it for over two decades…and I can tell you this: yelling fire in a movie theatre or defaming or falsely implicating someone or inciting riot cannot be accepted as Free Speech! You can create a painting of a man in a theatre yelling fire…you can write a play about people blaming a person of any specific religion of being the cause of all evil (in which case you should put a disclaimer at the beginning in which you state that you oppose all forms of violence against anyone on account of their ethnicity, race, religion, spiritual identity, philosophical stance…with exception to those who openly espouse unjustified violence based on such irrational hatred)…you can draw a cartoon that is meant to convey the idea that President Obama may be an elitist (which is not the same as doing one where you suggest he is not the legitimate elected President of America and depict him in a racist manner, as an illegal immigrant to be shipped back ‘home’)…you can go to Speaker’s Corner and stand on a small ladder and tell the world that Nazis and Fascists are out to kill us all (it’s an obvious fact…but you must not be specific as to which names and where they live…), but you cannot have the right to get away with saying or expressing anything that targets truly innocent people! Right now the UNHRC has a law which I consider going too far; it makes it illegal for anyone to speak against any religion!!! Now that is really wrong! It is one thing to speak against any or all religions, and another thing to suggest that those who follow those religions should be harmed or murdered! It is one thing to say “I think Judaism today is not what Moses had intended it to be” or “I think Christianity is false because the man known to Christians as their Christ, Jesus, was not The Messiah as expressed in the TANAKH and actually lived 1300 years earlier than the time of King Herod” or “I think most of Islam has many good points but some forms of so-called Islam tend to be violently intolerant of other religions” and it is entirely another thing to say “they are murderers…etc…blablabla…and they are the cause of all of the world’s problems”… Do you see my point??

          6. Direct and Indirect
            [quote][…]but you cannot have the right to get away with saying or expressing anything that targets truly innocent people![/quote]

            If you directly intent to target those people, then surely there are laws like Harassment and Libel that can be enabled.

            But things get blurrier and muddier when we deal with indirect pain, now don’t we? How can we lay on a man’s back the weight of the actions of third parties that have misinterpreted his words or taken them out of context?

            Is stupidity a crime now?

            Or, using more colloquial terms: how can you blame me for the sh*t made by my neighbor who says that was influenced by my words, when that was not my intention?

            I’ll give you an example: My friend Kat sent me this story that deals on how Goldman Sachs has screwed us over and over again since the 1920s. Now, suppose that reading this makes me so angry and deranged that I go and kill a few people that work at Goldman Sachs. Would you accuse the writer of this article of inciting a riot?

            To end my share of the debate for today (it’s 10 o’clock & I need to go home), I’m not trying to defend this Hall dude for any particular reason. If you show me that this man has directly and unequivocally expressed “the police are murderers and they need to be killed”, then surely he deserves to go to jail. If he’s accused someone of committing murder and he cannot provide evidence, then he should be sued. But if his accusations are the classic conspiranoid ramblings that keep appearing at the Internet, they should be dealt in the usual manner: exposed and forgotten.

            Because frankly, if you think the only answer to silence such ideas is to repress the people who express them, lest they corrupt the impressionable minds of the young and the fool, then you are simply expressing that 1)people are nothing but dumb sheep that only think 2+2=4 because the authority says so; and 2)the best kind of government are dictatorships that work in the dumb people’s best interest.

            And I refuse to accept that.

            PS: Furthermore, you wrote:

            [quote]Imagine you’re a P.O. and someone in your district falsely claims, in a very convincing manner [emphasis mine], that you murdered a gang member of theirs. It’s that simple![/quote]

            Ah! but you yourself has clearly stated that this man is stupid, his arguments completely outlandish, and that no intelligent person would give any credence to this fantastic ideas.

            Then… why are you so afraid of him?

            If the town’s idiot starts telling people that I turn into a werewolf at night and kill the neighborhood kittens well… shame on them for believing such nonsense! I would go about my business as usual.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          8. He
            Touché my friend 🙂

            Actually, my stand re. the Holocaust deniers still stands intact: I think it’s questionable that there are laws condemning people who deny the Holocaust, even though heir arguments may be pure bull crap —like that video you once linked.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          9. false accusations
            Falsely and knowingly accusing someone of a crime is illegal. It is a deliberate attempt to damage the accused. WHy would that not be a crime?

            If someone tries to hit you with a baseball bat and misses, that is still a crime. If someone shoots at you and misses, that still is attempted murder.

            If someone knowingly tries to ruin your reputation, it is called slander, defamation, livel or other things like that. This is a crime.

            Why should someone get away with it because they are loony?

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          10. What kind of crime?
            What kind of crime is it: a federal offense that involves jail time because you’re a danger to society, or a civil offense that is dealt in a court, with a penalty of a heavy fine imposed on the offender?

            But there’s another problem with your argument earthling:that you assume that this man knows that he’s making false accusations. What do you do when the person truly believes in the things he claims?

            I as once again: Are we going to start treating stupidity as a federal offense?
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          11. stupid crimes
            To some extent stupidity is a crime, yes. A lesser crime than purposeful attempts to damaga, sure.

            If you blow something up, or run someone over, through stupidity, you bet it is a federal offence.

            It depends on the damage done. Just insulting someone is usually not enough, but if the insult results in real damage, then yes it is enough.

            Think about driving under the influence – this is an offence, usually at the state level. In fact, attempting to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an offence, you don’t even have to be in a car.

            Freedom of speech is essential, I agree. But when speaking freely, people have to be aware of the consequences for others.

            Why would being stupid be an excuse? It is not the stupidity itself that is an offence, it is the resulting damage. As in all other cases, a person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. Not for their opinions, be they valid or ill-informed or downright stupid. But for the consequences of their actions.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          12. damage
            [quote=earthling]It depends on the damage done. Just insulting someone is usually not enough, but if the insult results in real damage, then yes it is enough. [/quote]

            in this example, what is real damage?

          13. court actions
            Attempting the persecution of innocents is damage, to the person(s) persecuted.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          14. so, attempted persecution
            so, attempted persecution means the person does not actually have to be persecuted?

          16. consequences
            If they cause damage, such as incitement to violence, or their speech causes significant damage to someone (or something), then yes they are responsible. Why would they not be responsible ?

            If they just sit at home and deny, who cares.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          18. depends on the content
            It depends on the content of the book.

            If the content just says that the author doesn’t believe the holocaust happened, and gives some reasons (or doesn’t), that’s not an offence.

            If on the other hand the book accuses someone of faking the holocaust, that can be libel or slander.

            If the book calls for action against someone, or even violence, that is worse than slander.

            This isn’t anything unusual, it doesn’t have anything to do with holocaust or not.

            If someone acts on incitement to violence, the person inciting is responsible as well.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          19. I pick the holocaust because
            I pick the holocaust because it is typically the most sensitive issue of modern times. I pick it because it is typical for people not to know anything about it, but to believe it anyway – kind of like God but God isnt what he used to be.

            If the holocaust is not true then there had to be people that lied or misprepresented or faked things, and it would be an offense to accuse someone of faking something or lying about something?

          20. happens often

            …but to believe it anyway…

            That’s a really really weak argument Jameske. In fact it is a red herring at best.

            Believing in what you don’t know happens all the time.

            Assuming that you (Jameske) are a human being (which I don’t know), the list of things you don’t know anything about, but believe anyway, is long. It would make War and Peace look like a short story.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          21. Really really weak argument?
            Really really weak argument? Actually, I thought it was a very very strong argument. Shows you how differently we think.

            You see, believing in what we know little or next to nothing about does happen all the time. But that is precisely my point. The lack of justification for belief is extremely widespread.

            But you actually didnt answer the question. If you believe my other point is weak is fine by me. But could you answer the question at the end of the previous post. I am curious as to your answer.

          22. those liars
            To be more precise, if the holocaust did not happen, then a lot of people lied under oath, in particular the witnesses for the prosecution.

            Of those convicted, many claimed that they were innocent because they only acted under orders. Those people would have lied under oath as well – they said these crimes did happen.

            So the folks who say the holocaust did not happen claim that all these people are guilty of perjury. That is a serious accusation.

            Of course by now those accused of such perjury are mostly deceased.

            Unless of course the deniers say that these trials did not happen either, it was just a bunch of amateur movies or something like that.

            The deniers also accuse the allied soldiers who saw the concentration camps or being liars.

            You are talking about a very large number of people, not just a few in authority.

            This is slander on a grand scale.

            And back to my claim about the people who know very little – most of what people believe, but have no understanding of, is actually correct or does actually exist, or did actually exist.

            For example, I suspect you have no idea how gravity works, but it does. You have no idea how a computer works, but it does. You have no idea weather your father was your grandfather’s child, but you probably assume he was. You don’t know if Abraham Lincoln was ever president of the US, but you assume he was. You have no idea if Martin Luther lived or preached anything, but you assume he did. Does the milk you drink come from a cow?

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          23. Responsibility
            Here we are talking about responsibility; but truly: shouldn’t we establish if a person is responsible for their actions, by determining if it’s in full possession of its mental faculties?

            To me, a person who doubts the UK’s position re. 7/7, and ALSO claims he’s the Messiah, is more worthy of medical attention than imprisonment.

            The more I think about it, the more I suspect that this Muad Dib is going to become the Gary McKinnon of conspiracy theorists.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          24. fair trial
            Typically, non-responsibility is determine during a trial.

            When someone is found innocent due to insanity, they don’t always walk, they are sometimes (if they are considered a danger) forced into treatment. Sometimes they are confined to a closed institution, if they are insane and can’t be cured.

            For some people that is the appropriate way to deal with them.

            Just that someone is innocent due to insanity doesn’t mean they walk.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go
            it is when you get there.

          25. Fair enough
            That’s fair enough. Even though, as any self-respecting Grailer, I’m always suspicious on the way the State determines who is sane and who’s insane; I know that’s kind of incongruent with my previous post, but what are you gonna do? 😉

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

  5. Re Matthew Reilly
    Yes Greg, he is from down under. Thd copy of the book I was reading was printed in the US. I havew since seen his bio and accept he is Australian. Apologies.

    ol A Noble

  6. 7/7
    I believed the moment I heard of the carnage that something was not right about the official 7/7 story. I still believe it.

    As for David Icke, I have to say that I find most of what he says matched my own views – not the reptilian bit.

    He has not come up with any different idea to mine with regards to conspiracy, ideas that I had already formed in my own mind before hearing his views. But, any of his other spiritual/alien views are not part of my own beliefs yet.

    He explaAins very clearly what is wrong with this global society. Far better than I ever could.

    As for the holocaust. I know that people died horrible deaths in the camps. My own maternal granfather included. However, there are points with regards to the official story that I do query, and I believe rightly so. I have mentioned them in other posts so I won’t go into them now.
    `
    As for the view that we should believe every person who is in a position of authority who gives informnation on oath, all I can say is that I don’t always believe someone just because they make an oath. The only people for whom this would ensure they spoke truly is someone for whom the oath meant somethingm. There are many people who take oaths but rarely keep them. To believe everyone who makes an oath is rather niave I think, although those who do fine making an oath of extreme importance to them may well find it hard to believe that not everyone thinks the oath as important.

    I have not seen this so-called video although I have read of it. I have also today read a newspaper article which accepted teh video may not be the most telling of all, and the person who made it may be misguided in his beliefs, but… the article went on to mention some points with relation to the story which do need clarifying, including a point raised by the families of the victims, especially relating to the times of the trains the bombers are supposed to have taken, and the fact that on this day the trains did not run according to timetable. The government position has changed on this point, but not to a plausible alternative. The article said that the families were asking for a public enquiry, and the reporter agreed it may be the only way that some sort of closure can be achieved.

    However, I do not believe a public enquiry will help here, as previous enquiries by this government have turned out to be whitewashes which no-one believes.

    Carol A Noble

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal