(You Tube) The best info-weapon on the internet. This short documentary film widely exposes the New World Order’s global control system.
Using their own worlds: “New World Order”, “World Constitution”, and “Global Governance”, author David Quintieri clearly uncovers their plan. One which will change the course of history forever.
Will the people live as slaves in the near future? Are we doomed?
This short film also discusses the simple but highly effective methods to push back against tyranny without violence or protest.
Please share this video with everyone you can.
(PIB) Of his films as a whole, John Stauber, the founder of the Center for Media and Democracy, stated:
“Metanoia is brilliantly pioneering the new film-making — incisive analysis, compelling sound and footage, fearless and independent reporting, and the aggregation of the best information out there into powerful, educational and free online feature films – all on a shoestring budget. Noble’s films are dedicated to democracy; they fan the flames of non-violent, people-powered revolution”.
The title of the new film is “Counter-Intelligence” (‘Shining a light on black operations’). It is made up of 5 parts, viewable here (all Vimeo links, all free online):
1. The Company
5. Drone Nation
The film includes original interviews with:
Christopher Simpson (Author, “The Science of Coercion”), Ray McGovern (Former CIA officer); John Judge (Coalition Political Assassinations); Russ Baker (Investigative Journalist), Nafeez Ahmed (Author, “The War on Freedom”), Bill Christison (former CIA Officer), Robert Steele (Former CIA Officer), John Perkins (Author, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”); Peter Dale Scott (Author, “The Road to 911″); William I. Robinson (“Critical globalization studies”), Marcia Esparza (Historical Memory Project); James Petras (Professor Emeritus, Binghamton University); Michael Parenti (Historian); Graeme MacQueen (Center for Peace Studies); William Blum (Author, “Killing Hope”); Peter Phillips (Project Censored): John Stauber (Center for Media and Democracy); Joel Kovel (“Author, Overcoming Zionism”); Diana Ralph (Independent Jewish Voices); Larry Pinkney (Black Commentator).
Topics include: the structure of the modern intelligence agency; the evolution of the CIA; plausible deniability; compartmentalization and “need-to-know”; dirty tricks; election tampering; assassination; NGO’s and front companies; mercenary groups; the modern military-intelligence bureaucracy, including JSOC and NSA; The Panopticon; alliances with organized crime; the “war on drugs”; false flag operations; psywar; proxy war; death squads, torture and demonstrative violence; civilian casualties in modern war; the “grand chessboard”; Islamophobia; the Israeli factor; the degradation of the rule of law; the politics of “conspiracy theory”; the war on whistleblowers; and the rise of drone warfare.
Also by Scott Noble:
I have just completed a new documentary which includes footage from our interview. Title is “The Power Principle” (Corporate empire and the rise of the national security state). It’s essentially the story of the American empire. You only appear once, in Part III, however your segment deals with the crucial issue of military provocation against the Soviet Union. I will be using other segments from our interview in my next film, “Counter-Intelligence”.The film is divided up into 3 parts –
An Introduction to the Empire; Iran – Oil and Geopolitics; Guatemala – the “merger of state and corporate power”; The Congo – Neocolonialism; Grenada – “The Mafia Doctrine”; Vietnam and East Timor — The Domino theory; Chile – “libertarianism with a small l”; Globalization: Consequences.1945: Grand Area Strategy; Fascism: a “rational system of the plutocracy”; Case Studies: the Greek Communists; The Italian Communists; the Spanish Anarchists; Fascism’s Western backers; Trading with the Enemy; Fascism as “preservation of civilization”; the Cold War and “A Century of Fear”.
The Soviet Menace?; Case Studies: El Salvador, Nicaragua; Propaganda: Self-Deception and blowback; The “International Communist Conspiracy”; Declassified Documents; NSC 68; The Pentagon as Keynsian Mechanism; The Military Industrial Complex; The War against the Third World; Shifting rationales; What is imperialism?; the evolution of the American empire; Case Study: Haiti; “War is a racket”.Fear-based conditioning – The War of the Worlds, The Triumph of the Will; World view Warfare; The Russians are coming; Television: The “perfect propaganda medium”; Soviet vs. American propaganda; Hollywood and the Pentagon; Psywarriors and the media; Operation Mockingbird; The Pentagon Pundits; Project Revere; The Bomber Gap; “scare the hell out of them”.
Mutually Assured Destruction; MAD men – Curtis Lemay and the super hawks; MAD men – Hermann Kahn and the Rand Corporation; Over flights as provocation; Cuba: the “danger of a good example”; terrorism against Cuba; “Unconventional warfare”; the Cuban Missile Crisis and the “man who saved the world”.Why did the Soviet Union collapse?; Gorbachev: a “more violent, less stable world”; the Pentagon’s New Map; Did Ronald Reagan end the Cold War?; The Brink of Apocalypse: Able Archer; The betrayal of Russia; The expansion of NATO; Yugoslavia and Libya; the Yeltsin coup; Living standards in the former Soviet Union; A third way?
Postscript: The Power Principle.
The film includes original interviews with — Nafeez Ahmed (Author, “The War on Freedom”); John Perkins (Author, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”); James Petras (Professor Emeritus, Binghamton University); John Stauber (Center for Media and Democracy) Marcia Esparza (Historical Memory Project); Peter Linebaugh (Author, “The Many-Headed Hydra”); Noam Chomsky; Graeme MacQueen (Center for Peace Studies); Michael Parenti; William Blum; Christopher Simpson (Author, “The Science of Coercion”); Howard Zinn; Robert Steele (former CIA, Earth Intelligence Network); Nancy Snow (Author, Propaganda Inc.); William I. Robinson (Editor, Critical Globalization Studies); Morris Berman (Author, “Dark Ages America”); Peter Phillips (“Project Censored”); Michael Albert (Znet, Author, Parecon).Total length is 4 hours, each film being an average of 120 min. So it’s about twice the length of the average documentary. 4 hr, 5 hr, even 10 or 20 hr documentaries are not unusual on television. For example, the CNN documentary on the Cold War runs 20 hours.
I emailed it to Michael Parenti first. He said of the film that is a “Powerful, deeply informative account of the plunder, hypocrisy, and mass violence of the American empire; gripping, insightful, and highly relevant to the events of today.” Once I have a few more quotes I will submit the film to alternative news websites. I have found this method successful in the past. Despite their low budgets, my films have received about half-a-million views online, and three of them were selected for Films For Action’s top 100 political documentaries (Lifting the Veil came in at number 5). I’m a blue collar Joe working on a shoe-string budget, so don’t expect perfect audio-video quality. The lack of funding does have its advantages, however, in that I don’t have to pull any punches.
(Rebel of Oz) Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offense: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London-based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.
Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive the emails I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site.
Grudgingly, I deleted the video as demanded to get the site back online as soon as possible. However, I sent a letter back to the lawyers, with a 10 days deadline to provide written evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm was acting on behalf of the copyright owner, Allied Star. I also sent an email to Mohamed Al-Fayed, asking for permission to publish the film. The reply of his office was swift. It confirmed that they had requested the London law firm to make me take down the video. The only reason they gave was that the film had been taken off the market.
It becomes clear, when watching the documentary, that Dodi’s father deeply loved his son and was shattered by his death. Why would he spend millions to produce and promote a documentary on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and shortly later take it off the market without giving much reason? The only explanation that makes sense is that he has been put under enormous pressure to do so. Not only has he been bullied to take his film off the market, but the blackmailers made it his problem to prevent others from republishing it.
Personally, I don’t respond well to bullying. I hate bullies and fight them with all available means. Thankfully I’m not alone. In this case of cyber-bullying, resistance is not only civil duty, but easy. Be warned though! It would be illegal to locate a copy of the “Unlawful Killing” documentary via any BitTorrent site and distribute it to as many people as possible. It would be illegal to burn CDs and pass them to all your friends. It would be illegal to upload the video to video hosting sites under its own or slightly altered name. And it would be illegal to create a torrent of your own on BitTorrent sites and share it for other people to download. But it is not illegal, to publish this article, share, email and republish it on your blog, and that’s exactly what I’m asking all of my readers to do. Make it go viral.
The documentary the Windsors don’t want you to watch
So let’s go back to the “Unlawful Killing” documentary and see what all the fuss is about. The film starts by showing a letter from Diana, hand-written to her butler, predicting her own violent death. It says, “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car. Brake failure & serious head injury.” Less than two years later her prediction came true.
The documentary next shows numerous people saying that her death was murder. Mohamed Al-Fayed, Dodi’s father, goes even further. He goes on record in the documentary saying that it was a slaughter by the ‘bloody racist’ royal family. He thinks the royal family got his son killed because they were too racist to accept a foreign, Muslim step-father or a Muslim half-brother or half-sister for the future king.
The film maker himself, Keith Allen, points out how “chillingly convenient” it was for the Windsors that the crash happened when it did. Mohamed Al-Fayed describes how Diana, in the two weeks she stayed for a holiday with her sons at his house, was worried that exactly that kind of accident would happened to her as it did shortly after. It would appear that she got warned.
The documentary mainly focuses on the massive inquest at the Royal Court of Justice, dismissed by several speakers in the film as a cover up. They criticise that Charles, in spite of being implicated by Diana’s letter as trying to kill her exactly the way she died, wasn’t required to appear as a witness. It talks about how the Royal Court of Justice first sought to conduct the inquest without a jury, an attempt that got only overturned because of public pressure. It questions the impartiality of an inquest conducted at the Royal Court of Justice lead by a “coroner” who has sworn his allegiance to the Queen, in a case where members of the royal family are the prime suspects. Not very surprising then for the film maker that the coroner appeared at times to have already made up his mind about the outcome of the inquest, before it had even started.
The whole point of the inquest was to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding the car crash. Was it a pure coincidence that Diana had told many people that she had been warned by a confidential source in the palace, that Prince Philip had plans to deliberately kill her in a car crash, exactly the way she died? Why didn’t the CCTV cameras along the route of the crash car apparently record anything, a ‘coincidence’ the crash shares with the 7/7 London Tube attacks? Were the driver’s blood samples tampered with to make him appear wildly drunk while seeming to be sober? Why were Diana’s phone calls being bugged by the American NSA? Why were Diana’s seat belts jammed on the night of the accident, preventing her from – as she normally would – wearing a seat belt, which probably would have saved her life? Why didn’t the police identify the owners or driver of any of the five other vehicles involved in the crash? And why did it take ambulances 2 hours to transport Diana to the nearest hospital?
According to the film, the suspicious circumstances didn’t end there. Even before the end of the medical examination of his body, the French press already published headlines according to which the driver was “as drunk as a pig”. That’s in spite of the fact that according to his hotel bill he had only had 2 Ricards, less than a quarter the amount of what French authorities claimed that he had drunk. Road sweepers were allowed by the Police to clean the site of the car crash, within hours of the accident. The film points out the similarity to the case of the Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto, where the site of his murder was hosed down by police almost immediately after the attack, obviously because it is easier to claim it was just an accident if the evidence is washed away.
At the end of the inquest, the jury had heard so much suspicious information that the coroner heading the inquest could not take any risk. In his three day instructions to the jury, he told the jury to ignore the eye-witness statements and forbid the jury to even consider the possibility of murder. The jury, however, ignored the coroners instructions and spent a whole week to carefully examine the evidence for themselves.
The film also examines the negative attitude of the media towards the inquest, obviously considering it to be a waste of time. It was quite common for the journalists observing the inquest to fall asleep or manicure their fingernails instead of paying attention to the witnesses. They were only interested in information confirming the “established consensus”, established before the start of the inquest, that drunk driving and harassment by paparazzi had caused the crash, and ignored all the witness statements contradicting it. Any different view was regarded as “odd” and “conspiracy theory”. Part of the problem, according to the film, was the fact that it was the royal correspondents, not legal journalists who were covering the inquest, in spite of the fact that Diana no longer had royal status at the time of her death. You cannot expect impartiality of journalists like the BBC’s royal correspondent, whose job it is solely to “suck up to the royal family” and portray it in the most favourable light possible. But even if they had wanted to, they wouldn’t have understood the detailed evidence or how the establishment was manipulating behind the scenes which and how much evidence they were allowed to see. That’s why they didn’t question, for example, why the Royal Court censored into incomprehensibility letters of Prince Philip written to Diana. The Royal Court went even as far as forbidding close friends of Diana to tell the inquest about deeply hostile letters of Princess Philip written to Diana not long before her death.
The accident itself
The movie then describes the accident itself based on the reports of several witness statements in the inquest. Diana’s powerful Mercedes Benz quickly left the following paparazzi behind. When they entered the tunnel, they were surrounded by 4 motorcycles and a white Fiat Uno. Suddenly a very bright flashlight blinded Diana’s driver, making him lose control and crash head first into a concrete pillar. None of the other vehicles got ever identified. It’s been verified by the French police that none of the vehicles was driven by any of the paparazzi on duty that night. They have all been accounted for. That didn’t stop the British media though from misrepresenting the inquest’s verdict – in a massive world-wide misinformation campaign lead by the BBC – as saying that it was the following paparazzi who caused the crash. What the inquest actually established was that the vehicles surrounding Diana’s car in the tunnel caused the accident.
The most bizarre circumstance of the accident was probably the behaviour of the ambulance. Several ambulances arrived soon at the scene of the accident. Given the time of the day, after midnight, the streets were virtually empty. And yet, it took the ambulance carrying Diana 81 minutes to drive her to the near-by hospital, without making radio contact with the headquarter. That’s on top of the 37 minutes it took the oddly behaving doctor in sole charge of treating Diana, Jean-Marc Martino, to move the still conscious from the undamaged back of her car into the ambulance. If she had received prompt hospital treatment, the expert witnesses at the inquest all agreed, Diana would have survived.
The role of the MI6
The film coughs at the claim by the head of MI6 towards the inquest that his agency has never killed anyone in the past 50 years. It shows former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson, an inquest witness, who has written a book titled “The Big Breach” describing how MI6 had planned to murder the Serbian leader exactly the same way how Diana, Dodi and her driver were killed: making his car crash in a narrow tunnel by flashing a very bright light into the driver’s eyes. The MI6 boss was obviously lying, a view supported in the film by another former senior MI6 agent, Baroness Daphne Park, who clearly states that she’s been involved in murders on behalf of the MI6.
Diana’s campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines
According to the film, MI6 and other secret services had more reason to want Diana dead than just her plan to get married to a Muslim: her highly effective support for the world-wide campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines. Her involvement caused huge anger amongst Western governments and the armament industry. It even caused the British defence minister Nicholas Soames to call Diana on the phone and tell her, “Don’t meddle in things you don’t know anything about. Accidents can happen.”
Diana’s murder happened just three weeks before the Oslo conference to ban anti-personnel mines. Without Diana as the most prominent ambassador of the conference, most of the world’s media no longer bothered to attend. Bill Clinton was the only government leader attending the conference who voted against a world-wide ban on landmines. If Diana had been still alive, he would have to do so while looking into Diana’s eyes. According to the film, many observers believe that’s the real reason why she got killed, but the coroner of the inquest wasn’t interested in that line of thought.
Dodgy autopsy results
The autopsy of the driver, which stated that he was highly drunk, in spite of having had only two Ricards that night and appearing completely sober on the hotel CCTV captured when leaving the hotel, was performed by Professor Dominique Lecomte, a doctor notorious for her involvement in French government cover-ups. Her autopsy was ripped apart by other medical experts as completely incompetent and having made several critical mistakes, as was Dr. Lepin’s result of the blood sample taken of the driver, which was found to have been highly likely tampered with. Professor Lecomte and Dr. Lepin both refused to attend the inquest, after being ordered by the French government to do so to protect the French state’s secrets and interests. When specialist later wanted to examine whether the DNA of the blood samples was identical with that of the driver, they were told by the French government that those samples no longer exist.
Diana had not only spoken to numerous friends about her ex-husband’s family planning to kill her in a car accident and mentioned it in a letter to her butler. She had also written a letter to her lawyer about it who passed it on to the police. In spite of her being later killed exactly in the way described in her letter, the chief of police kept the letter concealed for three years, knowingly breaking the law by concealing this devastating evidence. He was rewarded handsomely by the Queen by being made a ‘Lord’.
Not only did the autopsy report make false accusations about the driver’s alcohol level, it even suggested that he was a severe case of alcoholic. The English police tried to support this false claim by searching the driver’s apartment twice for alcohol. The first time they went there, they could only find a bottle of champagne and a ¾ empty bottle of Martini. Unsatisfied with the result they went in again, and this time they found enough alcohol to stock an entire bar.
In spite of no longer being ‘Royal’ at the time of her death, Diana was embalmed within hours of her death, according to the film, to make it impossible to perform a pregnancy test. Not only were her organs removed and destroyed, but so was the blood sample taken from her at her arrival at the Paris hospital. The film suggests that this was to avoid any suggestion that Muslim blood had entered the royal blood lines.
The Queen’s private secretary
Sir Robert Fellowes was the highest ranked representative of the Windsors appearing at the inquest. Under oath, he claimed to have been on holidays for the entire period before and after the accident. Yet, the diary of Tony Blairs’ press secretary Alastair Campbell clearly states that she met Mr Fellowes on several occasions through the period he claimed to have been on holidays. Diana had mentioned to friends before that he was one of the three people she was most afraid of. She believed that Mr Fellowes hated her with a passion and wanted her out of the Royal family. The film suggests that Mr Fellowes had a leading role in the arrangements for her death.
The Fiat Uno
The prime suspect to have caused the crash is the driver of the Fiat Uno which was seen by numerous witnesses. Neither the English nor the French police was apparently able to identify him, and yet one of the best known paparazzi, James Andanson, with connections to secret services, drove exactly that kind of car. Andandon who made a fortune selling pictures of British royalties and other celebrities to the media, lived in France and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi in their last holiday before the accident. He was not part of the paparazzi crowd waiting in front of the Ritz hotel owned by Dodi’s father. When interviewed by French police about his whereabouts, he made contradictory statements, as did his wife and son who served as his alibis. In spite of these circumstances, the investigation against him was dropped and the search for the Fiat Uno ended without result. The inquest made no further attempt to establish who was driving the implicated car.
In 2000, Andason was found dead in his blazing car on a Ministry of Defence owned field outside Montpellier. He had no car keys with him and the two firemen who found him had seen two bullet holes in his skull. The French police however decided that he had committed suicide. The film maker comments that you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to find it hard to believe that a man shoot himself in the head twice and then set his car on fire.
The last third of the film goes in full attack on the Windsors. It goes in the huge cost to British tax payers, their racism towards non-Whites and their initial strong support for Hitler. It accuses the Queen mother, her husband, as well as Prince Philip and his sisters to have been highly supportive of Nazi Germany, at least initially. It goes on to ask why the British people still tolerates the monarchy. It accuses British officials of corruption because they were more loyal to the monarch than to the people and care more about earning a knighthood than obeying the law. The film goes even as far as calling the British royal family mafia-style gangsters.
Later in the film it quotes Prince Philip as saying that if reincarnation existed he would like to be reborn as a deadly virus, so he could do something about over-population. This quote must be seen in the context of Prince Philip being the highest ranked Scottish Rite Freemason, a secret society known to aim for a ‘big cull’ reducing mankind to a ‘sustainable level’ of 500 million, that is a reduction of 93%.
The most controversial part of the documentary is an interview with leading British clinical psychologist Oliver James, describing Prince Philip as someone without any internal sense of right or wrong. According to James, Prince Philip is completely selfish and does not care about anybody else. In his expert opinion, Prince Philip is on par with notorious psychopathic mass-murderers.
The main film very convincingly argues that – in the light of the long list of suspicious circumstances and cover-ups – it would be too much of a coincidence that Diana got killed exactly at a time when Western secret services and armament manufacturers were infuriated about her anti-personnel landmine campaign and the Windsors about the prospect of a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King.
My own first reaction, when I heard about Diana’s death, was to say that it was staged by the MI6. Like Mohamed al-Fayed and other people in the documentary, I suspected that the British royalties were too big bigots to let her get married to a Muslim man from the Middle-East. What I didn’t know back then was that Diana’s mother was a born Rothschild, making her and her children Jews according to Jewish law. I’m more inclined now to think that her murder was performed by Mossad, not so much to stop her anti-personnel mine campaigning or to avoid a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King, but to prevent Diana from converting to Islam, which she would have to get married to a Muslim man. This obviously would have spoiled the endless Jewish bragging over the future British King being a Jew.
(You Tube) In every corner of the globe, we are polluting, diverting, pumping, and wasting our limited supply of fresh water at an expediential level as population and technology grows. The rampant overdevelopment of agriculture, housing and industry increase the demands for fresh water well beyond the finite supply, resulting in the desertification of the earth.
Corporate giants force developing countries to privatize their water supply for profit. Wall Street investors target desalination and mass bulk water export schemes. Corrupt governments use water for economic and political gain. Military control of water emerges and a new geo-political map and power structure forms, setting the stage for world water wars.
We follow numerous worldwide examples of people fighting for their basic right to water, from court cases to violent revolutions to U.N. conventions to revised constitutions to local protests at grade schools. As Maude Barlow proclaims, “This is our revolution, this is our war”. A line is crossed as water becomes a commodity. Will we survive?…”
Blue Gold World Water Wars
(You Tube) Presented by twice Oscar nominated actor & activist Woody Harrelson, this powerful new documentary blows the lid off our corrupt system.
From criminal conflicts of interest in politics, to unregulated corporate power, to a news media in the hands of multi-national conglomerates, to a military industrial complex that effectively owns our government.
We cannot fix our system until we know how it works.
Ethos looks at the systemic issues that work against democracy, the environment, democracy, justice and our own personal liberty.
However, it is not all bad news. Ethos offers a solution. A simple but powerful way that you can have your voices heard as they have never been heard before. Watch the film, spread the word, change the world.
(Cris Putnam) The new Steven Greer disclosure project film Sirius is structured with an overarching conspiracy theory implicating the military industrial complex (MIC) in surreptitiously controlling the government, banking system and, drum roll please, maintaining a death grip on the truth about UFOs, ET and clean free energy technology.
I think they are largely correct concerning the financial elite but the oil industry’s repression of clean energy need not infer anything about extraterrestrials but rather human greed and sinfulness.
The movie paints Greer as a heroic martyr fighting the powers that be. Greer poignantly laments the, “misanthropic sociopaths are running the planet into the ground.” Of course, the solution is access to the ET technology the misanthropes are hiding. While there is certainly some truth to the general conspiracy theory, it doesn’t necessarily support the ET beliefs the film promotes. In reality, the pantheistic monism Greer promotes is exactly what the world system wants. This is readily seen in the discredited gurus the film features.
David Wilcock a guru of “soul growth, ascension and the evolution of consciousness” who was one of the most well-known promoters of the 2012 ascension theory. Wilcock’s writings indicate that he began by having strange dreams and synchronicities when he was two years old which progressed to out of body experiences and ESP by the age of seven. He consumed volumes of Edgar Cayce, Eastern mysticism and new age literature. He not only teaches reincarnation theology, his spiritual ascension ideas have resulted in repeated failed date setting. First it was “Ascension 2000” which morphed to “Ascension 2012” and we’re still waiting for the new one. Interestingly he predicted alien disclosure by President Obama in 2009:
David also predicts that President Obama will attempt to reveal the existence of aliens and alien technologies this year. He says it’ll be a two-hour prime time special, in which a human-like off world entity will be introduced.[1A]
David’s prophetic track record is dismal and his scholarship isn’t much better. He promotes that the Japanese culture was given them by space aliens and the Michael Cremo cites the Hindu texts as ancient astronaut literature dating back thousands of years. Much of this has been decisively refuted here. Then they trot out the UFOs in medieval art nonsense which has been authoritatively demonstrated to be well known symbols for the sun and moon. Art historians chuckle at this but much of the public is still credulous.
The alien savior mythos about ET redeemers form above preventing a nuclear holocaust is advanced in several scenes. Much of the interview testimony is old recycled material seen in other UFO documentaries like the seminalOut of the Blue which is a much better film than Sirius by a long shot. They used an old clip by Gordon Creighton, the editor of Flying Saucer Review, but neglect to mention Creighton’s studied opinion, “I do believe that the great bulk of these phenomena are what is called satanic.”[2A]
Early on, the movie sets up a tension about the testing of so-called tiny alien body found in the Mexico desert. This Barbie sized ET was heavily featured in the films promotional material as well and certainly drew a lot of folks to part with their cash to learn about the promised DNA testing results.
The most dangerous and harmful thing about the film is the promotion of CE-5 meaning human imitated alien contact. Greer extended the classification system of J Allen Hynek. This is explained in Exo-Vaticana:
1) Close Encounters of the First Kind (CEI) involve “visual” sightings of an Unidentified Flying Object.
2) Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CEII) include visual plus physical traces such as burned spots on the ground, radiation, strange markings, or wreckage debris appropriate for investigation.
3) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CEIII) involve sightings of the UFO “occupants” near the UFO.
4) Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CEIV) include a human abducted by a UFO or its occupants (this was not included in Hynek’s original scale).
5) Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CEV), developed by Steven M. Greer’s Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) group, are described as “joint, bilateral contact events produced through the conscious, voluntary, and proactive human-initiated or cooperative communication with extraterrestrial intelligence.”
6) Close Encounters of the Sixth Kind (CEVI) are described as “UFO incidents that cause direct injury or death.”
This involves eastern style meditation which entails clearing one’s mind (suspending rational discernment), letting go of one’s spiritual defenses, and allowing the foreign discarnate consciousness free reign. Of course, this amounts to an invitation to demon possession. Unfortunately, Greer and his followers probably have the best of intentions but are being deceived.
The devil is a master of disguise: “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Co 11:14–15) The movie offers CE-5 as the solution to the world’s problems, a disturbing idea developed and explained in Exo-Vaticana.
More interesting to readers of Exo-Vaticana, the film features our old friend Roman Catholic demonologist, Monsignor Corrado Balducci in a few brief clips. Whereas the majority of evangelical scholars conclude that the contactee phenomenon is connected to the occult, Balducci asserted that so-called extraterrestrial encounters “are not demonic, they are not due to psychological impairment, and they are not a case of entity attachment.” Balducci has never been refuted by the Vatican and he teaches that superior ETs are coming to evangelize us:
At 13:45 Balducci is shown saying “There will be others who are far superior besides us.” Whereas the majority of evangelical scholars conclude that the contactee phenomenon is connected to the occult, Balducci asserted that so-called extraterrestrial encounters “are not demonic, they are not due to psychological impairment, and they are not a case of entity attachment.” Referring to UFO aliens, Balducci maintains,
“We don’t even have to waste a thought on the devil and his demons, who still kept their angelic nature, being fallen angels and therefore also purely spiritual beings, since they are limited in their activity by God and therefore not able to bring all their hatred to us.”
Balducci was a theologian of the Vatican Curia, a long-time exorcist for the archdiocese of Rome, and a prelate of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Society for the Propagation of the Faith.
If one were seeking a Catholic opinion on demonology, it would be hard to solicit a demonologist with more clout. He suggests that originating from the spirit realm precludes any material reality, but Scripture is replete with angels who are mistaken for men (Genesis 19:1; Acts 1:10), and the author of Hebrews warns, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2), which hardly seems possible if they were simply immaterial spirits.
After building tension over the mini-ET the entire film, the anticlimax occurs with Dr. Gary Nolan admiting, “The DNA tells the story and we have the computational techniques that allows us to determine, in very short order, whether, in fact, this is human,” also stating, “I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a monkey.
It is human — closer to human than chimpanzees.” In fact this human corpse is not new, it has been circulated in UFO circles for ten years, and has long been identified as a mummified human fetus by medical experts as documented here. The film’s promotional efforts featuring this human fetus were not only disingenuous they were macabre.
One marvels at why it has never occurred to Greer that if he is correct and CE-5 works, then why haven’t the benevolent ETs simply given him the clean energy technology? Seriously, he has been out in the desert channeling them for years.
Why does the evil MIC have exclusive access to the clean energy. Why can’t Greer and the CSETIfaithful just ask the ETs for it? The roaring silence to this question is suggestive. In the end, the movie confirms the eschatological thesis presented in Exo-Vaticana in stunningly precise language by encouraging the viewer to participate by “joining consciousness to unite with the beings that are prepared to communicate with us. In order to succeed in this endeavor called life we must come together as one.” This is one situation where I take no joy in being correct, the push toward the Omega Point is on.
[1A] Sirius 8:13
[2A] Ruth Gledhill, “Defense Chief Warns of ‘Satanic UFOs’” The Times of London, as cited in AUFORA News Update
March 1, 1997, last accessed January 25, 2013, http://www.mufon.com/MUFONNews/arch011.html
 Exo-Vaticana, 445.
 Corrado Balducci, “Ufology and Theological Clarifications,”Pescara, (June 8th, 2001), viewable here:http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/balducci.htm.
“A myth or untruth knowingly told by the elite to maintain social harmony, or the social position of the elite.” – The Republic, Plato
The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City was a direct blow to the heart of America. 168 people were killed, including nineteen children. For those watching the nightly news, Terrorism had come home. For years following the bombing, countless victims’ family members, survivors, rescuers, and ordinary Americans, have questioned the official accounts about that fateful day.
Hoping to shed light on answers long ignored and censored, both by prominent media outlets and the U.S. government, A Noble Lie peels back what we thought we knew about the bombing and it’s perpetrators. This film exposes information never before examined or brought to the attention of the American public.
A Noble Lie is the culmination of years of research and documentation conducted by independent journalists, scholars, and ordinary citizens. Often risking their personal safety and sanity, they have gathered evidence which threatens to expose the startling reality of what exactly occurred at 9:02 am on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City.
Utilizing footage and eyewitness testimony, previously unseen, A Noble Lie will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.