-->

Thursday, June 23, 2011

VIMANA (UFO) FOUND IN CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN

Posted: February 12, 2011 by Jimmy Prophet in Aliens, Government Conspiracy, History, Illuminati, Internet, media, New World Order, News Articles, Nibiru/Planet X, Predictive Programming, Project Bluebeam, Radio, Survival, UFO, Video, Web Bot
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What caused the sudden rush of these most powerful leaders of the Western World to go to Afghanistan, this report continues, was to directly view the discovery by US Military scientists of what is described as a “Vimana” entrapped in a “Time Well” that has already caused the “disappearance” of at least 8 American Soldiers trying to remove it from the cave it has been hidden in for the past estimated 5,000 years.

World Leaders Flock To Afghanistan After Mysterious ‘Time Well’ Discovered WEBSITE

A peculiar report prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) circulating in the Kremlin today states that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has become the latest in a growing line of Western leaders to make a ‘surprise’ visit to Afghanistan this month and follows visits by United States President Obama (December 3rd), British Prime Minister David Cameron (December 7th) and French President Nicolas Sarkozy (December 8th).

Only Sarkozy’s trip, this report says, was concealed as he was already in India on a state visit when ‘rushed’ by a US Military aircraft to the Afghan war zone.

What caused the sudden rush of these most powerful leaders of the Western World to go to Afghanistan, this report continues, was to directly view the discovery by US Military scientists of what is described as a “Vimana” entrapped in a “Time Well” that has already caused the “disappearance” of at least 8 American Soldiers trying to remove it from the cave it has been hidden in for the past estimated 5,000 years.

From the ancient accounts found in the Sanskrit epic The Mahabharata, we know that a Vimana measured twelve cubits in circumference, with four strong wheels. Apart from its ‘blazing missiles’, The Mahabharata records the use of its other deadly weapons that operated via a circular ‘reflector’. When switched on, it produced a ‘shaft of light’ which, when focused on any target, immediately ‘consumed it with its power’.

To the “Time Well” encasing the Vimana, this report continues, it appears to be an electromagnetic radiation-gravity field first postulated by Albert Einstein as the Unified Field Theory and long rumored to be behind the infamous American World War II experiment in teleportation called the Philadelphia Experiment that in 1943, like the events occurring in Afghanistan today, likewise, caused the sudden “disappearance” of US Soldiers.

The seemingly “perpetual” power source to this mysterious “Time Well”, this SVR report says, appears to be based on the technology of Edward Leedskalnin, who claimed to have discovered the “Secret Knowledge of the Ancients” and from 1923-1951 “single-handedly and secretly” carved over 1,100 tons of coral rock by an unknown process that created one of the World’s most mysterious accomplishments known as the Coral Castle.

Most intriguing of all about this report is its stating that not just any Vimana has been discovered, but from the ancient writings contained in the cave where it was discovered, it claims that its “rightful owner” is the ancient prophet Zoroaster who was the founder of arguably one of the most important religions of all time called Zoroastrianism.

Though little known to the World today, the religious philosophy of Zoroaster is credited with being the basis of all known religions that said the purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša [truth]. He further stated that for humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds.

Pliny the Elder, the first Century Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, as well as naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire, further names Zoroaster as the “inventor of magic”, a claim historians say was based on the over “two million lines” written about Zoroaster contained in the Ancient Royal Library of Alexandria that was ordered destroyed by the Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius I in 391 AD.

Important to note is that for the new Christian religion to grow, all of the elements relating to its true beginnings with Zoroaster had to be destroyed, and as we can read from the 440 AD notation about this destruction written in the ancient Historia Ecclesiastica, and which says:

“At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. … Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.”

The largest resurgence of Zoroaster “magic” among human beings, since the destruction of the Ancient Royal Library of Alexandria, occurred in the 13th Century among the Cathers who lived in Southern Europe. Sadly, however, when the “power” of Zoroaster “magic” began to reappear in the World once again, the threat to Christianity was undeniable and prompted Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) to order the largest massacre in Europe not duplicated until the horrors of World War II.

To how brutal the Cathers were suppressed by Catholic Rome we can read from the history of those times:

“Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”—“Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own.”

The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.

What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex”. The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.”

Today, in the ancient Afghanistan city of Balkh, where Zoroaster is said to have lived and died, and claimed by Marco Polo to be one of the World’s “noble and great cities”, a new Global Empire, the United States, holds both our past and our future in its hands with the discovery of this ancient Vimana.

To if the Western leaders who have seen this ancient wonder will allow it to be known it is not in our knowing. What is in our knowing, though, is that if the past is truly an indicator of the future, the words soon to flow from Christendom will echo those of times past…. “Kill Them All, The Lord Will Recognize His Own”.

Steve Quayle on Coast To Coast, 10th Feb 2011, (part 1 of 12)

What to make of this? Who knows, but it is worth thinking about and researching abit further. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it’s NOT there. Ask a blind man!!

JP

AMERICA IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY

PARLIAMENT SQUARE ANTI-WAR PROTESTOR BRIAN HAW, 62, DIES

  • Campaigner loses fight against lung cancer
  • He had been receiving treatment in Germany
  • Veteran protester dogged UK authorities

By Rebecca Camber 20th June 2011


Brian Haw has died during treatment for lung cancer

Brian Haw has died during treatment for lung cancer

An anti-war campaigner who spent ten years camped outside the Houses of Parliament has died of lung cancer.

Brian Haw, 62, set up his ramshackle site in June 2001 as a one-man protest against British military action in Iraq and, later, Afghanistan.

He became a familiar face to MPs and a hero to civil rights campaigners, but his tent and collection of horrific pictures of war victims, accompanied by slogans such as ‘baby killers’, offended many.

But Mr Haw and his followers fought off all legal attempts to remove the camp from Parliament Square, although he was limited in the hours he could use a megaphone to attack government policies.

It began as a response to economic sanctions and British and American bombing raids on Iraq, but his angry messages daubed on hand-written posters grew after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

This month he marked ten years living on the square.

The protester died in Germany on Saturday where he had been receiving treatment.

Yesterday his devastated family paid tribute to the father of seven, releasing this statement: ‘It is with deepest regret that I inform you that our father, Brian, passed away this morning.

Scroll down for video

Persistent protest: Mr Haw kept up his campaign for more than a decade, marking the tenth anniversary of his camp just three weeks ago

Persistent protest: Mr Haw kept up his campaign for more than a decade, marking the tenth anniversary of his camp just three weeks ago

HAW'S BATTLES IN COURT TO STOP HIS CAMP BEING MOVED ON

Sucessive attempts to move Brian Haw frim his makeshift camp failed afterthe High court said it would be a breach of his human rights.

In 2002, Westminster City Council tried to prosecute Mr Haw for causing an obstruction, but the case was thrown out after it was ruled that camp banners did not impede the public.

And even when politicians amended the law to outlaw unlicensed protests, Mr Haw was able to keep up his campaign thanks to a legal loophole.

In the 2005 general election Mr Haw stood as a candidate in the Cities of London and Westminster in order to further his campaign.

He won 298 votes, making a speech against the ongoing presence of UK troops in Iraq at the declaration of the result.

Last year, bailiffs moved on a number of other protest groups from Parliament Square Gardens, but again Mr Haw escaped eviction because he was camped on the pavement, not the lawn.

He was also arrested last year when police carried out security sweeps in the area ahead of the Queen's Speech.

And in April Mr Haw faced another battle when officials tried to evict the huddle of tents, tarpaulin and placards - described by some as 'an eyesore' - ahead of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton at nearby Westminster Abbey.

‘As you know he was battling lung cancer, and was having treatment in Germany.

‘He left us in his sleep and in no pain, after a long, hard fight.’

Supporters and MPs flocked to Twitter to pay tribute.

The Speaker’s wife, Sally Bercow posted a number of Tweets, saying: ‘Sad to hear Brian Haw has died.

‘His peace camp in Parly Sq was a good thing (in my humble opinion-- many here would beg to differ).’

She added: ‘Hoping Westminster Council might put up a blue plaque: Brian Haw, peace campaigner, lived here 2001 - 2011.’

Haw was the son of a soldier who was one of the first to enter the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after it was liberated from the Nazis.

Haw spent time in the merchant navy and worked as a carpenter, but his evangelical Christian faith drove him to seek out suffering.

He visited Northern Ireland during the Troubles and travelled to the killing fields of Cambodia.

Haw also worked with troubled youngsters in Redditch, Worcestershire where he lived with his wife Kay and their seven children.

Haw told journalists that he had left his family to campaign for other families suffering in war zones.

‘I want to go back to my own kids and look them in the face again, knowing that I’ve done all I can to try and save the children of Iraq and other countries who are dying because of my Government’s unjust, amoral, fear- and money-driven policies,’ he said.

Anti-establishment: Mr Haw's political position often led to run-ins with the law

Anti-establishment: Mr Haw's political position often led to run-ins with the law

‘These children and people of other countries are every bit as valuable and worthy of love as my precious wife and children.’

In his long fight against the Government, Haw became a beacon for civil rights campaigners.

In April 2002 Westminster City Council began legal action to remove him under the Highways Act, but the case never came to court.

The council later limited the hours he could use a megaphone to attack Government policies.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act restricted the right to protest in designated areas within 1km of the Houses of Parliament

But the High Court ruled that Haw could apply to the police for permission to continue his demonstration.

High-profile support: Although many politicians condemned Mr Haw's tactics, he did win the backing of veteran Labour MP Tony Benn (left)

High-profile support: Although many politicians condemned Mr Haw's tactics, he did win the backing of veteran Labour MP Tony Benn (left)

This was granted - but only with a series of conditions limiting the size of his protest site.

In 2006 police seized 90 per cent of Haw’s placards overnight on the grounds that he had breached these restrictions.

However, a judge later found that there was no case to answer.

This year the Greater London Authority successfully got permission to evict Haw from the grass area at the centre of Parliament Square.

Westminster Council is due later this year to go to court to try to get the demonstrators moved off the pavement too.

His protest was immortalised in January 2007 when former Turner Prize nominee Mark Wallinger recreated his camp at the Tate Britain gallery.

Haw also won a Channel 4 News award for Most Inspiring Political Figure in 2007.

Determined: Mr Haw pictured in the early days of his one-man campaign

Determined: Mr Haw pictured in the early days of his one-man campaign

Yesterday his collection of bleak war photos remained untouched.

Fellow members of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign said his legal battles had taken a toll on his health.

They released this statement: ‘Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.

‘Parliament, the police, and courts etc, should forever be ashamed of their disgraceful behaviour towards Brian.’

Friday, June 17, 2011

PROOF! PUBLIC LAW 105-85, BIO WARFARE OR POPULATION REDUCTION FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

911-THE MOVIE

MEDIA IGNORES PUBLIC OUTRAGE WHILE PROTESTORS CAMP OUT IN NYC

EISENHOWER'S WORST FEARS CAME TRUE. WE INVENT ENEMIES TO BUY THE BOMBS


Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

Joe Magee Missi9le Toon Joe Magee: Guardian

The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.

There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%.

These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.

The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.

As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.

There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?