web feature Muse Urges Its Fans To Take The Red Pill

[Niall]

i think niall is a total denier of everything he is told unless it is presented in some type scientific peer reviewed paper.

 

No, I am critical of everything I am told unless I am presented with enough reasons to accept it. In order to assess the value of anything important stated as a fact it but be looked at critically.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Niall is a clear thinker who doesn't believe something just because it's been posted in a newspaper.

 

no nial is apparently a scientists, and a scientists way of looking at things is "there has to be a scientific reason behind it " , people are forgetting that when we are trying to save the earth , their are going to be alot of people becomming filthy rich, i just dont get it this greed.

[vinya12]

One feeling I am getting here is people think its a game of who is right and whos wrong. Its not a game. I don't want to win. I want to help you. I want you to open your eyes. I want you to not except everything lying down but to question it study it and find out if its real or true, I don't keep any of the evidence I find, may be I should, apart from this- that I will post in a separate post. Its from the study of chem trails.

I believe my brother died because of this

[vinya12]

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor

Observer

Sunday April 21, 2002

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

One chapter of the report, 'The Fluorescent Particle Trials', reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

In another chapter, 'Large Area Coverage Trials', the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius.

The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.

Similar bacteria were released in 'The Sabotage Trials' between 1952 and 1964. These were tests to determine the vulnerability of large government buildings and public transport to attack. In 1956 bacteria were released on the London Underground at lunchtime along the Northern Line between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway. The results show that the organism dispersed about 10 miles. Similar tests were conducted in tunnels running under government buildings in Whitehall.

Experiments conducted between 1964 and 1973 involved attaching germs to the threads of spiders' webs in boxes to test how the germs would survive in different environments. These tests were carried out in a dozen locations across the country, including London's West End, Southampton and Swindon. The report also gives details of more than a dozen smaller field trials between 1968 and 1977.

In recent years, the MoD has commissioned two scientists to review the safety of these tests. Both reported that there was no risk to public health, although one suggested the elderly or people suffering from breathing illnesses may have been seriously harmed if they inhaled sufficient quantities of micro-organisms.

However, some families in areas which bore the brunt of the secret tests are convinced the experiments have led to their children suffering birth defects, physical handicaps and learning difficulties.

David Orman, an army officer from Bournemouth, is demanding a public inquiry. His wife, Janette, was born in East Lulworth in Dorset, close to where many of the trials took place. She had a miscarriage, then gave birth to a son with cerebral palsy. Janette's three sisters, also born in the village while the tests were being carried out, have also given birth to children with unexplained problems, as have a number of their neighbours.

The local health authority has denied there is a cluster, but Orman believes otherwise. He said: 'I am convinced something terrible has happened. The village was a close-knit community and to have so many birth defects over such a short space of time has to be more than coincidence.'

Successive governments have tried to keep details of the germ warfare tests secret. While reports of a number of the trials have emerged over the years through the Public Records Office, this latest MoD document - which was released to Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker - gives the fullest official version of the biological warfare trials yet.

Baker said: 'I welcome the fact that the Government has finally released this information, but question why it has taken so long. It is unacceptable that the public were treated as guinea pigs without their knowledge, and I want to be sure that the Ministry of Defence's claims that these chemicals and bacteria used were safe is true.'

The MoD report traces the history of the UK's research into germ warfare since the Second World War when Porton Down produced five million cattle cakes filled with deadly anthrax spores which would have been dropped in Germany to kill their livestock. It also gives details of the infamous anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast which left the island so contaminated it could not be inhabited until the late 1980s.

The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: 'Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced by defence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge. An important corollary to this was the need to avoid public alarm and disquiet about the vulnerability of the civil population to BW [biological warfare] attack.'

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

[pinkfloyddsotm]

No, I am critical of everything I am told unless I am presented with enough reasons to accept it. In order to assess the value of anything important stated as a fact it but be looked at critically.

its the same as alot of the "conspiracy theories" , there is alot of proof for the basis of these presumptions. I just wonder if you have actually read any of the "climate deniers" websites that are out their proving the global warming hoax, because their is alot of information to sort through. im still reading through 80 page assessment.

[Niall]

Yeah I agree, it might not even be on purpose because it's natural psychologically to notice things more if you have a particular interest in them and attribute them greater and wider significance than they have in reality when tested.

 

I'm sure there is misinterpretation of tongue in cheek references as well.

 

Personally I don't think science is foolproof and has all the answers. It too is open to errors in judgement (and influenced by money and commercial interests and political interests incidentally). I've been studying that from a social science rather than natural science perspective. If science could tell us everything, and was always right incidentally, there would be no point in scientific investigation continuing. That is why I don't ever think people should be closed minded, but honestly some of the stuff these "conspiracy theorists" come out with is BS, I'm sure.

 

True.

 

But depends what kind of science you are talking about. Industrial research lead by corporation has the potential to be corrupt. Academic science would be extremely hard to corrupt. Any given scientist will no doubt discuss and present there work to hundreds of others on varying levels in the form of conferences and meeting and collaborations and published literature. For an academic research institution to become corrupted it would have to isolate itself to such an extent it could become incapable of carrying out effective research.

 

Science in general, of course, should be assessed critically. That is the point in peer review and publishing research in a scientific manner. As you probably know this is meticulous thing that cannot be done with hand waiving dismissal and suspicion though. The fact that science can go wrong is its strength however; a lack of a result is just as important as a result. Theories are always open to refinement and betterment as new evidence is found. This shouldn't mean that established science shouldn't be trusted though when it is shown to be real beyond reasonable doubt.

[Niall]

no nial is apparently a scientists, and a scientists way of looking at things is "there has to be a scientific reason behind it " , people are forgetting that when we are trying to save the earth , their are going to be alot of people becomming filthy rich, i just dont get it this greed.

 

Well when it comes to an assessment of reality then what tool other than science would you recommend for the studying of it?

 

In the real world things do have scientific reasons behind them.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

yer thats some crazy stuff vinya12

[chudenk]

One feeling I am getting here is people think its a game of who is right and whos wrong. Its not a game. I don't want to win. I want to help you. I want you to open your eyes. I want you to not except everything lying down but to question it study it and find out if its real or true, I don't keep any of the evidence I find, may be I should, apart from this- that I will post in a separate post. Its from the study of chem trails.

I believe my brother died because of this

 

[Niall]

its the same as alot of the "conspiracy theories" , there is alot of proof for the basis of these presumptions. I just wonder if you have actually read any of the "climate deniers" websites that are out their proving the global warming hoax, because their is alot of information to sort through. im still reading through 80 page assessment.

 

Of course, but they are just that, websites, typically run by a few people who provide their own commentary on things. Tell me some good ones if you want!

 

A website cannot prove anything alone though.

 

Guess what can!

[CarrieB]

One feeling I am getting here is people think its a game of who is right and whos wrong. Its not a game. I don't want to win. I want to help you. I want you to open your eyes. I want you to not except everything lying down but to question it study it and find out if its real or true, I don't keep any of the evidence I find, may be I should, apart from this- that I will post in a separate post. Its from the study of chem trails.

I believe my brother died because of this

 

No you're wrong it's not a game, I'm trying to help you! As Chizzle said people have researched for years, for a lifetime. And while nothing can be totally objective, given the choice between looking at something spewed out on a conspiracy site which has goodness knows what kind of bias behind it, and that on an academic site, I would chose the academic site and look at it critically, while bearing in my mind what has been spewed out on the conspiracy site.

 

Personally I'm not saying I know the answers but everything that happens in the world, in life, there is a mind boggling amount of research into it. No one person would possibly be able to get to the bottom of anything unquestionably. I would say just be careful where you get your "evidence" from.

 

Sorry I didn't notice about your brother. I can see you have reason to want to research the background to what happened to your brother.

[Niall]

Chemtrails is just silly. Arbitrarily linking contrails to assorted bad things. That's verging on cargo cult logic.

 

Wasn't the whole theory found to be a hoax anyway?

[Zaphod Chizzlebrox]

yer but when most of the facts are quoted from actual scientists are you then disregarding their work and calling them a liar ?

 

If I have the scientific work in front of me first-hand, and not provided by a shady website, news site or other third-party source then I'll read into it and look at it objectively.

 

Corporate science has been alleged to have corrupted aims, with numbers cherrypicked to suit the aims of the corporation, but the very same is true of conspiracy theory sites etc. They pick what suits them and ignore all the rest. As Niall said, academic science is the most objective of all and the least likely to be corrupted in any particular direction.

[Dockertae]

I've noticed one or two of the conspiracy-minded posters using the term "hoax" to describe the science behind climate change. Just as a heads-up this is a dead giveaway that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, because whether the science behind it turned out to be right or wrong blaming some group for hoodwinking the public just shows you don't understand how the system of researching these phenomenon works at all.

 

This is something I find it general when people blame science for something, they seem to assume there is some overarching system that controls the entire process, rather than it being down to a lot of completely unrelated groups or individuals doing work on their own projects.

[Zaphod Chizzlebrox]

I've noticed one or two of the conspiracy-minded posters using the term "hoax" to describe the science behind climate change. Just as a heads-up this is a dead giveaway that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, because whether the science behind it turned out to be right or wrong blaming some group for hoodwinking the public just shows you don't understand how the system of researching these phenomenon works at all.

 

This is something I find it general when people blame science for something, they seem to assume there is some overarching system that controls the entire process, rather than it being down to a lot of completely unrelated groups or individuals doing work on their own projects.

 

If CERN don't find the Higgs Boson there'll be a lot of angry conspiracy theorists who'll claim it was a hoax and a cover for inventing time travel or something

[pinkfloyddsotm]

im finished with the cock measuring contest for tonight, this whole thread has been a learning curve for me , as im trying to respond to everyone im also researching my points and getting distracted at the same time, i dont give a fuck that niall and carrie are squares and totally dismiss conspiracy facts ,i only hope that one day they see the truth, and become an anarchist like i am LMAO.

[Niall]

Cock measuring contest?

 

Up for that.

[CarrieB]

True.

 

But depends what kind of science you are talking about. Industrial research lead by corporation has the potential to be corrupt. Academic science would be extremely hard to corrupt. Any given scientist will no doubt discuss and present there work to hundreds of others on varying levels in the form of conferences and meeting and collaborations and published literature. For an academic research institution to become corrupted it would have to isolate itself to such an extent it could become incapable of carrying out effective research.

 

Science in general, of course, should be assessed critically. That is the point in peer review and publishing research in a scientific manner. As you probably know this is meticulous thing that cannot be done with hand waiving dismissal and suspicion though. The fact that science can go wrong is its strength however; a lack of a result is just as important as a result. Theories are always open to refinement and betterment as new evidence is found. This shouldn't mean that established science shouldn't be trusted though when it is shown to be real beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

Yeah I accept this, but the bias can be in the funding. Where the funds come from for the research. I'm not saying scientific study is corrupt, not at all, and as you say it is critically assessed in the scientific environment. Outside that environment it can be used selectively for political or commercial purposes though and things like the medicalisation of society could have occurred because pharmaceutical companies have a lot of funds to finance the research. Research into the pure sciences obviously gets funding from somewhere so there could also be imbalance in the amount of research carried out by one interest as opposed to another if that makes sense. And I think, was it Kant who said something like if you've only ever seen white swans, you might believe that there's no such thing as a black swan.

[CarrieB]

im finished with the cock measuring contest for tonight, this whole thread has been a learning curve for me , as im trying to respond to everyone im also researching my points and getting distracted at the same time, i dont give a fuck that niall and carrie are squares and totally dismiss conspiracy facts ,i only hope that one day they see the truth, and become an anarchist like i am LMAO.

 

I'm a square who completely dismisses conspiracy "facts" am I?! I don't think you actually read my posts properly at all!

[pinkfloyddsotm]

I'm a square who completely dismisses conspiracy "facts" am I?! I don't think you actually read my posts properly at all!

 

lol i think you are in the middle, which is a good thing, you just need that little extra push to come onto myside

[Niall]

Yeah I accept this, but the bias can be in the funding. Where the funds come from for the research. I'm not saying scientific study is corrupt, not at all, and as you say it is critically assessed in the scientific environment. Outside that environment it can be used selectively for political or commercial purposes though and things like the medicalisation of society could have occurred because pharmaceutical companies have a lot of funds to finance the research. Research into the pure sciences obviously gets funding from somewhere so there could also be imbalance in the amount of research carried out by one interest as opposed to another if that makes sense. And I think, was it Kant who said something like if you've only ever seen white swans, you might believe that there's no such thing as a black swan.

 

In the UK it's from the STFC. They make plenty of stupid decisions with regards to funding is used but that's mainly a practical thing. Other bodies in the EU like the Marie Curie. They do prefer to fund certain areas of research they think will be the most fruitful and interesting, but hold no inherent bias for desired result. Nor are they capable of influencing the result of whatever is financed. So you are right there in some respects, but it isn't a shady process, it's more a value for money one. In astronomy (where I am most familiar) they like to finance investigations into dark matter or exoplanets, but that's just because they are the newest and most active, exciting fields. They pick the fields that have proven to be the most fruitful as a form of scientific investment. Universities also provide a lot of more independent funding,

[Niall]

lol i think you are in the middle, which is a good thing, you just need that little extra push to come onto myside

 

Yeah. Cop out. See I've dismissed your stories and present the real facts, but you've decided to give up on the discussion and make accusations about me dismissing the "facts". I think this shows you haven't really been reading or paying attention.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Yeah. Cop out. See I've dismissed your stories and present the real facts, but you've decided to give up on the discussion and make accusations about me dismissing the "facts". I think this shows you haven't really been reading or paying attention.

 

lol, mate you couldnt dismiss my stories if you tried , ive made up my mind on certain topics, ive been trying to convince people for two years , and i get the same negative reaction as you're giving me , that im just crazy and dont know what im on about, so i dont really give a shit about convincing people, i just let people find their own way into the rabbit hole, i still agree with you on one thing, and that is looking at things on a scientific basis , but somethings cannot be answered from a scientific view point.

To each his own.

[Dockertae]

lol, mate you couldnt dismiss my stories if you tried , ive made up my mind on certain topics, ive been trying to convince people for two years , and i get the same negative reaction as you're giving me , that im just crazy and dont know what im on about, so i dont really give a shit about convincing people, i just let people find their own way into the rabbit hole, i still agree with you on one thing, and that is looking at things on a scientific basis , but somethings cannot be answered from a scientific view point.

To each his own.

 

Like what, isn't science pretty much just the study of anything that can be shown to exist?

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Like what, isn't science pretty much just the study of anything that can be shown to exist?

 

yer theirs different sciences, im talking about social science you're talking about natural science .