In Memory of Anthony Lawson

Anthony Lawson passed away on the 8th of January, 2015 due to colon cancer.



Anthony Lawson was responsible for the famous "This is an Orange" 911 truth video:



The truth about 911 will end the war on terror.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 3rd, 2015.]

Related:

Anthony Lawson, 1935-2015

CANCER IS CURABLE NOW FULL LENGTH DOCUMENTARY

Debunking 'JFK: The Smoking Gun' - A Response to Questions about the Film

In an online discussion I was told to watch the documentary JFK: The Smoking Gun which some friends thought provided a good explanation to the killing - that Secret service Agent Hickey accidentally fired the fatal head shot . Having some understanding of the case I ventured the following reply:
________________________________

I just watched the doco and I have report it is another railroading of material. You can check what I am saying by Googling the Warren Commission testimony to see if the doco is being truthful. It's not all bad because the show states that the official account cannot be true. That's a good starting point.

The present McLaren case is based closely on the work of the Howard Donahue hypothesis. McLaren claims he 'forensically' examined the Warren Commission data but this looks to be false because he should have recognised multiple witness testimony to 4 shots - whereas he says there were only three in the scenario presented. He tells us the witnesses should lead us to solving the case but I don't think he followed his own advice. Implicitly he also fully believes much of the official account - key aspects of which have been shown to be highly improbable, if not false. [like the Magic bullet theory]

At the start of the show we see that both McLaren and CBS TV (via their shooting recreation) doubt Oswald could have fired the three shots that the Warren Commission says were fired. The CBS recreation itself has problems because their 'car' does not slow down during the test firing. Anyway, like the testimony in the WC, the doco says that two of the shots were fired in quick succession - too fast for Oswald. The problem we face is that the show wants us to think that Oswald only fired twice and the Secret Service guy once. It says one shot missed because all researchers agree, including the WC - that a bullet struck the sidewalk. Consequently we are now stuck with ONE bullet hitting both JFK in the back and then Connelly - the magic bullet - to cause all the injuries.

McLaren and Donahue believe the magic bullet tale and that the bullet, Exhibit 399, smashed through tissue and bone to be only slightly deformed. E399 is clearly planted evidence. There is no way that bullet broke bone. Watch Mythbusters shooting stuff with various rounds, or even water with a high powered rifle, and see what happens. That slug didn't hit anything like bone.

Also, Governor Connelly clearly recalls that he heard gunfire, that the President had already been hit, when he was turning in his car seat and was THEN hit. The Zapruder film actually backs up his account. This means there were at least two separate hits and the miss into the sidewalk (3 shots) up to this point.

Furthermore, Oswald could not have shot Kennedy in the back and Connelly with the same bullet.

The actual location of the wound in JFK's back was at least 5 inches below the bottom of his collar, NOT in his lower neck. Even [with JFK] leaning forward Oswald's shot could not possibly line up with Connelly. Google image JFK jacket and then JFK shirt. It has been claimed that JFK's jacket rode up so that it only looked like he was struck low but his shirt could not have performed the same manoeuvre if it was tucked into his pants. In any event the folding -especially the shirt- cannot make up four or five inches of distance.

The show has serious problems with how it handles the witnesses they highlight and how they don't fully relate what they say to railroad their hypothesis.

The testimony of James Humes M.D. represents the material put out by the Bethesda examination that was by all accounts very poorly handled - it appears to be a fraud. The show mentions the gag order placed on people in attendance which the radiologist later in show, Jerrol Custer, recalls. Custer in other interviews points to a cover-up of the forensic data and indicates a large wound to the rear of JFK's skull.

Humes' account conflicts with those at Parkland who saw a large exit wound in the right rear portion of JFK's skull. This is one of the main problems with the show in relation to the forensics - it takes the overall WC conclusions at face value in terms of vetting/accepting evidence. It ignored conflicting testimony and photographs including those conflicting pictures from the autopsy (ie the shirt and the head taken from the side pic). 

The show completely ignored what occurred at Parkland beyond the argument with the Secret Service. No mention is made of the accounts by the medical staff who viewed the body of the President.

When it came to linking the head shot to Secret Service agent Hickey the show makes only one claim it supports with testimony - that of Sam Holland who said he saw the SS agent pull a weapon after the first shot. The show leaves out the fact that this is the same Sam Hickey who stood on the overpass with other witnesses and stated he saw a white puff of smoke coming from the grassy knoll. The affidavit read by the actor playing Hickey only spoke the last three or four sentences from his Dallas testimony. They left out the fact that he said he heard 4 gunshots and saw the smoke from the knoll.

The other two witnesses appearing in the show, the police officer and Senator Ralph Yarborough say they saw the SS gun pulled at a time after the last shot. These people do not say they saw any gun before this point. We are then told that there are other witnesses to the gun being pulled before the final shot. This is not a convincing argument in light of these examples.

One point that comes out in the doco is the fact that gunsmoke was smelt by many at ground level - indicating at least one shooter in relatively close proximity.

Final point. All the evidence coming directly from the authorities, who were shown in the doco to be involved in a cover-up of some kind, must be suspect and their material treated carefully. Even the Zapruder film appears to be altered. A witness to an early screening before it was confiscated says that their was white spray all over the place during the head shot and that it lasted for a while - much longer then the red blotch we see today. Also the cop on the bike got blasted with brain matter and so did the SS agents in the car behind (the latter example clearly mentioned in the doco). This seems indicative of a substantial rear exit wound.

The 'JKF: Smoking Gun' doco does not substantiate its hypothesis. Some its claims are refuted or are impossible considering a fuller account of the specific points it raises. Apologies for the long winded reply, but if I just made a short retort that would not help much in understanding the problems with such a slick production. 

I found a very short and concise refutation of the Howard Donahue hypothesis that can be found at the following link:

Did a Secret Service Agent Accidentally Shoot JFK in the Head?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/griffith1.html

It's a quick read that respectfully addresses the failings of Donahue's analysis. Thanks for making it this far if you have read to the end! :) 
_______________________________________________

Related Info:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 7 - The Smoking Guns
Excellent eyewitness recounting of the evidence of multiple shooters and frontal shots plus the cover-up.


JFK: The 'Official' Conspiracy Theory
Why is the establishment so desperate to reinforce the official narrative behind the assassination of JFK 50 years later?


The truth about JFK will open a very large can of worms - and has already done so to a degree.

Conspiracy to Tell the Truth: Interview with Lance deHaven-Smith [MUST SEE CLIP]

Abby Martin talks to Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University professor and author of 'Conspiracy Theory in America', about some the US' most controversial events and how labeling truth-seekers as 'conspiracy theorists' damages democracy.



Awesome history lesson on disinformation and a discussion about applying logic to suspicious circumstances. Everyone can ask questions, what is important is seeing what evidence there is that either supports or refutes the suspicions. Provable facts count, on a case by case basis, not generalisations. However, when we have a record of State criminality then it is rational to be immediately suspicious of many terrorist events.

Just remember the term 'State Crimes Against Democracy'. High level corruption doesn't just happen in third world dictatorships. A basic lesson for those unaware of the propaganda and corruption that surrounds us.

Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a "conspiracy theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Page History
(cur) (prev) 21:40, 5 April 2009 Jehochman (talk contribs) m (55,220 bytes) (moved Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Rename article per talk page discussion) (undo)

It used to be called a hypothesis now its been downgraded to a conspiracy theory. Right around the release of the thermitic material paper aswell; which there was a debate about whether or not to mention.

hy·poth·e·sis (hī-pŏth'ĭ-sĭs) n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sēz')
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

conspiracy theory n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

By simply looking at the definitions it is clear that the proponents of the demolition theory are not proposing a "conspiracy theory", they are proposing a hypothesis. Steven Jones, Richard Gage and other technical 9/11 researchers have never directly pointed the finger at anyone. They simply criticise the official theories for the destruction the towers and look for alternative explanations. They are therefore not conspiracy theorists. Furthermore, everything about the official story of 9/11 fits the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Ever since the article was created in September of 2006, the theory has been referred to as a hypothesis. Now the new paper comes out PROVING there was a large quantity of explosive super-thermite in the towers and within a day, several biased editors, who are likely paid operatives, flood the talk page suggesting the page be renamed to a "conspiracy theory". The page was renamed hours later, despite opposition from fairer editors. They also attack the paper on the talk page, doubting the reliability of the journal and the peer review process.

Page History
(cur) (prev) 14:54, 4 April 2009 Arthur Rubin (talk contribs) (55,220 bytes) (We've gone through this before; The "peer review" seems to consist of "Yes, this looks interesting", and there are credible reports (to the point we could include them) that THIS paper was not review) (undo)

Just because a journal isn't mainstream, doesn't mean it's not credible. Compared to the corrupted, agenda driven "investigations" of Propaganda Mechanics, the British Brainwashing Corporation and the Nanothermite Institute of Scumbags and Traitors, who have been exposed as frauds several times before, i'd say Bentham is pretty reliable. And, according to Stephen Jones, the peer review process on this paper was the most grueling peer review he's ever had.

Talk Page
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So it seems Wikipedia's definition of neutral is NIST, Popular Mechanics and the BBC's definition of neutral - AKA selective and biased.

See:
David Ray Griffin - Let's Get Empirical
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy

It is clear that there is no possible explanation for the super-thermite in the World Trade Center dust that doesn't point towards inside involvement. Therefore instead of even attempting to explain or refute this evidence, Wikipedia has evidently gone for the ad-hominen attack, a technique used time and time again by 9/11 "Debunkers".

Related Info:

Guide to Wikipedia on 9/11

Rampant Un-American Censorship of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Interview With WorldUnificationNetwork.org Founder David C. Byers

"The World Unification Network is the first ever online network aimed at bringing true equality, peace, and freedom to the people of Earth! It is equally owned and operated (shared) by the entirety of our membership, and everyone is invited to join us!"

John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:

First off, just let me say that I love the concept of this network that you have set up. Social networks are generally used for a lot of mindless fluff, and are shunned by many adults for their reputation of being a teenie bopper pass time. However, when these systems are used to unite activists it really shows how great of a tool these networks can be. What really sets your network apart for me though is the fact that it is totally censorship free.

As it is posted on the site...

The "Admin Account is the only account with the ability to delete (aka censor) member content on our network so in the sake of freedom of speech, I've started this note as a place to publicly account for all activity."

And you actually show in detail every small change you make to the site. I think this is a great precedent to set. There is the exception that group hosts can delete posts, but you also say "let this be a good example of how we want to do things here @ theWUN."

So first off, was this policy sparked by any specific incidents that have taken place on other networks such as user bulletins being censored on MySpace, and secondly how does one go about setting up a network like this?

David C. Byers-A:

Thanks so much for noticing and bringing this up! I've been keeping up the blog for a while but wasn't sure anyone had even looked at it yet!

Since our network's inception on Myspace back in April 2007 and the idea of the "World Unification Network" became more clear to me, it became obvious that it was kind of a, for lack of better words, "sacred duty" of a network like ours, which was built to help us collectively reach such overarching goals, to offer a free and open forum for people to say what's on their mind about whatever they want, even if it's about the network being posted on, actually, especially if it's about the network being posted on, we could not expect to achieve any one of our goals, let alone get anyone to join us if we couldn't promise that this place is any different than any other commercial venture big name social network, networks who's legal policies promise you that they can delete anything "they" feel like. This time we're trying something different, a network without a "legal policy" without a headquarters, without an owner, heck I made the page, but I've tried to make it as clear as I can that this is a member owned network, and that it is shared by everyone who uses it, really i just had this idea that I wanted it to be a tool to bring the whole world a little bit closer together, by our own free will, and for the rights and planet we all share, that, I feel, is the true potential of this wonderful tool we have in the internet. Also, I have always felt very strongly about our rights to freedom and since my youth was a close analyst of what the term "freedom" really means here in America, so when I built the page, in the light of overwhelming censorship and communication repression techniques utilized by Myspace I decided that one of the goals of our network, which we will continue to pursue, is to effectively "fool-proof" the censorship issue, it's not perfected yet, but we're on our way, I will be happy when we get to the point where censorship or deletion of content is virtually impossible except by the individual member who made the post.

And great asking how to do this, I started the concept of the World Unification Network on Myspace back in April 2007, and little did I know Ning.com enables anyone to build their own social network from scratch, for free, and they work really well, and they've been doing it for a while! So, I got on here as soon as I realized it, and it's been great, I highly recommend Ning social networks for ease of use and interconnectivity among other Ning networks, and all I've really done to help ensure member's free speech is created a separate account without any administrator status that I use as my personal page, have not enabled any other admins, and the one admin account I make sure to only use for style changes and broadcast messages. Thought I should mention also that, included in the right to free speech theWUN was built upon, is the right to promote your non-profit website, so say you build a Ning network, have a network already, or have another not for profit group, idea, or website, you can then build a group @ theWUN specifically for your page, with a link, to help people find you and move back and forth, between, and among our networks. We are called theWUN but never presume to be the WUN & only, I know that we can only grow if we grow together. I realize that, and extend the invitation to everyone to join us and help us pursue our mission, or as I like to call it Y(Our) mission. We hope to grow into a global hub big enough to change the world, to help people everywhere find causes they can relate to, so to do that right we had to start by being a cause everyone can relate to, I feel that if we can promote, above all, the rights of peace and freedom, not only freedom of speech, but in all ways, while continuing to grow the network, the message of our members as a whole will shine through, especially, as a larger, more diverse group of people, our "family of friends", make use of the personal empowerment tool that "theWUN" was designed to be, while helping to build upon and more clearly define the very purpose why it continues to exist.

JMT-Q:

Very informative, I'm definitely hoping that the readers will sign up for the WUN network, create their own networks, and groups, and keep growing this monster like the blob!

Moving on, I'm aware that you are a 9/11 truther, so the million dollar question for this blog is of course your thoughts on the so-called 9/11 debunkers. If you have ever ran into these nice people (some of them are) they probably called you a twoofer, or a CT, which is short for conspiracy theorist. Which is funny to me because first off, the 9/11 truth movement was started by the 9/11 families, so I guess they are twoofers too?! Secondly, as David Ray Griffin pointed out on a radio interview, speaking in regard to statements of John McCain...

"He wants to say that the conspiracy theorists are not satisfied with the mundane truth. He says that generally the truth is pretty mundane. So the truth is simply that Osama bin Laden was able to inspire 19 young men, including some who couldn't fly, to fly these planes through the air, defeat the most sophisticated military defense system in history, strike the Pentagon, which is surely the most protected building on the face of the planet, and then bring down three WTC buildings by striking two of them, and bringing them down in such a way that several laws of physics we're violated."

He makes many more points like these in his book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking - An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, which shatters the idea that the only people that are conspiracy theorists are those with alternative views. After all, official simply means "of or relating to an office or a post of authority," it certainly doesn't mean that something is the objective truth! The historical precedent worldwide and domestically for honest and open government is pretty much none, and if you live on the same planet that I do, I thought this was pretty clear. I could list government lies and atrocities for days on end with link after link to various information, but here are just two to chew on...

Atrocities: http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp

Lies: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.html?q=lieofthecentury.html

So, the fact that we have so many people defending the government's line on things is just astounding to me. McCain is one thing, but there are a ton of debate forums and websites just swamped by seemingly average people that attack those calling for a new investigation and searching for the truth.

They try to downplay highly credentialed and credible people that question the official story, and any witnesses that report damning information are either said to be confused or lying. As if an underfunded and conflict of interest ridden commission wasn't enough justification! Please give the readers your take on all of this.

David C. Byers-A:

You are right I'm a truther and proud of it, hell call me a "conspiracy theorist" if you want, I think it's pretty clear to those who are paying attention we've been living in conspiracy reality for quite some time! My thoughts on the whole thing, and what I try and tell the sheep I meet, is only some basic facts, for one, it is physically impossible for buildings like the twin towers, who's exoskeleton was built exactly for the purpose of helping distribute the load and prevent it from falling in such events, to literally crumble to dust, simply from an hour's worth of burning jet fuel!

I too believed the "official" story when I first heard it as a freshmen in high school, but, I also gave middle easterners dirty looks in public for at least a week without any real reason afterwards! And, now, the more I look at it, the more clear it is that we have been TRICKED. I am at a loss as to how people can still deny the truth about 9/11, without having a vested interest in the military-industrial complex, which as it happens, most Americans do, and like my own mother & father continue to deny the real story behind that fateful day.

In the light of such widespread ignorance and the continued strategy of "divide and conquer" being utilized by those who would make us their slaves, I was inspired to start this effort of the "World Unification Network" which led me to the idea for PEACEfest, which is really, nothing but some days that I think we should set aside to celebrate for the things all humans share, this planet, all of its resources, and the future, the idea is, we could share peace too, if we stand up for our rights and make it happen, and the only day I can think of that would be right to start off these celebrations was September 11.

Now the idea of PEACEfest started quite some time ago, but hasn't really grown to be anything resembling a revolution, let alone even a fest, this year, but it has evolved since then into another global network built to unite people on their local levels for worthy causes by enabling them to join up in a local group and post events, protests, and other things people in their area should know about, I figure that if we can continue to network and make it grow we could have thousands of individually organized grass roots celebrations going on by 9/11/09, which we're tentatively calling "the next rEvolution"! ....on a note related to the labeling that society does to those of us who choose to seek the truth instead of basking in our own ignorance and arrogance, I've created a group all about PEACEfest in the US, and I've called it "the 'Crazy' Party", for the one reason that, I've come to the conclusion that people can call me "crazy" or "conspiracy theorist" all they want, when it comes down to God's honest truth, we are the ones who are pursuing it and bringing it to light, and anyone who wants to live in denial and pretend like everything's all right are the ones with the real "crazy" issues. So the title is a play on words, because if all goes well, PEACEfest2009 will be the craziest party of all!"

JMT-Q:

You raise a very valid points in regard to the resiliency of the Twin Towers. Many people have heard that the buildings were designed to sustain jet impacts. The problem is that there is also a lot of misinformation out there that claims that the type of planes anticipated at the time were much smaller and lighter on fuel, but this simply is not the case. In fact the size and fuel capacity of the anticipated 707s and DC 8s are quite comparable. The WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. De Martini, even stated on the documentary, World Trade Center - A Modern Marvel that...

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

The small difference between a 707 and 757 is surely compensated for if we are to believe this statement. And even if we dismissed it, the difference is more than compensated for due to the fact that the anticipated scenarios made calculations for a 707 traveling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the WTC towers were said, according to liberal figures, to be traveling at 470 and 590 mph, according to conservative figures at, 440 and 540 mph.

I think it is great that you are making efforts to ask questions, spread truths, and unite people to engage in activism. I think picking 9/11/09 for your PEACEfest events is very fitting.

You have also been working on an offshoot of the World Unification Network known as the WUN Radio Network. It is putting a focus on people's musical interests, with political music definitely being in the fold. I for one love music, but as you say... "who doesn't, robots?"

But seriously the power of music is just an amazing force, and when combined with images that speak a thousand words, an amazing tool to spread the truth on a primordial level.

I myself recently put together a video for Gary Jules - Mad World that was played on 9-11 at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland Ca. I hear the place was PACKED from noon till 11pm, so hundreds of people saw it in one sitting.

So, I will be definitely be sharing my creations on the network!

Now, the network is in its infancy, and I know that you have plans to also do some talk radio as well. Please tell the readers what some of the plans are and how they can get involved.

Also, what are you thoughts about music being an agent of political change, and what is on your headphones?

David C. Byers-A:

So, we've got WUN Network Radio going like you mentioned, and I really feel this may be the place that really takes off first in our group of WUN Networks, because its basically listner created radio, going along with the same philosophy of theWUN we believe that if we unite as artists, as fans of art, and on every other level, we can accomplish much, my ideas that stem from WUN Network Radio that I hope to develop and build more as we grow are the notion of a "record label" that we can use to revolutionarily distribute art to the people of earth without going through the usual mediums and without the usual record contracts, I built peacefest to help accommodate the artists, and people in general on a local level, and very soon we hope to integrate a video channel into the concept of WUN Network Radio, so like I say in the my introductory forum post there, we hope to build a centralized hub that is available and useful to all!

Music is without a doubt one of the best, if not the best tool to reach people anywhere on earth and about anything, what else can I say? Music knows no borders, and has the ability to raise awareness to new levels by bringing people together from all walks of life. I love music, so much, its indescribable, how many times could I say that music has saved my life, I don't know, but let's say at least once!

My headphones don't stop either! I really can't not listen to music, exept I am right now strangely, but I keep the rotation pretty random, not shuffed though, I like albums, and my only criteria is that it's GOOD. That covers a lot! Mostly around the house we listen to Beatles, Bob Marley, The Doors, etc., forever, and when I'm alone or in the car I just can't stop rockin hip hop lately! Aesop Rock, Talib Kweli, and Immortal Technique are my favorites, I think they're truly revolutionizing hip hop, and trying to bring back its good name since radio crap rap took over! I really will and do listen to alot, and have just recently began playing some more as well, and hope to get recording within this next year, I just turned 23 today so i guess that's a good goal to be rocking on stage @ PEACEfest 2009 before I'm 24! I just checked and I'm at 51 days of music on my itunes, maybe that's why the computer is running so slow!

JMT-Q:

Crap rap most definitely dominates, but the underground scene is going strong. I actually put together a small website that covers the subject of conscious rap, and how artists like Immortal Technique have been a huge force in the 9/11 truth movement.

I believe that there has been a concerted effort by people with a lot of pull to dumb down the artform of hip-hop, as to not have it educate and create dissent. I came to this conclusion because it has been demonstated that conscious rap can bring in the cash flow, but there is stong resistance to it. Immortal Technique even declined a major label deal because they asked him to tone down his lyrics.

Do you get that feeling as well?

David C. Byers-A:

Good to hear we're on the same page! Actually since Pete, a member here @ theWUN started WUN Network Radio I've been hearing lots of originals from our members that have blown me away! I've featured a few of the hip hop artists in my profile over there (http://wunnetworkradio.ning.com/profile/dc13) and even hope to start a show featuring many of them and to get myself on the air over there! Also I'll have to get a talk show going there eventually, I'll be sure to have you on! And on the topic of a concerted effort to dumb down commercial hip hop, I think its the same concerted effort to dumb down every other aspect of society and hip hop has been a casualty, it's a shame, so many people "hate" "rap" because everything on the radio is basically junk.... I used to be one of those people and never would have even discovered many of my now favorites had I not broke out of that mindset!

JMT-Q:

We'll I can't wait for you to get a show going, I love doing talk radio, my nerves hate it though! I would be more than happy to tackle my nerves and really throw out a tongue lashing for these debunkers for one thing!

To wrap up, what are some activist outlets, petitions, upcoming events, etc. that you think people should be aware of? Other than that you can close on whatever foot you like, and thanks for doing the interview and for all your efforts to change this crazy world.

David C. Byers-A:

I really just want to emphasize that all are welcome and invited here, not because I want to build "my" website but because its going to take all of us to really change the world as much as it needs to change, so please join WorldUnificationNetwork.org, make it representative of the things you believe in, and let's build this thing together... I had someone say the other day that they thought I could possibly be a project of the NWO, but I had to say right back, if I was this project would have been funded for more than $50 since its inception more then a year and a half ago, so I guess that makes me just another pissed off peon... as far as I can see a shared network is the best way to go, and just because something is shared does not mean that we can't all get just as much out of it, quite the opposite, I truly believe it's going to take all those organizations that are working for REAL change to REALLY learn to work together, our foe has us pretty pinned unless we do! So far I've joined almost 100 similar efforts via social networks, newsletters, etc., and I'm working on a new open source comprehensive list of all these real organizations together with an overhaul of our old myspace network to highlight the list called O.P.E.N. (one peaceful earth network) @ onepen.ning.com and hope to build huge networks of people around them on different social networks, this will allow for more exposure to not only theWUN but all the great efforts that are going on out there. Which reminds me of something I heard the other day which rang pretty true about the only way we can beat Goliath is by getting ALL of the Davids in the world to work together!