*This article is a direct result of a Facebook post by Michele McPhee. Through this I would like to openly challenge Ms. McPhee to respond to my comments, and or debate me on her radio show.
Massachusetts has long been a Democratic state that loves leaning to the left of center. Being so it has become a state that spawned Romneycare, the original blueprint for the colloquial Obamacare.
Massachusetts is also the residence of not only myself, David Harkins, but as well as a Ms. Michelle McPhee. For those who haven't heard of Ms. McPhee here is her own biography from her Facebook page:
Best-selling author of five true crime books; Emmy-nominated investigative reporter; award-winning columnist and crime reporter.
Ms. McPhee has done work for the Boston Herald, WRKO, and WCVB-TV 5, all of which are major Boston media platforms.
By all accounts Ms. McPhee has earned herself a distinguished career, one that should teach someone a great deal about journalistic ethics. It appears to me that Ms. McPhee is either lacking in those ethical departments, or knowingly violating her journalistic ethics to further some irrelevant agenda.
Below I will illustrate how Ms. McPhee does not deserve the recognitions she has recieved because she has disgraced journalistic ethics, and morality. Post editing published work without telling people is obviously unethical.
There is a litany of things that do not add up in regards to the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado. A recent Infowars article does a good job of summarizing some of the most disturbing questions, and inconsistencies that have not been addressed.
Even more questions begin to rise about the events that occured due to the alleged witness statements that have come out.
There is one alleged witness account that is riddled with misinformation, propaganda, and inconsistencies. The news clip, and a youtube users analysis is seen below:
At about 4:50 you can see the man help tow the official line about gun control. Perhaps one could argue that gun control may be a legitimate issue to discuss after being involved in a shooting. However when taken into consideration with the other suspicious circumstances in this case, and the other strange remarks, and actions by this couple, it makes it increasingly suspicious that they are at the least being influenced to change their story.
At 6:14 - 6:16 the man cannot keep a straight face while attempting to tell how he believed he was going to die. He's attempting to convince the viewer that he was inside a movie theater with people falling all around him being shot, he lost his 4 month old, daughter, and girlfriend during the commotion, and believed himself, and entire family would be killed. How on Earth can anyone who just experienced that start smirking. He's not crying, or attempting to hold back tears. He is not confused, or surprised. There is only one way to interpret his actions, and he's being deceitful, and cannot keep a straight face. Who can smile while saying "this cannot be the way my son dies".
At the 8:20 mark the man being interviewed said that his 4 month year old, and additionally his step daughter, and girlfriend were all inside the theater, however, instead of standing up for his family the coward decides to jump over the balcony, and run away.
"so I jump, and I run, and I land" -
After telling how he abandoned his family he continues to stumble on his words while trying to produce crocodile tears. This is horrible acting. If this man was really a father who was in the theatre during the shooting why does he feel the need to try to produce tears on camera? Or why do the handlers off camera want him to produce tears?
Another interesting question raised by the video is what gun was the mother shot with. Holmes was alleged to have an AR15 assault rifle, a shotgun, and two 40 caliber handguns. Getting shot from any distance inside the movie theater with the AR15 assault rifle is likely to cause catastrophic damage to whoever it hits. I would suspect that the majority of the kills were a result of the AR15, with the exception of the possible executions involving a handgun.
You can find an example of military rifle wounding patterns here. I have included a copy of the image for a 5.56 full metal jacket (fmj) round below. You can see that the image lists the muzzle velocity at 943m/s, and Wikipedia lists a muzzle velocity of 975 m/s. The image is also from a 1989 article, and it states that 3.6 gram bullets were used. Depending on the weight of the bullet used, and any additional specifications of the gun, or any improvements that were made since 1989 make it most likely that the shooters bullet was more damaging than the image of a pre-1989 5.56 fmj bullet wound.
The mother could not have possibly been shot with the AR15 since the damage would be great, and she would be in severe pain, and have bandages, most likely have had to undergo surgery to remove the bullet fragments, and would be on pain killers, and anti-biotics to prevent infection. With the exception of constantly looking at someone to her left, and off camera for directions she doesn't appear to be in a dazed, confused, drug induced state as the alleged shooter appeared in court.
I would therefor like to understand what the mother was shot with. It must have been a handgun since a shotgun at close range would almost certainly be lethal, and at long range (assuming he used pellets) would cause a wide damage pattern. Depending on the range the pellets would have become increasingly spread out, and hit chairs, walls, other people, etc and lose velocity before hitting the mother.
Therefor the most likely weapon for the mother to have been shot with would be one of the two alleged 40 caliber handguns that Holmes had. According to witness accounts, however, the shooter had a large drum magazine, and had to reload after firing a large amount of bullets. It was during this reloading that most people got up, and ran out. When did the shooter have time to pull out his handgun, and fire rounds into the theater, and strike the mother. Additionally why are there no other reports stating that he pulled out a handgun, and stated firing when there are detailed reports of him firing an assault rifle, then having to reload a specific type of magazine.
In conclusion we have two horrible parents, although my better judgement will prevent me from getting too upset as it is likely that they are not real parents, as I shudder to think or parents leaving their children to die in a movie theater with an alleged crazed lone-nut gunman. What a couple of pathetically cowardly individuals.
Google likes to scare users by displaying red, bold text stating the horrible things that will happen "if" they should lose access to your account.
I reported on this issue last summer, in this article, and the practice is still continuing one year later. The image on the top was taken around 6:00P.M. E.S.T on June 16th, 2012 while attempting to login to my Google (Gmail, and Google Drive) account.
This image appeared after entering the same password 3-4 times, on two different Google login platforms, Gmail and Google Drive. The password was entered manually each time, meticulously as I was thinking I may have been hacked since I knew I was entering the correct password, which on the last attempt worked, and prompted the page screen shot below.
Screen shot taken around 6:00 P.M. E.S.T. on June 16, 2012. Screen shot is of prompt-screen for phone number in between a successful login to a Go ogle service, and that services main page. This page would appear in between the login page for Gmail, and the user gaining access to then Gmail inbox.
This image is very similar to one I post in my previous article, which is shown for comparison below.
Screen shot is of a prompt-screen in between a successful login to a Google service, and that services main page. This would appear between the login page for Gmail, and the user gaining access to then Gmail inbox. No time stamp information is currently available for this image. Image Source
Google has multiple variants of this implementation shown in the image below, also from previous article.
Screen Shot Taken: 8/31/11 12:32 AM Screen shot is of a prompt-screen in between a successful login to a Google service, and that services main page. This would appear between the login page for Gmail, and the user gaining access to then Gmail inbox. Image Source
Last year when I originally wrote about this topic it seemed both benign, and an invasion of privacy. Google wanted to gain information, so they attempted to gain phone numbers. Ultimately they want a database of all human knowledge, including all knowledge that exists anywhere about you. They want to know everything.
A year ago I declined to give my phone number, although as many who attempt to fight the good fight we often have to use the tools of the enemy to our advantage. A year after the first report I have an android phone, of which is already synced to my Google account. It didn't matter this time that they wanted it, I entered it, whatever.
The problem was how Google went about it. I believe they crossed a major ethical line. I believe Google is now operating a moderated script of one that was running last summer causing the phone number prompts.
As of now this is speculation, and I have no proof that it exists or that I will be able to find such proof before it disappears. I welcome any, and all to try to support my hypothesis or disprove it. Please pardon any techno-babble below. Below is my hypothesis on the maliciously designed Google script that is operating in the wild across the Google Umbrella Network.
Alexander Pankin made very telling statements regarding the Houla, Syria massacre.
He stated:
"There was a force working in this village. It's difficult to imagine
that the Syrian government would not only shell and mortar but also use
point-blank execution against 40-plus women, 30-plus, children under age
10."
In one of the few videos of Mr. Pankins remarks that is currently available it also shows the remarks by a U.N. Rep pushing the story of shelling. Grasping at straws saying that U.N. observers saw a tank in the area, despite remarks by the Syrian government that there were no tanks in the Houla, Massacre.
The issue over tanks is due to the original quasi-official story that was being propagated by the media, and the United Nations, that the Syrian government shelled with tank, artillery, and mortars the village of Houla, Syria.
That story didn't hold for long, and media outlets were forced to report that the massacre was actually involving knifes, and small arms, rather than shelling. Reuters reported that U.N. representative Rupert Colville stated "at this point it looks like entire families were shot in their houses."
Colville's statements echo more statements made by Mr. Pankin to reporters. According to a CBS article Mr. Pankin told reporters that "there is substantial ground to believe that the majority of those who were killed were either slashed, cut by knives, or executed at point-blank distance."
These remarks are extremely telling. They add to the growing number of people who believe that there may be forces at work in Syria orchestrating events trying to instigate an intervention by foreign military powers. Among that group is also Damascus, who categorically deny any involvement in the massacre.
According to a foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi there was a battle with gunman, and Syrian security forces, but that did not involve the use of tanks, and that the security forces were essentially defending their base for a 3 hour gun fight. This incident is said to not have affected Houla.
Of course we have seen the tactics of using children as ploys before, and the horrible results it had. Only that was ultimately exposed as a lie, and Sadam Hussein did not throw babies out of incubators. One could argue the same perpetrators got smarter, and on this eve of war actually killed children. Quid pro quo?
At a Canadian protest against a new law requiring permission to protest has drawn out just that, a large protest.
Thousands of people including nude women, and guy fawkes according to the title were in attendence at the event. Russia Today reports that 700 people were "rounded up and arrested".
It is very scary that such large numbers are being detained for peaceful protest. How many people must be rounded up, and detained before the people wake up to what is going on! Thousands? Millions?
Augmented reality is not a new concept, however we have just come to a point where today's technology are able to implement the features in a way that will make it work for the layman.
This will be the first of several segments on Google "Glass", and the problems that are inherently built into the devices, and programs. Problems that could be accidental, or intentionally placed there as a back door into our lives.
*As of April 5th, 2012 this video has begun to go viral, being picked up by several news agencies.
One especially creepy aspect is in the last scene, where the character we are following is able to share his view of the sunset with another person. This could be modified to allow anyone to see exactly what another person is viewing, and doing. Regardless of if the police want to catch crime by seeing drug deals sell drugs, or they simply want to see images of naked women, a tactic borrowed from the T.S.A.
Technology is growing at a staggering rate, and the amount of people who have significant computing skills is growing every day, thanks in part to the availability of devices such as iPhones, and iPads. Combined this with the power of the masses, such as the hacktivist group Anonymous, and you could end up with major security breaches.
Cell phone calls, and records have already been hacked. The Murdoch example is just one of many, Another recent example is the hacked emails from Stratfor. Each of these security breaches is significant, however imagine how much more severe it would be if someone could see what you are seeing, exactly where you are, etc.
A cloned device that only shows what the original device is "seeing" or doing would allow people to know exactly where a person is, who they are with, when they will be home, and a host of other issues.
This article was a quick introduction in Google's Glass program, and some of the implications it imposes. Over the next few days, and weeks, more in depth articles will be written showing just how slippery a slope the Glass project can be.
