text:
Transcript Providers
Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
Source: John Kelly Knew of Abuse Claims for Months. Aired 4:30-5p ET
Aired February 8, 2018 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Kelly, according to Pamela Brown, our CNN White House correspondent, is now finding himself the target of the ire of President Trump.
[16:30:11] President Trump, who, according to our reports, did not know about Rob Porter's background, did not understand what was going on, was alerted to this by Ivanka Trump walking in with a phone and picture of the first ex-wife with a black eye, and it comes at a time when Chief of Staff Kelly has already been criticized this week for his comments about Dreamers, not signing up because they were too scared or too lazy, and the number of other things that he's said about the civil war, whatever, we can go on and on.
But do you think, Abby, that John Kelly's job is at stake here, that this is -- that this is big p enough, or enough of a distractions to irritate the president that he'd ask him to leave?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm not sure that it is. I mean, I think that with Trump, often, there are small moments of irritation, but as long as you continue to be there, those moments are going to come and go, and I would also make a distinction between some of those things that have made John Kelly a controversial figure, the Dreamer comments, the comments about Frederica Wilson, those comments are some comments that have actually made Kelly more Trump-like in a lot of ways.
The thing that annoys Trump about Kelly is when Kelly tried to imply that he was not fully informed about his own immigration policy. For example, or the degree to which Kelly restricted access of Trump's outside kitchen cabinet to the president, so there's separate issues here about the things that Kelly's doing that make him controversial to the, you know, outsiders, and the things that annoy Trump about him, and they are not the same thing.
I think this is an instance where the president was irritated by being blindsided, but we also saw Kelly traveling with the president this morning, going to the National Prayer Breakfast with him, and as part of a small group of aides who traveled with him to that event. I think you often see people coming in and out of the president's good graces. It takes a lot for Trump to finally say enough is enough, and sometimes it can be very sudden.
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I was going to say, it's also hard to believe that that, you know, this brief read to me like a typical Ivanka leaks, like she's going to save the day, horrified by everything, and she wants to change the world, if only she could, where she went in, and showed him the picture, and he went, oh, that's horrible. You know, that's a normal human reaction, but that's not consistent with how he's reacted to allegations of abuse and assault throughout the last two years.
PHILLIP: And it's worth knowing that Ivanka and Hope Hicks are very close.
TAPPER: Right.
PHILLIP: You have to also believe that Hope Hicks would not communicate, that she'd be blindsided by her own friend, the communications adviser to the president, a lot to believe to go down that road.
TAPPER: On a slightly lighter note, President Trump, obviously, comes from the world of reality television, "The Apprentice", and so it was not completely a surprise had he hired Omarosa to be on the White House staff. Omarosa was fired not long ago, I guess in December, and now appearing on "Big Brother," a different reality TV show, and this is how we are now hearing some of Omarosa's first actual thoughts. She sat down for an interview on ABC, but didn't really spill much.
Now, she's in whispers in the bedroom and living room sharing thoughts. Here's a little sneak preview of tonight's "Big Brother."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OMAROSA MANIGAULT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I was haunted by tweets every single day, like what is he going to tweet next?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does anybody say to him, what are you doing?
MANIGAULT: I tried to be that person and then all the people around him attacked me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should we be worried?
MANIGAULT: Don't say that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because we are worried. But I need you say, no, it's going to be OK.
MANIGAULT: No, it's not going to be OK. It's not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: First of all, I love reality TV shows when they whisper, like, oh, the cameras are not going to pick it up.
OK. Just in case you didn't hear at home, Omarosa said I was haunted by tweets every single day, like, what is he going to tweet next? And then it went on from there.
Now, believe it or not, he was asked about Omarosa today at the briefing.
RAJ SHAH, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Omarosa was fired three times in "The Apprentice," and this is the fourth time we let her go. She had limited contact with the president while here. She has no contact now.
TAPPER: OK.
PSAKI: We've never met you, Omarosa.
AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's like the character off "Always Sunny in Philadelphia," she goes to the White House and goes on reality TV to trash the president, the guy that hired her? Who can take it seriously?
PHILLIP: I guess the only thing that should be surprising is that, I mean, maybe this is not surprising. It's the White House, you don't have NDAs, disclosure agreements so you can walk out the door, go on a reality TV show and say whatever you want to say, maybe write a book. Maybe that's next.
TAPPER: She's writing a book.
PSAKI: Of course, of course.
TAPPER: That's why she was whispering not to spoil anything.
PSAKI: That played out as if it would play if "Will and Grace" had a scene where one of them worked in the White House. Who knew that's based in reality? It's what every human being would want to ask somebody who worked in the White House, like, what about the Twitter?
She responded how people would want her to respond, who knows if it's true or not or ever interacted with Trump while there. Could have been true.
TAPPER: But let's assume, take her on her word, haunted by tweets every day, what's next, I tried to be that person to say what are you doing, but then all the people around him attacked me.
So, I mean, she's actually describing something fairly important, which is the president's Twitter habit, and how, according to her, she tried to tell him these tweets are scaring people or haunting her, in her words, and people around the president then started attacking her. I, for one, find that fairly believable.
CARPENTER: In the next episode of "Big Brother" do dramatic readings of the tweets that haunted her and dress up like a spirit around the house.
TAPPER: Because she's haunted. I get it.
CARPENTER: Yes.
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't know -- the idea -- first of all, when Omarosa was in the White House, it was unclear what her actual job was.
CARPENTER: She was haunted.
PHILLIP: And just surprising to see her really elevate herself to being a Trump whisperer and being --
TAPPER: Literally.
PHILLIP: -- had to be kept away from the president. I mean, I guess that's the thing, the pedigree in the White House is, like, who is so important they have to be kept away from the president.
TAPPER: I love that, well, she was fired three times on "The Apprentice", and now fourth time at the White House, as if it's all the same.
PSAKI: He practiced that line in his office, probably.
(CROSSTALK)
PSAKI: Yes. It does go back to the question, look, every White House has to have a couple people who are saying no to the president, arguing with the president, ultimately, it's his choice what he does or doesn't do. What the dynamic seems to be here is President Trump is saying, go tweet this for me, go put out this statement, I'm saying this, and there's a sugar high on President Trump. There's nobody dealing a strategy, it's bad, this is why he's listening. So, element of that, whether it was a true story or not is reflective of the truth.
TAPPER: But Kelly is supposed to be doing that job, Kelly, right? No? I mean --
PHILLIP: Yes, no -- I mean, I think Kelly has given up on the idea of policing the tweets. I mean, the idea of -- the reason executive time exist in the morning because the president is in the residence for the most part doing what he wants with the time, and oftentimes it's tweeting. Kelly is not involved in the process and I think he's realized it's a lost cause. President Trump is not going to change habits because someone tells him to.
And in fact, he might do the opposite of what you tell him to do. I also think it's somewhat unseemly to see a former White House aide taking her experience and using it for personal profit on a reality show.
PSAKI: In a bedroom on a reality show.
PHILLIP: I think it's different. It feels different than writing a book. It's, like, you know, selling it to a tabloid or something to that effect. I think it's a little off-putting, and it's something that is just different about this White House.
I mean, working in the White House is to be a public service. You work for the American people. You're not building a cadre of secrets to go tell on "Big Brother."
CARPENTER: The saddest part of the story the only person listening to her was Ross the intern.
TAPPER: So, I guess the picture painted just today, OK, because, obviously, there's been a year and change or more, but just today, the White House we have, with Omarosa and much more significantly, the whole Rob Porter situation, two ex-wives accusing him of domestic abuse, the White House clearly knows, and their first instinct is to protect him. The only thing that we know of that they didn't know was the photograph of the black eye.
What's the picture painted here right now of this White House?
CARPENTER: It's complete chaos. It's a circus. Even the people that work for Trump don't respect him in the case of Omarosa, that she may go sell a silly story to reality TV. It's a complete mess. I mean, quite frankly, the silver lining of this is it's not completely off the rails and democracy continues to function, right?
[16:40:06] TAPPER: President Obama had moments where he had to let people go. I remember the guy in charge of military office in the White House, when they did the flyover of Air Force One in New York and scared half the city, but I don't think we've seen anything like this. I find it hard to believe that any previous White House would have let a domestic abuser, if they knew about it ahead of time, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, H.W. Bush, or Barack Obama, would have let him in the door.
PSAKI: Absolutely not. And, look, the scandals that we dealt with, which was quite quaint at this point, were things like misuse of taxpayer dollars, serious accusation, obviously it warrants a firing, but it's nothing that is questioning the values of the White House and the values of the American government.
And this is a case where you are putting into question here, why did they live by a different set of rules? Why on earth does this guy get to stay where everywhere else, every other industry, this is a career ender months and years ago?
TAPPER: Indeed. Everyone, stick around. We have a lot more to talk about.
Also breaking this hour, the Dow's dramatic drop, finishing down more than 1,000 points. What is causing the spiral? What the White House has to say about it. We're going to talk about that next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Breaking news in the "MONEY LEAD" now. The Dow nose-diving again today in what's been an incredibly volatile week for the financial markets. The Index closing more than 1,000 points, 4.1 percent for the second time this week. With me now is CNN's Christina Alesci and Ted Weisberg, he's the Founder and President of Seaport Securities, a financial firm. And Christina, let me start with you. What's driving the spiral?
CHRISTINA ALESCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's driving the spiral is the party's over. It's the end of cheap money. That's because investors in the Stock Market are looking over to the bond market, and they are seeing yields rise, and that's because of inflation fears and the fears that Fed may raise interest rates a lot faster than previously expected. Now that's going to make it more expensive to borrow money, to hire workers, and that will undercutting the foundations of -- the foundation of the Stock Market which is earnings. That is what the Stock Market is genuinely concerned about. But look, we're in an official correction territory. It's the first time we've hit this level off the January 26th high. We are 10 percent off of that, so we are in official correction. The Market hit official correction for the first time at the close. We've hit it before on an intraday basis, so this is a market now that's clearly looking for a bottom. And we're going to be searching for that bottom for quite some time, and I think the big question, for many investors and traders, is are we at the end of a bull market at this point, and are we headed towards a possible correction, which is a 20 percent drop. Now, we're still far away from that, but that's the big question going forward. But one thing is for sure, volatility is back. We saw the VIX, the Volatility Index, definitely bouncing around all week, but the party is over. As you pointed out, this is the second time this week we've seen a thousand point drop, and it's pretty hard and fast, and that is troubling some people in the market.
TAPPER: Ted, you're a veteran trader. Where do you think things go from here? Is it time to be worried?
TED WEISBERG, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, SEAPORT SECURITIES: Well, I think, you know, if you deal with any asset class, in particular, this asset class, and I've been doing it for slightly more than 50 years, I think you're always worried, no matter where the markets are. But, though, I hate to disagree with your guest --
TAPPER: Please do. Go ahead. We have lots of different viewpoints. Go ahead.
WEISBERG: I would simply say that the party is not over. The party is never over. We're simply going to trade stocks from different levels. You know, we have -- this is a market that clearly has not had any kind of meaningful correction. I mean, you can go all the way back to the trading lows of March of 2009 when the Dow was 6500. We're now even after tonight's close at Dow 24,000 or slightly below, so by any measurement, the market has had a huge move, trees don't grow to the sky, there's nothing rational about Stock Markets and the price of the stocks. They get overdone on the upside, they get overdone at the downside. Clearly, we were due for some kind of correction. I'm not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps she's right, but I think it's a little premature.
TAPPER: All right, Ted Weisberg, Christina Alesci, I appreciate you both being here. Thanks so much. Coming up next, she gave a voice to the more than 200 survivors of Larry Nassar's sexual abuse. My conversation with gold medal Gymnast Aly Raisman and what she revealing for the first time about those who may have turned a blind eye to Nassar's sick behavior.
[16:50:00] TAPPER: The "SPORTS LEAD" now. Tomorrow morning, the world will be watching the opening ceremonies for the Winter Olympics in South Korea. Americans will be cheering for their athletes, but there is a cloud over the U.S. Olympic committee after the biggest scandal in sports history. More than 250 gymnasts sexually abused by former USA Gymnastics and Olympic Doctor Larry Nassar. Nassar's systematic and rampant behavior was ignored for years, and, today, Olympic gold medalist Aly Raisman, who survived years of Nassar's abuse told us that the U.S. Olympic Committee needs to begin a truly independent investigation. And she told us for the first time about an incident where an Olympic coach may have heard about Nassar's abuse five years before the scandal went public.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Gold medalist, Aly Raisman, says she'll be enthusiastically cheer on team USA at the opening ceremonies tomorrow, but she also says the officials at the U.S. Olympic Committee have betrayed the athletes.
ALY RAISMAN, OLYMPIC GYMNAST: I was abused at the Olympics. Larry Nassar was the Olympic Doctor. They are very, very much responsible for this, and Larry Nassar helped create policies with USA Gymnastics in the United States, so they need to look at that and change everything, because, obviously, Larry's a monster. So a monster was able to create their policies that are still in place right now.
TAPPER: Days ago, the Olympic Committee hired a law firm to conduct what they call an independent investigation, and to who knew what about Nassar's abuse, and when. But Raisman is skeptical that this investigation will go far enough.
RAISMAN: This should have never, ever happened. You know, if one adult listened or had the character to act, you know, we would have never met him.
TAPPER: And now Raisman is revealing for the first time that the man who coached the 2012 gold medal Olympic team known as the fierce five, might have known about the abuse years before it was reported to USA Gymnastics, the Olympic Committee, or the FBI.
[16:55:00] RAISMAN: We would talk about it amongst ourselves and one of my teammates described in graphic detail what Nassar had done to her the night before, and John Geddert was in the car with us, and he didn't say anything. I don't know what he did or didn't do from there, I know he did not ask us any questions, but that just is why we need the full independent investigation to really get to the bottom of who knew about this.
TAPPER: And this was 2011?
RAISMAN: Yes.
TAPPER: This was five years before Nassar was caught.
TAPPER: That coach John Geddert has since retired, law enforcement in Michigan say they are investigating complaints against him, but refused to describe the nature of the complaints to CNN. Geddert's lawyer did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
RAISMAN: We need to get to the bottom of everything. You know, why did so many people not care and why did so many people look the other way?
TAPPER: The culture of inaction Raisman says, stretched to the U.S. Olympic Committee,the organization created to, "help American athletes achieve excellence." In 2016, the Committee brought in 339 million dollars, mostly from selling rights to use the Olympic rings and to broadcast the games. Nassar was abusing patients through 2016, but new reporting from the Wall Street Journal reveals that the CEO of the Olympic Committee, Scott Blackmun was alerted in July 2015 to reports that an Olympic Gymnast had alleged abuse by a team doctor. The U.S. Olympic Committee tells CNN, "we learned in 2015 of a doctor potentially having abused an athlete, and that was reported to the FBI. That's what is supposed to happen." The FBI, however, did not interview Aly Raisman until September 2016. During this period, according to the New York Times, at least 40 additional girls and young women were abused by Nassar. The U.S. Olympic Committee said they were following procedures the FBI was investigating, what's your response?
RAISMAN: When I was first contacted by the FBI in August of 2016, and I met with them in September of 2016, you know, I had asked them, why are you contacting me this late? What's going on? You know, I had notified you at the gymnastics in July of 2015, and they said that they first were aware of Nassar in April of2016. I want answers. That's unacceptable. That never ever should have happened.
TAPPER: Blackmun refused to talk to CNN, but it's not the first time the U.S. Olympic Committee has come under fire during his tenure, with abuse scandals also rocking the Olympic speed skating and taekwondo teams. Now Congress says it merits special investigations.
SEN. JONI ERNST (R), IOWA: I was disgusted. I was outraged. And I join Senator Shaheen in calling for Scott Blackmun's resignation.
TAPPER: Do you have confidence in Scott Blackmun?
RAISMAN: Well, I think, to be a good leader, you have to have character and you have to be a good person and do the right thing. And I don't think he is any of those things. I don't really understand why he hasn't reached out to any of us, you know, if he really cared and really wanted to get to the bottom of this, he would have reached out a long time ago. But, you know, it just shows from always, it's always been about the reputation, medals, and money for them.
TAPPER: How are you doing now?
RAISMAN: I think every day I cope differently with it. I feel -- I would say I'm very tired a lot. I'm just really trying to listen to my body. You know, some days I feel good and I'll do workout, other days I wake up and I just -- I can't even get through a ten-minute walk. And I -- and I'm -- that's crazy for me to say being an Olympic athlete, but I just think people need to understand that the stress and trauma, it is so exhausting. I would love for USA Gymnastics and USOC to hear this loud and clear, is that since they only care about is medals, reputation, and money, if we were that successful while we were being molested, wouldn't we have been more successful if we had the right doctor that actually helped heal our injuries that did not traumatize us. And if we had people around us that genuinely wanted to help us and were weren't doing well out of fear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Senators Ernst and Shaheen have bipartisan support to create a special committee to investigate how the abuse allegations were handled, but no promises yet from Senate Leadership. Our thanks to Aly Raisman and her family. Be sure to follow me on Facebook and Twitter @JAKETAPPER or you can tweet the show @THELEADCNN. That's it for THE LEAD today. I turn you over now to Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM."


The following essay first appeared in the Camera, Boulder, Colorado, in September, 1985. It is a rejoinder to a reply by Henry Smokier to a nationally syndicated article by Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff protesting the cancellation of a Cornell Medical School commencement speech by Professor Chomsky. The cancellation was the work of Zionists fearful that Chomsky, a forthright critic of Israel, would mar their happy occasion.
Chomsky has been the target of increasingly vicious invective from Zionist and Left-"Liberal" quarters for his principled stand on behalf of free speech for Revisionists. Chomsky is in fact a confirmed Exterminationist who subscribes to the orthodox history of the "Holocaust." The difference is that the renowned professor of linguistics from M.I.T. really is a civil libertarian, upholding the Enlightenment Rights of Man not merely so that his own Leftist views will be given a hearing, but from a commitment to an ideal which, far from being a selectively-applied tool of ideological opportunism, is a minimum prerequisite for a humane society and discourse.
Prof. Chomsky's essay gives important testimony about repression of Revisionists which the vast majority of Leftist intellectuals choose to ignore or even suppress. It deserves an audience far greater than that reached by the Boulder Camera. It also constitutes a tribute to both Chomsky and Faurisson-men who typify that endangered species of thinkers who actually practice what they preach.
In Faurisson's case, it is the practice of untrammeled intellectual curiosity and historical inquiry. In Chomsky's, it is the protection of the right to dissent, even when such dissent entails a radical questioning of the fundamental tenets of the most sacred dogma of the era.
In the Daily Camera (Aug. 25), Professor Howard Smokler, responding to a column by Nat Hentoff (June 30), writes that I have "hurt and offended" him by two actions concerning Robert Faurisson, who in 1980 published a book entitled Memoir in Defense Against Those Who Accuse Me of Falsifying History in which, according to Smokler, "he charged that 'the myth of the gas chambers' originated in certain American Zionist circles around 1942 ... "The two actions are: 1) that I "defended Faurisson's right to publish these falsehoods," and 2) that "in a letter to the historian Lucy Dawidowicz, (I) expressed complete agnosticism on the subject of whether Faurisson's views were 'horrendous."
I will return to the first point. As for the second, it is not clear on what grounds Professor Smokler might be hurt or offended by a personal letter, which I presume he has never seen, written to a third party, but the question is academic, since he has grossly misinterpreted its contents.
I also wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz that I was shocked by her query as to why one should defend freedom of speech. I remain shocked today. I might add that no question has ever been raised on the innumerable occasions when I have signed similar petitions for people with all sorts of views, often views of which I know nothing or which I know to be horrendous, or when I have taken far stronger and more controversial stands in support of civil liberties, for example, when I supported the right of American war criminals not only to speak and teach but also to conduct their research, on grounds of academic freedom, at a time when their work was being used to murder and destroy (no one accuses Faurisson of being a war criminal or claims that his work is contributing to massive ongoing crimes). I might note that the utter hypocrisy of Smokler, Dawidowicz and their circles more generally is very clearly demonstrated by the fact that they are "hurt and offended" by my defense of the right of free expression in the Faurisson case, but not by far more controversial and extreme actions of mine in defense of the same rights for people they find more congenial.
I went on to inform Ms. Dawidowicz that I knew very little about Faurisson's work, so that while it may be "horrendous," as claimed by his critics, I obviously could not comment. This is what Smokler reports as an expression of "complete agnosticism." Apparently, he is willing to pass judgment on matters of which he knows nothing, but I am not, and the fact that a person is universally denounced does not suffice for me to join in the parade without at least looking at what he has to say, which I had not done in this case and had no particular interest in doing: I am willing to wager that Smokler has never read a word by Faurisson, nor is there any reason why he should. Furthermore, as I wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz, the nature of his views is, plainly, completely irrelevant to the issue of his right to express them, a truism among civil libertarians that those of a Stalinist-fascist persuasion find quite shocking.
I have discussed Smokler's second charge, based on his distortion of the personal letter to Dawidowicz to which he alludes. Let us consider the first charge. Here he is correct. I do defend the right of Faurisson to publish falsehoods, as I defend the right of anyone else to do so, including Professor Smokler. As I wrote to Ms. Dawidowicz in the letter that Smokler misrepresents, 'XI thought that all of this had been settled in the 18th century, but apparently others do not agree," including Professor Smokler. He states that my support for familiar Enlightenment principles and my rejection of the Stalinist-fascist doctrine that he advocates hurts and offends him. I am afraid I have no apologies to offer about that.
Smokier goes on to deny at length a claim that was never made, either by me or by Nat Hentoff: namely, that my "political rights," including the right of freedom of speech, were denied in the three incidents mentioned by Hentoff: namely, 1) a request by students at Cornell Medical School that I withdraw as commencement speaker (as I did) because my views on Zionism so offended them that the occasion would be spoiled for them no matter what I spoke on; 2) the withdrawal of an invitation by the Middle East Center at the University of Michigan after pressure by faculty members who demanded that I not be permitted to speak on the Middle East at the Cleveland City Club, evidently under some form of pressure. Smokier is quite right to say that there is no issue of freedom of speech in these cases, nor has anyone so alleged.
The issue, as Hentoff clearly stated, is an entirely different one. It is as stated in my letter to the Cornell Medical students, which Hentoff quoted: "As you may know, Israeli doves have bitterly deplored the chauvinist fanaticism among sectors of the American Jewish community that they consider-rightly in my view-to be driving their country to disaster." I have taken many highly controversial positions on many matters, but incidents of the kind Hentoff describes have never occurred except on this issue, and then only in the United States; my only comparable experience is in the Soviet sphere, where not a word of mine on any political topic is allowed expression. Many others have had the same experience, including prominent Israelis: for example, (General) Mattityahu Peled, who bitterly denounced the American Jewish community, after a visit here when he was subjected to the kind of abuse familiar among those who do not toe the Party Line with sufficient precision, for their "state of near hysteria" and their "blindly chauvinistic and narrow-minded" support for the most reactionary policies within Israel, which poses "the danger of prodding Israel once more toward a posture of calloused intransigence." Other well-known Israeli doves have condemned what they correctly describe as the "Stalinist" practices in these circles. The issue is a serious one, but it is not one of freedom of speech in the technical sense that Smokler irrelevantly debates with no opponent.
Smokier states that it is my responsibility to "make publicly available the evidence which leads (me) to assert that (I am) systematically excluded from the expression of (my) ideas." The assertion is his, not mine, but apart from that, I do not accept such responsibility. The ridiculous antics of Smokler's friends and associates are not my concern. If Nat Hentoff or others ask me for information about these matters, I will provide it, but I recognize no duty beyond that. The Michigan affair was discussed extensively in the University and Ann Arbor press, and by Michigan historian Alan Wald in several articles. It was regarded as scandalous quite rightly, but I have never mentioned it except in response to queries. The same is true of the other two incidents, and of many others.
Suppression of critical comment on Israel of a sort that is easily expressed in Israel itself is readily demonstrable. To mention only one case, my book Fateful Triangle (1983) was reviewed in major (and minor) newspapers and news weeklies in Canada, Britain, Australia (even on national TV), and in exactly two local newspapers in the United States (and in the New York Review of Books, after a long review had appeared in its sister journal in London, which is widely read here), though its contents are far more relevant to U.S. concerns. This is quite typical, for others as well. While I am asked to write regularly on the Middle East in major journals in Israel, Europe and elsewhere, that is virtually inconceivable here. My experience is not all that unusual in this regard. It should be noted that the U.S. is a highly ideological society in which dissenting opinion is effectively marginalized as compared with other industrial democracies, but nevertheless, the case of the Middle East is unique. As has been observed in press commentary in Israel-a more democratic society than ours, at least for its Jewish majority-this is a serious danger for American democracy, for the Middle East, and indeed for world peace.
Again let me stress that no one is raising an issue of the "political rights" of critics of Israeli policies. To take another case, my "political rights" are not violated when the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith keeps a 150-page file on my activities, including surveillance of my talks and grossly falsified accounts of these talks and other matters, which the League then circulates to people with whom I am to have debates (e.g., Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz) or to groups in universities where I am to speak so that they can extract defamatory and slanderous lies from this material. The issues, rather, are quite different. I have agreed to provide these files (leaked to me from the ADL office) to the people who find the Stalinist-style mentality and behavior of the ADL scandalous, and who question whether a tax-exempt organization should devote itself to surveillance and defamation of critics of the state it serves, but I accept no further responsibility to concern myself with the matter, contrary to Smokler's absurd claim, any more than I waste time over the behavior of Communist Party hacks. For those who may be interested in the disreputable and dangerous activities of these groups, there is ample evidence in Paul Findley's recent book, They Dare to Speak Out, Naseer Aruri's "The Middle East on the U.S. Campus," (Link, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding), and other works.
Smokler also presents his private version of my views, claiming that I have given no evidence for them and that an unnamed Africanist interprets the facts differently. No comment appears necessary. Those who may be interested in what my views actually are and whether I have given evidence for them can easily consult available literature, for example, Fateful Triangle. To my knowledge, only one competent Zionist historian has reviewed this book, Dr. Noah Lucas, in the Jewish Quarterly, London, Nos. 3-4, 1984. I will simply quote his concluding words: "Good luck to the reader who may succeed in refuting any of the facts or assumptions or conclusions presented by Chomsky. It will not be accomplished by anyone who approaches the matter as an issue of propaganda or public relations for Israel, but only by the student who matches research with research." Not by Professor Smokler, plainly.
Noam Chomsky is an author and a professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA. Domestic subscriptions $40 per year; foreign subscriptions $60 per year."
Please send a copy of all reprints to the Editor.


As you know, the E5 is the Tuesday/Thursday counterpart to my M/W/F Bridge Bonanza Brigade (B3). You may recall that the B3 was represented in the last Quinquennial's program, and I know my E5 regulars were a bit disappointed that I didn't also take the opportunity to try and bring in new members to our group. The B3 has seen record new attendance as a result of its placement in the 2007 program, and so I spent the last four and change years considering how to best make it up to my fellow explorers of the Euchric mysteries. My conclusion was that this Quinquennial I should put together an advertisement for the E5. However, times have been tough here in the intervening years, and so I need your assistance in achieving this objective.
If you could donate even as little as $5 (that's $1 for each card dealt to a player in a standard hand of Euchre) it sure could help us reach our goal of getting some well-earned recompense for the E5 Elite.


Madhesi leader CK Raut floated a political party named Janmat Party after signing an agreement with the Oli administration to give up his demand for an independent Madhes and enter mainstream politics. The Janmat Party enters an already crowded political landscape in Madhes. The Nepal Communist Party and the Nepali Congress have a significant grassroots organisation and cadre base in Madhes. Then there are Rastriya Janata Party Nepal and Federal Socialist Forum Nepal, both of whose support base is primarily Madhes. The Janmat Party will be targeting the support base of these two parties if it is to contest the next elections based on the issue of identity and inclusion.
Out of the 32 federal parliamentary seats in Province 2, Yadav candidates won 10 seats; Madhesi upper castes five; Bahun, Chhetri and Newar five; Tharu three; Muslim two and other caste groups seven seats. Due to this disproportionate number of Yadav and upper caste parliamentarians, many in Province 2 don't see an inclusive political representation, and there is room for Janmat to tap into this dissatisfaction. Yadavs account for 30 percent of the directly elected representatives in the federal Parliament and Provincial Assembly, mayors of rural and urban municipalities and members of the provincial cabinet in Province 2, and other caste groups in the state view them as the new ruling elite. There is increasing anti-Yadav and anti-upper caste sentiments in Province 2 which the Janmat Party would want to convert into votes in its favour.
It is also important to look at the impact the new party will have on the electoral prospects of Rastriya Janata Party Nepal and Federal Socialist Forum Nepal. Unlike Federal Socialist Forum Nepal which has a huge Yadav voter base (17 percent of the population as per the 2011 census), Rastriya Janata Party Nepal has no single caste base with a significant voting population behind it, thus it is more vulnerable to losing its voter base if its non-Yadav and non-upper caste voters decide to switch to the new Janmat Party.
Rastriya Janata Party Nepal and Federal Socialist Forum Nepal fought the 2017 provincial and federal elections as the Madhesi Alliance. This was the single most important factor that enabled them to win 19 out of the 32 in the federal Parliament as well as 35 seats in the Province 2 assembly as the pro-inclusion and identity vote did not split. The picture is similar in the Provincial Assembly election where the Madhesi Alliance won 11 out of the 35 first-past-the-post seats.
If the Janmat Party manages to split the Madhesi vote, both Rastriya Janata Party Nepal and Federal Socialist Forum Nepal may pay a heavy electoral price. No wonder talk about a merger between the two parties has resurfaced. It is also important to point out that this alliance lost five first-past-the-post seats in the federal Parliament and eight first-past-the-post seats in the Provincial Assembly in Province 2 in the 2017 elections.
The Janmat Party's mother organisation, the Alliance for Independent Madhesh, had asked its supporters to stamp their ballots outside the box allocated to parties called 'Kothli ke Bahar' in order to symbolically record their agenda of an Independent Madhes. There are no official figures of these invalid votes cast across Madhes, but some critics of CK Raut have started saying that, in light of recent developments, this could have been a conspiracy to ensure the defeat of the Madhesi Alliance and victory of the Communist Alliance. Conspiracy or not, the 'Kothli ke Bahar' campaign did result in many votes that would have otherwise gone to the Madhesi Alliance becoming invalid.
CK Raut's major appeal among young Madhesi voters had been the revolutionary idea of secession, and now that he has officially given up that idea, it remains to be seen how much support he can retain. There have been reports in the media (refuted by CK Raut) that he will be joining the Nepal Communist Party or forming an alliance with them. This will be a short cut to political success for CK Raut, but neither the Nepal Communist Party nor the Janmat Party will gain much in electoral terms. It is more beneficial to the Nepal Communist Party if Janmat splits the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal/Federal Socialist Forum Nepal vote acting as a 'vote katwa' and enables it to gain the missing votes for victory.
If the Janmat Party is not the Team B of the Nepal Communist Party and wants a long-term role in Madhes politics, it makes more sense for it to ally with Rastriya Janata Party Nepal as there is some overlapping of their support base and they have Federal Socialist Forum Nepal as a common local enemy. The Rastriya Janata Party Nepal leadership has always been fearful of Upendra Yadav and his Federal Socialist Forum Nepal as the huge electoral weight he brings (because of his caste base) enables him to act more than an equal to them.
Only the future will reveal the story of the Janmat Party and its founder CK Raut's success or failure; but for me, a lot will depend on his answer to the question I had asked him during a meeting. "Tell me what your plans are for Madhes after your revolution succeeds. Everyone talks of revolution, but no one tells us about the work they start on the day after the revolution." But he gave no clear answer. I hope now that he has formally given up his demand for secession so he can focus more on issues like social and gender inequality in Madhes, unemployment among Madhesi youths and lack of proper healthcare and education infrastructure and services.
Thakur is a co-founder of the Nepal Policy Centre.


text:
Our hero surfaces in Up Here magazine
You've got to love a shout line on the front of the magazine: "Author Ken McGoogan on Cook, Peary & the Polar Centennial." And the article takes a position. I'm sorry to report that it's not accessible online. Guess Up Here wants you to subscribe. Anyway, the piece beings like so:
One hundred years ago this month one of the worst injustices in Arctic exploration history began unfolding on the northwest coast of Greenland. On April 18, 1909 an American doctor and two Inuit hunters struggled to the top of an icy ridge and looked out over a familiar scattering of igloos. Below, less than a mile away, lay the settlement of Anoatok, which they had left 14 months previously. Exhausted from an unprecedented ordeal, the three rose to their feet and waved, then huddled together and waited while old friends hitched up dog teams and drove out to collect them.
On reaching the bedraggled trio, the rescuers could only gape in disbelief. Emaciated and filthy, with wild, unkempt hair falling to their shoulders, the three looked half-human. But then came recognition, and everybody talking at once, and one of the rescuers, a tall, blond white American, stepped forward from one of the sledges. "Doctor Frederick Cook?" He held out his hand: "Harry Whitney. We are honoured to greet you."
The doctor and his friends, Etuk and Wela, "had been so long in the chill of impending death," Cook wrote later, "that compared to Whitney and to the Eskimos about, we were but half-alive."
Back at the village, speaking English for the first time in more than a year, a dazed Cook learned that Whitney was a sportsman hunting polar bear, and that he had arrived here on a ship with Cook's old mentor, the explorer Robert E. Peary. While bathing and eating, the exhausted doctor asked about his steward, Rudolph Franke, whom he had left here guarding a shack filled with fox furs and narwhal horns worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Franke had taken sick, he was told. Peary had allowed him to sail home on his second ship on condition that he hand over the doctor's goods – "like ransom," Cook wrote later, "sought from an enemy." Not only that, but Cook learned that Peary had declared him dead, and had installed two crewmen in his shack, where even now they were gorging on the stores he had stowed for his own return.
Despite this unsettling news, Cook remained unflappable. When Whitney remarked on his calm, the doctor told him: "If you keep this quiet for the present, I will tell you some great news. I have reached the Pole."
Creative Non-Fiction rolls into the Beaches
YO, THANKS HUGELY FOR YOUR INTEREST! BUT I AM URGENTLY ADVISED THAT BOTH WORKSHOPS MENTIONED BELOW ARE FULL TO OVERFLOWING. FOR THOSE INTERESTED, I WILL BE RUNNING AN EIGHT-WEEK WORKSHOP IN CREATIVE NON-FICTION THIS AUTUMN AT UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, CONTINUING EDUCATION.
Would-be writers are clamoring to learn more about creative non-fiction.
An initial workshop offering at the Beaches Library, slated for April 18, apparently filled up before the advertising went out. So The Writers' Trust of Canada, sponsors of the workshop, asked after a second date, and we settled on May 9.
The revised poster (slightly truncated) reads as follows:
"Discovering Creative Non-Fiction"
Saturday, April 18, 2009 1pm – 3pm
and Saturday, May 9, 2009, 1pm - 3pm
Toronto Public Library – Beaches Branch
What is Creative Non-fiction? How does it differ from academic writing? From short stories and novels? From journalism? After earning two degrees, working as a journalist for three Canadian dailies, and publishing three novels, author Ken McGoogan discovered Creative Non-Fiction and began winning awards.
Starting with Fatal Passage, a national bestseller that won four prizes, Ken has applied CNF techniques to four acclaimed books. He will take you behind the scenes of his own work with a slide-show presentation that ranges from London, England to Orkney, and from Tasmania to the High Arctic.
Does the non-fiction novel exist? What is immersion reporting? Should we try to distinguish between literary journalism, narrative non-fiction and polemical non-fiction? Ken will explore these questions while leading a dynamic workshop that gets people writing and sharing on the spot.
KEN MCGOOGAN, whose books include Lady Franklin's Revenge and Race to the Polar Sea, teaches Creative Non-Fiction at University of Toronto. A recipient of the Pierre Berton Award for History, Ken is vice-chairman of the Public Lending Right Commission. He lives in the Beaches.
REGISTRATION IS FREE BUT SPACE IS LIMITED
MAKE THAT GONE, SORRY!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Watchdog gives only four civil penalties
The information watchdog has issued only four civil penalties since the powers came into force in 2010.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) received reports of more than 2,500 possible breaches of the Data Protection Act, with only 36 resulting in action and four in civil penalties.
A total of just £310,000 in fines was issued to organisations, with £100,000 being the biggest fine to date. The top fine for a single offence is £500,000.
The figures, released to encryption firm ViaSat under freedom of information laws, also show that the ICO took action against seven private sector organisations, penalising just one, but 29 in the public sector, penalising three.
Chris McIntosh, the firm's chief executive, said: "The ICO has a tremendous amount of leeway in the penalties it levies and so far doesn't seem to be applying this in either direction.
"The ICO has stated that the embarrassment and poor image of a fine will act as a deterrent and an incentive to improve an organisation's grasp of the Data Protection Act. However, if fines are rare and well below the maximum allowed limit, their value as a deterrent drops."
Copyright © Press Association 2011


text:
Următorul articol este o listă de integrale (primitive) de funcții iraționale. Pentru o listă cu mai multe integrale, vezi tabel de integrale și lista integralelor.

Integrale cu

Integrale cu
Se presupune , pentru , vezi următoarea secțiune:

, unde se consideră valoarea pozitivă a lui

Integrale cu

Integrale cu

Integrale cu

Analiză matematică
Calcul diferențial și integral
Funcții raționale

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


What a treat tonight's show was. How often do you get a chance to be in the same room as the Dalai Lama, let alone an outstanding line up of international artists. I thought the Dalai Lama's speech was great. He's such a personable guy and … if only … more people would aspire to the level of tolerance he displays, this world would be a better place. In a word, I find him "inspirational". The message was simple, be happy. Be happy and you'll become healthy. Â Better yourself and you'll better your community. Be tolerant of others and peace will grow.
I have to admit, I was disappointed in some of the technical aspects of the show. To begin with, the sound in the back of the Carrier Dome left much to be desired. Although, I've seen several shows there and I can't honestly say that any of them (less may Pink Floyd) was worth writing home about. The screens on the sides of the stages should have been raised up another twenty feet and with today's technology, I expected a much quicker response time when posting the words of the Dalai Lama's speech. Of course, I had THE WORST seat I've had at any show in the Carrier Dome. Shannon and I were literally the last row on the floor away from the stage … and I purchased tickets 15 minutes after they were opened to the public.
Overall, I'm glad that I went and I love that Syracuse University brought an event like this to the area. I hope its a sign of events to come.
Post Standard review and gallery can be found here.
Streaming video of the symposiums can be found here.
I'd love it if you could dump a copy of this to a DVD for me … This was a concert for awareness of world peace. Many many artists where there.
What a great show! Wish I could have been there, but we taped it (it was broadcast on AXS — I think it's a new channel) and I'm looking forward to watching it this weekend. Now, was this a "DMB" thing and the DL was there or was this a DL thing and all the bands came too?


Seasons in life are constantly changing; one day you can be on top of the world praising Jesus while the next you are cursing the day you were born. Just remember God is always in control; everything is only for a short season. I don't know about you, but I despise winter. Winter is to cold; too snowy and you can never go outside to do anything. The winters where I am can be brutal. As terrible as winter is, it is only for a short time; a season then it is finally spring and the flowers bloom.
Our life is the same way; we will always go through a dry cold season where we are desperately longing for the flowers to bloom and for our life to get better. What are we to do in the times of our seasons where we are struggling in our life? We are to praise God, we are to praise him in every season of ours. In the book of James, it speaks that we are to be joyful in our trials and that trials are good for us. James 1; Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. When we are down in our seasons, how are we supposed to find joy? We find joy by being in the presence of God and right standing with God which is done by prayer. Galatians 5: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy… In your seasons of drought pray for the spirit to bring you joy! Spend time with God and remember all the time God is good.
Seasons change! When you are low, it will not last for long. Imagine a bow and arrow; you have to pull the arrow back in order to launch it forward. God is about ready to launch you into a new season of joy. God uses your low seasons to teach you and prepare you for the future; you will be able to look on your past and be truly thankful for where you are at in life now. Seasons change, as Christians we will go through trials and hardships but it never lasts forever; only a season. Keep the faith.


Longtime New Yorkers have a personality unlike any other: friendly and helpful, but also straightforward and candid, with no time for anyone who isn't keeping it real. With NYC Choppers motorcycle parts, you can add this same "no bull" attitude to your custom ride. Every part is built at their full-service shop on Long Island, and the uniqueness of the region shows in their work. From cables to handlebars, Dennis Kirk has NYC Chopper custom parts that get right to the point with their function and style.
If you're tired of motorcycle parts only being available in varying shades of gray, then add some color to your life with NYC Choppers electrical system components. Battery cables, ignition wire kits and more are available in colors from beige to purple. But they aren't just for show – each one is fully insulated and manufactured to provide premium current transfer and flexibility for reliable performance. When showmanship is the name of the game, fellow travelers can't help by notice your shiny new NYC Choppers taillight and side mount license plate assembly.
Nothing says custom motorcycle like a classic set of ape hangers, and NYC Choppers handlebars are the best ape hangers you'll find. Made from durable thick-walled steel, many NYCC Curves handlebars come dimpled and pre-drilled for wiring, and Nice Curves handlebars will fit metric motorcycles. Find handlebars in a variety of widths, pullbacks and finishes to fit all rider sizes. If you've found the tallest bars and want them even taller, add black or chrome handlebar risers to tower over other choppers.
To find these parts and many others that will fit your custom ride, use our Find Parts Fast tool or contact our Tech Team to have your questions answered. With all the custom motorcycle parts out there, Dennis Kirk stocks the ones worth standing behind, and we ship all of them the day you order. Shop our NYC Choppers selection with the confidence of a New Yorker thanks to no-hassle returns, and cut through the nonsense every time you hit the asphalt.


text:
AT&T Wi-Fi Voice Waiver Could Drive Industry RTT Adoption
Posted on October 8, 2015 6:00am by Joan Engebretson
AT&TCarrier EvolutionFCCMobilePolicyPSTNSprintT-MobileVoiceWi-FiWireless
Home » AT&T Wi-Fi Voice Waiver Could Drive Industry RTT Adoption
A waiver granted to AT&T by the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday involving Wi-Fi calling and text telephony (TTY) could be precedent setting and could hasten wireless carrier deployment of real-time text (RTT) capability.
TTY, also known as teletypewriter capability, was originally designed for landline voice networks. It enables individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind or speech disabled to send and receive text communications, and has been a requirement for wireless as well as wireline networks. The wireless requirement is what prompted AT&T to seek a waiver when it made plans to launch Wi-Fi calling capability as part of its wireless offering.
As an alternative to TTY, AT&T asked for permission to use real-time text (RTT) for wireless networks to the extent that they use the Internet protocol (IP). The carrier noted that TTY faces certain limitations when used on an IP platform, including packet loss, distortion caused by echo cancellation and bandwidth issues. RTT transmits text instantly, allowing text characters to appear on the receiving device at roughly the same time they are typed on the sending device, thereby providing superior service to TTY, the carrier argued.
AT&T also requested a waiver to temporarily exempt it from offering TTY on wireless IP networks even where the company has not yet deployed RTT.
AT&T Wi-Fi Voice Waiver
The FCC accepted most of AT&T's arguments and also noted that "[t]here is support in the record to this proceeding that IP-based RTT will facilitate the transition to next-generation 911 for people with disabilities."
The commission granted the requested waivers, setting an expiration date of December 31, 2017 for the TTY exemption in areas lacking RTT. In other words, AT&T essentially will have until that date to have RTT ubiquitously deployed.
Along with the waiver approvals come certain conditions. Within 30 days AT&T must apprise customers that TTY technology will not be supported for calls to 911 over IP-based wireless services and that there are alternative PSTN-based and IP-based accessibility solutions for such calls. As AT&T begins to use RTT, it also must ensure that 911 calls made using that technology are delivered to the appropriate PSAP or local emergency authority.
Additionally AT&T will be required to file a report with the FCC every six months and inform customers about its progress toward and the availability of new IP-based accessibility solutions such as RTT. The carrier also must report any problems involving using RTT to reach emergency authorities.
AT&T is not the first carrier to pursue voice over Wi-Fi capability. As financial and technology research website Seeking Alpha noted, Sprint and T-Mobile have been offering that capability for some time – apparently in defiance of TTY requirements.
The FCC order granting AT&T's waiver suggests that the commission will be receiving similar waiver requests from other carriers soon. "Comparable waivers may be granted to other similarly situated applicants that meet the necessary criteria for waiver relief and commit to complying with the conditions stated herein," the FCC wrote on the first page of the order.


This project entitled "Giants On Mountains" is a photo series of artist that I consider giants in the city of Boston. The mountain represents the struggle of the artist. Even though the artist that take part of this project may continue to have hard times, I believe that there is power in visualizing where you will be. We all should strive to see ourselves as giants on mountains.
Born and raised in Boston, ANSON RAP$ — whose real name is Anson Frazier — is looking to blur the lines between visual art and music. From designing his own posters to incorporating his photography into his marketing, it's clear that Anson is an artist in all respects — and happens to be wildly talented.


I have created lots of projects including the ones you have seen in these 5 pages. My "Bodyworks" show in ' 07 featured 20 front and rear torsos in fiberglass from 12 different models. Also at that show I fabricated 8 stainless and granite wall/hall tables.
On this page you see my second love, Hotrods, my 32 Ford roadster I built 4 years ago. This is in a long line I have built over the last 45 years.


But those first few weeks passed in a daze, a kind of no man's land where we could try and pretend it wasn't really happening.
Then it was surgery day.
One kidney out, lots of staples in and things got real. Two months later they confirmed that the cancer had spread, he started targeted therapy and we faced the reality of life with an incurable condition.
And here we are. One year later. Still smiling and hoping for the best.
There are hard days. There are sad days. But most of all, there are grateful days when we remember everything we've got that's worth fighting for.
I feel very lucky that Mr C's cancer is under control and for now, day to day life is carrying on pretty normally. But it's a new normal. A cancer diagnosis, especially one where there's no cure, changes the way you see the world. It takes away some of the security and long term dreams you take for granted for you and your children. You have to grieve for that and come to terms with your new uncertain future.
The uncertainty of living with cancer is the thing I find the hardest. We didn't know which drug would work, we still don't know how long it will work for and there is no predicting the path ahead. I find that Mr C's symptoms aren't linear and nor are the emotions that go with it. We are on a three monthly cycle of treatment, scans and results which can make it all a bit of a rollercoaster.
Just like the emotions are linear, nor are the moments of sadness catch me off guard. Usually it's around the kids when I think about what they will go through or see something sentimental and wonder if Mr C will be around to appreciate those moments. I have learnt to manage this better and have worked hard to live more in the present.
I've found that it's not the major steps that are the hardest, it's everything in between. The thing that broke me this year was the news of a large scale housing development behind our house. It was unsettling, out of our control and threatened our little safe haven – all things that cancer has already done and made all those feelings go into overdrive.
We've had amazing support from family and friends but I will admit, it does all trail off a bit after the initial shock. I'm not saying this as a criticism, I know everyone is still there and willing to help, but they don't always know when or how to step in. So you need to ask. Whether that's practical support or a shoulder to cry on. This summer I also saw a psychologist through our amazing Maggie's Centre and that really helped me get back on track too.
I am a question asker – that's how I became a journalist! When you are dealing with doctors, complex medical issues and difficult decisions, you need to know all the information inside out. One of Mr C's team asked: 'Are you medical' because we had read up so much and could discuss things in detail! If you're not sure of anything, always ask. There are not stupid questions when it comes to your health and wellbeing.
I don't like a lot of the language that surrounds cancer – battling it, fighting it etc. – but I do think your attitude can go a long way. Mr C has taken his whole situation stoically, like he does with most things in life. Of course he has his bad days but overall he is positive, calm and laid back. And this makes it so much easier for the rest of us to be too. I'm not saying you shouldn't be sad, mad or scared but only focuscing on the negative can be detrimental to the whole family.
Don't expect to be the same person. That's not a bad thing.
Cancer changes you. Whether you are the one with it, or the ones surrounding it. It takes away some of your innocence and it makes you question the unfairness of life but for me, it has also made me a stronger, better and ultimately calmer person. I see the world now with more gratitude and am thankful for each day, I am more compassionate and contented. In no way do I believe that everything happens for a reason but I think you can learn and grow from everything.
Some days I just want to hide away and ignore the world but mostly, I feel more motivated and driven than ever. Cancer reminds you that none of us know how long we have left and we need to make the most of it. I'm not talking about grand gestures and bucket lists but about focusing on what's important, making the most of our potential and helping others.
There is a 7% chance you will have a child with a food allergy. We have two. There's a 0.5% chance your baby will have shoulder dystocia. Ours did. Statistics can be reassuring, they can be comforting, but when you're on the wrong side of them, they mean nothing. The 5 year survival rates for kidney cancer are depressing but we won't let this define us as this is our story and Mr C is much more than a number.
From the 'other side' I'd like you to know that you make it easy to talk to you about C's cancer, this is an amazing feat as far as I'm concerned. There is so much taboo surrounding cancer and the mere mention of it renders people incapable of doing what they've always done naturally by asking questions, offering support, calling for a gossip…it all becomes seemingly impossible…not with you darling.
This is testimony to yours and C's attitude and outlook, your two gorgeous children have the most inspiring, strong, loving parent's I think I've ever met, J and A are going to grow up lucky for every second they've spent in both your company and care.
You know I'd give you the clothes off my back if you asked…and I need to remember to offer you my hand.
Thanks so much Amanada, I'm so glad it has helped.


text:
Categories General History & Archaeology Legends & Myths Science & Space Supernatural
Categories/
People Who May Have Been Saved by Ghosts
November 30, 2017 / BEYOND SCIENCE STAFF
Ghosts can be terrifying, but I don't think they're all dangerous. Of course, there are stories of demon possessions all around the world, but I think ghosts usually want to be left alone. Some people believe ghosts will even go as far as saving people's lives. Here are some examples of such cases.
1. The Gray Man
The small town of Pawleys Island in South Carolina is home to beautiful beaches, historic homes and apparently a lot of ghosts, the most famous of which is known as the gray man. For 200 years there have been numerous sightings of the mysterious grey figure typically right before a major hurricane hits the area. And seeing the grey man could not only save your life but also save your home.
Sounds like an urban legend right? Well, not according to Jim and Clara Moore who had a run in with the Grey Man two days before Hurricane Hugo struck in 1989. They told the story on one of my favorite childhood shows, mysteries. According to Jim, "We were talking a walk late in the afternoon which we usually do. You see so many people walking on the beach at this time of the day. That particular afternoon we only saw the one, and he was coming directly toward us. When I got within speaking distance, I raised my hand to say 'Hi' or 'Beautiful evening' or whatever, and he disappeared."
Although the hurricane wreaked havoc on Jim and Clara's neighborhood, their home was somehow the only one to escape the storm unscathed.
No one really knows who the Grey Man was, some say he was just some pirate, there are others who claim he was a young man who died in quicksand while on the way to see the woman that he loved. Not long after his death he appeared before his lover and warned her to leave the island the woman and her family did, right before a deadly hurricane struck. So I'm thinking maybe he loved the woman so much he came back to warn her but in the process was cursed to wander through eternity warning others of impending doom. So kinda like the Flying Dutchman, except the opposite.
2. The Wife with a Warning
According to the Chicago Tribune, a farmer named Charles Henry Durand was heading home late one evening when his horse stopped in the middle of the road, yea this happened back when people still rode horses, anyway, his horse stopped and would not move any further and began to tremble. Suddenly the air grew oppressive, and a faint light appeared gradually taking the shape of a woman beside Durand's wagon.
At this point, Durand wanted to run away, but he said he was scared stiff. The white figure then spoke in a whisper and said: "There is danger at home, stay away until morning." It was then Durand said he recognized the voice of his late wife. As soon as the warning was uttered, the figure disappeared.
Durand just went straight on home where he noticed that a window he had locked was now open and there were muddy footprints inside the house. As he walked inside carefully, he noticed a string which he pulled with his umbrella. Right then a gun went off, and the bullet would have hit Durand straight in the chest if he did not notice the string which was hard to see in the dark, Durand told the paper he would have died if not for the warning of his late wife.
3. The Woman Who was Dead for 56 Minutes
50-year-old Sonia Burton counts herself as a living miracle, for a good reason too because she was dead for 56 minutes following a heart attack.
Sonia's day was just like any other as she showed up for work at a bingo hall, but as her shift started, she felt a pain in her chest and then collapsed. Paramedics were on the scene quickly and worked for the next 56 minutes to try to save Sonia as she was being transported the hospital. It was during this time that Sonia said she received a message from her late husband John who died of a heart attack in 2004
She said: "The only thing I remember is my late husband coming to me and saying 'It's not your time Sonia. Go back to the children.' Then I woke up in hospital."
4. The Mother's Ghost
In March of 2015, emergency responders responded to a report about an overturned car in an icy river. When they arrived, they saw a woman and a baby who was strapped in a seat in the back of her mother's car, which was hanging upside down in cold water.
Here's where it gets creepy, when the rescuers entered the water they say they heard a voice calling for help. The 25-year-old mother was already dead, but the officers swear they heard an adult's voice calling out to them for help.
Officer Jared Warner of the Spanish Fork Police Department was one of the first to reach the vehicle; he told the Desert News that "We've gotten together and to just talk about it and all four of us swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, 'Help,'"
Officer Bryan Dewitt who was also on the scene said "The only people in there were the deceased mother and the child." Officer Tyler Beddoes another responder said they couldn't explain it, but have no doubt they heard it.
"It wasn't just something that was just in our heads. To me it was plain as day cause I remember hearing a voice," Beddoes told the Deseret News. "I think it was Dewitt who said, 'We're trying. We're trying our best to get in there.' How do you explain that? I don't know,"
Also, it was a miracle that little Lily survived, as she was hanging upside down for almost 14 hours in her car seat with no food or water with the icy river flowing right below her head and temperatures dropping to near freezing throughout the night.
November 30, 2017 / BEYOND SCIENCE STAFF/ Comment
ghost, near death experience
BEYOND SCIENCE STAFF
5 Clues that a Global Flood ...
Strange 518-Million-Year-Old ...
Exploring the unknown by going beyond science.
Dim Mak: The REAL Touch of Death
Breakthrough BLINDNESS Treatment Will Cost $425,000 Per Eye, IF It Works
THIS is Why it has Been SO COLD in a Warmer World According to Science
India's New 'DRIVERLESS' Metro Train Keeps Driver for now
'EXTINCT' Pig Spotted on Camera
CREEPY SKULL Shaped Asteroid Set to Return in 2018
© Copyright 2017 Beyond Science TV


A community of believers in extraterrestrial visitations continues to push its story, and the media and Pentagon continue to listen. Who benefits from these tales of close encounters?
Days after exiting the Pentagon, Elizondo joined a new entertainment and research company cofounded by Tom Delonge, formerly the lead singer and guitarist of the band Blink-182 and a paranormal enthusiast, who was known for spending his time between concert gigs on the hunt for unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and Bigfoot. The for-profit venture was called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science and included former Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials, as well as several scientists contracted over the years by US intelligence agencies.
And so, in the span of a few months, a topic long confined to the tabloids and fringe media had become a "serious news story" as the Post asserted in its coverage last year, shortly after it published Mellon's op-ed.
Most scientists with relevant expertise attribute UFO sightings to misperception of celestial or meteorological phenomena. Distant planets, comets, and clouds have often been mistaken for alien spacecraft by sophisticated observers. Even highly trained military and commercial airline pilots have been known to confuse atmospheric optical phenomena for mysterious flying objects.
Still, the disclosure of the Pentagon's UFO program, which officially existed between 2008 and 2012, has stirred interest on Capitol Hill. Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have requested details on the program; the latter has quietly interviewed a number of the military pilots who claim to have witnessed UFOs while on training missions. Influential to this effort is Mellon, a Washington insider for decades, who left the Pentagon in the early 2000s, did a stint as Democratic staff director for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and now works alongside Elizondo at the To The Stars Academy, which bills itself as an "initiative mobilizing the brightest minds from within the top-secret shadows of aerospace, science and the Department of Defense." That placard is at the top of a company website page that sells branded T-shirts, hoodies, and other merchandise.
Several years ago, Mellon told one interviewer that there were "sufficiently well-documented" UFO cases that "warrant a scientific investigation of the phenomenon." I have recently discussed with him the merits of this claim in phone and email conversations. In one such exchange in late 2018, I shared a comment I had received from a prominent astronomer who said he was "very skeptical about the alien interpretation of UFO reports" that had been circulating in the media.
This was also the media's recent take on the Pentagon's UFO program: that military and intelligence professionals had come forward to speak of UFO incidents that they believed should be treated as a national security matter. Several historians following this news heard an echo from the past. "What is so striking is that the rhetoric hasn't changed since the late 1940s, in ways that are stunning to me," says Kathryn Dorsch, a University of Pennsylvania historian whose research connects the rise of the UFO phenomenon to Cold War anxieties.
Greg Eghigian, a history professor at Penn State, was also taken aback after seeing the flurry of attention to UFOs sparked by the Times story. Like Dorsch, Eghigian studies the topic through a sociocultural lens. "When all this new stuff broke, I got déjà vu," he says.
To Eghigian and Dorsch, there are striking similarities between a central UFO narrative from the Cold War era and the one getting mainstream media attention of late. The two scholars also see notable parallels between the cast of characters that drew public attention to UFOs in the 1950s and those doing so today.
Which raises the question: Have alien-powered craft been stalking the skies since the Truman presidency, all the while remaining elusive and difficult to positively authenticate? And if so, is the "deep state" suppressing that evidence? Or might there be a less extraordinary explanation for a UFO narrative that has persisted for 70 years, ever since the dawn of the advanced aerospace age?
Historians trace the birth of the UFO phenomenon in the United States to an Associated Press dispatch in the early summer of 1947. The article stated that a private pilot named Kenneth Arnold reported seeing "nine bright saucer-like objects" while flying his small airplane above the state of Washington—what headline writers described as "flying saucers," thus coining a phrase that would soon become lodged in the public's imagination.
But the UFO sightings kept coming in waves over the next few years. Initially, Air Force investigators thought that the objects had been "domestically launched devices such as weather balloons, rockets, experimental flying wing aircraft, or celestial phenomenon." Some investigators gave serious consideration to the possibility of extraterrestrials. But by 1949, the official Air Force position was dismissive of that hypothesis and the military sought to downplay UFO sightings.
Keyhoe quickly expanded his popular article into a book with the same title. It sold more than half a million paperback copies. Several years later, he published another bestseller asserting that the Air Force was suppressing evidence of encounters between the military and interstellar UFOs.
The impact from Life's story was "explosive" and "quickly led to a dramatic uptick in UFO sightings around the country," writes Mark O'Connell in his recent book, The Close Encounters Man. By then, the Air Force had reopened its examination into the sightings. The newly assigned head of the investigation, Captain Edward Ruppelt, brought a somber, methodical approach to the effort. In Air Force verbiage, he replaced "flying saucer" with "Unidentified Flying Object," which he is said to have considered more neutral and accurate. (Of course, in due time even the term "UFO" would become shorthand for alien spaceship.) Ruppelt oversaw what became known as Project Blue Book at a period in the early 1950s when the US government was grappling with a problem it didn't fully understand.
I wouldn't class myself as a "believer," exactly, because I've seen too many UFO reports that first appeared to be unexplainable fall to pieces when they were thoroughly investigated. But every time I begin to get skeptical I think of the other reports, the many reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they're looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns. Of these reports, the radar visual sightings are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located, then a jet interceptor is scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the light and gets a radar lock on only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him, there is no simple answer. We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets.
Perhaps the unknown objects being spotted by military radar are nothing to worry about, Mellon and Elizondo say, rhetorically, or maybe they are—except there's no way to know unless the Pentagon spends money and manpower to find out.
"That's the same argument Ruppelt made back in 1955 and 1956," after he retired from the Air Force, says the Penn historian Dorsch, who is writing her doctoral thesis on the birth of UFO phenomenon.
Mellon and Elizondo have also said that they are frustrated by the institutional secrecy that prevents a more concerted government investigation into the "phenomena," as they call it. This argument, too, is similar to what other media-savvy voices such as Keyhoe were saying in the 1950s, when he was president of a nonprofit organization called the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). Its leadership included retired military and intelligence officials, such as a former chief of the Navy's guided missile program. Another prominent member was Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who had served as the first director of the CIA, from 1947 to 1950.
These high-profile individuals gave NICAP credibility, but Keyhoe was its face. And he was a relentless, aggressive crusader; his frequent accusations that the military and CIA were hiding evidence of extraterrestrials planted the seeds of conspiracy that would grow into a core UFO narrative that has since become a theme of UFO conventions and a multitude of books, movies, and television shows.
This was a deliberate falsehood. So was the next official press release from the government a day later, which stated that the object was actually a weather balloon. Despite this puzzling turnabout, the incident quickly faded from headlines as the UFO epidemic spread across the country in the summer and fall of 1947. Roswell did not serve as gruel for breathless tales in the media. In fact, it wound up being little more than a footnote in UFO annals for more than 30 years.
Then, in 1980, a book called The Roswell Incident was published. One of its coauthors had previously written a bestseller about the Bermuda Triangle, which was a hot topic in the 1970s. The Roswell Incident claimed to find long-suppressed information about a crashed flying saucer and alien body that had been recovered in 1947 by the military. A UFO myth was born. It would, as one science writer later observed, launch "the modern wave of UFO crash/retrieval conspiracy beliefs." Today, Roswell is the mother of all UFO conspiracies.
The truth, however, was something called Project Mogul. Several decades ago, the US military finally acknowledged that the object found at Roswell in the summer of 1947 was, in fact, a spy balloon that contained an instrument used to monitor sonic booms from anticipated nuclear tests by the Soviet Union. Of course, given that the military's first words about the Roswell incident really were lies (not to mention the Pentagon's general reputation for duplicity, especially during the Vietnam War), it is understandable why many UFO believers are reluctant to let Project Mogul stand as the final word on Roswell.
To understand those advances in military science and technology—and how they are cloaked in secrecy and cunning misdirection—is to understand the enduring power of mythical UFO narratives.
When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He had experience in technology protection, having previously worked with Boeing and its Apache Longbow helicopter, and also with Raytheon and some of its cruise missile technology. A new aerospace-related assignment made sense.
Evidently, there were security issues with the new UFO program that had to be addressed. "I knew there were counterintelligence problems that needed to be fixed," Elizondo said. "I'm kind of like the plumber that needs to fix leaks." He eventually took over the program and insists that he kept it afloat until he left in 2017, although funding officially dried up in 2012.
Whatever Elizondo learned while running AATIP seems to have convinced him that UFOs are real. And because he wasn't able to convey this to higher-ups in the Pentagon's chain of command, he decided to quit and let the world know about the program. "That was the only way to continue the mission," he said to me just before he was scheduled to speak at a "symposium" organized by the Mutual UFO Network, an organization of UFO believers, in the summer of 2018. He was the keynote speaker, part of a featured lineup that included a former logger whose story of alien abduction was made into the 1993 movie Fire in the Sky.
Until he showed up at the UFO gathering, Elizondo was careful not to do or say anything that would lump him in with the Elvis-on-Mars crowd. He was mindful of the stigma attached to a subject he wanted taken seriously by the Department of Defense. But now he was the headliner at a conference titled "UFOs, Extraterrestrials, and the Future of Humanity." Why participate in that?
"I'm trying to get the conversation going," Elizondo said to me, during a wide-ranging interview in his hotel room several hours before his scheduled talk. This perplexed me. The hundreds of attendees at this conference already believed in UFOs. A number of the panels were geared for "experiencers," people who thought they had been touched in some way by space aliens. If Elizondo wanted UFOs to be treated as a national security matter, why come to venues such as this?
I thought that perhaps he was looking to attract new investors for the To The Stars Academy, which was on its way to crowdfunding more than two million dollars. There is, after all, a thriving UFO marketplace, fueled by conventions, podcasts, and popular pseudo-documentary shows such as the History Channel's Ancient Aliens.
Elizondo resented the suggestion (already made by others) that he was in the UFO racket. "This is not a moneymaking endeavor for me," he insisted, referring to his new company and role as a public figure speaking out about the threat posed by UFOs. (He said he refused to take a fee for his appearance at the conference.) Okay, then why did he come out from the shadows after a long, distinguished career as an intelligence officer? Why go public about a Pentagon program that had been deliberately shrouded in secrecy?
Within the conspiratorial ranks of the UFO community, there are many who wonder about that. Their suspicions about Elizondo have their roots in the story of Richard Doty, a former special agent for the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Some years ago, Doty came forward to say that he had deliberately given false information to numerous self-styled UFO researchers when he was assigned to Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the 1980s. Doty fed his unwitting stooges fake evidence of captured aliens and flying saucers inside top secret military bases, which breathed life into the Roswell legend. A fascinating 2013 documentary called Mirage Mencaptures the extent of his deeds—in his own words and those of the UFO researchers who interacted with him.
Much of Doty's story is believable and dovetails very well into history. The late 1970s and early 80s were the years when the F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft was still a secret, but very much operational. Soviet spies desperately wanted information about it. Armies of UFOlogists had been encamped around every Air Force installation since the 1950s, documenting, filming and disclosing their findings at conferences. The Air Force very astutely assumed that Soviets were likely to have infiltrated the UFOlogy community to see what these legions of amateur investigators had found, and sent Doty (and, we presume, others like him) to provide stories of captured flying saucers and alien ambassadors working with the US government.
Elizondo has heard the rumors about himself floated on the internet—that he is a latter-day Richard Doty. These suspicions were also whispered to me in the hallways of the UFO conference he was headlining when we first met. "No, I am not running a government disinformation campaign," he said to me when I caught up with him again at the end of the event. We talked over burgers and beers at an airport bar. For someone who had been an interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, Elizondo has a likable, disarming presence, which is a handy trait to possess if your goal is to earn the trust of those who might otherwise be suspicious of you.
In 1966, Walter Cronkite ("the most trusted man in America") hosted an hour-long CBS special report titled UFO: Friend, Foe, or Fantasy. At the time, the UFO craze in the United States showed no sign of ebbing. There had been periodic waves of sightings for nearly 20 years, spawning flying saucer cults, amateur groups of zealous researchers, and a lucrative genre of sci-fi movies and books.
Still, public interest in UFOs could not be dimmed. Several years after Cronkite's broadcast, the Air Force contracted with the University of Colorado (CU) to convene a distinguished panel of scientists on the subject. Led by the CU physicist Edward Condon, the group concluded in 1968 after an in-depth studythat there was no basis to the extraterrestrial interpretation of UFO reports and"that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years." The panel's voluminous report totaled nearly 1,000 pages and focused "almost entirely on the physical sciences," meaning it examined UFO sightings in the context of explainable celestial and meteorological phenomena. In 1969, a National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the report and concurred with its finding, writing: "While further study of particular aspects of the topic (e.g., atmospheric phenomena) may be useful, a study of UFOs in general is not a promising way to expand scientific understanding of the phenomena." Pointing to these conclusions, the Pentagon announced that it would no longer investigate UFO reports.
None of this seemed to reduce the allure of flying saucers. UFOs remained a hot topic into the 1970s, as a new wave of popular sci-fi films, such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien, continued to stoke public fascination. By the late 1990s, other big UFO subthemes had been prominently introduced into pop culture, such as the abduction phenomenon and government conspiracy narrative, via best-selling books and, of course, The X-Files.
The continued attention was also fed by new disclosures of previously unknown government interest in UFOs by US intelligence agencies. Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), dogged UFO crusaders successfully sued the federal government to unearth documents that revealed that the CIA had been periodically monitoring UFO reports and the active community of believers since the 1950s. The agency, it turned out, had even commissioned its own classified study to determine if there was any substance to any of the UFO reports. (It reached the same conclusion as the CU-led and National Academy of Sciences panels.) Of course, the revelations of the CIA's longtime interest in UFOs only reinforced the belief of many in the UFO community that the spy agency was hiding evidence of extraterrestrials.
Such deception might also have inadvertently contributed to the lingering distrust felt toward scientific experts by UFO believers. After all, those blue-ribbon panels in the late 1960s dismissed most sightings as optical illusions. Since then, scientists have become even more exasperated by the persistence of UFOs in the public mind. But we now know that a good number of those strange aircraft sightings were likely real—just not extraterrestrial in origin.
This larger, complex history of the UFO phenomenon is especially problematic for professionals in the military and intelligence community who have come forward of late with alarming stories of unknown "anomalous" aircraft and plead to be taken seriously.
On the afternoon of November 14, 2004, two F/A-18 "Super Hornet" fighter jets were 30 minutes into a training drill off the coast of Southern California when they were redirected by a Naval radio operator to a "real world situation." Earlier that day, the USS Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and the USS Princeton missile cruiser had detected more than a dozen unidentified objects on their radar screens—what the Navy then referred to as Anomalous Aircraft Vehicles.
The F/A-18s were told by the Princeton's captain to intercept the closest anomalous vehicle, which was located about 150 miles southwest of the San Diego coastline. When the pilots reached their coordinates, they spotted from an altitude of 20,000 feet a disturbance at the ocean's surface. One of the pilots, Commanding Officer Dave Fravor, reported that he saw a white oval or "Tic Tac"-shaped object about 50 to 60 feet in size moving just above the churning water.
Fravor headed down for a closer look. What happened next was "like nothing I've ever seen," he recounted in 2018 in a video posted on the internet: the object accelerated so fast that it disappeared in a blink of an eye. A pilot in the other F/A-18 has described the episode similarly; he also says he watched as the object zipped around Fravor's plane before it darted off in a flash.
The entire episode, which lasted between five and seven minutes, was monitored on the Princeton's Command Information Center, according to an unpublished paper that analyzes the incident, authored by a group of longtime UFO researchers, several of whom have scientific backgrounds and careers in the semiconductor and aerospace industries.
According to the paper, here's what happened: within 12 hours of the incident, a helicopter carrying nonuniformed personnel landed on the Princeton. They approached Petty Officer Voorhis, who was in charge of the ship's Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system, and requested that he turn over all the ship's radar data, electronic information, data recordings. He asked for their identification, and when they refused, he told them that he needed permission from the ship's captain before complying. Shortly after that, his captain gave him the order and Voorhis relinquished all the information, which was stored on magnetic tapes.
After I read this, I thought back to the gist of Elizondo's beef with the Defense Department, and Mellon's complaint in his Washington Post op-ed, that such incidents (and others like it) "remain largely ignored and unevaluated" by the military.
That does not seem to be the case with the Nimitz event, unless the former airmen and sailors who spoke on the record to Robert Powell, the lead author of the paper, have concocted the aforementioned chain of events—and in coordination with one another to keep their stories straight. But here again, Powell and his colleagues, despite their bias in favor of extraordinary explanations of what happened, also did their homework. They found a 2013 Facebook page for the Nimitz that contains a conversation about the 2004 incident among various shipmates who served together at the time. All those on duty that day recalled it vividly in their Facebook comments; many said they were still befuddled by what they saw and why the data mysteriously disappeared.
The paper that meticulously chronicles the Nimitz incident is titled "A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle." Two of the primary authors, including Powell, gave a detailed presentation at a conference in Huntsville, Alabama, in mid-March of 2019, called the "Scientific Conference on Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena." The conference was organized by a group of academics, engineers, and scientists that calls itself the "Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy" (and includes scientists from NASA, the European Space Agency, and the North American Aerospace Defense Command). The group says it endeavors to take a cold-eyed approach to the UFO issue, and as such, examines only cases that have hard data and credible witnesses. "We're looking to stay neutral and build a coalition of like-minded scientists," says Rich Hoffman, who does information systems work for the US military and was the lead organizer of the event.
I attended the conference, curious to see if science would really take center stage at a UFO event. To my surprise, the panels were staid PowerPoint presentations. No talk of abductions or Big Foot; just lots of mathematical formulas from physicists about the challenges of interstellar travel and space propulsion, and clinical examinations of several incidents involving supposed UFOs, such as the Nimitz case.
I approached Elizondo after his presentation to say hello and see if I could get another interview with him. He was cordial and open to talking, but said that it would have to be off the record. I found that disappointing, but understandable. Since we first met nearly a year ago, he had not been pleased with critics on social media and blogs who were scrutinizing his every move and utterance. He and his UFO company were under a sharp microscope. For example, in late 2018, Elizondo had traveled to Rome to give a presentation to European UFO buffs that was videotaped and quickly posted to the internet. Skeptics found the talk littered with dubious historical claims, including a reference he made to the 1947 "Roswell incident" that suggested the real truth was still unknown. "I'm not going to speculate in this room what crashed at Roswell," he told that audience, before proceeding to cast doubt on the official explanation given at the time, as if he was unaware of Project Mogul's disclosure.
In his Rome talk, Elizondo also discussed a famous 1952 incident when flying saucers were reported over Washington, DC. There is no historical photo that captures the supposed UFOs, but in his talk Elizondo showed a slide that suggested one existed. "It was actually a still [image] from a CGI [computer generated animation]," says John Greenewald, a longtime FOIA archivist who writes about the Pentagon's controversial UFO history in a newly published book titled Inside the Black Vault: The Government's UFO Secrets Revealed. As soon as this was pointed out to Elizondo on the internet, he apologized for the error on his company's Facebook page.
There are other discrepancies that have put him on the hot seat. He and his company have facilitated the release of video footage that show military pilots engaging with supposed UFOs. Several of these, including a grainy 45-second video of the Nimitz incident, have gone viral online, due in part to the recent media coverage that he and Mellon have received. Elizondo has insisted that the videos were declassified and released by the Pentagon in 2017, which the Pentagon denies. Even odder, a video of the Nimitz incident—the same one the New York Times embedded in its 2017 article and claimed to have received from the Pentagon—was already bouncing around on the internet in 2007.
Whatever its provenance, it is this video and others like it that Elizondo and Chris Mellon cite as compelling evidence of aerial wizardry by UFOs that pose a threat to US national security. As one might expect, an online army of eyes with many years of aviation and aerospace experience have minutely examined the videos. The crowdsourcing consensus, helpfully compiled into a detailed rundown of the incident at a popular skeptic's blog, is that the "anomalous phenomena" asserted by Elizondo and Mellon are more likely explained as sightings of some sort of classified missile or aircraft, perhaps a drone, being tested at the time.
That would make sense given the mysterious scrubbing of electronic data relating to the 2004 incident, as reported by various crew members on the Nimitz and Princeton. Perhaps the aerial phenomena around which Elizondo and Mellon seek to cast such a veil of mystery can instead be chalked up to a familiar cause of UFO sightings over the past seven decades—advanced military aircraft and weaponry that the Pentagon is trying to keep secret.
For those unsure what to believe, Elizondo offered these words of wisdom to a suspicious questioner at the 2018 International UFO Congress in Phoenix: "I would say remain skeptical. Healthy skepticism is very important; in fact, it's imperative. In fact, in my job as an intelligence officer, I was paid to be skeptical. I think you should always question all the information that comes before you by anybody who says anything, and I think that's true not just with people like me, I think it's true with government, religion, and everything in between." For a journalist trying to make sense of it all, the skepticism comes naturally. If Elizondo, Mellon, and the To The Stars Academy seem to be working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum, the irony remains that the Pentagon may well have its own good reason for keeping the UFO story alive. Not that they'd ever admit it.
Keith Kloor ([email protected]) is a New York City-based freelance journalist and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.
Kloor, Keith. "UFOs Won't Go Away." Issues in Science and Technology 35, no. 3 (Spring 2019): 49–56.


We're known for our fast and efficient services. We won't make you wait forever. Get the best name brands, including Robert Allen, Duralee, Barrow, Greenhouse, Michael John, United Fabrics, C.F. Stinson, Luxury, and J. Ennis.
We're a family owned business with over 40 years in the industry. We ensure that your upholstery needs will be met with expertise and professionalism at all times.
We pride ourselves in being extremely dependable. We use only the highest quality material and we have a keen eye for detail.


My goal is to place a node at position (x,y), with y=0, but with x equal to leftmost of the two nodes (topnode) and (bottomnode). I would like to do this without hard-coding the position. So that the position would still be correct if I changed the content of those two nodes.
A local bounding box known the left/right/top/bottom-most coordinate of everything that's inside.