activistpost--2019-11-24--Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manh

Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project

Recently uncovered evidence indicates that the New Manhattan Project – otherwise known as ‘geoengineering’ – goes back further than previously thought.  As the name ‘New Manhattan Project’ implies, the author was previously under the impression that this ultra-massive, super-secret scientific project (the biggest of all time, in fact) only went back to the mid-1940s; directly after the end of the original Manhattan Project. Your intrepid author has recently found evidence suggesting that the New Manhattan Project should be called the Old Manhattan Project because it now looks like its roots actually go back about 35 years earlier.  The findings presented here have everything to do with an organization called The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the origins of The Research Corporation for Science Advancement (Research Corporation) have everything to do with the life and work of one Frederick Gardner Cottrell (1877-1948).  Today the Research Corporation for Science Advancement has a website, a Twitter feed, and a Facebook page.  If you don’t know what the New Manhattan Project is, please refer to the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available exclusively at Amazon.  In the early 1900s Frederick Gardner Cottrell pioneered the field of large-scale, electrostatic removal of coal fly ash from the emissions of coal-fired electrical power plants. This is relevant to the New Manhattan Project for a few reasons.  It is relevant because it has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Dr. Marvin Herndon and his peer-reviewers all over the world that the substance with which we are being routinely sprayed today is coal fly ash. You see, coal fly ash is the smoke that rises from burning coal. It’s a toxic waste by-product of the electrical power industry. There’s a big, cheap supply of it all over the world and if they don’t spray it into our atmosphere, it costs the electrical power companies big money to properly dispose of it. The low cost and ready availability of coal fly ash makes it suitable for geoengineering purposes because geoengineers are talking about spraying tens of thousands of megatons of toxic substances such as this from airplanes ANNUALLY. For more about coal fly ash, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project.”  Not only that, but electrical power companies have a long history in weather modification, and the New Manhattan Project is a global, second generation weather modification project. Specifically, electrical power companies have for many decades openly sprayed silver iodide from ground-based generators in order to make it snow. The runoff from this artificially nucleated snowpack then fills up their mountain reservoirs and is subsequently used to generate hydroelectric power. How much does the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation love you?  Furthermore, when coal fly ash is electrostatically removed from the exhaust system of a coal-fired power plant, a mini-New Manhattan Project takes place. This is what originally inspired the author’s investigation here. You see, today’s coal fly ash is removed from a power plant’s exhaust system using something called an electrostatic precipitator. These electrostatic precipitators collect fly ash by first electrically charging the airborne ash particles, then attracting them to oppositely charged plates where the ash is then taken away. This is analogous to how, in the course of today’s New Manhattan Project, atmospheric particles are electromagnetically ionized (charged) and then manipulated. This use of electromagnetic energy is the defining aspect of the project and, strangely enough, we see it replicated in this NMP sub-operation of fly ash sequestration. Frederick Cottrell was the American pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation.  So, let us learn more about this intriguing Frederick Cottrell character, whose life’s work was so inextricably intertwined with air pollution and, most pertinently, coal fly ash air pollution. Like your author, Cottrell was born in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is his story.  Frederick Gardner Cottrell was born in Oakland, CA in 1877. As a boy, Cottrell marveled at the swift proliferation of applied electrical power. At the age of 19 he received a Bachelors degree in chemistry from the University of California and subsequently became a chemistry teacher at Oakland High School. He then traveled abroad to the Mecca of science, Germany. During this time he also traveled extensively throughout Europe as well as throughout the eastern half of America, visiting just about all of the big scientific universities while meeting and studying under many famous European and American scientists. Upon his return to America, from 1902 to 1911 Cottrell taught physical chemistry at UC Berkeley. Cottrell was gregarious, universally well-liked, and an extraordinarily sharp scientist.  In America, Cottrell traveled to many universities which have since been implicated in the production of the New Manhattan Project such as: The University of Chicago, Cornell, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  Most notably, though, on his return journey Cottrell also visited Schenectady, New York; the home of W.R. Whitney’s General Electric Laboratories which was just beginning its long and storied history in the realm of industrial scientific discoveries. In fact, General Electric and Whitney would go on for many years trying unsuccessfully to sign Cottrell as an employee. As readers of this work already know, General Electric appears to be central to the production of the New Manhattan Project.  In 1906 Cottrell first successfully collected and removed unwanted airborne particles with electrical precipitation as part of an industrial process at a DuPont plant engaged in the manufacture of acids and explosives in Pinole, CA. It was not to improve the quality of the breathable air, though. For DuPont, Cottrell found a way to eliminate certain arsenic mists which were a by-product of their industrial processes that were causing production difficulties. Elimination of the arsenic mists during the production of sulphuric acid allowed the DuPont plant to produce their goods much more efficiently. It was during this time that Cottrell drew up his first two successful U.S. patents pertaining to electrical precipitation and a new industry was born.  Once Cottrell had successfully demonstrated his new and improved methods of electrical precipitation, one of Cottrell’s friends, a man by the name of Harry East Miller was sure that Cottrell ‘had something’ and promptly incorporated and became the primary funder of something called the Western Precipitation Company.  The parent corporation of the Western Precipitation Company was something called the International Precipitation Company. The International Precipitation Company held the patents while the Western Precipitation Company was the operating unit. Miller, Cottrell, E.S. Heller, a well-known San Francisco attorney, and Berkeley professor Edmund O’Neill were the original shareholders with seed money investment coming from all except Cottrell. An additional early loan was secured from the Wells Fargo Nevada National Bank.  After returning to Pinole to perfect and definitively demonstrate their improved methods, Western Precipitation’s first real job came in 1907 at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company in Selby, California. This job was all about cleaning up the ambient air.  The troubles at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company were not uncommon. Ever since the Industrial Revolution and all throughout the 19th century, much of the industrialized world (especially Europe and the industrialized centers of America) struggled with poor air quality due to the emissions coming from local factories. At Selby, the downwind residents of Solano County were reporting foul odors, reduced agricultural production, corroded metals, and other significant environmental problems due to the pollution coming from the Selby plant. It got so bad that the residents of Solano County had banded together back in 1905 to petition for an injunction against the Selby plant’s offending emissions.  When officials at the Selby plant heard about Western Precipitation’s successful demonstration of their improved methods at nearby Pinole, they immediately looked to Western Precipitation for a solution to their problems. Western Precipitation’s efforts at Selby were ultimately successful, the air quality in Solano County was restored, and the Selby Smelting and Lead Company continued operations there. It was a win win.  In the years following the successes at Pinole and Selby, Western Precipitation solved emissions problems at industrial facilities such as large copper smelters and cement factories.  In July of 1910, at the first annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco, Cottrell held his first major public discussion of his work in the field of electrical precipitation and his speech was well received both domestically and abroad. A variety of air pollution-producing industries as well as civic organizations gave inquiries. Cottrell’s International Precipitation Company was well on its way to prosperity.  In 1911 Cottrell resigned from his position at the University of California at Berkeley and took a job as a physical chemist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. He took the job because the then director of the Bureau, a man by the name of Joseph A. Holmes, was cultivating an expanded role for the newly created Bureau. One of Holmes’ initiatives was that of organizing efforts related to ameliorating the problem of pollution caused by the burning of coal. Holmes saw air pollution from the burning of coal as an issue for the Bureau of Mines because coal is a mined substance and the organizations burning said coal had intimate business relationships with the miners. Cottrell’s experience in electrical precipitation made him a natural fit.  It was not long after his arrival in Washington, D.C. for his job with the Bureau of Mines in June of 1911, when Cottrell started taking steps towards forming the Research Corporation, as it was originally called. With help from Holmes, the Director of the Bureau of Mines, as part of this process, Cottrell began negotiations with the Smithsonian Institution to let them take over ownership of his patents pertaining to electrical precipitation. It was suggested that the Smithsonian Institution could use funding from the royalties generated by the business development of International Precipitation Company’s patents to fund scientific efforts which had the potential to improve Americans’ daily quality of life.  You see, unlike Bill Gates, George Soros, or so many others, Cottrell was a real philanthropist. He actually wanted to use his patents to foster development of the greater good. He may have been naïve, but his intentions were good.  Cottrell soon returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went about organizing a Bureau of Mines office and laboratory in San Francisco. Also at this time, he and his business associates (Miller, Heller, and O’Neill), as a preliminary step to handing their patents over to the Smithsonian, signed over both the Western Precipitation Company and the International Precipitation Company (without patents) to one of Cottrell’s former pupils named Walter A. Schmidt, who became the manager of both the International Precipitation Company and the Western Precipitation Company.  By this time, there was huge interest and activity associated with the Cottrell group’s new technologies and the job offers were coming in from all over the world. With the signing over of the companies, Cottrell and his associates received only modest compensation. With the disposition of his businesses, Cottrell plunged into his work at the Bureau.  In December of 1911, the Regents of the Smithsonian decided to accept Cottrell and associates’ offer with a caveat. The Regents of the Smithsonian advised that a stock corporation be organized which was to take title of the patents. The Regents advised that the Smithsonian Institution be directly represented in this new corporation by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution – at the time, a man by the name of Charles D. Walcott (1850-1927). From this arrangement and from the royalties generated by the International Precipitation Company patents, the Smithsonian Institution, they suggested, would stand to benefit financially. This suggested corporation would later be formed as the Research Corporation.  At the time of the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell happened to be back east again in Washington D.C. attending an important meeting. Being that the Smithsonian’s Executive Committee was ready to act, Cottrell extended his stay.  After attending the executive session of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents where they announced their decision pertaining to Cottrell’s patents, Walcott (Secretary of the Smithsonian) and Cottrell adjourned to a restaurant across the street where they ran into Arthur Dehon Little (1863-1935). The presence of Arthur D. Little is important to our discussion because his eponymous corporation (a research organization, no less) was later to do lots of serious work in the vein of the New Manhattan Project. From little acorns mighty oaks grow. Little was a staunch supporter of Cottrell’s efforts to establish this new corporation – he even suggested the name Research Corporation. Little offered lots of other advice and volunteered to steer Cottrell towards the ‘right’ people. It was Little who put Cottrell in touch with T. Coleman DuPont (1863-1930) who enthusiastically took a seat on the nascent Research Corporation’s board of directors. Little took a seat on the first board as well. Du Pont stayed on the Research Corporation board of directors from 1912 to 1930 while Arthur D. Little remained as a Research Corporation board member from 1912 to 1921.  The newly christened Research Corporation needed more members of the board to oversee their important work. For upwards of two months following the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell and Bureau of Mines chief Holmes communicated with about one hundred men from many different vocations in order to find directors for the new Research Corporation. They eventually decided upon 14 well-known men from academia, government, and industry, including a man named Elihu Thompson (1853-1937) who was the founder of something called the Thompson-Houston Company. The Thompson-Houston Company was one of the precursors of the General Electric Company which has only the most serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. Thomson was also the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1920 to 1923. Another original board member was one Charles A. Stone (1867-1941) who was a trustee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is significant because the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is another organization highly implicated in the science history of the New Manhattan Project. Smithsonian Secretary Walcott took a seat on the Research Corporation board as well. By early February of 1912, the Research Corporation’s original board of directors had been chosen and its Articles of Incorporation were ready to be filed.  Although years later the Research Corporation bought back all of its stock, members of its original board initially paid for founder’s stock which filled the nascent Research Corporation’s coffers and gave the corporation its seed money needed for starting operations.  Over the years, many other luminaries of the New Manhattan Project have served on the Research Corporation’s board of directors including: Karl T. Compton (1887-1954), James R. Killian Jr. (1904-1988), Alfred Lee Loomis (1887-1975), and Vannevar Bush (1890-1974). All four of these men have strong implications for the New Manhattan Project with Loomis and Bush possessing only the strongest. Alfred Lee Loomis was a Research Corporation board member from 1930 to 1933, then again from 1948 to 1959. In 1938 the Research Corporation awarded a grant to Vannevar Bush. Vannevar Bush was a Research Corporation board member from 1939 to 1946.  On February 16 of 1912 the Research Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, a one-room office was leased at 63 Wall St., and a manager by the name of Linn Bradley was hired. Cottrell returned to his office work for the Bureau of Mines in San Francisco. A prospectus was printed up and, in order to increase revenue, Bradley went about finding new contract opportunities.  Back in the San Francisco Bay Area once again, Cottrell applied the principals of electrical precipitation to weather modification. This is significant because, as noted earlier, the topic of our study, the New Manhattan Project is, largely and in its essence, a global weather modification project. Specifically, Cottrell experimented with the electrical dissipation of low-lying fogs. Here Cottrell was following in the footsteps of Sir Oliver Lodge (1878-1955) who had successfully performed similar experiments in London many years earlier. This type of weather modification activity, utilizing a charged wire to cause the coalescence of fog, is duly noted in the historical weather modification literature.  Cottrell and his wife moved to Washington D.C. in November of 1916, where they then lived for the next 28 years.  The International Precipitation Company and its subsidiary the Western Precipitation Company flourished under Walter Schmidt’s management. Immediately following the end of hostilities in Europe, Schmidt returned to rejuvenate International Precipitation’s business there. In the course of doing so, he joined forces with Sir Oliver Lodge’s Fume Deposit Company to form the British firm Lodge Cottrell Ltd. To this day Lodge Cottrell Ltd produces and services industrial electrostatic precipitators, mostly outside of America.  In the first two years of its existence, the Research Corporation got its revenue almost entirely from the fees associated with their engineering consultancy work pertaining to the design, installation, and maintenance of electrostatic precipitators. In the first few years of its existence, the Research Corporation mostly went about building up cash reserves.  During this time there were large precipitators being built around the country. By January 1915, about three years after its creation, the Research Corporation had $65K in cash and $100K in secured notes, subsequently, the previously issued founders’ stock was bought back in that same year.  In 1920 Cottrell briefly served as the chief of the Bureau of Mines for 8 months. Beginning in 1921 Cottrell also served as the chairman of the National Research Council’s Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology. The National Research Council was funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, among others. This put him in touch with Rockefellers and Carnegies – two family names highly correlated with the New Manhattan Project.  With the exception of an early grant to Cottrell as part of a company promotion, the Research Corporation didn’t really start giving out money for the advancement of science until 1923. In 1923 the Research Corporation made their first real grant when they paid $5K toward the atmospheric sounding rocket experiments of the American rocketry pioneer Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945). This was an investment in the atmospheric sciences as sounding rockets are used to gather atmospheric data. From the beginning, the Research Corporation was funding projects highly relevant to the New Manhattan Project. As we will soon see, many others were funded later.  At the Research Corporation, the way it worked was that Howard Poillon ran day-to-day operations while Cottrell was largely responsible for developing new inventions and ideas, accepting new patents, and the granting of funds. Cottrell’s official status was that of a paid consultant.  Another early recipient of Research Corporation money was Ernest Orlando Lawrence (1901-1958): Manhattan Project scientist and the father of the cyclotron. In 1931 the Research Corporation made the first of many grants to Ernest Lawrence for the development of his cyclotron.  In late July of 1931, after Lawrence had successfully produced a million-volt proton with an eleven inch accelerator, Fred Cottrell encouraged his friend from UC Berkeley to ask the Research Corporation for funding. Before the end of the month, Lawrence was in New York, asking the Research Corporation for $10-$15K. Cottrell came along to personally introduce Lawrence and plead his case before the board of directors. The Research Corporation was impressed with Lawrence and they decided to make a $5K grant, even though they had to go to the bank and borrow the funds because they were in the throes of the Great Depression. William Buffum of the Chemical Foundation followed up with a promise of another $2.5K.  On different occasions between 1931 and 1940, the Research Corporation gave to Lawrence’s work at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory: $5K, $1.8K, $2K, $2K, $3K, $1K, $5K, $1.7K, $7.5K, $5K, and $50K. That’s a grand total of $84K, or, conservatively, about $1.5M in today’s dollars.  The Research Corporation, as the assignee, also applied for one of Lawrence’s patents for him. Their collaborative patent “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” covers methods of the cyclotronic production of radioactive substances discovered by Lawrence.  Cottrell’s biographer Cameron writes, “In the thirties, when the period of intensive study of atomic energy began, the earliest diversified support and encouragement of the development of the techniques of nuclear physics in America came from Research Corporation.” He also writes, “The Lawrence patent had, by 1949, been licensed free of royalties to twenty-eight universities and scientific institutions to build cyclotrons. More than that, it was income from the precipitation patents that helped in several instances to build or operate these cyclotrons which the corporation licensed.”  Along with funding Lawrence, the Research Corporation funded other early cyclotron work at: Columbia University, the University of Rochester, the University of Chicago, and Cornell University.  The Research Corporation also funded Robert Van de Graaff’s (1901-1967) electrostatic generator, also known as a Van de Graaff-Trump accelerator after the Donald’s uncle, John G. Trump (1907-1985). Van de Graaff’s work was conducted at MIT. Cameron writes, “[The Van de Graaff group of patents on the electrostatic generator] were assigned to Research Corporation under a general agreement with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in turn were ultimately licensed back to the High Voltage Engineering Corporation formed by Van de Graaff and his associates.” Van de Graaff’s associates included John Trump. As readers of this work already know, John Trump was the MIT professor who looked over Nikola Tesla’s posthumously confiscated documents.  In 1938 it was reported that the Research Corporation had donated funds to Columbia University in order to support their program of supplying, “artificial radioactive materials for use as tracers in biochemical processes.” Today the New Manhattan Project uses atmospheric radioactive tracers along with satellites to actively map atmospheric activity.  At some point during this time, the Research Corporation moved out of its original offices on Wall St. and moved into offices in the steeple of the Chrysler Building in Manhattan.  In the early thirties, the Smithsonian had established a laboratory for Cottrell’s use. In this laboratory Cottrell installed a man by the name of Chester Gilbert who was formerly the president of the American Coal Corporation. At the Smithsonian laboratory, after receiving an anonymous donation of $6K, Gilbert initially investigated the production of lime-gypsum plaster based on some Research Corporation patents. Gilbert’s lime-gypsum work led him to work pertaining to the use of coal fly ash. This work put Gilbert and Cottrell among the pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization, a field that continues to this day. Gilbert and Cottrell figured that coal fly ash could be processed and then used as a filler in cements and plasters. They also went about processing coal fly ash for use as a household cleaning powder.  The author of Cottrell’s biography, Frank Cameron describes the Research Corporation’s Smithsonian laboratory in a very interesting way. Cameron describes the Smithsonian laboratory as analogous to a phenomenon germane to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences: nucleation. Curiously, when referring to the laboratory where Gilbert and Cottrell performed pioneering work in the field of coal fly ash utilization, Cameron writes, “They [Gilbert and Cottrell] did not foresee it as the mote, the speck of dust around which Cottrell’s ideas and those of his protégés, like so many particles of moisture, would begin to coalesce to form the drop of rain.”  It may have been during this time that Gilbert, Cottrell, or other pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization noticed or figured that the smoke from coal-fired, electrical power plants causes precipitation. It had been noted for many years previously that explosions and smoke from burning fires cause precipitation. Maybe the Research Corporation and their Smithsonian laboratory attempted to determine the validity of these claims by doing a study about whether or not, under the appropriate atmospheric conditions, the smoke from coal-fired electrical power plants can be scientifically proven to cause precipitation. It is known today that if coal is finely pulverized before combustion, then many of the resultant fly ash particles will be the optimum size for atmospheric nucleation (.1 micron). Maybe they even collected some of this coal fly ash from one of their electrostatic precipitators and dumped it out of an airplane to see if it caused atmospheric precipitation. Just sayin’. And if the reader is aware of just how many of the author’s speculations have turned out to be directly over the target, then the reader should be just listenin’.  As the years went on, the Research Corporation’s electrostatic precipitator business grew and grew. In 1928 Research Corporation had 43 contracts in hand to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1941 Research Corporation had 95 contracts to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1942 Research Corporation had 130 contracts.  During WWII something called the Research Construction Company, which was formed by the Research Corporation, served as a ‘model shop’ for MIT’s Radiation Laboratory. Under contract to MIT, the Research Construction Company produced over $12M worth of radar apparatus. In their book commemorating their centennial anniversary, the Research Corporation for Science Advancement tells us, “Research Construction Company made small production runs for immediate military needs. Successful prototypes were turned over to government contractors for mass production.” This is significant because the wartime MIT Radiation Laboratory has serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. For more information about the MIT Rad Lab, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project.”  Cottrell eventually returned to Berkeley and died in his chair during a morning meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on the campus of UC Berkeley in November of 1948. Cameron writes, “About nine-thirty he slumped in his chair, his head back, an audible rattle in his throat.  “He died among friends. Hildebrand, of the university’s chemistry department, helped Farrington Daniels lay him on the floor, and it was thought that death had come instantly. A doctor arrived and after the body had been removed it was the sentiment of those attending that Cottrell would have wished the meeting to go on.  The Research Corporation for Science Advancement writes of significant developments in the post-war era, “In 1954, as a result of [a] change in the tax law, Research Corporation reorganized its precipitator business as Research-Cottrell, a wholly-owned but taxable subsidiary.” The authors continue, “From 1957 to 1967 Research Corporation was supported mainly by the earnings of its commercial precipitation subsidiary, Research-Cottrell, and royalties from inventions in its patent portfolios.” “By the mid-1960s, further federal efforts to limit nonprofit control over commercial activities prompted Research Corporation to lower the percentage of its ownership in the precipitator business, and Research-Cottrell became a publicly held company in 1967.  “The [Research Corporation] Foundation’s endowment was established during the second half of the twentieth century, coming primarily from the Research-Cottrell stock offering. Research Corporation finally divested itself of all of the precipitator firm’s stock in the 1980s.” “The Foundation’s precipitator business, Research-Cottrell, survives as Hamon-Research Cottrell, a public corporation headquartered in New Jersey that is a major provider of air-pollution control technology.”  The Research Corporation has historically given many grants to scientific studies conducted in areas relevant to the New Manhattan Project. The Research Corporation has consistently funded work in the areas of: plasma physics, astrophysics, microwave spectroscopy, radioactive tracers, atmospheric physics, electromagnetic fields, particle physics, meteorology, ionospheric research, nucleation, biology, and more.  Famous scientists implicated in the New Manhattan Project such as Merle Tuve (1901-1982), Isidor Rabi (1898-1988), and CalTech’s Lee DuBridge (1901-1994) have all been Research Corporation grantees.  In 1965 Alfred Y.F. Wong of the University of California at Los Angeles’ Plasma Physics Lab received $6K for work in, “Experimental studies of fundamental plasma physics.” Again in 1972 Wong received $10K from the Research Corporation. The following year Barrett H. Ripin, Reiner L. Stenzel, and the aforementioned Alfred Wong of UCLA got $10,200 to study ion beam-plasma wave interactions.  This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong who went on, in the 1980s, to found and direct the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) ionospheric heater in Alaska. The HIPAS ionospheric heater was a precursor to the infamous High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) antenna. Further, my science advisor tells me that weather modification work prominently mentioned by Vice Admiral William F. Raborn, Jr. was conducted at the HIPAS facility.  This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong that got busted for fraudulently producing phony invoices pertaining to U.S. government contract work. He pled guilty, was sentenced to 5 days behind bars, as well as six months home detention, and was ordered to pay nearly $1.7M in restitution.  Wong is currently listed on UCLA’s website as a Professor Emeritus of ‘Exp. Plasma & Environmental Physics.’  For more about Vice Admiral Raborn and his implications for the New Manhattan Project, please see the author’s previous article “William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project.”  Oddly enough, the cover of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s 2008 annual report features a question mark made of clouds high above the Earth, appearing as though it has been written in the sky by aircraft. In this same report they reveal that the so-called Scialog program, which they originally disclosed in the previous year’s annual report, is all about tackling ‘global climate change.’ Oddly enough as well, so is the New Manhattan Project.  In their 2009 report they refer to global climate change as a ‘looming challenge.’  In their 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports, they note that Cherry A. Murray served on their Presidential Advisory Committee. For the fact that Cherry A. Murray is the former Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the author has identified her as a person of interest in the New Manhattan Project. You know that the original Manhattan Project became the Atomic Energy Commission, which, in turn, became the Department of Energy, right? Murray also was the principal associate director for science and technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) from 2004-2009. LLNL is the author’s number one choice for a New Manhattan Project command center location. Murray got her B.S. and Ph.D. in physics from MIT.  In their 2010 and 2011 reports, their then president and CEO James M. Gentile identified himself as a climate zealot as he characterized climate change as a daunting challenge to be overcome.  A managing director of Brown Brothers Harriman, G. Scott Clemons sits on the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s board of directors. This is significant because of Brown Brothers Harriman’s affiliation with the Bush family as well as the fact that Brown Brothers Harriman acquired another producer of electrostatic precipitators known as Dresser Industries in 1928. For more about Brown Brothers Harriman, the Bush family, and Dresser Industries, please refer to the author’s 2018 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project.”  Other interesting individuals from organizations such as: The Chase Manhattan Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Aeronautic Division of the Ford Motor Company, the Carnegie institute of Technology, MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, CalTech, and something called Energy Global all have sat or currently sit on the Research Corporation’s board of directors.  The Research Corporation has always funded what we call ‘basic science.’ These are the small, highly specific studies that produce results which are often in turn used as the building blocks of much larger scientific efforts. Over the years, the Research Corporation has funded thousands of basic science studies.  Furthermore, we know that one of the 3 ways that the Research Corporation has funded itself over the years is from corporate stock dividends – the other two being patent royalties and electrostatic precipitator engineering services fees. For many decades now, the Research Corporation has maintained an investment portfolio consisting mostly of the dividend-paying stocks of large, American companies.  Doesn’t it make sense, then that the Research Corporation would fund basic science studies which might produce new discoveries helpful to the corporations that fund the Research Corporation? This is probably what has been taking place.  Given this, doesn’t it also make sense, then that, over the years, the Research Corporation may have funded basic science studies which produced new discoveries which were then used as building blocks of the New Manhattan Project? The Research Corporation has owned the dividend-paying stocks of companies like General Electric, Boeing, and Standard Oil which all have strong implications for the NMP. As noted earlier, one of the Research Corporation’s founding members, Elihu Thomson was also a founding member of General Electric and General Electric appears to be the most instrumental corporation in the NMP’s history. Furthermore, we have seen many people strongly connected to the NMP also working for the Research Corporation such as Alfred Lee Loomis, Vannevar Bush, and Arthur D. Little.  For the production of the New Manhattan Project, use of an operation like the Research Corporation would be very advantageous. The New Manhattan Project, being that it is the biggest scientific project in history, has necessarily required gargantuan boatloads of basic scientific studies. And here is a self-sustaining organization that, for over 100 years and to this day, due to the efforts of Frederick Cottrell, produces an endless amount of this stuff. It’s even better than making the taxpayer pay for it!  It is hoped that this article provides more clarity about the biggest scientific effort in Human history and that our continuing investigations of coal fly ash air pollution will illuminate us and contribute to relieving us of our burdens. As these investigations have repeatedly found, when one investigates coal fly ash air pollution, one finds the New Manhattan Project. It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? Let’s keep moving in this direction. Thank you, Dr. Herndon.  The greatly revised and expanded second edition of my book “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project” is coming! It’s looking like spring 2020. There’s just so much here! For one, the new Chemtrail Fleet chapter is going to be a real BARN BURNER. Have I ever disappointed you? Stay tuned. To be among the first to be notified of the second edition’s publication, please join my email list at my website peterakirby.com  Bibliography (in order of first appearance)  “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, July 24, 2017  Cottrell: Samaritan of Science a book by Frank Cameron, published by Doubleday, 1952  “Frederick Gardner Cottrell 1877-1948” a National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoir by Vannevar Bush, published by the National Academy of Sciences, 1952  100 Years of Supporting Science Innovation: Research Corporation for Science Advancement: 1912-2012 a book by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, published by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, 2012  US patent #1,948,384 “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” by Ernest O. Lawrence  An American Genius: The Life of Ernest Orlando Lawrence, Father of the Cyclotron a book by Herbert Childs, published by E.P. Dutton & Co., 1968  “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, March 13, 2017  “Former UCLA Physics Professor Agrees To Plead Guilty In Federal Contract Fraud Case And Pay Nearly $1.7 Million In Damages” a press release by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, published by the United States Department of Justice, May 9, 2013  “William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, May 24, 2017  The Research Corporation (1912-1952): Dedicated to Progress in Education and Science a booklet containing a transcript of a speech by Dr. Joseph Warren Barker, published by the Newcomen Society, 1952  PeterAKirby.com   My Minds page   My Steemit page   My GoodReads page   My YouTube channel  Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. Buy his book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available now exclusively at Amazon.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2019-12-29--Chemtrails Exposed: The Common Roots of the New Manhattan Project and the Theory of Man-Made Global

Chemtrails Exposed: The Common Roots of the New Manhattan Project and the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming

As it turns out, both the New Manhattan Project and the theory of man-made global warming share many important, early historical roots. Both came from a group of Swedish scientists active during the late 1800s and early 1900s.  These scientists were members of something called the Stockholm Physics Society. The founder and main attraction of this group was a man by the name of Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). Svante Arrhenius was the scientist who originally came up with the theory of man-made global warming and he did it during his time with something called the Stockholm Physics Society.  Arrhenius and the Stockholm Physics Society’s work pertaining to plasma physics, atomic physics, meteorology, atmospheric electricity, and weather modification also provide compelling links to today’s global weather modification project the author appropriately calls the New Manhattan Project.  This article is mostly based upon a biography of Svante Arrhenius by Elisabeth Crawford titled Arrhenius: From Ionic Theory to the Greenhouse Effect. Oddly enough, this book was published in 1996; the same year that large-scale domestic spraying operations began.  For more about the New Manhattan Project, please refer to the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project, available exclusively at Amazon.  Svante Arrhenius was a Swedish scientist who was the first person to significantly assert and popularize the theory of man-made climate change.  Although Arrhenius is not very well known today, in his time he was considered Sweden’s most prominent scientist; receiving a slew of honorary doctorates from the most prestigious universities in Europe as well as a large heap of exclusive awards and medals including the 1903 Nobel prize for chemistry. He worked internationally and in multiple languages.  Arrhenius worked in his native Swedish as well as in the German, English, and French languages, with German being the most predominant. He often published in all four languages. Crawford notes that, “His closest working relationships were with members of the German, English, and, later, American scientific communities.” He was quite gregarious and had hundreds of scientist friends in Europe and North America.  Arrhenius was born on February 19, 1859 near the city of Uppsala, Sweden. His father was the agent for a noble family called the von Essens. Soon after his birth, his family moved into a house inside the city of Uppsala proper. This was where Arrhenius spent his childhood and youth.  Arrhenius was admitted to Uppsala University in 1876 where he concentrated on his studies of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The University of Uppsala, founded in 1477, is Sweden’s oldest and Arrhenius’ father was an employee of the university.  In 1881, Arrhenius followed his professor Otto Petterson to the capital city of Stockholm to study at the new Stockholm Högskola for three years. The Stockholm Högskola had opened in 1878 as a private, non-degree-granting institution of higher learning oriented toward the sciences. These three years at the Högskola set Arrhenius’ work on the course he was to follow for the next decade.  In Stockholm, Arrhenius also studied at the Institute of Physics of the Swedish Academy of Sciences under Erik Edlund (1819-1888). Sweden’s Central Meteorological Office was located at the Institute of Physics and until the early 1870s, Arrhenius’ mentor, Edlund had been in charge of weather observations there. Undoubtedly at the behest of Edlund, it was during his time at the Academy that Arrhenius made his first serious excursion into the atmospheric sciences and, even more pertinently, his first serious excursion into the field of atmospheric electricity with a paper on the topic of ball lightning published in the Academy proceedings.  Arrhenius began to move within a broad network of European scientists that was centered on the Committee on Electrolysis of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS). The BAAS was headed by the noted physicist Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940). Sir Oliver Lodge was the main European pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation and, as readers of this work already know, the field of electrostatic precipitation is central to the New Manhattan Project.  For more about the history and current relevance of electrostatic precipitation, please see the author’s previous articles “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project” as well as “Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project.”  Arrhenius eventually established a lively academic discourse with Lodge. The two conversed mostly about early plasma physics. Although they didn’t call it that yet, plasma physics is another field with direct relevance to today’s New Manhattan Project mainly due to the fact that ionospheric plasmas are today being manipulated by ground-based antennas known as ionospheric heaters.  Although they were not fast friends, the famous scientist Max Planck (1858-1947) was also one of Arrhenius’ contemporaries.  Arrhenius was also involved in the field of early atomic physics. This is relevant to our investigation for the fact that today’s New Manhattan Project is an outgrowth of the original Manhattan Project; which was all about atomic physics. For more about how this happened, please refer to the author’s previous article “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project.”  Arrhenius later became a student of radioactivity in 1909 when he was taught by the famous, pioneering atomic physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) at the University of Manchester.  After studying abroad in Germany, Arrhenius returned to Sweden in 1891 to find that a new culture had swept the nation. This new, emergent culture appears to have been somewhat similar to that which emerged in America in the late 1960s. It was marked by individual introspection, communion with the natural world, and political progressivism. This new culture was largely centered around a small elite in Stockholm which expressed itself through art, literature, and science. Social Darwinism played a central role in the philosophy of this new cultural movement. This progressive movement of the late 1800s in Sweden even had its own dialect known as ‘New Swedish.’  Also upon his return, Arrhenius became a teacher of physics at the Stockholm Högskola. In 1893 Arrhenius was joined at the Högskola by Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862-1951). The two went on to become good friends and colleagues. The presence of Vilhelm Bjerknes is significant to our investigation because he went on to identify the basic equations of atmospheric dynamics which eventually paved the way for today’s computerized atmospheric modeling. Bjerknes had studied under Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) at the University of Bonn. His doctoral dissertation was about experimental investigations of Hertzian waves. Hertz is the father of the study of electromagnetic energy, which plays a key role in the NMP. His generalized theorems of atmospheric circulation were based on analogies between hydrodynamic and electromagnetic forces.  The Swedish meteorological establishment had extensive ties to the Stockholm Högskola and Arrhenius. The first director of Sweden’s Central Meteorological Office, a man by the name of Robert Rubenson, was a professor of physics at the Högskola from 1878 to 1887. Another Central Meteorological Office meteorologist by the name of Nils Ekholm (1848-1923) became one of Arrhenius’ closest collaborators.  In the fall of 1891, Arrhenius initiated the Stockholm Physics Society as a forum for lectures and discussion pertaining to the latest advances in physics. In the context of this new Society, physics was defined broadly as comprising neighboring fields such as meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and physical chemistry.  The fortnightly meetings of this new Society were held at the Physics Institute of the Stockholm Högskola. A man by the name of Bernard Hasselberg was elected president, the aforementioned Otto Petterson became vice-president, and Arrhenius became secretary. This new Society was immediately well attended. The aforementioned Robert Rubenson and Nils Ekholm attended the meetings as well a third man associated with the Central Meteorological Office by the name of Hugo Hamburg. The Stockholm Physics Society was more like a social debating club rather than a serious scientific institution.  The largest number of lectures at this new Stockholm Physics Society meeting at the Stockholm Högskola concerned the physics of the Earth, the sea, and the atmosphere. This area of study was known as ‘cosmic physics.’ Early on, most of the lectures on cosmic physics were given by Arrhenius himself. Cosmic physics is of direct applicability to today’s New Manhattan Project because modification or control of the earth’s weather must take into consideration not only the physics of the atmosphere, but all environmental factors.  Although Arrhenius probably first heard of cosmic physics during his time studying abroad in Germany, where it had been institutionalized, the variety of cosmic physics practiced in Sweden in the late 1800s and early 1900s was substantially different than that which was practiced in Germany. The German cosmic physicists served as counterparts to the Swedish cosmic physicists.  This was not Arrhenius’ first work in the subject. Years earlier, in 1888, Arrhenius had studied atmospheric electricity; an aspect of cosmic physics. He analyzed measurements of atmospheric electricity as well as other meteorological data in order to understand the influence of ultraviolet light from the sun on the conductivity of the air. This was all in order to explain the movement of charged particles (ions) in the earth’s electric field and dispersion of electricity in the atmosphere. Arrhenius’ early in this subject has the New Manhattan Project written all over it.  At the Stockholm Physics Society, Arrhenius also reported on his continuing work in the area of atomic physics. Other members offered information on topics with relevance to the New Manhattan Project such as aeronautics.  The members of the Stockholm Physics Society shared not only a consuming interest in physics, but they also shared a political ideology. They were a product of their times in that they were politically progressive. Conversely, members of the progressive political parties of the time were also scientists. With the influence of these predominant political views surrounding him, Arrhenius became a progressive himself. Crawford writes:  This over-arching theme of political progressivism is of note to our discussion because, as we will soon see, it was during this period of his work with the politically progressive scientists of the Stockholm Physics Society, that Arrhenius first developed the theory of man-made climate change. A theory which, to this day, is marked by political progressivism. And the theory of man-made climate change is relevant to the New Manhattan Project because today’s geoengineers use the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming as an excuse for dumping tens of thousands of megatons of toxic materials from aircraft ANNUALLY – a key aspect of today’s New Manhattan Project. Could the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming have more to do with politics than science? That’s not what the Old Media said. Please read on.  The Stockholm Physics Society also found a receptive audience in the press. Arrhenius in particular was regularly published for his reporting upon the Society’s meetings. He found the local press to be eager to publish his articles and pay him a fee for his troubles. This is consistent with today’s mass media which overwhelmingly produces content from politically progressive sources. Arrhenius provided the local media with a steady stream of his work, including a piece on the means to artificially produce rainfall. Yes, that’s right. Arrhenius did work in weather modification – a field with only the most direct relevance to today’s New Manhattan Project.  Arrhenius’ participation in the media continued for many years. He became an important popularizer of science. In the early 1900s, he had many popular books published on topics such as cosmic physics. To this day, one can order his books online. His most popular book was published in 1908 and was titled Worlds in the Making.  Cosmic physics at the Stockholm Physics Society flourished throughout the 1890s. This new discipline relied upon recent advances in data collection as well as advances in theoretical and experimental physics. Arrhenius was the main promoter of cosmic physics in Stockholm. He worked almost exclusively in cosmic physics from the mid 1890s to the first few years of the new century. It was from this work in cosmic physics that Arrhenius first began to postulate about atmospheric carbon dioxide and its effect on earth’s temperature.  Almost exactly 100 years before large-scale, domestic spraying operations began, Arrhenius began his investigations of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Stockholm Physics Society in 1895. The idea of linking variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide to climate change came to Arrhenius near the end of 1894. He started work on the notion on Christmas Eve, 1894. His first articles on the subject were published exactly one year later. Interestingly, 1895 was a year of emotional turmoil for Arrhenius. In that year, his first marriage dissolved, his chair in physics at the Högskola seemed in jeopardy, and his son was born.  Both Arrhenius and Bjerknes worked on the issue. Arrhenius’ colleague Högbom contributed significantly in this area as well. Högbom’s contributions consisted of ‘guesstimates’ of the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by different means.  Specifically, Arrhenius’ investigation pertained to atmospheric carbon dioxide’s influence upon the coming and passing of Ice Ages. Arrhenius warned that our present existence may be, “nothing but a short flourishing of civilization between two Ice Ages.”  Although Arrhenius is not referenced, it is interesting to note that in 1997 LLNL scientists Teller, Wood, and Hyde released a research paper titled “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change” wherein the authors suggest that saturating the upper atmosphere with small aluminum particles could avert the next ice age.  In all honesty, there was one other scientist who had previously postulated that levels of atmospheric CO2 could have an effect upon climate. In 1861 England’s John Tyndall (1820-1893) suggested as much. But Arrhenius is more notable here because he produced a model in attempts to prove it and he popularized the theory with multiple media publications and speeches.  Arrhenius’ assertions about atmospheric CO2 having a warming effect upon earth’s climate were based upon the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ of atmospheric vapors first postulated by Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) in 1824. The major difference here is that Fourier did not specify CO2. Although the term ‘greenhouse effect’ did not come into use until much later, it was probably Arrhenius who first used the hothouse metaphor.  In America, Arrhenius’ theories about atmospheric carbon dioxide were further investigated by geologist Thomas Chamberlin (1843-1928) at the Rockefeller founded and funded University of Chicago. It was not until the 1970s that the theory of man-made global climate change began gaining large-scale popular traction in America.  Immediately after entertaining Arrhenius’ theories of man-made global warming, the Stockholm Physics Society largely concerned itself with Bjerknes’ circulation theorem as it pertained to meteorological problems. Arrhenius did not take a significant role in these proceedings. Arrhenius, instead, went on to study cosmic physics more broadly, including the atmospheric electricity which is so central to today’s New Manhattan Project.  Arrhenius went on to write extensively about atmospheric electricity. The second volume of his 1903 book Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik was all about the physics of the atmosphere and atmospheric electricity.  Following Arrhenius’ early significant work on the subject, the next major development in the saga of the theory of man-made climate change didn’t come until 1955 when Fortune magazine published an article written by the famous Manhattan Project scientist John von Neumann titled “Can We Survive Technology?” Von Neumann’s article ushered in the modern era of the theory as he suggested that we could employ Solar Radiation Management geoengineering in order to save ourselves from the catastrophic effects of atmospheric temperature fluctuations.  For more about von Neumann’s groundbreaking 1955 article, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Can We Survive Technology? The Origin of SRM Geoengineering and the Modern Theory of Man-made Global Warming.”  It is interesting to note that in the late 1800s, at the same time Arrhenius was developing the earliest, significant work on the theory of man-made global warming, Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophy was making its first inroads into Sweden as well. Arrhenius’ first wife was enamored with it.  In Rodney Howard-Browne and Paul L. Williams’ 2018 book The Killing of Uncle Sam, the authors note how a key founding member of something called the Society of the Elect named William Stead was a disciple of Theosophy. This Society of the Elect went on to branch off into the Roundtable Movement, the Committee of 300 and many other powerful organizations. It branched off into the groups that have been secretly using global corporations to forge the course of Humanity.  Coupled with the fact that the theory of man-made climate change has been popularly used as a determinant factor for the course of Humanity, a further examination of Theosophy is warranted here.  Stead wrote that his Society of the Elect was to, “chart the course of events that would culminate in a New World Order.” According to Stead, the Pilgrim Societies, the Round Table, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, and the Trilateral Commission are all offshoots of the Society of the Elect.  Theosophists such as Stead were devil worshippers. In her book The Secret Doctrine, lead Theosophist Helena Blavatsky wrote, “Demon est Deus inversus: that is to say, through every point of Infinite Space thrill the magnetic and electrical currents of animate Nature, the life-giving and death-giving waves, for death on earth becomes life on another plane. Lucifer is devine and terrestrial light, the ‘Holy Ghost’ and ’Satan,’ at one and the same time…”  Thomas Edison, Adolph Hitler, and FDR’s vice-president Henry Wallace, among many other notables, were all disciples of Blavatsky. Edison has very serious implications for the New Manhattan Project as his General Electric went on to roll-out the scientific era of weather modification in 1946 and produce lots of applicable technology.  Strangely enough, in the early 1900s Arrhenius made it all the way to California. Once here, among other, more touristy destinations, he visited Wallace Campbell’s (1862-1938) Lick Observatory at Mount Hamilton, Jacques Loeb’s (1859-1924) marine biology station in Pacific Grove, as well as the campus of UC Berkeley. For the fee of $1K (about $28K in today’s money), Arrhenius gave lectures during Berkeley’s 1904 summer session. Loeb was a professor at Berkeley and during this time, Arrhenius lodged with the Loeb family at their house. At Berkeley, Arrhenius formed lasting professional relationships with other Berkeley scientists.  In particular, Arrhenius formed a lasting correspondence with Wallace Campbell. Being that Campbell was the director of the Lick Observatory, Arrhenius shared his interest in cosmic physics. In fact, in 1905, Arrhenius and his colleague from the Högskola, mathematician and amateur astronomer Gustav Kobb joined the Lick Observatory eclipse expedition to Alhambra, Spain.  Berkeley botanist Winthrop Osterhout (1871-1964) also became a lifelong friend and correspondent. Osterhout brought Arrhenius to the Bohemian Club clubhouse in downtown San Francisco as well as to their annual summer retreat at their Bohemian Grove encampment on the banks of the Russian River, north of San Francisco. The Bohemian Club and their Bohemian Grove are of interest to our investigation of the New Manhattan Project for quite a few reasons.  Many famous scientists who have connections to the New Manhattan Project have been Bohemian Club members including Ernest Lawrence (1901-1958). The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which has firm implications for the New Manhattan Project, was originally organized by three members at the Bohemian Grove in 1945. Also, in the early 1940s, the plans for the original Manhattan Project were partially formulated at the Bohemian Grove.  Lastly, it is interesting and relevant to our investigation to note that, during his time at and around UC Berkeley, Arrhenius most probably met Frederick Gardner Cottrell (1877-1948); a key figure in the historical development of the New Manhattan Project. Cottrell was the American pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation and founded something called the Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA). At the time of Arrhenius’ visit, Cottrell was teaching physical chemistry at Berkeley, a subject in which Arrhenius was well versed.  Following his California trip, Arrhenius went back to his native country. In the fall of 1924, Arrhenius suffered a stroke from which he never recovered. Three years later, he died and was buried in the town cemetery of Uppsala, Sweden.  Although Arrhenius is the putative originator of the theory of man-made global warming, pertaining to this, he really originated nothing.  Arrhenius’ work here was unscientific from the beginning. He first had the idea that changes in amounts of atmospheric CO2 had an effect upon climate, then he created a model to prove it. The proper way to conduct science is to simply conduct experiments and see what happens. Arrhenius’ work here was contrary to the scientific method and mathematical models are inherently of seriously questionable scientific validity. For more about the philosophies behind proper scientific methods and practices, please refer to Marvin Herndon’s excellent books Maverick’s Earth and Universe as well as Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science.  Arrhenius’ models were based on what amounts to wild speculation. He did not have access to the vast amounts of data needed to confirm his grand assertions. Networks for the collection of the necessary data did not exist at the time. His work in this area relied simply upon guesstimates and contributions from his peers; not any real empirical data. He was in way over his head and thus, his work in this area holds no validity whatsoever.  The entire notion that increases in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in average global temperature, which is what Arrhenius was asserting, is completely backwards. In his 2014 book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball writes that an increase in the earth’s average global temperature is ALWAYS FOLLOWED by an increase in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way around. Dr. Ball specifies that the only place where an increase in atmospheric CO2 is followed by an increase in the earth’s average temperature is in the leading alarmist climate models emanating from the United Nations.  Gaping hole after gaping hole can be punched (and has been punched) through the theory of man-made climate change. I will probably be writing another book.  The science was unsound then and it is unsound now. Nevertheless, the political left of the time picked it up and ran with it then and the political left continues to run with it today. Today they do so because the agendas associated with it are the agendas of today’s mainstream, mass media-influenced, lowest common denominator, political left. The establishment wants to sell you on: big government, crony capitalism, deindustrialization, and centralized control.  That’s not to say that all leftists are stupid and/or ignorant. Many on the political left see right through the theory of man-made global warming and are really great people. Disclaimers aside, let us continue.  It is undeniable that gigantic socio-economic agendas are attached to the theory of man-made global climate change. This agenda is exemplified by the Green New Deal. From the proposed legislation presented on congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website, we see that, because of catastrophic man-made global warming, we are supposed to: transition to alternative forms of energy, upgrade all existing buildings, eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, overhaul transportation systems, reconstruct labor laws, and oh so much more.  And, by the way, please don’t forget how geoengineers say they want to spray us with tens of thousands of megatons of toxic materials in order to save us from the dreaded climate change.  We should not be burdened with an unbelievably vast, expensive, and cruel socio-economic agenda by those of a particular political bias which has served to corrupt the underlying reason for the necessity of all of this in the first place.  It is not a coincidence that the political left was pushing it then and the political left is pushing it now. The demonstrated, inherent, historical and current political bias inextricably intertwined with the theory of man-made global warming pushes any honest, objective search for truth out of the realm of possibilities.  Our justice system provides a good example. Would you want a detective, who you know hates your guts, investigating you? No. It would only be a fair and impartial search for truth if the detective was impartial. Any significant bias on the part of the investigator would almost assuredly result in some imbalance(s) later on in the proceedings.  The lack of objectivity pertaining to the theory of man-made global warming relegates the theory solely to the realm of political ideology and nothing else.  The former chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Richard Lindzen said it best when he said words to the effect that the theory of man-made global warming is about money, politics, and power, not science.  This is just the beginning of more gigantic investigations. What has been excavated here is just a small portion of something much larger.  So, what happened to this group of Swedish scientists? Did their descendants, descendant organizations, and/or disciples go on to have anything to do with the New Manhattan Project? We know what has become of their theory of man-made global warming. Did their descendants, biological or otherwise, continue with the global warming nonsense? This apparently is the case.  When one considers some of the elements discussed here in this paper such as: the theory of man-made climate change, the extreme political left, and Theosophy, one begins to make out a history of how we got to where we are now. One begins to see how the establishment uses the political left to accomplish their objectives.  Yes, we all know that the political right has their problems, too; with all the imperialistic war mongering and such. That is all very well documented. But the dysfunction of the political left tends to manifest itself in domestic tyranny rather than international tyranny and is more difficult to see because it is not as well documented. As exemplified again here by Arrhenius’ successful media forays, the political left has historically dominated media; the inadequacies of the political left are therefore not as well documented due to lack of self-introspection common in our society and not limited to the political left.  This paper is the seed of extensive, future investigations into the historical evolution of the theory of man-made global warming, the New Manhattan Project, and the modern political left. Stay tuned.  The second edition of my book ‘Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project’ is right around the corner! It’s looking like late spring 2020. The second edition of ‘Chemtrails Exposed’ will, once and for all, nail down the science history of the biggest scientific endeavor of all time. You can bet that many of today’s geoengineers will be reading it to find out who their father really is. They’re probably already on my email list, so don’t let them have all the fun. To be immediately informed of all the latest developments, including the release of the second edition, please join my email list at my website peterakirby.com.  Bibliography (in order of first appearance)  Arrhenius: From Ionic Theory to the Greenhouse Effect a book by Elisabeth Crawford, published by Science History Publications, 1996  “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, December 28, 2018  “Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, November 24, 2019  “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, March 13, 2017  Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control a book by James Rodger Fleming, published by Columbia University Press, 2010  “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change” a paper by Edward Teller, Lowell Wood, and Roderick Hyde, published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1997  “Can We Survive Technology? The Origin of SRM Geoengineering and the Modern Theory of Man-made Global Warming” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, September 19, 2017  The Killing of Uncle Sam: The Demise of the United States of America a book by Rodney Howard-Browne and Paul L. Williams, published by River Publishing, 2018  Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in Ruling-Class Cohesiveness a book by G. William Domhoff, published by Harper and Row, 1974  An American Genius: The Life of Ernest Orlando Lawrence, Father of the Cyclotron a book by Herbert Childs, published by E.P. Dutton, 1968  Von Braun: Dreamer of Space Engineer of War a book by Michael J. Neufeld, published by Random House, 2007  Bohemian Grove: Cult of Conspiracy a book by Mike Hanson, published by RiverCrest Publishing, 2012  The Making of the Atomic Bomb a book by Richard Rhodes, published by Simon & Schuster, 2012  Maverick’s Earth and Universe: Understanding Science without Establishment Blunders a book by J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D., published by Trafford Publishing, 2008  Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science a book by J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D., self-published, 2014  The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science a book by Dr. Timothy Ball, published by Stairway Press, 2014  PeterAKirby.com   My Minds page   My Steemit page   My GoodReads page   My YouTube channel  Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. Buy his book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available now exclusively at Amazon. Join his email list at his website peterakirby.com.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


bbc--2019-07-19--Amazon deforestation Brazils Bolsonaro dismisses data as lies

Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has accused his own country's national space institute of lying about the scale of deforestation in the Amazon.  He said the institute was smearing Brazil's reputation abroad by publishing data showing a dramatic increase in deforestation there.  The far-right president said he wanted to meet with the head of the agency to discuss the issue.  The National Space Research Institute (Inpe) says its data is 95% accurate.  Mr Bolsonaro's comments on Friday came a day after preliminary satellite data released by Inpe showed that more than 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles) of the rainforest had been cleared in the first 15 days of July - an increase of 68% from the entire month of July 2018.  Speaking in a meeting with foreign journalists, Mr Bolsonaro said the data "doesn't relate to the reality".  Scientists say the Amazon has suffered losses at an accelerated rate since Mr Bolsonaro took office in January, with policies that favour development over conservation.  As the largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming.  Official figures suggest that the biggest reason to fell trees there is to create new pastures for cattle.  Over the past decade, previous governments had managed to reduce deforestation with concerted action by federal agencies and a system of fines.  But Mr Bolsonaro and his ministers have criticised the penalties and overseen a dramatic fall in confiscations of timber and convictions for environmental crimes.  Several scientific institutions, including the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, have defended Inpe and the accuracy of its data.  In his comments to foreign journalists on Friday, Mr Bolsonaro also denied the existence of hunger in Brazil. He said there are no "people on the streets with skeletal physiques as seen in other countries", the Reuters news reports.  According to data from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, some 5.2 million people suffered from hunger in Brazil in 2017.


bbc--2019-08-07--Whats wrong with buying a dinosaur

What's wrong with buying a dinosaur?

Fossils are in fashion, with private buyers snapping up prehistoric remains online and at auction but the trend is raising concerns within the scientific community.  In the saleroom at Christie's auction house in London, buyers are crowding round to view - not works of fine art, antique furniture or jewellery - but fossils from an era so far in the past it is hard to fathom.  There are Triceratops horns, the teeth of a Tyrannosaurus rex, and the tail of a duck-billed dinosaur from 66 million years ago.  Bidders from as far apart as California and Hungary join the auction online and the murmurs of excitement rise as the room is shown slides of such palaeontological treasures as oil-black teeth from a Megalodon - a giant prehistoric shark - or Sauropod eggs and fossilised dragonflies.  Private buyers have been showing a growing interest in ancient remains over the past few years. Bidders from more than 50 countries regularly participate in sales like these, says James Hyslop, head of science and natural history at Christie's.  Celebrity interest - Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe and Nicolas Cage are all known to have bought prehistoric treasures - has helped make them fashionable.  Such fossils may not yet compete with fine art in terms of the most expensive sale tags, but the boom in interest means that prices are rising.  Elephant bird eggs sold for £20,000-30,000 a decade ago, for example - now they're selling for £100,000.  Mr Hyslop points out one of the sale's rarest specimens: a female ichthyosaur fossil. At 3.5m (11ft) this is the largest ever sold at auction. This prehistoric fish-lizard swam the oceans of the early Jurassic, 184 million years ago.  On close inspection there are also the rare remains of two embryos in its rib cage: it was pregnant. It finally sells for £240,000 to an anonymous buyer.  Mr Hyslop puts the growing interest in prehistoric remains down to a generation that grew up on the first batch of Jurassic Park films (1993-2001).  "We love this subject," he says. "People just love what it stands for". What it stands for is a combination of popular science and popular history, but also the excitement of breaking new ground. According to National Geographic, 50 new species of dinosaur are being discovered every year.  On the online trading site eBay, Mosasaur fossils are popular. The remains of these striking marine reptiles are now changing hands at a rate of around 100 every month in the UK - a 42% increase on the year before.  But you can also find Triceratops skulls and baby Allosaurus skeletons, ranging in price from a few thousand pounds to hundreds of thousands - eBay reported a 22% increase in fossil sales last year.  However this rising popularity is concerning scientists: for one thing it is fuelling the illicit trade in fossils.  While some countries like the US, will allow private fossil hunters to sell-on their finds on a "finders keepers" basis, many others including China, Mongolia and Brazil ban the export of all specimens. They're also working to reclaim illegally excavated specimens.  The 70 million-year-old skull of a Tyrannosaurus bataar, an Asian relative to Tyrannosaurus rex, that actor Nicolas Cage bought at auction in the US in 2012, was later reclaimed by the Mongolian government, for example.  Yet the palaeontologist who won that legal battle, Bolortsetseg Minjin, says despite the Mongolian government's determination to stem the flow there are still plenty of new cases of poaching, which she says risk causing irrevocable damage to the specimens.  "Poachers don't have skills and only go for the parts that'll make them money, like destroying whole skeletons just for teeth," she says. "It's treating them like a commodity but these fossils are priceless."  Private buyers might not realise it, she says, but unless they are sure of a fossil's provenance, buying it could indirectly be causing harm by fuelling that black market trade.  The booming private market can have a knock-on negative effect even when legal, says Dr Susannah Maidment from the Earth Sciences department of London's Natural History Museum.  "The problem is these specimens go on sale for huge amounts of money, far more than museums can afford.  "Our acquisition budget for specimens across the entire museum, not just palaeontology, amounts to tens of thousands of pounds annually. But many of these big dinosaur specimens will sell for well over a million dollars," she explains.  When specimens are privately owned that can act as a barrier to scientific research, she argues.  One of the London Natural History Museum's prize exhibits is Sophie, a 151 million-year-old complete Stegosaurus skeleton. Before the museum acquired it, no-one actually knew how many bones there were in the backbone of a Stegosaurus or how many plates it had along its spine, says Dr Maidment.  The museum, like many other scientific institutions, won't research or publish work on privately-owned specimens as a matter of principle, because scientific rigour relies on replicating research. A private owner may allow one researcher to examine their fossil but then might refuse access to others.  More from the BBC's series taking an international perspective on trade:  On the other hand, the process of exploration and excavation is labour intensive and expensive.  "It's a conflict because we don't have the resources to collect these ourselves, and we wouldn't know about them if commercial dealers weren't digging them up," Dr Maidment says.  Yet when the purpose of the excavation is private profit there's the risk that gathering essential contextual data will be neglected, she adds.  Mr Hyslop argues we shouldn't demonise private buyers as if they were "a Bond villain who's sitting on his dinosaur bones and never letting anyone else look at them". Many private buyers are happy for their items to be displayed and studied, he points out.  But often the problem is on a much simpler level, says Dr Matthew Carrano, curator of Dinosauria at The Smithsonian in Washington - that new discoveries may just be missed altogether.  With the rate of dinosaur discoveries showing no sign of slowing, he says a private find may slip under the radar as "there's no catalogue or account of them aside from the occasional high-profile example that might make the news.  "The rest are sold and bought without any publicity and just disappear into private hands, often without science knowing they exist."


bbc--2019-12-24--How is Australia tackling climate change?

The Australian government is facing criticism over its climate policies as the country deals with devastating bushfires and a historic heatwave.  It has contributed to the long-running debate about the country's approach to climate change. So what is it doing to reduce carbon emissions?  Australia is one of the world's biggest per capita greenhouse gas emitters.  Under the Paris Climate Agreement, created to tackle rising temperatures, Australia set a target of a 26-28% reduction in emissions compared with 2005 levels by 2030.  These goals have been criticised for being too low, and last year the United Nations (UN) reported that Australia was not on track.  The UN found that: "There has been no improvement in Australia's climate policy since 2017 and emission levels for 2030 are projected to be well above the target."  About half of the G20 countries (those with the biggest economies), including Australia, are falling short. • Climate change: Where we are and what you can do  The Climate Change Performance Index ranked Australia last out of 57 countries responsible for more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions on climate policy.  It highlighted the country's no-show at a UN climate summit in September and its withdrawal from an international fund to tackle climate change.  However, the Australian government maintains it is on course to meet its 2030 commitments.  Australian emissions will be 16% lower than 2005 levels in 2030, according to projections published in December. • How climate change has contributed to bushfires  But it says it will meet the 2030 targets by counting the quantities of carbon already reduced under the previous international climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol.  More important than specific targets - Australia as a fossil fuel producer has so far failed to acknowledge the need to plan for a world of net zero emissions, says Prof Myles Allen, a climate change expert at the University of Oxford.  Australia is among the world's largest exporters of iron ore, uranium, coal and natural gas.  It was the fourth largest producer of coal in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency.  Phasing out coal is considered crucial to limiting global warming to within 1.5C, but the Australian government is continuing to back the industry for the role it plays in the economy.  Facing criticism over his handling of the bushfires and response to climate change, Australian prime minister Scott Morrison said he will not make "reckless" cuts to the coal industry.  The government recently approved the construction of a controversial new coal mine - which could be the biggest in the world and would export coal to India.  What are some of the government's climate policies?  The government put forward an additional A$2bn (£1bn) spread over 15 years to help businesses and farmers reduce emissions, bringing up total investment to $4.5bn. The government says it will deliver 100 million tonnes of emissions reductions.  Though aspects of the ERF have been praised, "Australia has adopted a piecemeal approach to emission reduction," said the OECD (an economic body which monitors richer, industrialised nations) in a 2019 report.  The government needs to show how existing instruments, such as the ERF, can be scaled up to reach Paris Agreement goals, added the report.  Scientists round the world are looking aghast at the politics of climate change in Australia.  It's one of the most vulnerable countries on the planet to rising temperatures, yet there is still denial about the impacts of rising CO2 levels on events like the current wildfires.  There is no serious doubt among scientific institutions that rising global temperatures are leading to record heat.  The heatwaves are driven by a natural phenomenon but they are adding to an already over-heated planet.  In the election, the victorious Liberal (conservative) Party categorised climate change as a metropolitan fad for urban professionals, and gained support for the world's biggest coal mine.  Coal is the dirtiest fuel and scientists say we shouldn't be building more coal-fired power stations if we want to stabilise the climate.


cnsnews--2019-08-30--David Limbaugh Purging Dude Walls Toward Leftist Utopia

David Limbaugh: Purging Dude Walls Toward Leftist Utopia

If the left is so loving, tolerant and inclusive, why is it so driven by unquenchable bitterness? What fuels it to divide Americans?  No, I'm not talking about the Democratic presidential candidates, though any one of them demonstrates the same theme. The American left is just gorged with angst and apparently on a mission to share its misery. The insanity emanating from leftists today is overwhelming.  It used to be that when you came across an outrageous story in the news, you just shook your head and thought, "This is weird." But you found solace in realizing it was not representative of the societal norm. Sadly, that's not true anymore. The left has made great strides in normalizing insanity.  It's as if each day's news is an orchestrated clinic on how to make society sound crazier today than it was yesterday — and it was way crazy yesterday.  Let me give you a typical example. NPR reported that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was at Rockefeller University a few years ago to present a prize to a prominent female scientist. Upon entering the auditorium, someone heard her say, "What is up with the dude wall?" One side wall was covered with portraits of award-winning scientists from the university, and Maddow was distressed that they were all men.  Maddow was not alone. "One hundred percent of them are men," said Leslie Vosshall, a neurobiologist with the university. "It's probably 30 headshots of 30 men. So it's imposing." Her word choice is instructive.  Vosshall explained that Maddow's comment made her realize that for years, she had been uneasy about seeing rooms and hallways at scientific institutions adorned with portraits of white men. "It just sends the message, every day when you walk by it, that science consists of old white men," she said. "I think every institution needs to go out into the hallway and ask, 'What kind of message are we sending with these oil portraits and dusty old photographs?'"  Let me stop here and ask you: If you were to see photos or portraits of distinguished men in a university setting, would you feel like the university was sending you a message? Would it strike you as "imposing"? Would you view it through a gender or race prism?  Well, Vosshall is taking action. She's part of a committee that is going to give that Rockefeller University wall a makeover to add more diversity. I'm not quite sure how they'll accomplish that, since the wall of fame consists of those who won either a Nobel Prize or the Lasker Award, a prestigious medical honor. You can't add new portraits without changing the criterion for wall placement.  It seems that "dude walls" are everywhere. Hallways of a main building at Yale School of Medicine display 55 portraits — all are white, and only three are women. Irredeemably scandalous!  A couple of female students and a female associate professor at the school studied the effect of these portraits and published their findings in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. "Students felt like these portraits were not just ancient, historic things that had nothing to do with their contemporary experience," said one of the two students. "They actually felt that the portraits reinforced contemporary issues of exclusion, of racial discrimination — of othering." "Othering"? Who thinks like that? Plenty of people, that's who — and there are more thinking this way all the time, courtesy of leftist indoctrination.  These portraits, which were selected based on some standard of achievement, struck students as racially offensive. Surely, reasonable people would not infer that racial considerations had anything to do with the selection of the photos. But that doesn't matter. The left has trained generations of people to think of almost everything in terms of identity groups, and the result is a societal obsession that is alienating and dividing Americans at every turn. How can this be healthy for anyone?  Nevertheless, some schools are taking action and changing their displays to be more diverse and inclusive, history be damned. Dr. Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School was taken aback when he visited Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and found that 31 large portraits of distinguished men from the university had been removed and only an empty wall remained.  "When I last lectured in @BrighamWomens Borstein auditorium, walls were adorned with portraits of prior luminaries of medicine & surgery," Flier tweeted. "Connecting to a glorious past. Now all gone. Hope everyone is happy. I'm not. (Neither were those I asked- afraid to say openly). Sad."  With all the strides that have been made in this country on racial and sexual discrimination, it is alarming that leftists, who dominate our major cultural, educational and media institutions, are consciously driving a wedge between groups in our society. It's clear that equal rights and treatment is no longer their focus. Rather, they seek to demonize groups they perceive as historically and currently privileged villains.  What is their end game? Is it truly equal rights, opportunity and respect? Or is it something more sinister, such as revenge and ostracization of certain groups as part of a fundamental transformation of our society into some unattainable, balkanized, socialist utopia? Leftists who preach the loudest about love, harmony, tolerance, diversity and inclusion are polarizing our society and overwhelming it with distrust, suspicion and ill will. Nothing constructive can come from this.  David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church." Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.


eveningstandard--2019-11-21--Who is Prince Andrew? All you need to know about the 'Playboy Prince', Falklands hero and

Who is Prince Andrew? All you need to know about the 'Playboy Prince', Falklands hero and controversial royal

While the Duke of York's royal life may have long been controversial, he also earned regard as the "Playboy Prince" who fought with bravery and distinction in the Falklands.  But now the Queen's second son will be best known as the Windsor who stepped down from royal duties amid the scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financier who died in August awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.  As a young man, he was one of the world's most eligible bachelors.  He was linked to a string of beautiful women, earning himself the nickname "Randy Andy" in the process.  He married and divorced the bubbly, flame-haired Sarah "Fergie" Ferguson, who herself has generated some of the most humiliating royal scandals of modern times.  The duke remained on good terms with his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York who always refers to him as her "bestest friend", and he has a close bond with their daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.  The duchess still lives at Andrew's home, Royal Lodge, in Windsor Great Park, and there is frequent speculation they will remarry.  Andrew can be charming, entertaining and polite, but he is also said to be abrasive and rude.  Royal biographer Sarah Bradford once described him as "an uncomplicated soul, rumbustious, a little spoiled and more than a little arrogant".  Used to getting his own way, he is said to insist that even his closest friends call him "Sir".  When a newspaper reporter managed to breach Buckingham Palace security to get a job as a footman, he said the Duke of York would greet the servant bringing his cup of tea with either "Good morning" or "F*** off" depending on his mood.  Even his mother is said to have once observed that her middle son is "not always a ray of sunshine".  But he is seen as the more jocular of his siblings and is fond, like many of his family, of playing practical jokes.  "Rude" food presented in a suggestive manner is said to cause him much amusement at the dinner table.  His room used to and may still contain a pillow bearing the motto "Eat, Drink, Remarry" and a toy replica of Monkey, the mascot of the former company ITV Digital, which he hid in a different place each day to amuse the staff.  The Prince of Wales is reported to have said of his brother: "He's like a fizzy drink that has been shaken up and the top taken off."  Unlike Charles, Andrew grew up free from the constraints of one day having to be king.  But being the spare to the heir means his less defined place within the Royal Family has come under intense scrutiny.  Andrew Albert Christian Edward, the third child and second son of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, was born at Buckingham Palace on February 19 1960.  He arrived after a gap of almost 10 years between him and Princess Anne and became the first child to be born to a reigning monarch since Queen Victoria's last, Princess Beatrice, in 1857.  An uncomplicated, boisterous child, it is said he is the Queen's favourite.  At Gordonstoun school in Scotland, he acquired a reputation as a young man who was certainly not lacking in self confidence. One contemporary described him as "a man with a big bottom who laughed at his own jokes".  He made his first solo flight as a glider pilot in 1976 and decided to follow his father and brother into the Royal Navy, choosing a 12-year short career commission, which he extended, as a helicopter pilot.  He received his wings from the Duke of Edinburgh in April 1981, as well as winning the award for best pilot, becoming a royal "top gun".  At 22, Andrew saw active service as a Sea King helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. His service included flying his helicopter as a decoy target, trying to divert deadly Exocet missiles away from British ships.  Many years later, following his divorce, he would headlines of a different kind - mainly for making the most of his bachelor status.  He was spotted cavorting with topless women on holiday in Thailand and attended a "hooker and pimps" party with Robert Maxwell's daughter Ghislaine Maxwell in the US.  After serving for 22 years in the Royal Navy, the duke became the UK's special representative for international trade and investment.  His 10-year stint in the role generated a great deal of controversy.  As a roving ambassador, one of his first tasks was a post-September 11 trip to New York, but Andrew was criticised for attending a party during his stay.  He was dubbed Air Miles Andy amid criticism of his globe-trotting. He was accused of over-using helicopters at taxpayers' expense, in particular to attend golf-related dinners as a member of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.  The duke also faced questions over his connections to politicians in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Libya and Turkmenistan.  His judgment was questioned after he held meetings with Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif, and when he entertained the son-in-law of Tunisia's ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali at Buckingham Palace.  His relations with Timor Kulibayev, son-in-law of the president of Kazakhstan, were also scrutinised after Mr Kulibayev purchased the duke's Sunninghill Park home for £3 million more than its £12 million asking price in 2007.  In November 2010 a secret cable published on the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks revealed a US ambassador wrote that the Duke of York spoke "cockily" during an official engagement, leading a discussion that "verged on the rude".  Tatiana Gfoeller, Washington's ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, also said Andrew criticised the Serious Fraud Office investigation of an arms deal between British Aerospace (BAe) and Saudi Arabia, and accused Guardian journalists of "poking their noses everywhere" for investigating the deal.  Following the Wikileaks revelations, Simon Wilson - Britain's deputy head of mission in Bahrain from 2001 to 2005 - wrote in the Daily Mail that the duke was "more commonly known among the British diplomatic community in the Gulf as HBH: His Buffoon Highness".  "This nickname stemmed from his childish obsession with doing exactly the opposite of what had been agreed in pre-visit meetings with his staff," Mr Wilson said.  There were also long-running complaints about the lavish nature of his official foreign trips.  In 2011, it emerged he was friends with American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2008 for soliciting a minor for prostitution.  Pictures surfaced of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Roberts, now Virginia Giuffre, who claimed Epstein employed her as a masseuse but exploited her while a teenage minor.  He was also shown walking in New York's Central Park with Epstein in December 2010, a year after Epstein's release from prison, and this led him to quit his role as a trade envoy.  In 2013, he was elected a royal fellow of the Royal Society, but Britain's pre-eminent scientific institution faced unprecedented dissent from members over the move, with one professor describing the duke as an "unsavoury character".  Tech-savvy Andrew, who was the first member of the royal family to have his own official Twitter account under his own name, focused on his Pitch@Palace work encouraging young entrepreneurs to embrace technology start-ups, launching a range of initiatives to inspire youth innovators.  Then in 2015, while enjoying a new year skiing holiday with his family, Andrew was named in US court documents as having had sex with a 17-year-old three times between 1999 and 2002 in London, New York and on Jeffrey Epstein's private Caribbean island when the girl was still a minor under US law.  She alleged she was "procured" for the duke by Epstein, whom she accused of using her as a "sex slave".  She was identified in reports as Virginia Giuffre - the girl with whom the duke had been pictured.  His ex-wife Sarah backed him and his daughters rallied round as he vowed to push ahead with his work.  In April 2015, a US federal judge ordered the claims to be struck from civil court records as the long running lawsuit against Epstein carried on.  But his association with Epstein hit the headlines once again in 2019, amid the continued investigations into Epstein, who killed himself in prison in August while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.  Andrew's so called "car crash" Newsnight appearance was intended to draw a line under the matter.  But the Epstein saga and the duke's conduct during the on-camera interview ultimately led to his downfall - and the end of his official duties as a royal.