DocH

I remember this. The most striking thing was a Syrian female doctor (who I think turned out to be the daughter of a Syrian terrorist) is shown describing an attack as using napalm. But when it's expedient to political governmet interests, exactly the same footage of the doctor is shown but this time she is saying "...poison gas.. ." NOT a narrative, NOT subtitles, but her voice - she's wearing a gas mask so you can't see any problems with lip synch when she "says" these different things. I think the event is covered here, but I haven't read the whole piece, it just seems to be referri g to the incident I remember. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bbc-caught-staging-fake-news-chemical-attack-to-drag-britain-into-syrian-war/5560433

Well, time will tell... [I hope to God!]

I don't have enough geological knowledge to evaluate the claims, but I thought it relevant to post it here.

Well, according to the link I posted, the US military are taking deadly serious effective measures against them, at least, those in subterranean tunnels

Electricity black outs allegedly happening in Calufornia. This chap reckons it's a sign of white hats in helicopters fighting DS (incl UN troops) in tunnels.

Video by the delectable Amazing Polly about Ukraine, Corruption, and how Soros is up to his neck in promoting it, though "anti-corruption" organisations set up by him. Disturbingly, she suggests that Zelensky (sp?) was assisted to become president by Soros in order to prevent the enaction of a law which would have forced NGOs, including "anti-corruption" organisations, to list their assets, something Soros didn't want to happen as it would expose the corruption he is the puppet master of. (From about 44 mins).

If you Google Panorama saving Syria's children It's there on vimeo a couple of scrolled pages down.

That film has a great phrase about "impugning one's cockmanship".

Call that a comment!

D'you think it'll stand up in court?

Okay, a video with a bold claim: Summary: The claim is that models of the Earth's atmosphere ALL rely on taking the total sunlight that falls onto the earth over a 24-hour period, and averaging it out over the 24 hours. That is, treating the system as though a constant, steady amount of light is falling onto the whole surface of the earth throughout the 24 hours. When it reality there is a rise and fall of impinging sunlight over the hours of the day. If this is really true, that is, if this approximation is really used (rather than it being say a simplification to make the principles easier for the layman to grasp), then it seems to me to be a fatal blow to all climate change models. You might think "Averages, schmaverages" but it's an incredibly important approximation. Why? Well, it's a bit like saying "Here is this recipe for a cake: it says cook in the oven for 2 hours at 300 degrees. But heck, I think I'll cook it for one hour at 200 degrees and another at 400 degrees - same average after all." ** Would the cakes be the same? It seems scarcely credible that such a howler is really built into all climate change models, but I suppose it's possible that an early worker in the field thought that that approximation would do the the time being, and it never got updated. Perhaps it was created in the 60's, and the appropriate mathematical treatments (finite-element analysis perhaps?) weren't available on computers at the time. Or something. Anyway... Comments very welcome, please! ** Yes, I know, the example should probably be in degrees Kelvin, but you know what I mean.

They do something interesting with the lights in Faye Dunaway's eyes at about 1m 11 seconds, when she is offered the possibility of a way out.

Still perplexed by his leg colour. What's the best explanation for this? Anyone?

I would have thought this is the kind of observation the defence lawyer might have made.

Hasn't the US under Trump decided to stop shelling out for several of its organisations? Perhaps that's why they're feeling the pinch?