UFO, Wikileaks, JFK AND VATICAN IN ONE NEWS. THERE 'SOMETHING RIGHT?
Di Mattia Paolinelli
now five days ago made its appearance on the TV News section of the website Cosmos Online the following title:
:
A title not just in the name of caution, except for that final question mark. Yet just a punctuation mark to legitimize any nonsense if sold as news. That 's what has happened in the Cosmos TV? Let's find out with an analysis paragraph by paragraph.
As can be inferred dall'incipit, the article has the Atlantic Ocean as a theater and starring UFOs and the initial NATO.
The piece opens:
" Atlantic Ocean - (Lemuria Courier): Officially the fleet of three nuclear warhead-armed subs only exists in classified Pentagon disinformation files. "
gloss over "Lemuria Courier," but let us ask for a moment how much skill-o-madness is necessary to sum up such a huge amount of nonsense in one paragraph: What does it mean that "the official fleet of submarines with three heads (not specify whether nuclear or not) exists only in the archives (computerized or not) classified Pentagon? Indeed, sorry, classified in the archives of the Pentagon's disinformation?
And again, as you can to begin with a period "officially" when it comes to archives classified? And if they are classified, what does the misinformation?
But here's the second paragraph:
"But round-the-clock covert surveillance of the ancient civilization hub Has Been Busted open by WikiLeaks' latest revelations. "
So we introduce a new protagonist, Wikileaks, which with its latest revelations would break the cover up that long concealed the truth about the existence of an ancient civilization. What revelations?
"Published today the whistleblower's scathing except Lays Bare the NATO operation as critical to the survival of the western world."
Neither this third paragraph tells us something, but it increases the wait by saying that the revelations published today reveal the NATO operation as critical to the survival of the Western world. He throws himself into the fray even an anonymous informant, author of the revelations, or with a translation literal-a "Save the scratchy" that uncovers the operation.
The article continues:
" And it cites 'relentless pressure Vatican' to destroy the marine site amid paranoia ITS Existence Could Topple religion."
This same informant quotes then "unrelenting pressure from the Vatican" because the site is destroyed. Why? Among other reasons ("paranoia" to Cosmos) perché la sua esistenza potrebbe rovesciare la religione. Quindi adesso entra in gioco anche il Vaticano. Bene, c’era poca carne al fuoco finora.
Ma passiamo al quinto paragrafo:
"Kinda cute to describe organized blackmail, warmongering and terror as pressure" one UN Security Council permanent member commented today, "but whaddahell! Jesus wept."
e traduciamo il virgolettato:
“E’ un modo piuttosto carino quello di descrivere come forme di pressione il ricatto organizzato, la propensione guerrafondaia e il terrore”
Chi è a pronunciare queste frasi gravissime in riferimento al Vaticano? Secondo Cosmos Tv sarebbe nientemeno che uno dei membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU. Il che fa sorridere, dato che i membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU non sono persone, ma Stati. Difatti alle Riunioni del Consiglio di Sicurezza partecipano i rappresentanti degli Stati membri. Ma evidentemente quelli di Cosmos TV non lo sapevano. Strano per un sito a conoscenza of a thousand truths about UFOs, the ancient civilizations and is able to exclusively reveal new information on leaks.
But suspending reality and assuming that quest'esternazione really belongs to a member of the UN, the words that compose it are of a severity unprecedented and would have triggered a worldwide uproar. Has vanished in the international press? No. And on the Internet? Either. On 12 February (when I started looking for any feedback for this "news") I tried to insert the phrase in question on Google. Results? Only two. What? One was this very beautiful article, while the other must be silent for the moment (but do not worry: I talk about it at the end of article).
I would like to point out a another small detail: the author has forgotten how to provide not only the nationality of a member of the UN, but also the name. But it is not surprising: to bring in quotation marks statements without specifying to whom they belong is a practice that seems increasingly aspire to become the rule in journalism in some information sites and Cosmos TV seems to apply this "new wave" to perfection.
Without providing either a source or feedback and even without even resorting to a single identity, Cosmos TV creates a story that has already managed to disturb the NATO, three nuclear submarines, Wikileaks, the Vatican, UFOs and the UN. It takes skill, but mostly it takes courage to propose such a story as if it were news. And the best is yet to come.
"Military Protection of the 10.000 year-old site in the early 1950s Began When advances in technology detected unusual frequency sonar pulses' somewhere off the Azores'. "
But where are obtained this information? Where is it written that the underwater site has 10,000 years? And above all, which means the quotation marks to "somewhere off the Azores?
Like the others, even these questions remain unanswered, and then proceed. As we read the military protection would begin in the 50s as a result of advances in technology sonar were identified of abnormal pulse frequency corresponding to an area "off the Azores" exactly. But it was possible to determine the precise source of those impulses? Well you
"emanating from Beneath a curious dome-shaped erection on the sea bed They Were Initially Attributed to the remains of a sunken Nazi U-boat."
So pulses would be descended from a curious dome-shaped structure previously identified come il luogo in cui giacevano i resti di un U-boat. Cos’è accaduto in seguito a questa scoperta?
A rivelarcelo sono i paragrafi 8 e 9:
“During John F Kennedy's presidency US Navy Seals were sent to explore the phenomenon - and managed to film what looked like a vast military silo roof opening under the Atlantic waters.”
“ Footage identified a number of vast UFOs inside the structure leading to the That the Pentagon theories renewal of ancient Hyperborean race HAD used the facility to house Their astonishing Spaceport. "
Still according Cosmos TV, during the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the U.S. Navy Seals would be sent to shed light on this phenomenon and these would be able to film what would seem a large silo covered with military access to the waters of the Atlantic.
The film also shows a large number of UFOs in the building and this would lead to -I quote-" renewal Pentagon theories of the ancient Hyperborean race That HAD used the facility to house Their astonishing Spaceport. "
renewed conviction theories in the Pentagon ? And they argue that the race of Hyperborea would use this structure to accommodate their striking spaceport?
try to rearrange ideas, then the Pentagon has long since assumed the existence of Iperborei e la possibilità di un tale avanzamento tecnologico raggiunto da questa civiltà da permettere loro di realizzare degli UFO? E non solo: sempre il Pentagono sosteneva la possibilità di trovare simili “spazioporti sottomarini?
Appare tutto oltre i limiti dell’assurdo. Ma fin qui queste illazioni (perché altro non sono in mancanza di riscontri, di fonti, di prove) possono ancora addebitarsi all’ipotetico contenuto del fantomatico cable di Wikileaks. La frase contenuta nel decimo paragrafo è invece una perla la cui paternità is to recognize fully the author of the article:
"Was this why the Vatican ordered That fatal hit on JFK?"
This "closed" of incredible taste suffices to determine the reliability of both the piece because of who wrote it as zero. But since I believe certain issues and their fans deserve much more respect and treatment and Cosmos TV has really exaggerated in trying di deridere entrambi, voglio andare fino in fondo e rivelare alcuni altri particolari.
Innanzitutto, se l’accusa contro il Vaticano era la chiusura “morale” del pezzo, quella tecnica è rappresentata dalla seguente promessa:
“A transcript of that particular leaked cable message will be published shortly.”
Grazie mille. Il problema è che un articolo non deve promettere fonti e riscontri: deve darli. Senza contare che nella prima parte del pezzo si afferma:
“But round-the-clock covert surveillance of the ancient civilization hub has been busted open by WikiLeaks' latest revelations.”
“ Published today the whistleblower's scathing salvo lays bare the NATO operation as critical to the survival of the western world.”
L’articolo è stato pubblicato il 12 February, so we should try one of the cables published the same day. An arduous task, since we have seven sources of publication of the "cables": six sections on as many sites of newspapers (The Guardian, New York Times, The Age, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Aftenposten) and of course the Cable Viewer of Wikileaks.
Well, besides check all of these sources with respect to any cables published on 12 February, the undersigned has also checked all of 11 and 13 February. The result?
new cables on Cable Viewer Wikileaks there are every day, but between all the documents published in those three specific dates are not referred to submarines, to pressure the Vatican or the Azores. Not even covert operations to NATO. And in other sites? Nothing, except in one case.
The case in question dell'Aftenposten that came with the site since February 10 began publishing a series of non-stop and all cables in preview on NATO. Expecting to finally see a glimmer of possibility at least for the verification of the assertions in the article title to Cosmos Tv, li ho letti ed esaminati. Qui di seguito vi ripropongo i links di tutti i cables pubblicati dall’Aftenposten il 12 febbraio (non mi è stato possibile riportare il testo per problemi dell'editor):
Of course they there any reference (however slight or partial) to what is written in the Cosmos TV. Of course I also checked the cables published sull'Aftenposten 11 and February 13, but with identical results. I also refrained from reporting those cables to be lighter on the article, but anyone willing to check a person can find them here .
What to recheck all the cables has been a long and rather boring, but necessary. I have no preconceptions, and if tomorrow I were to have evidence that the statement in Cosmos TV is not a fantasy but reality, I would write a separate article for readers' information. But even in this isolated case, I could not apologize to those who make similar items. And the criticism applies both to the form as to the content.
names, facts, dates, references, sources are not special, but the building material information. Yet among the basic elements of this structure there is yet another that I did not mention. And this is the fairness to the readers.
Un articolo può essere mal scritto, impreciso, lacunoso. Un titolo può essere roboante per provocare curiosità. Ma i lettori non devono essere ingannati. E purtroppo questo è proprio ciò che è accaduto.
Non è per la marea di sciocchezze contenute nell’articolo o per la descrizione dei contenuti di un cable fantasma. No, il motivo è un altro e si riallaccia a quel secondo risultato proposto da Google quando ho cercato di rintracciare il fantomatico “membro del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU”.
Perché il secondo link nella lista era il seguente
e dopo il “salto” ci si ritrova davanti ad un articolo in tutto e per tutto identico a quello di Cosmos Tv, ma con un’unica differenza: la data. 14 dicembre 2010
Come si può riciclare un articolo che risale a due mesi prima inserendolo nelle “News”? Ma soprattutto com’è possibile -quando si è alle prese con un pezzo che speaks of "latest revelations," information "published today" and that eventually promised to publish excerpts of the cable-not change the article by inserting different temporal coordinates? I think all readers with hope and curiosity that have had the patience to try and read the cables of 12 February, only to end up with a disappointment anymore. But I hope I have helped to prevent others from falling into this real scam, and not to read more comments such as "Jeanette, who confidently says:
Unfortunately, a trust misplaced ..
Unfortunately, a trust misplaced ..
TI E 'like this post? Share it on Facebook, Twitter Cital OR IN YOUR BLOG!
0 comments:
Post a Comment