Jim Marrs On Obama And Osama

JimMarrsLet me get this straight:

A super-secret U.S. team of death-dealing operatives claims to have killed an unarmed Osama bin Laden and killed or wounded about two dozen other people in Pakistan, a nation with which we are not at war (yet), then dumped his body into the ocean saying it was custom in his homeland of Saudi Arabia—a predominately desert country—and without any objective forensics performed.

Even though several Congressmen have stated publicly that they were shown photos of the dead Osama which turned out to be fakes, the Government now tells us that this was all a victory, a great achievement and everything is now okay, although the fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya continues, as does the lethal Corexit spraying of the Gulf and the ongoing spewing of deadly radiation from the Fukushima reactors.

Despite all the celebrating over this proclaimed “achievement” over Bin Laden and his terrorists, there has been no talk of doing away with the odious Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act or any of the other Constitution-shredding legislation rammed through a cowed and cowardly Congress and a stupefied public.

One last thought (for now): If he wasn’t armed, why didn’t they capture Osama, bring him back to stand a fair trial and prove to the world that he was behind 9/11 and that the U.S. does not pursue assassination but justice? Of course, you and I both know the answer to that one: Osama’s been dead since 2001!

Jim Marrs is the New York Times-bestselling author of Rule By Secrecy, The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy and Above Top Secret. His next book, The Terror Conspiracy Revisited: What Really Happened On 9/11, And Why We’re Still Paying The Price, will include more commentary and information on the unanswered questions surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden.

Sent with Reeder

Sent from my iPhone

Infographic: The Geek Zodiac Calendar

/Film

Numerous cultures and religions throughout the span of history have lived their lives based on a zodiac calendar. Established because of the measurable and cyclical movement of the constellations in the sky at different points throughout the year, peoples assign varied names to a rotating number of time periods, either by the year or month. Some are named after animals, others the stars themselves. Now we have a zodiac of our own. Two friends have created The Geek Zodiac, a fun infographic that goes backwards in time and attempts to show the cyclical nature of science fiction, action and fantasy pop culture. But does it really all work out? Find out for yourself after the break.

The Geek Zodiac was conceived by James Wright and designed by his friend Josh Eckert. The final image is from Wright’s Tumblr, Words That Fit. Head over there to read about its conception but, for now, click on the image to blow it up.

For an even bigger version, head back to Words That Fit.

And while there’s no denying that the Geek Zodiac is an interesting idea and the execution is beautifully done, breaking it down does reveal a few holes, paramount among them is that movies can’t be the main focus.

The start dates for each category have specific historical explanations so, even if they’re loosely associated, it’s hard to argue them.

Looking at things strictly movie related, though, the calendar is full of holes. Calling 2011 the year of the Superhero certainly works. There’s Thor, X-Men First Class, Green Lantern and more. But they say the previous year of the superhero was 1999. Of the top fifty highest grossing films of that year, none are legitimate superhero movies. Last year, 2010, is referred to as the year of the Alien. Well, again looking at the top grossing films last year, the most successful “Alien” movie in 2010 was Megamind. On the other hand, the previous year of the Alien, 1998, had Armageddon and Deep Impact, as well as The X-Files and a Star Trek film.

We could go on and on. There are some spot on connections and some real stretches but, either way, you really have to tip your cap to Wright and Eckert for their work.

What are your thoughts on this?

  • No Related Post
Sent with Reeder

Sent from my iPhone