Author Topic: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.  (Read 74518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
This is the most important thread I have ever done, and it's a tribute to Anti_Illuminati.
I first heard about Anti_Illuminati while listening to the Alex Jones Show in early 2009.  He called in and did a massive data dump on NORTHCOM, cybersecurity, CACI, BoozAllen, MITRE, Ptech, false flags, etc. all within a few minutes.  Here is that call:  (Here's a transcript of that call)

Within that call he plugged the PhD Investigative Reports section of the Prison Planet Forum.  I checked it out, and read this thread: The permanent death of the United States, a wargame script for how you will die.  I literally had no idea in the world what the heck he was even talking about.  It sounded scary, and I was intimidated.  I ended up moving on to other stuff, and eventually forgetting about it, because I didn't understand it.  Almost a year later, (which would have been Spring 2010) Alex had articles on NORTHCOM Cybersecurity.  It reminded me of Anti_Illuminati's posts on Prison Planet Forum, so I came back here and checked it out.

I painstakingly spent months looking up each term, phrase, concept, person, corporation, etc. until I finally understood the REAL NWO agenda.  His video Ptech built Supply Chain Infrastructure - Destruction of Free Market really helped me out.

I am making this study guide thread, so even someone (like myself) who has no I.T. background can figure this stuff out, in a lot less time.

The main goal of the New World Order is to achieve FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.

Full Spectrum Dominance is defined as a military concept whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlespace using land, air, water and space based assets.

Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information (cyber)space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

Outside of military, Full Spectrum dominance can be applied to corporate monopolies.  "The name of the game is CONTROL" as Lindsey Williams says.  Whether it is finance, warfare, supply chains, energy, infrastructure, transportation, human labor, land, water, gold, health care, education, food supplies, or any other tangible function of human society, the New World Order wants to be totally dominant, and wants no competition to challenge them.

I believe this Department of Defense White Paper is the most basic outline of what Anti_Illuminati gets deep into:

It's called JOINT VISION 2020.  It was written in the year 2000.  It is only 20 pages long and is filled with graphics and pictures, so even people with short attention spans can find it interesting.  It reads just like a magazine.

Here is a brief one page summary (press release) of Joint Vision 2020

Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2000 – "Full-spectrum dominance" is the key term in "Joint Vision 2020," the blueprint DoD will follow in the future.

Joint Vision 2020, released May 30 and signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry Shelton, extends the concept laid out in Joint Vision 2010. Some things will not change. The mission of the U.S. military today and tomorrow is to fight and win the nation's wars. How DoD goes about doing this is 2020's focus.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.

While full-spectrum dominance is the goal, the way to get there is to "invest in and develop new military capabilities." The four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection.

These four capabilities need the full capabilities of the total force. "To build the most effective force for 2020, we must be fully joint: intellectually, operationally, organizationally, doctrinally and technically," the report states.

The report says that new equipment and technological innovation are important, but more important is having trained people who understand and can exploit these new technologies.

The joint force must win over the full range of conflict, be prepared to work with allies and cooperate with other U.S. and international agencies. Adversaries will not stand still. They, too, have access to many cutting-edge developments in information technology.

"We should not expect opponents in 2020 to fight with strictly 'industrial age' tools," the report states. "Our advantage must ... come from leaders, people, doctrine, organizations and training that enable us to take advantage of technology to achieve superior warfighting effectiveness."

Adversaries will probably not challenge U.S. strengths, but seek to attack the United States and its interests through "asymmetric means." They could identify vulnerable areas and devise means to attack them.

"The potential of such asymmetric approaches is perhaps the most serious danger the United States faces in the immediate future - - and this danger includes long-range ballistic missiles and other direct threats to U.S. citizens and territory," the report says.

Joint Vision 2020 addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief. Key to U.S. dominance in any conflict will be what the chairman calls "decision superiority" -- translating information superiority into better decisions arrived at and implemented faster than an enemy can react.

The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority.

Innovation has always been a hallmark of the American military. In 2020, this native American talent will be even more important.

"The services and combatant commands must allow our highly trained and skilled professionals the opportunity to create new concepts and ideas that may lead to future breakthroughs," according to the report. Inherent in this statement is the commitment to not penalize service members if their innovations do not work.

"An experimentation process with low tolerance for error makes it unlikely that the force will identify and nurture the most relevant and productive aspects of new concepts, capabilities and technologies," the report states.

Normally applied to communications and materiel, "interoperability" in the military became a catchword in the 1970s, when it became apparent that many of the NATO allies could not operate with each other. Joint Vision 2020 expands the term to include the development of joint doctrine and information sharing.

Joint Vision 2020 is a blueprint. While many of its facets could come true, not all will. Changes in the world or changes in America may render some points moot. Joint Vision 2020 carries on some of the recommendations to transform the U.S. military from Joint Vision 2010. Other portions of 2010 are gone or changed.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2010, 02:23:27 am »

The following are textbook/encyclopedic definitions of some key concepts to Anti_Illuminati's work. This following post is just the basic background of these concepts.  Anti_Illuminati shows the vulnerabilities and "back doors" to these following systems in his research.  For now, we will just look at their "cover stories"

Revolution in Military Affairs

The military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for change in the United States military and others.

Especially tied to modern information, communications, and space technology, RMA is often linked to current discussions under the label of Transformation and total systems integration in the US military.

RMA is defined by RAND as a:
a military technical revolution combining [technical advances in] surveillance, C3I [command, control, communications, and intelligence]
and precision munitions [with new] operational concepts, including information warfare, continuous and rapid joint operations
(faster than the adversary), and holding the entire theater at risk (i.e., no sanctuary for the enemy, even deep in his own battlespace)

RAND has a brief 14 page summary of RMA here:

Command and control
, or C2, in a military organization can be defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.

Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission.

Commanding officers are assisted in executing these tasks by specialized staff officers and enlisted personnel. These military staff are a group of officers and enlisted personnel that provides a bi-directional flow of information between a commanding officer and subordinate military units.

The purpose of a military staff is mainly that of providing accurate, timely information which by category represents information on which command decisions are based. The key application is that of decisions that effectively manage unit resources. While information flow toward the commander is a priority, information that is useful or contingent in nature is communicated to lower staffs and units.

In military usage, a number of abbreviations in the format C(x) followed by additional letters are used, based on expanded versions of the abbreviation C2 - command and control.

    * C²/C2/C&C (Command and control)
    * C²IS (command and control information systems)
    * C³ (command, control, and communications) [US DoD]
    * C3 (consultation, command, and control) [NATO]
    * C³I (command, control, communications, and intelligence)
    * C4 (command, control, communications, and computers)
    * C4IS (command, control, communication, computer, and intelligence simulator system)
    * C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance)
    * C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence)
    * C4I² (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, and interoperability)
    * C5I (command, control, communications, computers, combat systems, and intelligence)
    * C5ISR (command, control, communications, computers, combat systems, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance)

The most common formats that Anti_Illuminati covers in his research are C2, C³, and especially C4ISR.

Lookup C4ISR in a search engine.

Situation awareness, situational awareness, or SA, is the perception of environmental elements within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical to decision-makers in complex, dynamic areas from aviation, air traffic control, power plant operations, military command and control, and emergency services such as fire fighting and policing; to more ordinary but nevertheless complex tasks such as driving an automobile or motorcycle.

Situation awareness (SA) involves being aware of what is happening around you to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact your goals and objectives, both now and in the near future. Lacking SA or having inadequate SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human error.  Thus, SA is especially important in work domains where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions may lead to serious consequences (e.g., piloting an airplane, functioning as a soldier, or treating critically ill or injured patients).

Having complete, accurate and up-to-the-minute SA is essential where technological and situational complexity on the human decision-maker are a concern. SA has been recognized as a critical, yet often elusive, foundation for successful decision-making across a broad range of complex and dynamic systems, including aviation and air traffic control, emergency response and military command and control operations, and offshore oil and nuclear power plant management.

Although numerous definitions of SA have been proposed, Endsley's definition (1995b), "the perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future," is firmly established and widely accepted. While some definitions are specific to the environment from which they were adapted, Endsley's definition is applicable across multiple task domains. Several other definitions of SA have been suggested, generally restating the same themes:

    * "accessibility of a comprehensive and coherent situation representation which is continuously being updated in accordance with the results of recurrent situation assessments" (Sarter & Woods, 1991)
    * "the combining of new information with existing knowledge in working memory and the development of a composite picture of the situation along with projections of future status and subsequent decisions as to appropriate courses of action to take" (Fracker, 1991b)
    * "the continuous extraction of environmental information along with integration of this information with previous knowledge to form a coherent mental picture, and the end use of that mental picture in directing further perception and anticipating future need" (Dominguez, Vidulich, Vogel, & McMillan, 1994)
    * "adaptive, externally-directed consciousness that has as its products knowledge about a dynamic task environment and directed action within that environment" (Smith & Hancock, 1995)
    * "the ability to maintain a constant, clear mental picture of relevant information and the tactical situation including friendly and threat situations as well as terrain" (Dostal, 2007)
    * SA is simply "knowing what is going on so you can figure out what to do" (Adam, 1993)
    * "what you need to know not to be surprised" (Jeannot, Kelly, & Thompson, 2003)
    * The term SA "is a shorthand description for "keeping track of what is going on around you in a complex, dynamic environment" (Moray, 2005, p. 4)
    * The "aim of efficient SA is to keep the operator tightly coupled to the dynamics of the environment"

Before being widely adopted by human factors scientists in the 1990s, the term was first used by United States Air Force (USAF) fighter aircrew returning from war in Korea and Vietnam. They identified having good SA as the decisive factor in air-to-air combat engagements—the "ace factor". Survival in a dogfight was typically a matter of observing the opponent's current move and anticipating his next move a fraction of a second before he could observe and anticipate his own. USAF pilots also came to equate SA with the "observe" and "orient" phases of the famous observe-orient-decide-act loop (OODA Loop) or Boyd cycle, as described by the USAF fighter ace and war theorist Col. John Boyd. In combat, the winning strategy is to "get inside" your opponent's OODA loop, not just by making your own decisions quicker, but also by having better SA than the opponent, and even changing the situation in ways that the opponent cannot monitor or even comprehend. Losing one's own SA, in contrast, equates to being "out of the loop."

Read more about "situational awareness" here:

And look it up on a search engine to read Military and Government white papers on the subject.

The Global Information Grid (GIG) is an all-encompassing communications project of the United States Department of Defense. It is defined as a "globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities for collecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and managing information on demand to warfighters (soldiers), policy makers, and support personnel."

The GIG includes owned and leased communications and computing systems and services, software (including applications), data, security services, other associated services, and National Security Systems. Non-GIG IT includes stand-alone, self contained, or embedded IT that is not, and will not be, connected to the enterprise network. (off the grid)

The GIG is managed by a construct known as NetOps. NetOps is defined as the operational framework consisting of three essential tasks, Situational Awareness (SA), and Command & Control (C2) that the Commander (CDR) of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), in coordination with DoD and Global NetOps Community, employs to operate and defend the GIG to ensure information superiority.

Search Global Information Grid in a search engine.

Watch this 20 minute entertaining "music video"/documentary on the Global Information Grid.


Netcentric, or "network-centric", refers to participating as a part of a continuously-evolving, complex community of people, devices, information and services interconnected by a communications network to optimize resource management and provide superior information on events and conditions needed to empower decision makers.  

The network itself is only one of several enabling factors along with sensors, data processing and storage, expert analysis systems and intelligent agents, and information distribution. The largest commercial practitioners of globally distributed supply chain management and customer relationship management employ net-centric methods.

Network Centric Product Support (NCPS) is a specific example of the netcentric architecture that is being applied to a range of applications including the NextGen airtraffic control as well as other transportation applications.

Netcentric warfare is also a tenet of modern information warfare concepts.  A Net-centric Enterprise Architecture is defined in lay terms as a: "massively distributed architecture with components and/or services available across and throughout an enterprise's entire lines-of-business."

The formal definition of a "NetCentric Enterprise Architecture" is: "A NetCentric Enterprise Architecture is a light-weight, massively distributed, horizontally-applied architecture, that distributes components and/or services across an enterprise's information value chain using Internet Technologies and other Network Protocols as the principal mechanism for supporting the distribution and processing of information services."

Look up Network Centric Warfare in a search engine
Look up netcentric in a search engine

Enterprise architecture is a comprehensive framework used to manage and align an organization's Information Technology (IT) assets, people, operations, and projects with its operational characteristics. In other words, the enterprise architecture defines how information and technology will support the business operations and provide benefit for the business.

It illustrates the organization’s core mission, each component critical to performing that mission, and how each of these components is interrelated. These components include:

    * Guiding principles
    * Organization structure
    * Business processes
    * People or stakeholders
    * Applications, data, and infrastructure
    * Technologies upon which networks, applications and systems are built

Guiding principles, organization structure, business processes, and people don’t sound very technical. That’s because enterprise architecture is about more than technology. It is about the entire organization (or enterprise) and identifying all of the bits and pieces that make the organization work.
Enterprise Architecture’s Benefits

A well-documented, well-understood enterprise architecture enables the organization to respond quickly to changes in the environment in which the organization operates. It serves as a ready reference that enables the organization to assess the impact of the changes on each of the enterprise architecture components. It also ensures the components continue to operate smoothly through the changes.

An Analogy to City Planning
You can relate enterprise architecture to the more widely understood concept of city planning. In city planning, zones are established for very specific purposes. The buildings that are built in these zones are constructed to specifications to meet those purposes.

For example, a hospital is built to different specifications than a house or office building. Additionally, to ensure uniformity of the city and to ensure roads link to each other and pipes attach to each other without a problem, city planners establish specific guidelines on building materials and interface specifications.

In the case of enterprise architecture, the enterprise is analogous to the city. The organization structure represents the zones established to execute the enterprise’s core mission. Buildings are analogous to applications and systems. Likewise, technical elements, such as infrastructure hardware, design specifications, and development languages, are analogous to building materials and interface specifications and are used to implement the applications and systems.

The following table depicts these analogous relationships:

City Plan is to . . .           as enterprise architecture is to . . .
1. zones                           1. organization structure
2. buildings                        2. applications and systems
3. building materials             3. infrastructure hardware, design specifications, and development languages.
and interface specifications    


Anti_Illuminati's video Ptech Built Supply Chain Infrastructure - Destruction of Free Market has very good illustrations of Enterprise Architecture done by Unisys:

Watch it here about an hour long:

Search Enterprise Architecture in a Search Engine

Supply Chain

A supply chain is a system of organizations, people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer. Supply chain activities transform natural resources, raw materials and components into a finished product that is delivered to the end customer.

Supply chain management

The primary objective of supply chain management is to fulfill customer demands through the most efficient use of resources, including distribution capacity, inventory and labor. In theory, a supply chain seeks to match demand with supply and do so with the minimal inventory. Various aspects of optimizing the supply chain include liaising with suppliers to eliminate bottlenecks; sourcing strategically to strike a balance between lowest material cost and transportation, implementing JIT (Just In Time) techniques to optimize manufacturing flow; maintaining the right mix and location of factories and warehouses to serve customer markets, and using location/allocation, vehicle routing analysis, dynamic programming and, of course, traditional logistics optimization to maximize the efficiency of the distribution side.

There is often confusion over the terms supply chain and logistics. It is now generally accepted that the term Logistics applies to activities within one company/organization involving distribution of product whereas the term supply chain also encompasses manufacturing and procurement and therefore has a much broader focus as it involves multiple enterprises, including suppliers, manufacturers and retailers, working together to meet a customer need for a product or service.

Supply Chain Risk Management
(SCRM) is a discipline of Risk Management which attempts to identify potential disruptions to continued manufacturing production and thereby commercial financial exposure.

Supply chain security refers to efforts to enhance the security of the supply chain: the transport and logistics system for the world's cargo. It combines traditional practices of supply chain management with the security requirements of the system, which are driven by threats such as terrorism, piracy, and theft. Some analysts have raised concerns about supply chain security overreach. Typical supply chain security activities include:

    * Credentialing of participants in the supply chain.
    * Screening and validating of the contents of cargo being shipped.
    * Advance notification of the contents to the destination country.
    * Ensuring the security of cargo while in-transit via the use of locks and tamper-proof seals.
    * Inspecting cargo on entry.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2010, 02:06:53 pm »
I have multiple hyperlinks within this post, so be sure to click on each one!


Interoperability is the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate).

For example, your digital camera, scanner, printer, speakers, webcam, keyboard, mouse, and other peripherals are interoperable with your desktop computer.  A toaster, paper shredder, electric toothbrush, a film camera, and a power drill are NOT interoperable with your desktop computer.

A major goal of the New World Order's "full spectrum dominance" is to make every single tangible item on earth's surface to be interoperable.  The infrastructure needed to make this insane feat possible will be to:

This entire enslavement system will have ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE as it's backbone.  EA has inherent backdoors which only the elite architects have access to.  They can exploit anything on earth they want to, and stage a false flag terror attack at-will.  If they want to blowup a power plant using malware they can. If they want to hijack an automoblie using Onstar EA, and crash it into a building they can.  If they want to stage any crisis to tighten the squeeze of total enslavement, they can.

The silver-tongued claim to corporations is that EA will make their business more "interoperable" like the desktop computer with peripherals analogy I did in the beginning on this post.  In reality, since there is an inherent backdoor, it makes the "elite" who have access to the backdoor have more interoperability.  Interoperability is for THEM, not for your business.  EA has the blueprint to your entire business, and the Bilderbergers have access to your business and all other Global 2000 businesses that use EA.  It is literal TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION!

This is the New World Order technological enslavement grid in a nutshell, and time is ticking before this plan gets totally implemented.  The question is "How do we stop it?"  Just keep throwing as many monkey wrenches into this system as you freaking can!  Non-compliance, and non-participation is a good start.
I don't own a 3G cell phone enslavement tracking device or have a Facebook/Myspace.  I drive a vehicle without Onstar.  It's a start, but I need millions of people to keep throwing monkey wrenches into this global information enslavement grid.

Netcentric's biggest weakness is that it is super expensive to implement, needs participation, and it is super vulnerable to "asymmetric" attacks.  For every $1 a "terrorist" (someone opposed to the NWO) spends, the Net-centric folks have to spend a $1 million to counter it!  When Netcentrics go down, it collapses like Building 7.  In their own words it will have a "cascading effect" if the system gets interrupted.  4GW is going to fail you scumbags!  You are not getting your full Spectrum Dominance you f--ing TRAITORS!

Image from squarepusher's thread: Everyone born before 1985 is a non-net-centric 'old world fossil' - RMA exposed

The first camera [Film camera] captures the image, but captures it in the wrong format - and it is not networked. The next camera, you might suspect, captures the image in the right format, but isn't instantly networked. And of course, your audience knows where I'm going: for the third one is the now infamous phone camera - that captures the image in the right format, and is instantly networked - and in fact can be both a security plus and a security negative. But it is real and constantly a part of almost every mobile device.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2010, 10:07:13 pm »
A picture is worth a thousand words.  This very well done illustration by Dee's is an oversimplification of the NWO cybernetic agenda.


(This is the textbook/encyclopedic version of cybernetics.  Anti_Illuminati, squarepusher, Pilikia, Dig, myself and others refer to "cybernetics" a lot in their research.  This is a very BASIC overview of what it is.)

There are many definitions of cybernetics and many individuals who have influenced the definition and direction of cybernetics.

Norbert Wiener, a mathematician, engineer and social philosopher, coined the word "cybernetics" from the Greek word meaning "steersman." He defined it as the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.

Ampere, before him, wanted cybernetics to be the science of government.

For philosopher Warren McCulloch, cybernetics was an experimental epistemology concerned with the communication within an observer and between the observer and his environment.

Stafford Beer, a management consultant, defined cybernetics as the science of effective organization.

Anthropologist Gregory Bateson noted that whereas previous sciences dealt with matter and energy, the new science of cybernetics focuses on form and pattern.

For Heinz von Foerster it was "Should one name one central concept, a first principle, of cybernetics, it would be circularity."

For educational theorist Gordon Pask, cybernetics is the art of manipulating defensible metaphors, showing how they may be constructed and what can be inferred as a result of their existence.

Cybernetics takes as its domain the design or discovery and application of principles of regulation and communication. Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving. It does not ask "what is this thing?" but "what does it do?" and "what can it do?" Because numerous systems in the living, social and technological world may be understood in this way, cybernetics cuts across many traditional disciplinary boundaries. The concepts which cyberneticians develop thus form a metadisciplinary language by which we may better understand and modify our world.

Several traditions in cybernetics have existed side by side since its beginning. One is concerned with circular causality, manifest in technological developments--notably in the design of computers and automata--and finds its intellectual expression in theories of computation, regulation and control. Another tradition, which emerged from human and social concerns, emphasizes epistemology--how we come to know-- and explores theories of self-reference to understand such phenomena as autonomy, identity, and purpose.

Some cyberneticians seek to create a more humane world, while others seek merely to understand how people and their environment have co-evolved. Some are interested in systems as we observe them, others in systems that do the observing. Some seek to develop methods for modeling the relationships among measurable variables. Others aim to understand the dialogue that occurs between models or theories and social systems. Early work sought to define and apply principles by which systems may be controlled.

More recent work has attempted to understand how systems describe themselves, control themselves, and organize themselves. Despite its short history, cybernetics has developed a concern with a wide range of processes involving people as active organizers, as sharing communicators, and as autonomous, responsible individuals.

The "Definition" of Cybernetics, was from retrieved here:

Zbiginew Brzezinski cites Norbert Wiener for his cybernetic views in his 1976 book "Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era"

Someone was kind enough to provide a PDF version of the book, as a hardcopy goes for $65 used on as of this post:

Norbert Wiener invented the field of cybernetics, inspiring a generation of scientists to think of computer technology as a means to extend human capabilities.

Norbert Wiener was born on November 26, 1894, and received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from Harvard University at the age of 18 for a thesis on mathematical logic. He subsequently studied under Bertrand Russell in Cambridge, England, and David Hilbert in Göttingen, Germany. After working as a journalist, university teacher, engineer, and writer, Wiener he was hired by MIT in 1919, coincidentally the same year as Vannevar Bush. In 1933, Wiener won the Bôcher Prize for his brilliant work on Tauberian theorems and generalized harmonic analysis.

During World War II, Wiener worked on guided missile technology, and studied how sophisticated electronics used the feedback principle -- as when a missile changes its flight in response to its current position and direction. He noticed that the feedback principle is also a key feature of life forms from the simplest plants to the most complex animals, which change their actions in response to their environment. Wiener developed this concept into the field of cybernetics, concerning the combination of man and electronics, which he first published in 1948 in the book Cybernetics.

Wiener's vision of cybernetics had a powerful influence on later generations of scientists, and inspired research into the potential to extend human capabilities with interfaces to sophisticated electronics, such as the user interface studies conducted by the SAGE program. Wiener changed the way everyone thought about computer technology, influencing several later developers of the Internet, most notably J.C.R. Licklider.

In 1964, Norbert Wiener won the US National Medal of Science. In the same year, he published one of his last books called "God and Golem, Inc.: A Comment on Certain Points Where Cybernetics Impinges on Religion".


He provocatively ended it by telling the students: "Hopefully you'll all want to join me as a cyborg of the future, or decide if you want to be part of this subspecies called humans."

- Kevin Warwick, a cybernetics proponent

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2010, 10:21:34 pm »

Effects Based Operations

Effects-Based Operations (EBO) is a United States military concept which emerged during the 1991 Gulf War for the planning and conduct of operations combining military and non-military methods to achieve a particular effect. The doctrine was developed to take advantage of advancements in weaponry and tactics, from an emerging understanding that attacking a second-order target may have first order consequences for a variety of objectives, wherein the Commander's intent can be satisfied with a minimum of collateral damage or risk to his own forces.

EBO has been an emerging concept, with multiple views on what it meant and how it could be implemented. Most notably, military scientists at the Air Force Research Lab, the Army Research Lab and DARPA engaged in research to develop automated tools to annotate options and recommend courses of action. This is hard science and tools are slow to be implemented. For air forces, it supported the ability for a single aircraft to attack multiple targets, unlike tactics of previous wars, which used multiple aircraft to attack single targets, usually to create destruction without thought of later re-use by allied forces or friendly civilians.

EBO concepts emphasize the importance of technological sophistication in the Information Age, arguing that casualties can be avoided on both sides by taking advantage of the technological advances made since the end of the Cold War - for example, by utilizing precision munitions and UAV attack drones. EBO concepts traditionally take a "systemic approach" to the enemy, arguing that the enemy's center of gravity can be disrupted by attacking the command and control "mainframe" and the "support nodes" surrounding this central mainframe.

In 2008, Joint Forces Command, the caretaker of US Military Joint Warfighting doctrine, noted the failure of US Army's EBO tool and issued memorandum and a guidance documents from the commander, Marine General James Mattis, on Effects Based Operations. In these documents dated 14 August 2008 Mattis says, "Effective immediately, USJFCOM will no longer use, sponsor or export the terms and concepts related to our training, doctrine development and support of JPME (Joint Professional Military Education)." Mattis went on to say, "...we must recognize that the term "effects-based" is fundamentally flawed, has far too many interpretations and is at odds with the very nature of war to the point it expands confusion and inflates a sense of predictability far beyond that which it can be expected to deliver."

As defined by the United States military Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), effects-based operations are "a process for obtaining a desired strategic outcome or effect on the enemy through the synergistic and cumulative application of the full range of military and nonmilitary capabilities at all levels of conflict." The intent and desired outcome of an effects-based approach is to employ forces that paralyze the enemy forces and minimize its ability to engage friendly forces in close combat.

Rather than focusing specifically on causing casualties and physical destruction resulting in the attrition or annihilation of enemy forces, effects-based operations emphasizes end-state goals first, and then focuses on the means available to achieve those goals. For instance, psychological operations, electronic warfare, logisitical disruptions and other non-lethal means can be used to achieve the demoralization or defeat of an enemy force while minimizing civilian casualties or avoiding the destruction of infrastructure. While effects-based operations does not rule out lethal operations, it places them as options in a series of operational choices for military commanders.

Batschelet's Seven attributes of EBO

JFCOM's description of the doctrine is quoted by LTC (now BG) Allen Batschelet, author of the April 2002 study Effects-based operations: A New Operational Model?[4] He was later appointed in 2004 as commander of the Fires Brigade, the newly-reorganized 4th Infantry Division Artillery Brigade which deployed to Iraq to implement such theories in practice.

According to Batschelet's paper, seven elements comprise and differentiate EBO:

  1. Focus on Decision Superiority
   2. Applicability in Peace and War (Full-Spectrum Operations)
   3. Focus Beyond Direct, Immediate First-Order Effects
   4. Understanding of the Adversary’s Systems
   5. Ability of Disciplined Adaptation
   6. Application of the Elements of National Power
   7. Ability of Decision-Making to Adapt Rules and Assumptions to Reality

Center of gravity

The core of the doctrine, to support superior decision-making and to understand the enemy's systems, lies in determining and calculating the philosophical (not physical) center of gravity (COG) of the combatants. "COGs are those characteristics, capabilities, or localities from which a military derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight" (such as leadership, system essentials, infrastructure, population, and field military). A similar modeling scheme refers to these as National Elements of Value (NEV). A relative weighting is made as to which of the elements are most critical to be targeted by operations.

Please look up "effects based operations" on a search engine to read military white papers on EBO.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2010, 12:09:11 am »

Military Operations Other Than War

Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) focus on deterring war, resolving conflict, promoting peace, and supporting civil authorities in response to domestic crises. The phrase and acronym has been popularized by the United States military in the 1990s, but it has since fallen out of use. The UK military has crafted an equivalent or alternate term "peace support operations" (PSO). Both MOOTW and PSO encompass peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace enforcement and peace building.

MOOTW not involving the use or threat of force include humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, arms reduction, and peacekeeping.

MOOTW purposes may include deterring potential aggressors, protecting national interests and support the United Nations (UN) objectives.

Peacetime and conflict represent two states of the range of military operations.

    * Peacetime is a state in which diplomatic, economic, informational, and military powers are employed in combination with each other to achieve national objectives.
    * Conflict is a unique environment in which the military works closely with diplomatic leaders to control hostilities; and the national objective is focused on the goal of returning to peacetime conditions.

Planners are challenged to find ways to resolve or work around unique arrays of inter-related constraints, e.g., issues related to budgeting, training and force structure. The uncertainties which are inherent or implied include the varying political aspects which are likely to affect unanticipated MOOTW.

This is the main briefing on Military Operations Other Than War.  It is only 92 pages long and is mostly graphics:

Selected Excerpts:

Public Affairs
The worldwide media coverage provided by satellite communications makes planning for
public affairs more important than in the past. This is especially critical in MOOTW,
where there can be significant political impact. The media can affect the perceived legitimacy
of an operation and, therefore, influence the success or failure of that operation. JFCs
should develop a well-defined and concise public affairs plan to minimize adverse effect
upon the operation by the media, and include their public affairs officer early in the planning
Public affairs plans should provide open and independent reporting and provide ways to
communicate information about an operation to fulfill the US military’s obligation of keeping
the American public informed. Such a plan also enhances force protection to avoid the
media attempts to acquire and publicly disseminate classified information. Public affairs
plans must also anticipate and pre-plan response to possibly inaccurate media analysis.

Civil affairs (CA) units contain a variety of specialty skills that support MOOTW. CA
capabilities are normally tailored to support particular operational requirements. CA units
may provide assessments of the civil infrastructure, assist in the operation of temporary
shelters, and serve as liaison between the military and various NGOs and PVOs. CA forces
can also provide expertise on factors which directly affect military operations such as culture,
social structure, and host-nation support capabilities. CA may also include forces conducting
activities which are normally the responsibility of local or indigenous governments.

Psychological operations (PSYOP) forces can provide significant support in MOOTW.
Military PSYOP constitute a planned, systematic process of conveying messages to and
influencing selected target groups. These messages may include safety, health, public service,
and messages designed to favorably influence foreign perceptions of US forces and operations.

Coordination with NGOs and PVOs
In MOOTW, JFCs should be prepared to coordinate civilian and military actions. One
method to build unity of effort and conduct this liaison is to establish a civil-military operations
center (CMOC).
There is no established structure for a CMOC, and its size and composition
depend on the situation. Members of a CMOC may include representatives of US military
forces and US Government agencies, other countries’ forces, HN organizations, and NGOs
and PVOs. Through a structure such as a CMOC, the JFC can gain a greater understanding
of the roles of NGOs and PVOs and how they influence mission accomplishment.

MOOTW will often involve other departments and agencies. Within the United States, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency normally leads the response to a natural disaster,
while the Department of Justice or Department of Transportation could be expected to lead
in a counterterrorist operation. For MOOTW outside the United States, the lead agency
will normally be the DOS and the US Ambassador will coordinate US activities through an
established Country Team with representation from all US departments and agencies in
that country, including the Department of Defense.

Legal Requirements
MOOTW may present unique legal issues. In addition to traditional skills necessary in
military justice, legal personnel may require expertise in areas such as refugees; displaced
and detained civilians; fiscal law; rules of engagement; psychological operations; civil affairs;
medical support; local culture, customs, and government; international law and agreements;
military and political liaison; claims; and contingency contracting. HN legal personnel
should be integrated into the command legal staff as soon as practical to provide guidance
on unique HN domestic legal practices and customs.


(Notice in the Legal requirements section of the MOOTW briefing, there is NO reference to the US Constitution???)

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2010, 12:23:00 am »


Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities. Simulations exist in many different forms, with varying degrees of realism. In recent times, the scope of simulations has widened to include not only military but also political and social factors, which are seen as inextricably entwined in a realistic warfare model.

While many governments make use of simulation, both individually and collaboratively, little is known about it outside professional circles. Yet modelling is often the means by which governments test and refine their military and political policies. Military simulations are seen as a useful way to develop tactical, strategical and doctrinal solutions, but critics argue that the conclusions drawn from such models are inherently flawed, due to the approximate nature of the models used.

Red Team

A red team is a group of penetration testers that assess the security of an organization, which is often unaware of the existence of the team or the exact assignment. Red teams provide a more realistic picture of the security readiness than exercises, role playing, or announced assessments. Red team may trigger active controls and countermeasures in effect within a given operational environment.

In wargaming, the opposing force (or OPFOR) in a simulated military conflict may be referred to as a red team and may also engage in red team activity, which is used to reveal weaknesses in military readiness. The key theme being that the aggressor is composed of various threat actors, equipment and techniques that are obscured from the defender's complete knowledge.

Some of the benefits of red team activities are that it challenges preconceived notions by demonstration; they also serve to elucidate the true problem state that planners are attempting to mitigate. Additionally, a more accurate understanding can be gained about how sensitive information is externalized, as well as highlight exploitable patterns and instances of undue bias with regard to controls and planning.

Blue Team
Blue Team is the "friendly" force within the Red Team / Blue Team wargaming simulation.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2010, 01:07:34 am »
Now that we have the basic fundamentals of the NWO technological enslavement grid down, it is now time to look at the background of the total enslavement grid, and how it is being built all around us.  While world domination has been lusted after since the days of the ancient empires, and the race to build the "Super Human" of modern eugenics dates back to the 1880s, and cybernetics has it's origins to WWII, I like to use the "Inslaw Affair" as the main springboard for our purposes.  

The Inslaw Affair is the concrete foundation for the entire technological enslavement system.  The software PROMIS that was the subject of this affair has its code all over the world, and it is still being used.  PROMIS with its inherent "backdoor" is the base to enterprise architecture, which is the backbone of the entire technological enslavement system.  This post is lengthy, but it is super-important to know to fully understand the NWO grid.

Before reading ahead, I recommend viewing the following three video clips.  Combined, they equal 15 minutes.

"The INSLAW Affair" Part 1

"The INSLAW Affair" Part 2

"The INSLAW Affair" Part 3

PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System)

The Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) is a database system developed by Inslaw Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based, information technology company.

PROMIS was first developed by Inslaw during the 1970s under contracts and grants from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). These guarantees gave the government licenses to use the early versions of PROMIS but not to modify them, or to create derivative works, or to distribute PROMIS outside the federal government. By 1982, because of strong disagreements over a fee-incentive, Modification 12 Agreement to the original contract, the United States Department of Justice and Inslaw Inc. became involved in a widely-publicized and protracted lawsuit ( Inslaw Inc. v. United States Government)

Designed as a case-management system for prosecutors, PROMIS has the ability to track people. "Every use of PROMIS in the court system is tracking people," said Inslaw President Bill Hamilton. "You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer, judge, defense lawyer, and it's tracking all the names of all the people in all the cases."

What this means is that PROMIS can provide a complete rundown of all federal cases in which a lawyer has been involved, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented defendant A, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented white-collar criminals, at which stage in each of the cases the lawyer agreed to a plea bargain, and so on. Based on this information, PROMIS can help a prosecutor determine when a plea will be taken in a particular type of case.

But the real power of PROMIS, according to Hamilton, is that with a staggering 570,000 lines of computer code, PROMIS can integrate innumerable databases without requiring any reprogramming. In essence, PROMIS can turn blind data into information. And anyone in government will tell you that information, when wielded with finesse, begets power. Converted to use by intelligence agencies, as has been alleged in interviews by ex-CIA and Israeli Mossad agents, PROMIS can be a powerful tracking device capable of monitoring intelligence operations, agents and targets, instead of legal cases.

PROMIS has the ability to combine disparate databases, and to track people by their involvement with the legal system.

Imagine you are in charge of the legal arm of the most powerful government on the face of the globe, but your internal information systems are mired in the archaic technology of the 1960s. There's a Department of Justice database, a CIA database, an Attorney's General database, an IRS database, and so on, but none of them can share information. That makes tracking multiple offenders pretty darn difficult, and building cases against them a long and bureaucratic task.  Along comes a computer program that can integrate all these databases.  Working from either huge mainframe computer systems or smaller networks powered by the progenitors of today's PCs, PROMIS, from its first "test drive" in the late 1970's, was able to do one thing that no other program had ever been able to do. It was able to simultaneously read and integrate any number of different computer programs or data bases simultaneously, regardless of the language in which the original programs had been written or the operating system or platforms on which that data base was then currently installed.

Inslaw, Inc. was a small, Washington, D.C.-based, information technology company. In the mid-1970s, Inslaw developed for the United States Department of Justice a highly efficient, people-tracking, software program known as: Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS). Inslaw's principal owners, William Anthony Hamilton and his wife, Nancy Burke Hamilton, later sued the United States Government  (acting as principal to the Department of Justice) for not complying with the terms of the PROMIS contract and for refusing to pay for an enhanced version of PROMIS once delivered. This allegation of software piracy led to three trials in separate federal courts and two congressional hearings.

During ensuing investigations, the Department of Justice was accused of deliberately attempting to drive Inslaw into Chapter 7 liquidation; and of distributing and selling stolen software for covert intelligence operations of foreign governments such as Canada, Israel, Singapore, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan; and of becoming directly involved in murder.

Later developments implied that derivative versions of Enhanced PROMIS sold on the black market may have become the high-tech tools of worldwide terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and international money launderers and thieves.

Inslaw, once called the Institute for Law and Social Research, was a non-profit business created in 1974 by William Anthony Hamilton, a former analyst with the National Security Agency and onetime contract employee of the CIA. Inslaw's original software product, PROMIS, was a database designed to handle papers and documents generated by law enforcement agencies and courts. PROMIS was a people-tracking program which had the power to integrate innumerable databases regardless of their languages, or regardless of their operating platforms. "Every use of PROMIS in the court system is tracking people," explained Hamilton. "You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer, judge, defense lawyer, and it's tracking all the names of all the people in all the cases."

PROMIS was funded almost entirely by government funds; therefore versions created prior to January 1978 were in the public domain. On January 1, 1978, amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, automatically conferring upon Inslaw as the author of PROMIS five exclusive software copyright rights, none of which could be waived except by explicit, written waiver. The federal government negotiated licenses to use but not to modify or to distribute outside the federal government some but not all versions of PROMIS created after the January 1978 effective-date of the copyright amendments. In 1981, after Congress liquidated the Justice Department's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (which had been the primary source of funds for Inslaw's development of Promis), the company became known as Inslaw, Inc., a for-profit corporation created to further develop and market PROMIS and other PROMIS-derivative software product(s).

The newly created corporation made significant improvements to the original software. The resulting product came to be known alternately as PROMIS '82 or Enhanced PROMIS, a 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version.

In 1981, Edwin Meese, then an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, announced an $800 million budget in an effort to overhaul the computer systems of the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other law enforcement agencies.  The following year, the Department of Justice awarded Inslaw a $9.6 million, three-year, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to implement a pilot program in 22 of the largest Offices of the United States Attorneys using the older 16-bit architecture Prime version (as in Wang, or IBM), which the government had a license to use.

While PROMIS could have gone a long way toward correcting the Department's longstanding need for a standardized case-management system, the contract between Inslaw and Justice quickly became embroiled for over two decades in bitter controversy. The conflict centered on whether or not the Justice Department owed Inslaw license fees for the new, 32-bit architecture VAX version if the government substituted that version for the older 16-bit Prime version which had been the subject of the original contract.

In February 1983, an Israeli government official scheduled a meeting with Inslaw through the Justice Department's contract agent, Peter Videnieks. The purpose of that meeting was for a PROMIS briefing and demonstration; the Israeli Ministry of Justice intended to computerize its own prosecution offices. Although it was believed that the Israeli government official was a prosecuting attorney, it was later discovered upon closer examination that the official was really Rafi Eitan, "Director of LAKAM, a super-secret agency within the Israeli Ministry of Defense responsible for collecting scientific and technical intelligence information from other countries through espionage."  Herein is where Inslaw's case becomes convoluted.

Following the Israeli meeting, the Justice Department obtained Inslaw's new, 32-bit, Enhanced PROMIS from Inslaw at the start of the second year of their implementation contract by modifying that contract and by promising to negotiate the payment of license fees. One month later, the U.S. government began to find fault with some of Inslaw's services, and with negotiated billing rates. The government then began to withhold unilaterally each month increasing amounts of payments due Inslaw for implementation services. The Justice Department agent responsible for making payments was a former, fired Inslaw employee, C. Madison Brewer. Brewer would later claim in federal court that everything he did regarding Inslaw was approved by Deputy Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen. Brewer was aided in his new DoJ job by Peter Videnieks.  Videnieks was fresh from the Customs Service where he oversaw contracts between that agency and Hadron, Inc., a company controlled by Edwin Meese and Reagan-crony Earl Brian. Hadron, a closely held government systems consulting firm, was to figure prominently in the forthcoming scandal.  Both Brewer and Videnieks had obtained their positions under suspicious circumstances.   Furthermore, before moving over to the Justice Department and taking charge of the PROMIS program in September 1981, Videnieks had administered three contracts between the Customs Service and Hadron.  Hadron was in the business of integrating information-managing systems such as PROMIS into federal agencies.

Simultaneously with the withholding of payments in the 1983 Modification 12 agreement, the government then substituted the enhanced VAX version of PROMIS for the old Prime version originally specified in the contract. However, the government failed to negotiate the payment of license fees as promised, claiming that Inslaw had failed to prove to the government's satisfaction that Inslaw had developed the enhanced version with private, non-government funds and that the enhanced version was not otherwise required to be delivered to the government under any of its contracts with Inslaw—that is, Inslaw had provided it voluntarily.

Yet beneath the surface of this background was a belief that the primary focus of certain top-level individuals within the DoJ was to perpetuate international, covert intelligence operations—for example, to enable Israeli signal intelligence to surreptitiously access the computerized Jordanian dossiers on Palestinians.

Enhanced PROMIS was eventually installed in a total of forty-four federal prosecutors' offices following the Modification 12 agreement.

According to affidavits filed by William Hamilton, as the contract details were modified, Hamilton then received a phone call from Dominic Laiti, chief executive of Hadron. Laiti wanted to buy Inslaw. Hamilton refused. According to Hamilton's affidavits, Laiti then warned him that Hadron had friends in government and if Inslaw did not want to sell willingly, Inslaw could be coerced.

By February 1985, the government had withheld payment of almost $1.8 million for Inslaw's implementation services, plus millions of dollars in Old PROMIS license fees. Inslaw filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Meanwhile, the government began highly suspicious activities to force Inslaw into Chapter 7 liquidation

In his court cases, William Hamilton was represented by several attorneys, one of whom was lawyer Elliot Richardson, formerly the United States Attorney General under President Richard Nixon.

Two different federal bankruptcy courts made fully litigated findings of fact in the late-eighties ruling that the Justice Department "took, converted, and stole" the PROMIS installed in U.S. Attorneys' Offices "through trickery, fraud, and deceit," and then attempted "unlawfully and without justification"  to force Inslaw out of business so that it would be unable to seek restitution through the courts.

Three months after the initial verdict, George F. Bason, Jr., the federal judge presiding over the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, was denied reappointment to a new 14-year term on the bench by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the appointing authority. His replacement, S. Martin Teel, took over shortly after Judge Bason announced his oral findings of malfeasance against Inslaw by the Justice Department; Teel had been the Justice Department Tax Division attorney who had argued unsuccessfully before Judge Bason for the forced liquidation of Inslaw. Leigh Ratiner (of Dickstein, Shapiro and Morin, which was the 10th largest firm in Washington at the time) was fired in October 1986; he had been the lead counsel for Inslaw and had filed the suit against the Justice Department in federal bankruptcy court. His firing came reportedly amidst "back channel" discussions involving: the DoJ, his law firm's senior partner, and the Government of Israel; moreover, there were rumors that the Mossad had arranged a payment of $600,000 to Ratiner's former firm as a separation settlement.

Then, in September 1991, the House Judiciary Committee issued the result of a three-year investigation. House Report 102-857 Inslaw: Investigative Report confirmed the Justice Department's theft of PROMIS. The report was issued after the Justice Department convinced the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on a jurisdictional technicality to set aside the decisions of the first two federal bankruptcy courts. The House Committee also reported investigative leads indicating that friends of the Reagan White House  had been allowed to sell and to distribute Enhanced PROMIS both domestically and overseas for their personal financial gain and in support of the intelligence and foreign policy objectives of the United States. The report even went so far as to recommend specifically further investigations of both former-Attorney General Edwin Meese and businessman, Earl Brian, for their possible involvement in illegally providing or selling PROMIS "to foreign governments including Canada, Israel, Singapore, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan." The Democratic Majority called upon the Attorney General Dick Thornburgh  to compensate Inslaw immediately for the harm that the government had "egregiously" inflicted on Inslaw. The Republican Minority dissented. The Committee was divided along party lines 21–13. Attorney General Thornburgh ignored the recommendations, and reneged on agreements made with the committee.

On November 13, 1991, newly appointed, Attorney General William Barr, appointed a retired federal judge, Nicholas J. Bua, as Special Counsel to advise him on the allegations that high-ranking officials had acted improperly for personal gain to bankrupt Inslaw.

By June 1993, a 267-page Bua Report was released, clearing Justice officials of any impropriety.  Inslaw's attorney, Elliot Richardson immediately wrote Inslaw's 130-page Rebuttal with evidence suggesting Bua's report was riddled with errors and falsehoods. On September 27, 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno  released a 187-page review concluding "that there is no credible evidence that Department officials conspired to steal computer software developed by Inslaw, Inc. or that the company is entitled to additional government payments."  Yet, according to Wired Magazine, "Reno's report was released the same day [that] the House Judiciary Committee passed HR 4862[28], a bill which would have bound the U.S. Court of Federal Claims legally to independently investigate the Inslaw case—thus circumventing the Department of Justice's claims of innocence;" however, HR 4862 was defeated by a partisan committee-vote later that night before it was set to go before the full House.

The following May, the United States Senate asked the U.S. Court of Federal Claims   to determine if the United States owed Inslaw compensation for the government's use of PROMIS. On July 31, 1997, Judge Christine Miller, the hearing officer for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that all of the versions of PROMIS were in the public domain and that the government had therefore always been free to do whatever it wished with PROMIS.  The following year, the appellate authority, a three-judge Review Panel of the same court, upheld Miller's ruling; yet, it also determined that Inslaw had never granted the government a license to "modify PROMIS to create derivative software" although Inslaw was automatically vested with the exclusive copyright rights  to PROMIS. The Review Panel then held that the United States would be liable to Inslaw for copyright infringement damages if the government had created any unauthorized derivatives from PROMIS, but noted that Inslaw "had failed to prove in court that the government had done so;" moreover, the Board held that the issue of "derivative works" was "of no consequence."  Inslaw challenged this interpretation but the Review Panel refused Inslaw's request to reopen discovery. In August 1998, Chief Judge Lorin Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims sent an Advisory Report to the Senate, noting that the court had not found that the United States owes Inslaw compensation for the government's use of PROMIS, and enclosing the decision of the hearing officer and the decision of the Review Panel.

On the other hand, according to William Hamilton, the government flatly denied during all court proceedings what it later admitted, i.e. that agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other U.S. intelligence agencies used a PROMIS-derivative to keep track of their classified information.

In early 1999, the British journalist and author, Gordon Thomas, published an authorized history of the Israeli Mossad titled Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad. The book quotes detailed admissions by the former long-time deputy-director of the Mossad, Rafi Eitan, about the partnership between Israeli and U.S. intelligence in selling to foreign intelligence agencies in excess of $500 million worth of licenses to a trojan horse version of PROMIS, in order to spy on them.

In 2001, the Washington Times and Fox News each quoted federal law enforcement officials familiar with debriefing former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen as claiming that the convicted spy had stolen copies of a PROMIS-derivative for his Soviet KGB handlers.

They further alleged that the software was used within the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies to track internal intelligence, and was used by intelligence operatives to track international interbank transactions. These reports further stated that Osama bin Laden later bought copies of the same Promis-derivative on the Russian black market (blat) for $2 million. It was believed then that al-Qaeda  used the software to penetrate database systems to move funds throughout the banking system, and to evade detection by U.S. law enforcement.

In May 2006, a former aide in the Office of the Vice President of the United States pleaded guilty to passing top-secret classified information to plotters trying to overthrow the president of the Philippines. Leandro Aragoncillo, an FBI intelligence analyst at the time of his arrest, was believed to have operated his deception using archaic database software manipulated by the FBI in order to evade the 1995 finding of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with regard to Inslaw's rights to derivative works.

The 9-11 Commission called attention to the fact that the FBI did not install the current version of its case management software, called the ACS (Automated Case Support) system, until October 1995 and to the fact that ACS was obsolete from the time the FBI developed it in the mid-1990s because it was based on "1980s technology". Although the 9-11 Commission offered no explanation for why the FBI used obsolete technology to develop its ACS case management software in 1995, the apparent explanation is that the FBI simply renamed its 1980s technology case management software, which was called FOIMS and was based on PROMIS, and translated it in October 1995 into a different computer programming language in order to obstruct a court hearing that the U.S. Senate had ordered earlier that year. The Senate had ordered the court in May 1995 to determine whether the United States owes Inslaw compensation for the government's use of PROMIS, and the court, in turn, ordered outside software experts to compare the FBI's software with PROMIS, but the FBI modified its software and told the court that it no longer retained the unmodified first 11 years (1985 through 1995) of its own case management software.

In 2006, there were further allegations of the misuse of PROMIS. Writing in the Canada Free Press, the former Polish CIA operative and now international journalist, David Dastych alleged that "Chinese Military Intelligence (PLA-2) organized their own hackers department, which [exploited] PROMIS [database systems] [in the] Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories to steal U.S. nuclear secrets"; however, the prima facie value of that allegation was lost in a realization that the U.S. Government could not convict the suspected 2001 spy.

The U.S. Government has never paid Inslaw Inc. for any of these unauthorized uses of PROMIS.

"Inslaw deserves to be compensated," wrote nationally syndicated columnist, Michelle Malkin, in The Washington Times. "More importantly, the American people deserve to know the truth: Did government greed and bureaucratic hubris lead to a wholesale sellout of our national security?"

While investigating elements of this story, journalist Danny Casolaro died in what was twice ruled a suicide. Prior to his death, Casolaro had warned friends if they were ever told he had committed suicide not to believe it, and to know he had been murdered.  Many have argued that his death was suspicious, deserving closer scrutiny; some have argued further, believing his death was a murder, committed to hide whatever Casolaro had uncovered. "I believe he was murdered," wrote former Attorney General Elliot Richardson in the New York Times, " but even if that is no more than a possibility, it is a possibility with such sinister implications as to demand a serious effort to discover the truth." Kenn Thomas and Jim Keith discuss this in their book, The Octopus: Secret Government and the Death of Danny Casolaro.   Writing on behalf of a majority opinion in House Report 102-857, Committee Chairman, Jack Brooks  (D-TX) wrote, "As long as the possibility exists that Danny Casolaro died as a result of his investigation into the INSLAW matter, it is imperative that further investigation be conducted."

Michael Riconosciuto

Michael Riconoscuito was a gifted child: When he was just 10 years old, Michael wired his parents' neighborhood with a working private telephone system that undercut Ma Bell; in the eighth grade, he won a science fair with a model for a three-dimensional sonar system. By the time he was a teenager, he had won so many science fairs with exhibits of laser technology that he was invited to be a summer research assistant at Stanford University's prestigious Cooper Vapor Laser Laboratory. Dr. Arthur Schalow , a Nobel laureate, remembers him — "You don't forget a 16-year-old youngster who shows up with his own argon laser."

Riconosciuto is an electronics, computer expert who was convicted on seven drug-related charges in early 1992.  He is not set to be released until 2017.   Riconosciuto professed a defense centered on the Inslaw Affair (a legal case in which the U.S. Government was charged with illegal use of computer software). Riconosciuto claimed to have reprogrammed Inslaw's case-management program (PROMIS) with a secret "back-door" to allow clandestine tracking of individuals. Riconosciuto stated that had been threatened by a justice department official. Riconosciuto provided an Affidavit detailing threats to a House Select Committee investigating the Inslaw Affair.

On March 21, 1991, Riconosciuto filed an affidavit before a House judiciary committee investigating the bankruptcy case of Inslaw Inc. v. United States Government. Riconosciuto was under suspicion at the time for illegally modifying a people-tracking, case-management, software program that had been developed for the Department of Justice by Washington, D.C.-based Inslaw Inc.. Riconosciuto declared that he had been under the direction of Earl Brian, who was then a controlling shareholder and director of Hadron, Inc..

Hadron was a competitor to Inslaw and was also a government consulting firm with several contracts with the Department of Defense and the CIA.

Riconosciuto further declared that Peter Videnieks, the contract manager overseeing the Inslaw contract for the management division of the DoJ, had stolen the PROMIS software and had given it to Earl Brian who "spearheaded" a plan for the "implementation of PROMIS in law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide."

Riconosciuto claimed that Videnieks during a telephone conversation threatened Riconosciuto with DoJ reprisals if Riconosciuto should testify before the House Investigating Committee. According to Riconosciuto's claims, Videnieks said that there would be indictments brought against Riconosciuto and his father in connection with a criminal operation of a savings and loan institution in California; furthermore, Riconosciuto's wife would immediately loose a long and protracted child custody case against her former husband; and lastly, Riconosciuto would be prosecuted for perjury. Riconosciuto claimed to have made a tape recording of that conversation.

Within eight days of this declaration, Riconosciuto was arrested for conspiracy to manufacture, conspiracy to distribute, possession with intent to distribute, and with distribution—a total of ten counts related to methamphetamine and methadone.

During his trial, Riconosciuto accused the Drug Enforcement Agency of stealing two copies of his tape. Then later he claimed a third was tossed by him into a Washington State swamp.

In addition to his claims of a government "frame up" related to Inslaw, Riconosciuto maintained that the chemical laboratory on his property was in use for the extraction of precious metals such as platinum in a highly-specialized mining operation.


Danny Casolaro

Danny Casolaro, an aspiring novelist, freelance writer and investigative reporter looking into the theft of Project PROMIS software, a program capable of tracking down anyone anywhere in the world, died in August 1991, a reported suicide. Casolaro was also investigating Pine Gap, Area 51 and governmental bioengineering. His manuscript – tentatively entitled The Octopus and which would reveal a web of conspiracy involving everything from PROMIS to BCCI to Iran-Contra to the JFK assassination to the October Surprise – was missing from his room and has never been found.

For Casolaro, the Octopus presented a complex web of intrigue involving PROMIS; the inter-connection of various police services, intelligence agencies and organised criminal groups; and a large number of parapolitical operators, weapons brokers and deal-makers. All of this continues to have an impact on the post-9/11 world, with PROMIS figuring in many contemporary stories.

From a well-to-do family (his father, a doctor, had invested well in Northern Virginia real estate), he was 44 years old, divorced, and living comfortably on a five-acre estate in Fairfax County, Virginia – home to the CIA.

In the first week of August, Casolaro told friends and acquaintances that he was going to West Virginia too meet a source who would provide a key piece of evidence he needed to complete his investigation. He drove to Martinsburg, West Virginia, on Thursday, August 8, and checked into room 517 of the Sheraton Hotel. Two days later, at 12:51 p.m., hotel employees found his naked body in a bathtub full of bloody water. The time of death has been estimated at about 9.00 am. Both arms and wrists had been slashed a total of at least 12 times; one of the cuts went so deep that it had severed a tendon.

The hotel management called the Martinsburg police who brought along the local coroner, Sandra Brining, a registered nurse. Ms. Brining ruled the death a suicide, took small blood and urine samples, and released the body to the Brown Funeral Home. Without authorization from officials or Casolaro's next of kin, the funeral home embalmed the body as a "courtesy to the family", according to Brining's statement at an August 15 press conference in Martinsburg.

Martinsburg police notified the next of kin, Dr. Anthony Casolaro, also of Fairfax, of his brother's death on Monday, August 12. Casolaro says that police explanations for the delay, like the hasty, unauthorized and illegal embalming, seemed either extraordinarily inefficient or highly suspicious.

READ MORE HERE About Casolaro:

CNN 1992 Newsclip of INSLAW

KESQ News Channel 3 Coachella Valley covers PROMIS Murders

Danny Casolaro-Unsolved Mysteries part 1

Danny Casolaro-Unsolved Mysteries part 2

Youtube Channel of the daughter of one of the INSLAW affair victims:

CasolaroProject YouTube Channel

INSLAW Website, not updated since 1999

All about PROMIS

The Inslaw "Octupus" article from Wired back in 1993

Video about PROMIS:

The Octopus: Secret Government and the Death of Danny Casolaro PAPERBACK BOOK:

I reposted the Wikipedia entries of INSLAW and PROMIS, up above, in case they ever get deleted.

Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation Funded INSLAW during the years of PROMIS development:

Institute for Law and Social Research = INSLAW

Excerpt from above link:



Illinois, State of (Board of Higher Education), 1966-1977
Illinois, University of, 1956-1975
Independent Sector, 1979-1982
Independent Sector, 1982-1989 (Series 18.3)
Indiana University, 1951-1972
Industrial Personnel Problem, 1919-1921
Institute for Crippled and Disabled Men, 1922-1925
Institute for Law and Social Research, 1979-1983 (Series 18.2)
Institute for Muscle Research, 1953-1965
Institute for Policy Studies, 1964-1967
Institute for the Study of Humanistic Medicine, 1977-1978
Institute of International Education, 1948-1981
Institute of International Education, 1980-1982 (Series 18.2)
Institute of International Education, 1982-1986 (Series 18.3)
Institute of Latin
American Studies, 1979-1980
Institute of Society, Ethics and Life Sciences, 1972-1983
Institute of Society, Ethics and Life Sciences, 1980-1983 (Series 18.3)
International Association for Child Psychiatry and Allied Professions, 1971-1981
International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions, International Study Group of, 1980-1983 (Series 18.3)
International Center for Integrative Studies, 1980-1984 (Series 18.3)
International Committee of the Red Cross, 1975-1977
International Congress on Mental Health, 1947-1949
International Council of English, 1927
International Council on the Future of the University, 1979-1981
International Epidemiological Association, 1967-1981
International Hospital Convention, 1928
International Mass Education Movement
International Women's Health Coalition, 1984-1986 (Series 18.3)
Inter-Racial Committee, 1919-1922
Iowa, University of, 1979-1983 (Series 18.2)
University of Iowa, 1982-1987 (Series 18.3)
Irvington House, 1936-1943
Ittleson (Henry) Center for Child Research, 1950-1962


The Rockefeller Foundation contributed to the support for the Office of Environmental Mediation, but its emphasis is on the international context. Most of the other major foundations are not active in this area, except for this Foundation's involvement, described below.

As a consequence of the 1976 National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Bar Foundation (ABF) have initiated several projects. The ABF is engaged in studies and projects involving class-action litigation. The ABA has established a Special Committee on Minor Disputes; the ABA Commission on Law and the Economy, which is assisted by the Foundation, is discussed below.

The Institute for Judicial Administration is chiefly concerned with studies of the structure of state and federal courts, educational programs for judges and court administrators, and publication of research on the administration of justice. The National Center for State Courts has been concerned with encouraging and collecting better data on state courts, a study of judicial diversion, and mechanisms for creating more effective small claims courts. A relatively new organization, the Institute for Law and Social Research (a Foundation grantee), is working on a systems approach to the criminal justice system.

The American Enterprise Institute is exploring the role of information and incentives in regulation. The Center for Administrative Justice, an organization concerned with training and research in administrative law, has completed a large study of Social Security hearings. Other projects are under way at the Urban Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Stanford Research Institute, and Abt Associates.


Excerpt from:  Union Calendar No. 491
102d Congress, 2d session -------------------------------- House Report 102-857 THE INSLAW AFFAIR


The Department of Justice has long recognized the need for a standardized management information system to assist law enforcement offices across the  country in the recordkeeping and tracking of criminal cases. During the 1970's, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) funded the development by INSLAW1 of a computer software system called the Prosecutor's Management Information System or PROMIS.  This system was designed to meet the criminal prosecutor workloads of  largeurban jurisdictions; and by 1980, several large U.S. attorneys offices were using the PROMIS software.  At this time, INSLAW (formerly called the Institute for Law and Social  Research) was a nonprofit corporation funded almost entirely through Government grants and contracts.  When President Carter terminated the LEAA, INSLAW converted the company to a for-profit corporation in 1981 to commercially  market  PROMIS.

The new corporation made several significant improvements to the original PROMIS software and the resulting product came to be known as INSLAW's proprietary Enhanced PROMIS.  The original PROMIS was funded entirely with Government funds and was in the public domain.

Addendum: Riconoscuito explains the "backdoor" - It's a broadcast signal!


Michael Riconosciuto on Encryption
by J. Orlin Grabbe

Michael Riconosciuto is one of the original architects of the PROMIS backdoor. PROMIS was a people-tracking software system sold to intelligence organizations and government drug agencies worldwide. The global dispersion of PROMIS was part of a U.S. plot to spy on other spy agencies.

Riconosciuto, who was Director of Research for a Wackenhut-Cabazon Indian joint venture, oversaw a group of several dozen people who worked out of business offices in nearby Indio, California. According to the testimony of Robert Booth Nichols, a CIA agent associated with Meridian International Logistics and connected to Music Corporation of America (MCA), Riconosciuto was in frequent contact with Bobby Inman, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and then Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), during this time.

Since intelligence computers are, for security reasons, usually not connected to external networks, the original backdoor was a broadcast signal. The PROMIS software was often sold in connection with computer hardware (such as a Prime computer) using a specialized chip. The chip would broadcast the contents of the existing database to monitoring vans or collection satellites using digital spread spectrum techniques whenever the software was run.

Spread spectrum techniques offer a way to mask, or disguise, a signal by making it appear as "noise" with respect to another signal. For example, one may communicate covertly on the same spectrum as a local TV broadcast signal. From the point of view of a TV receiver, the covert communication appears as noise, and is filtered out. From the point of view of the covert channel, the TV signal appears as noise. In the case of the PROMIS broadcast channel, the signal was disguised as ordinary computer noise--the type of stuff that must be reduced for TEMPEST certification in the U.S.

In spread spectrum frequency communication, the transmitted spectrum is much wider than what is really necessary. In digital communication, the transmission widths of digital signals are expanded so that many "bit periods" are needed to represent one bit at baseband. This results in an improvement in the signal-to-noise- ratio. Spread spectrum techniques are used extensively in covert military communications and secure satellite systems.

Offline Tsul777

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,236
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2010, 01:30:17 am »
Red Team

A red team is a group of penetration testers that assess the security of an organization, which is often unaware of the existence of the team or the exact assignment. Red teams provide a more realistic picture of the security readiness than exercises, role playing, or announced assessments. Red team may trigger active controls and countermeasures in effect within a given operational environment.

In wargaming, the opposing force (or OPFOR) in a simulated military conflict may be referred to as a red team and may also engage in red team activity, which is used to reveal weaknesses in military readiness. The key theme being that the aggressor is composed of various threat actors, equipment and techniques that are obscured from the defender's complete knowledge.

Some of the benefits of red team activities are that it challenges preconceived notions by demonstration; they also serve to elucidate the true problem state that planners are attempting to mitigate. Additionally, a more accurate understanding can be gained about how sensitive information is externalized, as well as highlight exploitable patterns and instances of undue bias with regard to controls and planning.
Interesting read

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2010, 03:03:54 pm »

This 3 minute CBS News clip with Dan Rather is a really basic overview of Ptech

These two articles MUST BE READ to understand the full scope of Ptech, and how its enterprise architecture pulled off 9/11 and future false flags:

PTECH, 9/11, and USA-SAUDI TERROR - Part I

PROMIS Connections to Cheney Control of 9/11 Attacks Confirmed

by Jamey Hecht


PROMIS Connections to Cheney Control of 9/11 Attacks Confirmed
The FAA & Ptech
Debriefed by Secret Service - looking for a PROMIS
Muslim Brotherhood, Christian Cultists, and Nazis

by Michael Kane

The following is Indira Singh's testimony exposing Ptech (52 min long, requires Veoh Media Player)

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:21 am »

Anti_Illuminati has the floor on the Corbett Report
About 1 hour long, no interruptions.


What follows is a transcription of The Corbett Report's interview with Prison Planet Forum member Anti_Illuminati.  The transcription was provided by Prison Planet forum member TheScribbler. PLEASE READ ALONG WHILE LISTENING TO THE INTERVIEW.  PAUSE AND LOOK UP TERMS/CONCEPTS/PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH!!!!

Transcript of Anti-Illuminati Interview: 2009/08/28

//begin transcript//

James Corbett: This is James Corbett of The Corbett Report. It's currently the 28th of August, 2009 here in Japan. And I'm joined on the line by a member of the Prisonplanet forum community who posts by the name Anti_Illuminati. He has been painstakingly researching and documenting the global information control grid and cyber false flag terror. So, Anti_Illuminati, thank you for joining me on the program today.

Anti_Illuminati: Thank you James. It's great to be here.

JC:Well, I know you've done a lot of information that connects with a lot of the things that we've talked about on the Corbett Report in the past including, of course, Ptech, which, my listeners will probably know by now is one of the key pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. And, of course, Ptech was a computer software firm specializing in enterprise architecture software that was set up in 1994 by Oussama Ziade and mystery investor Yasin al-Qadi, who...recently there was a break in that case with the Boston FBI indicting Oussama Ziade for lying to the FBI about their investigation into Ptech and Yasin al-Qadi's links to Ptech. So, for mor information about that, I certainly suggest that my listeners listen to my recent interview with James Evan Pilato at mediamonarchy dot com or check out some of my articles. But you've been researching into this for years now and you have uncovered a weath of information about Ptech and where it really came from. So what can you tell us about the global information control grid and cyber false flag terror?

AI: Well, I think that a good way to start off with this is to kind of go over some solid details about what Ptech actually is in terms of the company make-up and the people behind it. There's virtually hundreds of articles about this on the internet. And some of them have more quality information than others. And I happen to have right in front of me a kind of the best descriptions of the people who run the company and a little bit on their background that most people are unaware of. And I'll just go ahead and kind of read this here regarding executives that run Ptech so that you'll have a better understanding of this.

"As far as the CEO, Mr. Oussama Ziade, his background was that he was a chairman/CEO of Ptech. He established it in 1994. He has over 15 years of professional experience. He's the chief architect and driving force behind the company. One of the key attributes was his ability to sense market direction and play early on into potential markets while still in their infancy. He is a proponent of competition, customer-partnering, and value-oriented solutions. His philosophy of management is based on the balanced involvement of customers, management of employees in the operation of the company to create value for all stakeholders, while creating a culture of innovation and focus. He has raised over $20 million in private investment for Ptech. Prior to launching Ptech,"...

And I'm gonna pause right there. This is the key to this because what a lot of people don't know about this that are looking into it is that the Ptech software existed in name before the company even existed. The executives that created Ptech were formerly comprised of another company prior to that that traces back as early as 1989. And that company is called ADT. Now that's not to be confused with the home alarm system company. This is a company that stands for Associative Design Technology. And with that being said, I'll continue with this as that's where it goes into talking about the bio of the CEO.

"Mr. Ziade was Chief Executive Officer at Associative Design Technology and previously held a series of progressively responsible management positions in software development. Mr. Ziade holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and participated in the Ph.D. program in High Energy Physics at Harvard University. In addition, he holds a Master of Science in Software Engineering from Boston University. Mr. Ziade has appeared on several TV shows and is a published author in industry leading publications, appearing on the cover of several magazines."

Now, another key guy which I'll just go into next, is the Chief Product Officer, Mr. James Cerrato. And what tt talks about with respect to him is that...

"J ...he serves as Chief Product Officer of Adaptive, Inc. Mr. Cerrato is responsible for the full product lifecycle of all of Adaptive's products, from defining product strategy, to gathering market requirements, creating product specifications and controlling product release schedules. He applies a holistic product approach, and ensures that all Adaptive product components including software, documentation, training material and collateral are consistent, integrated, and synchronized with the release schedule. He serves as Chief Product Officer of Ptech Inc. He has been with Ptech since its inception in 1994 as a Co-founder."

I'll skip some of this here. It's just kind of basic info.

"He guided the successful development and release of a suite of products including enterprise architecture modeling tools and web portals and as a part of the core team, he helped guide this company from startup to recognition by Deloitte and Touche as one of the 50 fastest growing technology companies in New England."

What this talks about next is very important. There's a link made here to a company that is very behind-the-scene in all of this stuff that's going on.

"He served in role as representative to the Object Management Group (OMG), and participated in the OMG Object Analysis and Design task force that developed the Unified Modeling Language (UML). In addition to his involvement with the OMG, he speaks frequently at conferences. Mr. Cerrato worked with Associative Design Technology, where he held a series of progressively responsible roles culminating in his position as Chief Technologist. He has been a speaker at major conferences and has been active in several standards organizations. Mr. Cerrato Bachelor's in Computer Science degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

And of course you have the chief scientist, one of the founders, Dr. Hussein Ibrahim. Very, very important individual for many reasons other than the already public information that's well disseminated from Indira Singh with her 9/11 Citizen's Committee testimony along with Cynthia Mckinney and former LAPD narcotics officer Michael Ruppert. Talks about in here where he was with Ptech...

"since its inception in 1994. Dr. Ibrahim has more than 20 years of experience in enterprise architecture and business consulting. He oversees the innovation and creation of new domain specific add-on solutions. In this capacity, he acts as lead consultant, advising customers in the modeling of technology and human capabilities aspects of an integrated eBusiness architecture. Dr. Ibrahim taught computer science at Columbia University, where he also led a research team in a computer vision research project funded by the United States Department of Defense."

That's a key right there. So, the DOD already knows everything about this guy. That's something you're not gonna hear anywhere else.

"Dr. Ibrahim completed his undergraduate work in Computer Engineering at Ain-Shams University, and received his Master's and Doctorate degrees in Computer Science from Columbia University. Dr. Ibrahim has had many articles on computer science published in leading professional magazines."

And I'll stop there with the bios. Basically, I just wanna mention, in terms of myself with respect to, you know, who am I in relation to this? My name is Mark. I'm Anti_Illuminati, one of the moderators of the Prisonplanet forum. I'm just your average Joe Citizen. I don't have any industry connections or any respective background that gives me any...that is contributing to anything that I know here. All this is is that I was...after I began to see things that Indira Singh brought out when I saw her testimony years ago. I really woke me up more than anything else that I'd ever seen already knowing that 9/11 was an inside job but not quite understanding with any detail how they could have really pulled this off. And then just seeing the continual erosion, evisceration of the Constitution and our liberties. And it's like, "OK, wait a minute. This has to be fleshed out. This needs to be investigated." And that was the thing that led me down to the myriad of rabbit holes that showed me just how absolutely sinister and huge this media-blacked-out topic is. This is something...Ptech has never been mentioned on TV virtually. I think maybe it was back in 2002 or something on some local news stations which are accompanied by some local news articles that you have to use the web archives to even access anymore. But largely, it's something that nobody knows about. And it's the biggest thing that''s been said that it makes Watergate look like nothing, basically. This is the huge thing. In one respect, it's the foundation of being able to carry on forward with world government. World government has myriads of facets from the New World Order's perspective in terms of what they need to achieve to try to eliminate the sovereignty of every nation and consolidate everything. And one of the keys for them to do that is the technology aspect of it. They have to have everything integrated so that they have full control over everything so that nobody can challenge their power, no one can challenge their authority. And that they can administer their tyrannical virtual government, their communist model, long distance. And remove all representation towards all free human beings from having any say in what would have been their formerly elected representatives. That's a big component to this. And that's where a lot of my research goes into and what I'll talk about today.

JC:Well, I think you and I are in total agreement that Ptech is absolutely central to any kind of understanding to 9/11. And Ptech branches out into a lot of other topics. And it sort of shows the way on cyber false flag terror and how that can be implemented. But, for those listeners that are maybe tuning in for the first time, can you just go over, sort of, what is enterprise architecture software and how is it used to implement a false flag terror attack?

AI:Enterprise architecture make an analogy. If you're gonna have a new home built, say you can have a custom home built for you. If you're gonna do that, you obviously hire an architect to design your home. It's the same kind of concept with enterprise architecture. The architecture that would be applicable to the physical world brought into the digital world to engineer the blueprinting for business process modeling for a large organization on how everything is going to take place and streamlining everything, all of your operations, your systems, the people that you have to do business with, communicate with, so forth. And including security and everything else. One interesting point is, see, the idea of enterprise architecture in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's just like technology. Technology is not evil innately. It's what people are doing with it and how they're using it and what they're putting into it to use for nefarious means.

A lot of people are well aware of this individual, Catherine Austin Fitts who has her own website, solari dot com I believe, where she worked for the US government. I can't remember her exact position but she was involved the financial fraud investigation. Michael Ruppert makes mention of her as she was his mentor or instructor on everything that he knew about the PROMIS software. And the thing about Catherine Austin Fitts is she was actually, she was working for the US government. She was working on a non-backdoor, non-corrupt type of enterprise architecture, kind of akin to what Indira Singh is talking about but not using Ptech, that kind of stuff. She was actually creating this herself. She was creating the software by herself. And she wanted to use this to reconcile all of the financial discontinuities and discrepancies within the US government so that the numbers would line up and there wasn't all these shenanigans going on. And the government saw that Katherine Austin Fitts was doing this and that she was actually..."Hey, you're actually trying to foster real accountability within the government. You can't do that. You're fired. Get out of here. What do you think you're doing? We're criminals. We run things. You don't come in here and bring honor and integrity. What are you doing? You can't do that." //laughs// There's an actual article on this. This is on the forums too.

By the way, what I wanna mention is when we're done here, I'm gonna put up a post for all of you listening to this show. I wanna put up a post with links that will back up every single topic that I'm gonna bring up. And it'll be pinned so that you can browse it at your leisure and go ahead and look at the information.

JC:OK. And just for the listener's benefit, I will put a link to that post in the documentation section of this interview so that when you click on the "interviews" tab on corbettreport dot com, find this interview and press "documentation" and you'll find a link to that post that Anti_Illuminati is talking about.

AI:Now in terms of the false flag aspect of enterprise architecture, keep in mind too that when you think of enterprise architecture, think in terms of blueprinting because that's what it is. And that's what Indira Singh...she herself has used that term and that's what she was working on. Specifically was the, in her own words, the next generation of risk blueprint. And that has every painstaking detail of all systems within a business. That includes the electronics, the network infrastructure, and everything like that. The partner to this is risk management. And you see this all the time. All of the big new world order corporations, you'll find them talking about stuff like this. If you do a search for risk management by itself, you'll probably find tens of thousands of hits on it, maybe more than that.

Let's say, for example, you're incorporating an artificial-intelligence-based architecture to protect a network from cyber attack. Sounds good, right? This software can scan incoming network traffic like a highly advanced firewall and if there's different thtreats that are unprecedented or there's different types of hacker attacks or something, the idea is that this can adapt to real-time attacks and learn new things that were previously unknown to it. And then harden itself to be able to deal with that in the future so it's immune to such attacks. Well the problem with risk management is that not only can it protect you but it can be specifically reversed to amplify risks. It can be used for the exact opposite of that. It can be used to create risks where none existed before. And it can also be used to make existing risks within an enterprise, a business, security risks, can make them invisible. It can just say that, "Oh, there's nothing wrong here." when there is something wrong. You have a multifaceted way that this can be implemented. And this ties into 9/11 because ostensibly, the idea behind the interoperability that Ptech was touted as going to provide for the FAA and the Federal Aviation Administration's NAS, which is the National Airspace System, which the documents that talk about that, where this whole thing was engineered before 9/11. The documents from like 1999 from MITRE Corporation. There's 2 different ones from MITRE and 1 from the FAA dot gov website. You can still down download these. When you read the contents of them, they can still be used in a court of law to get people indicted for treason if you know what they're (the documents) talking about.

So anyways, the documents talk about the engineering, the actual use of Ptech to supposedly reconcile all of these former interoperability problems. And that everything was gonna be great and everything was just gonna be made so much more efficient and so forth. Well, the reality of it is is that it didn't create interoperability. You see, the new world order, the criminals that carried this out, when they're talking about interoperability, they're not talking about that for your benefit. They're not talking about it for the benefit of the people. That's for them. That's so they have interoperability. In other words, they have control. All of their people, all of their criminals are on the same page. They all have exclusive access to the system to exploit it however they want to and strip the administrative, supervisory controls from the people who would not otherwise be criminals, who would actually be doing their job to defend the United Stated against an internal threat of hijacked airliners or aircraft that have remotely been seized by this software through their advanced automatic flight systems, like ILS and so forth. So they strip the command and control away and the interoperability is in the hand of the new world order and everyone else is left with a chaotic scene of basically shock and awe. (That) is actually what that was, even back then. It was just total overload. And even what they did, that actually leads into another thing, which I'll get into later, called the OODA Loop. If you wanna really understand 9/11, you need to know what the OODA Loop is. And that's an abbreviation for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. It's a military term that was developed, it was coined by Col. John Boyd who was a fighter pilot like 50 years ago who had an exemplary dogfighting record of kills. He had like, I can't remember the number, like 84 planes that he shot down using his OODA loop.

Basically, in a nutshell, it is a methodology of outthinking your opponent. It is being able to preempt their actions and act upon where they're going to be so that when you're in the position to attack you're enemy, they're not even prepared to begin to react to your attack. Because they don't even know that you're gonna be there. And that's the methodology that was used on 9/11 against our own Department of Defense systems. That's how they did that.

They overloaded the response/decision, the legitimate command and control that could have otherwise stopped the black op from being executed. And that sets the whole precedent for the entire fraudulent war on terror and all of this, literally terror engineering is what you have. Or like what Indira Singh, in her own words talks about where she says, "The terror economy is alive and well." So, in one respect that's the replacement for the cold war. It's the new permanent enemy so that the new world order can have unlimited money for no bid contracts and to fight illegal wars and to basically enslave everyone, steal all the money so that they can eventually be unchallengeable.

So, the false flags, that whole thing is a very huge subject in terms of where you can go with that. The idea is that you have painstaking details of everything within wherever you have that software. And (this is) allowing you to attack whatever points that you want to. And also, you can set it up to blame whoever you want. And the thing of it is is that this is used in conjunction with the backdoor capability of this stuff.

The back-dooring into enterprise architecture that's based off of Ptech or the like, a PROMIS based program. That Ptech is just a name. You want to use a term that kinda is more encompassing, that could attribute for whatever it could be called. There's a lot of different companies that make the same exact thing. If you do some research, you will find that the current iteration of the actual company Ptech, in the United States, is a company called Intelligile. And they actually have a website that you can go to. And you can tell that that's what it is. Intelligile dot com. It's very interesting that there are no names of anyone on the website as far as who runs the company. And there's no street address. //laughs// And there's no phone number. So you can only E-Mail them if you wanna consult them about their software services. That's kinda interesting.

JC:It certainly seems that the picture you're painting is that all of the roads lead back to the DOD and most of them lead through these types of defense contractors and intelligence fronts. And you've done a good job of, I think, identifying a lot of the individuals that are connecting these dots. So can you go through some of the people and the companies that you've highlighted in your work?

AI:Sure. I'll do that. The one brief thing I wanted to mention was what Ptech represents. It falls under a title of what they call agile software methodology. There's several buzzwords that the new world order uses in their own documentation pertaining to all of this stuff. And one of those words is "agility". From their point of view, what that means is...that speaks to their predictive analysis. It's kind of like how you see articles now where they have cameras that can scan you. And they're trying to make it so they can scan your facial expressions and predict what you're gonna do. This idea of "pre-crime". That's where all of that stuff comes into play. It's like being able to preempt what you enemy's gonna do. And the enemy is the American people and everyone else, basically, that's not part of their cabal.

So anyways, just thought I'd mention that. The companies involved with this software that are involved with 9/11...and you can do your own research on this and your eyes will be greatly opened when you see the connections here. 'Cause a lot of these names are not talked about. There's weblogs obviously. But you don't hear about this stuff. You have SAIC, which is Science Applications International Corporation. It's a major defense contractor/police state company that is involved in the police state technology infrastructure. SAIC for example is one of the companies that is behind the gamma radiation scanners that they're gonna want everyone to drive through, that they can x-ray your vehicle to see if you have any terror materials on you, if you're carrying bombs or something. And then they claim, "Oh, don't worry. The radiation is safe. Don't worry about it." when it's been reported to be worse than an x-ray itself so that you get cancer and so forth.

//30 minutes into podcast//

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2010, 01:25:20 am »
//continuing transcript//

Anti_Illuminati:  You have a very obscure company that you don't hear about very much. (That) is EDS, Electronic Data Systems. A very central player in terms of the overall continuity of government agenda and martial law engineering on the technical end of things. They worked with Object Management Group, which, as you heard earlier, I mentioned that James Cerrato had dealings with them.

Incidentally, the significance behind Object Management Group is that they came with something that is called P4I. What that is is Policy, Procedures, and Pilot Program Implementations. That's a framework for world government that was used for the underpinnings of the organizational structure of the illegal, unconstitutional, military command called Northern Command. Northern Command is based on the things that Object Management Group created. Object Management Group created the idea of something called "Coalition Interoperability" which was the beginning of the global wargame martial law takeover drills that have been going on for the last nine of 10 years. It started I think maybe in 2000. Previously it was called JWID or Joint Warrior Interoperability Demonstration. And that's a key thing because that's how...using all of this enterprise architecture, these are global drills with foreign military. To where they're making sure that all of their military hardware can interoperate with each other so that they can successfully take over the entire planet by force. By basically a global military force that that they have the ability to do that. Whereas if you didn't have interoperability, you wouldn't have the ability to command these multinational enclaves, as Northern Command calls them in their own documents. There's actual documents that they have where they show them (enclaves0 attacking the United States to claim it. But they're saying, in the context, that they're just doing wargames. And a lot of the things that are on the maps are constantly reminiscent of a lot of the stuff that you're seeing happen. Like a missing Russian ship and stuff like that. So, that's very damning right there because it just shows with all of this technology what Ptech is part of being used for.

Other companies that are of note. You have Booz-Allen Hamilton, which was mentioned before. A lot of people are beginning to find out about them. The vice president around 9/11 was, I believe, Dov Zakheim. He was also the Pentagon comptroller where 2.6 trillion dollars went missing on his watch. He's a dual citizen, Israeli. He's a very interesting individual to say the least. Booz-Allen Hamilton incidentally is a subcontractor for the National Reconnaissance Office. And Mike McConnell had a role with them too. I'm not really sure off the top of my head what it was. If he was one of their head guys or something but there's so much info on this. Booz-Allen Hamilton has like 10,000 employees that have top secret security clearances. So, that's just one of those companies that's a revolving door back and forth to the Department of Defense. And they admit that they're involved with, for example, terror threat profiling, creating threat assessments on the American people. It's just another one of the major black op police state intelligence/consulting agencies.

The other big one is MITRE Corporation who is documented proof that they were involved in creating the back-doored National Airspace System architecture. The president during 9/11 was Dr. Rodney James Schlesinger who is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. A very instrumental player.

To mention another individual that's very significant, John J. Hamre who is the president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Very major player. Three days after 9/11 John J. Hamre wrote, in his own words, he said that he hopes that, in the aftermath of the rubble from 9/11, that a phoenix will rise from the ashes. An extremely blatant, in your face, new world order reference of the Hegelian dialectic basically praising the 9/11 attacks and saying how great it was because he was one of the architects as the president of the CSIS. The CSIS incidentally is one of the chief forces behind this so-called cyber security. They are an extension of the Council on Foreign Relations. They're just another leg of them, just part of the new world order as you already know. Some of the roundtable members, not only Zbigniew Brzezinski sits on the chair of that, but so does Henry Kissenger, and so does Obama's National Security Advisor James L. Jones. They're also involved heavily with securing cyberspace for the 44th presidency, the document that was drafted up. In conjunction, if you look into Sibel Edmonds, look into her testimony, you're gonna find that some of the people that she talks about that were directly involved in 9/11 with real proof, right? They're actually involved in cyber security. They're actually gonna be "in charge of protecting the networks for the United States". And one of those people is Mark Grosman. Where do you see his name in reference to cyber security? Well, if you look at the...there's a consortium that consists of all the big defense contractors. Raytheon, //1 word missed//, Lockheed Martin, Homeland Security, and Boeng and BAE Systems and on and on. There's a consortium that's called the NCOIC. These guys are a huge player. They're the guys who are taking over the internet. They're one of the groups that are taking over the internet for continuity of government. They're poised to do their part in their future false flag that they're gonna execute. And I argue, based on my research...this isn't really even my opinion...if you read their admissions, in just the context of what they're talking about, it seems to be that when they do their next cyber false flag, it will be in conjunction with their bioweapon attack with the flu. And that's a whole other thing. That's probably another show in and of itself.

The NCIOC. (The reason they should be looked into as far as their direct relevance to Ptech) is that the head Technical Chair Council Member of the NCOIC is the exact same guy that is one of the people that Indira Singh handed a letter to warning about Ptech. One of the chief information officers that she warned about Ptech when she was doing her investigation in 2002. And that guy's name is John Osterholz. And he blatently ignored Indira Singh because he knew what the hell was going on. He didn't do anything because, "Of course we carried out the attack. I'm not going to do anything about Ptech." He didn't say that obviously. But that's why he didn't do anything. And if you just look at what he says, there's an article, in fact I'll read it in a little bit. I have to pull it up. It's pretty short but it's very, very revealing. He's the guy that's the head of that calling for the elimination of the internet protocol version 4 to be supplanted with IPV6. And when IPV6 is actually in place, it's over. The free internet is totally over with because you will never have access to anything that you currently have access to. They will be able to filter things out to just an unimaginable level of censorship. They can implement other biometric authentication through that as well like Joe Lieberman wants. Through using IPV6 they can say, "Well, guess what? The only way you can get on the internet now is you have to submit a thumb scan or retinal scan." And then they'll know exactly who you are. And if you say anything, they'll just come and kill you or whatever they wanna do. It's one of the huge agendas that they have because once that occurs, then no one can expose their crimes anymore. See, this is the thing about the internet that's so significant. They're freaking out. You have Jay Rockefeller freaking out because these people are getting so exposed to such an unprecedented level that they didn't even realize.

I think, and a lot of people would probably agree with me on this, the new world order probably didn't expect people around the world to have figured out their game. We understand their psyops. We have all their documents about psyops and how they're trying to manipulate us. And then we can ignore that and defeat that because we know the tools that they use. We know all of their tools and all of the little deceptive things that they use so they're no longer effective. And it's forcing them to have to go back to the drawing board. And one thing, this point I wanna mention, is that Booz-Allen Hamilton...There's a conference where Michael Chertoff, the former DHS Secretary, along with a guy named Andy Singer, who was a principal at Booz-Allen Hamilton...when you read between the lines, when you read what they're talking about, this is in reference to a global wargame drill that they ran modeling a global pandemic outbreak of avian flu...this is in 2006...with a cyber attack in conjunction with that. And what Andy Singer said was //paraphrasing// that we need to make sure that our next false flags are highly believable. We need to make sure that they appear to be so natural and have circumstances for a backdrop for these things that are gonna happen, that we're gonna cause, that they just follow a series of events that just seem like they'll get everyone to just believe that "Hey, there's actual hackers that did this."

The economy. With what's going on with the manufactured economic crisis. It's already being used. But that's going to be driven into the minds of the people into making them believe that there's these desperate people that are going to engage in cyber crime to try to mitigate their own circumstances in the financial crisis. And they may use that to sat that, "Well, there's homegrown terrorists that are retaliating against the government, against the Federal Reserve for stealing all these tens of trillions of dollars. And now we have to shut the internet down because..." There's a number of ways they could play that. But do you see where I'm going with that? If people educate themselves on what they're doing with all of this stuff, nobody will buy their bull.

I read documents. I don't go just to websites and say, "Oh, I copy and paste an article and I post it here because I wanna make it seem like I know what I'm talking about." No, no, no. I read hundred-page documents. I read stuff that nobody wants to read because it's boring because I know that that's where the real information is. They don't expect you to do that. That's why you don't find a lot of the stuff that I have on the forums, on websites. That's exactly the point. It was never on a website. It was in a document buried somewhere. My goal is very simple. To completely discredit every possible avenue that the global crime syndicate can use to be able to get away with carrying out anything resembling 9/11 ever again. So that it will give the people, it will give free humanity the incentive and the understanding, the foundational wherewithal to not be deceived by anything that they could possibly do. If they don't have your mind, if they don't have the mind of the slaves from their point of view, there is no way in hell that they can defeat free humanity. It is impossible. The new world order, as powerful as they may appear to be, they still require my compliance, they require your compliance, and they require your neighbor's compliance for their system to be implemented. If you say "No", they cannot succeed. But the key is, you have to have most people that understand what's going on and stop fighting with each other and realize that they are, in fact, the real enemy to a degree that you totally see that so that you'll have the strength to resist all their crap. So that you'll be able to say "no" to retinal scans. What am I talking about? That's an example. To say "no" to the national/world ID card. You'd mass protest it. You've got people going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their license renewed, and they say, "Hey, you need facial recognition for that." Could you imagine if 70,000 people in a city said. "Guess what? I don't think so. You are not facially scanning men into an enterprise architecture database where you can use that digital data..." that basically is like a fingerprint, but it's of your face "...and use that for identity theft purposes if I don't play along with your game, if I'm a good enough globalist, so set me up for crimes that I haven't committed because you..." like in the movie "The Net" from 1995 with Sandra Bullock. "We planted your digital biometric data somewhere and now you have 50 felonies and you never committed a crime. But guess what? The computer says you did. So you're doing life in prison." That's the consequences. That's an example of what can happen and what they can do with all of this stuff. That's why you have to say no to it. That's what the reason to learn about this is. Because they wanna make this affect your life in a bad, bad way.

There's a video that I've compiled. It's not footage that I took. It is one of the most significant things that anyone could ever look at. It will give you an incredible foundational understanding of what is at stake and what the new world order actually intends, and is doing, and what they intend to do even further. And what this video is titled as, it is called "Ptech built Supply Chain Infrastructure - Destruction of Free Market". And this was posted last month on vimeo dot com. I can give you the exact address and it's 52 minutes long. That is the most powerful thing that I've ever seen in terms of exposing the technological end of what they're doing and putting it...not dumbing it down at all, but yet putting it in layman's terms so that virtually anybody who watches this will basically get a total understanding to enough of a degree that they'll know what's going on. So, if you wanna comment on anything, go ahead. I need to catch my breath here.

James Corbett:  Absolutely. Well, I certainly agree education is absolutely one of the keys to defeating the system by discrediting it so that whatever they try, and they have many tricks up their sleeve, but whatever they try will fail because they've been so thoroughly discredited. And I agree that education is absolutely the cornerstone of that. And that's why we are in the infowar. But basically it sounds like maybe we should be implementing an OODA Loop against the new world order in the infowar. I guess I'm just trying to come to terms with what...I certainly see how this process is moving and how they're developing their technology. But I guess I wanna see what is the endgame and what would the world look like if they were able to implement all the systems that they're attempting to at the moment?

AI:Well, there's that old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. And if you want a quick answer to that, all you have to do is go to Google and click on "images" and in quotes, type in "network centric warfare" and do a search. And when you look at those pictures, that is your answer right there.

To accompany that, you will see a total war zone. You will see the world, the planet earth, transformed into a state of persistent total destruction, murder, genocide, and war and just exacting tyranny against everyone who does not willfully submit and say, "Ok. Please put me in a reeducation camp." Basically what it comes down to is anyone who doesn't go to the reeducation camps is gonna die. That's what they wanna do. That's up to us whether that's gonna happen.

Homeland Security. I hate to even use that term 'cause it's completely inaccurate. There's all kinds of articles where they're flying unmanned aerial vehicles at the US-Canadian border and they're using them at the southern border as well. They're ramping all this stuff up. They just ran a big terror drill up in the Great Lakes. There was an internal memo from Northern Command that leaked out that they didn't want. And they were very upset about it. (The memo) talked about a terror threat. They said it was like Al-Qaeda or whoever it was. They said there was a terror threat up at the Canadian border. What the world would look like is you'd have robotic aircraft flying all over the place that would be up linked to the Global Information Grid feeding all of their IMINT or Multi-INT, to be more accurate. Multi-INT just means multiple intelligence. Multiple sources of intelligence. With all of their control-freak technology. All of their thermal imaging, the different types of optics that they have and so forth. And now their algorithm and the could face scan you from 60,000 feet up in the air with their blimps that they have and their UAV Predators and their Global Hawks flying around. It's kinda like, if you haven't seen this, here's another thing too I'll mention.

There's a video. It's an old video from 2005 from DARPA. It's called "DARPA IXO". A lot of people know about it If you don't know about it, you can view this at veoh. Go to veoh dot com. It's just a video upload site and just type in "DARPA". I have uploaded the video there, and you can watch it there. That's a video showing all of their network-centric warfare, which just means the human has effectively been removed from the cockpit of any aircraft and from ground vehicles. Everything is basically antonymous. Everything is governed from a computer command and control center. That's the new world order's future for America and for the world is to have everything run out of command and control, militarized hubs. All of the formerly civilian sectors of society will no longer exist and will be replaced by a militarized, largely antonymous, supply chain infrastructure. They phase people out. The necessity of having people in the workforce in various areas. They phase that stuff out slowly. It's not necessarily immediate where, "Hey, suddenly robots are dong everything.". They'll phase that in. (robotics) They'll have all the organic food to themselves. They'll live off of the fruits of the earth from their own protected stuff like their seed vault. While the slaves will just be given all the stuff that's poisoned. And if they're not already murdered, they'll be dying from any disease that you could think of from Codex Alimentarius being in effect to where nutrients are no longer allowed and poisons are the new nutrients and so forth.

I hate to use something that's fictional, but it's really quite accurate conceptually. Something like "The Terminator". The hunter-killer cybernetic drones that fly around and just kill anything in sight. That's exactly what they're doing. How they (robots) look is irrelevant. I actually broke that story on the forums. A guy that was in Air Force intelligence for over 5 years contacted me and wrote up an article regarding the info that I brought up about that. And he submitted it to, I believe, Infowars or Prisonplanet. And it actually got posted. It got posted with the document that I linked to. So, it's pretty long (document) but it's from the Air Force Research Laboratory and it talks about how they admit that. "Yeah, we're eliminating pilots. The real reason why we're getting rid of the F-22 program is because we can kill more people with Predator drones and with a lot less money." There's nobody that says "no". There's no accountability.

One thing I wanna point out too is all the military hardware. Ptech was used to build an architecture for the Department of Defense. This was done before 9/11. This was only enhanced, only made more powerful an capable in the years following. And they created something called DODAF, which just means Department of Defense Architecture Framework. It is the framework that Ptech built for interoperability to have all their systems integrated. All of their disparate...what would otherwise have been disparate, non compatible communications systems and so forth.

//60 minutes into podcast//

AI:Everything is now able to be commanded can command an entire army from a computer in a command center. They're talking about, for example, with UAV's, they have SWARM technology. Where one person sitting at a computer can fly four Predator drones simultaneously and have them attack targets at will. And have them all synchronized and avoid colliding with each other and being able to selectively pick out whatever targets that they need to pick out and attack. Using Ptech, the bottom line, in one respect, is they can make sure that only the criminals, the really hardcore...if there's anyone that remotely would not want to engage in genocide, they can easily remove you from the chain of command.

I did a show called "Piercing the Darkness" back in April with an actual cyber security expert who worked for Motorola and Sun Microsystems. And, in his words, he said that the new world order doesn't even wan Four-Star Generals to be in charge of anything anymore. They're just gonna be there on the sidelines so to speak while the software makes the battle command, strategy, execution decisions. And the General takes a back seat to the artificial intelligence. Now of course in whatever aspect that the new world order sees fit or that they need to be in control, they will always be in control. There's no point in going off into a discussion of Skynet in terms of where this stuff is totally sentient ant totally doesn't need any human interaction. It's really irrelevant, even if someone wants to talk about that because the people who are in charge of it are totally evil, psychopathic, murdering pieces of trash. That would be just as evil as if the stuff operated on its own like in Hollywood films to begin with. So, that whole argument is a moot point anyways. 'Cause I've seen people try to say that to deemphasize or to downplay it or something.

There is a specific thing that I wanna get into while I can, if I have the time. (This is) pertaining to Ptech. It's very significant. It's a big part of 9/11 that nobody really has talked about. I don't know if you wanna interject, if you wanna comment on anything or ask me anything before I do that. It's a very interesting thing that I'm gonna bring up.

JC:I'm just excited to hear what you have to say.

AI:Sure. Cool. One of the things that I'm gonna say here could be construed as actual bombshell information. I'm just being serious because virtually nobody knows this. There's a very significant thing here and any of you who are listening...and by the way, it's theoretically possible that Indira Singh may be listening to this show. I hope she does. And if you're listening, Indira, God bless you for your sacrifice and your selfless contribution and fearlessness and really getting to the bottom of the eugenicists who have carried out this attack and are continuing to destroy what is left of our republic. I commend you and I cannot thank you enough for what you've done. And I sincerely mean that.

Here's the key. And anybody who's gonna research this, this is gonna open up everything in a very big way. The chief scientist of Ptech, in his own words, he made a reference to a guy that is very, very significant. Dr. Hussein Ibrahim mentioned that Ptech was worked on at a specific place. That it was engineered for use in C2 process modeling. C2, all it means is Command and Control. That's the new world order's abbreviation for it. The thing that he talked about was this. He specifically said that Ptech was worked on at a place called System Architectures Laboratory at George Mason University. Why is that significant? 'Cause the head director of the System Architectures Laboratory is a guy by the name of Alexander H. Levis. He is the other scientist that engineered Ptech. Indira Singh probably doesn't even know who Alexander Levis is. Now she does, if she ever hears this. If she looks into it, I'm sure she will find that everything I'm gonna say is accurate. Why is he significant? //lchickle// Well, if you type in "System Architectures Laboratory" in a search engine, you can go to the website, and you will see a huge list of documents, PDF files going back to 1995. And these documents detail the engineering work involving artificial intelligence and all of the intricacies and extremely advanced mathematics that, I don't even know what kind of math it is. I had someone tell me that they brought this to a postgraduate student, a friend that was a genius mat major, and, when he was shown these documents, and this is just what he said to me, he actually got scared and said. "I don't think you're supposed to be looking at this. Where the hell did you get this stuff from?" The documents that are there show wargaming scenarios that are depicted in red and blue teams fighting each other. Kind of like Waco. Kind of like a situation where the FBI or federalized law enforcement would be fighting the American people. Those type of situations like that to where they model using all this advanced mathematics and artificial intelligence. They've modeled since 1995 at least, as early as we know, martial law takeover scenarios in the digital realm. So that they can apply what they learn in the digital realm to real world to be able to effectively take over entire civilizations, to take over cities, to actually succeed in a FEMA roundup of people, to make sure everybody goes to the death camps. Also incorporating all of the data mining. They know everything about each individual and who poses what threats. Incorporating that so that they can formulate a more effective strategy in a martial law takeover. The documents talk about that they actually premeditatively engineered both Iraq wars six to eight years before the wars occurred. Tell me that isn't criminal.

JC:That's incredible. What is the name of the document?

AI:They're PDF files. They're not named per se in terms of a name that...the PDFs themselves are just like alphanumeric numbers but there's a description on them. And I would have to go look at the site to actually read them off to you.

JC:But they are available from the SAL website?

AI:Yes. They are. And, by the way, a lot of them, I've actually posted them on the forum as well. I image extracted them and posted them up. There's like probably 50 of them there. I'm not even sure how many there are off the top of my head. There's a lot. But the ones about the Iraq wars are there. I'm not sure what the exact name of those ones are but they're there.

JC:And this ties directly back into the birth of Ptech?

AI:Yeah. None of those documents make mention of Ptech. The ones at the System Architectures Lab specifically. I don't know why they don't mention it but you can tell that that's what they're talking about. They do have other tools that they use that they do mention such as CAESAR. It's a tool that Dr. Alexander Levis created. It's called CAESAR II. And then CAESAR III. And then they also use computational software called TEMPER and PYTHIA. Those are the things that he uses. I'm not a software engineer so I don't know if those tools themselves were created with Ptech. It's possible that they were, particularly CAESAR itself. But here's the thing. There's a document by Alexander Levis himself from a different source where he makes mention of Ptech. In his own document he talks about Ptech. He just makes a reference to it in the context of the topic that he's talking about which, I think it's just C4I...that just stands for Command and Control, Computers, Communications, and Intelligence. That's what that abbreviation is. It's one of his C4I documents that's on the forums. I could pull it up and read it. But it just proves that Alexander Levis is well aware of what Ptech was. Not just that but he was using it. But it's not even just from his admission. It's the fact that Dr. Ibrahim said that that's where it was being worked on. Ibrahim doesn't specifically mention Dr. Levis but he mentioned SAL and if he's talking about that, he's obviously talking about him because that guy is the head of the thing. He's the head of it so obviously he's involved with that.

And I actually have this video of Alexander Levis too that I found. I will put that in a link so that you can watch it. To view it, it's RealMedia. I don't like RealMedia player but you can watch it through like MediaPlayer Classic with...I think you might have to use a Real alternative plugin or something.

Not only was Dr. Levis a professor at George Mason University, he was also the Chief Scientist for the US Air Force up until, I believe, 2004. So that tells you something right there. The document where he mentions Ptech has the Air Force logo on it.

JC:So once again, it ties right back into the DOD and all of the various organizations associated with that.

AI:Yes. One real important thing I wanna mention that anybody can do to see what the real deal is here. If you go to the web archives, webrchive dor org, and if you type in Ptech's website, ptechinc dot com, and you use the wayback machine...obviously the site is no longer'll produce several results going back as far as 2002. Off the top of my head, there's like 5 or 6 different links. Each of the links that are an archive with the respective year have different...they may allow you to browse through their contents moreso than others. They're not all the same. Dunno if you've ever noticed that where you might put in a website and one of the archives has more subdirectories that actually work and don't result in an error message that "Oh, it's no longer here.". When you go through Ptech in one of those links, it will take you directly to Department of Defense PDFs that just show that the Department of Defense was using this software to facilitate the transformation of the military forces into a cohesive force. It's migrated from Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard into the joint staff. Everything is joint, joint, joint. That's what everything is. And that was all made possible by this software. But the point I'm trying to make on that note is how damning is it to see direct DOD links. Those are internal links from Ptech to the Department of Defense PDF files talking about their setup of enterprise architecture for the military. There you go right there.

JC:Absolutely. It leads directly back to the Pentagon's door and I guess this...

AI:Yeah. And the key thing that ties into this too...and I want your listeners to know this. Indira Singh actually has many interviews that she's done. I believe there's like 4 or 5 different interviews that she's done with various people. And I can consolidate all of that to where they can all be downloadable. She did an interview with Bonnie Falkner of Guns and Butter. She did an interview with a, I forget the guy's name, a guy who was a Special Forces Colonel during Vietnam. She did a show with a guy who was in Special Forces that was concurring with a lot of stuff Indira was saying about black ops and about the terror connections that she was bringing up. That's a really interesting interview because this particular Colonel they were talking about, he witnessed acts of total Geneva Convention violations and high treason during Vietnam and how they wanted him to carry out black ops and everything and he said, "No. I Don't think so. I'm not a traitor to my country." So it's just interesting to see that someone in Special Forces is in the company of Indira Singh in an interview. That's kind of telling. You don't just have something like that set up if you're not for real. Do you know what I mean?

JC:Absolutely, yeah.

AI:Probably her most important interview that she's done in my opinion is the one that she did with Michael Corbin. Michael Corbin had a patriot radio show that he did and he's dead. I'm not sure what it was...maybe a year, or several months after he had Indira Singh on his show. After that, he was gonna go into some really, really hardcore stuff. And at 50 years of age, he just drops dead of a heart attack. And that was the end of it. So nobody knows. The new world order...if you look into their history of people that just die, there's a lot of people that just miraculously end up with hear attacks. You know what I mean?

JC:The number of people who either just suddenly drop dead or are suicided is obviously suspicious. And that even ties back to, of course, Danny Casolaro and the octopus and BCCI which relates also to PROMIS and INSLAW which ties back to Ptech. So, it's all one big structure in which there are so many people trying to expose and dig at the roots of what's going on but one by one, they either fall or are discredited in some way. So, it's up to all of us, all of us who are listening out there and who have access to this information to start getting the word out. And they can take us out one by one but they can't take out a mass of people. And, as you say, if 70,000 people in one city stopped and refused to get biometrically scanned for the new ID's that's going in, then they can't implement that system. So, Anti_Illuminati, we've covered an incredible amount of information in this hour and I think we might be reaching information overload for us mere mortals. But is there any final point you'd like to make to sort of leave the listeners with?

AI:Sure. I could definitely continue this and go on to some really hardcore info I wanted to get into that I apparently don't have time for right now. One of the main motives for carrying out 9/11 was to be able to push forward with the implementation of the Global Information Grid, to where they can enforce the consolidation and be able to vertically and horizontally integrate all aspects of governance, government, into their continuity of government which of the important tenants of that is that the way the government is now, there's physical locations where you can approach your representatives. You can go to your City Council meetings. The new world order wants to get rid of all of that stuff and manage, you know, enforce their global laws, their laws like their Georgia Guidestone stuff and their United Nations stuff. You're not allowed to have any consultation. There's no questioning. So you don't need buildings anymore. And that ties in with the carbon footprint stuff too. It's like they're demonizing the very fact that you have a home or that there's all these buildings. There's all this carbon footprint stuff. We need to get rid of this. And they're moving to this model, which has been planned many years ago, to manage dictatorial governance and to make it so that they can never be held accountable for what they're doing. That they'll be unreachable and that their systems will not be able to be overthrown after they've overthrown our systems. One of the ways that they've been talking about doing that is with the flu pandemic thing with the cyber false flag threat that they're talking about. And you're seeing these mild little attacks that they're engaging in. PROMIS can do all this stuff very easily.

In their own words they wanna shut down all "non-critical systems". Whatever they consider non-critical in terms of running, in terms of existing in the United States, they'll shut down. And they're gonna implement teleworking. All this long-distance learning, like e-learning, teleworking, e-government, e-governance. And that ties into the flu because they can use that to say that now our critical infrastructure cannot be manned. Like say, for example, we can't have people working at the Pentagon because there's all this bioweapon stuff everywhere. Well, they won't say that. They'll say that everything's contaminated and our government's breaking down. We've been decapitated in light of something like NSPD-51 like the terminology they use. And the only way that we can save the United States is that we have to implement a secure internet to manage this crisis so that we'll have secure systems. They can say that during the flu pandemic that there's all this cyber attack stuff happening that exacerbating, this is the key, that could be exacerbating the problem of the flu, interfering with emergency response. They could say that there's hackers that are attacking police station networks, that are attacking infraguard or any type of first responders. And the people that are actually in the government will actually believe this crap and think that the American people are really the enemy. That the American people, because they'll think that they're retaliating against the financial catastrophe that's happening and so forth, against the government. They'll actually perceive that we're really the enemy when the new world order is actually carrying out al this stuff for the express purpose of being able to finally destroy the internet as we know it and replace it with their internet so that we can't talk to each other. We're not supposed to be talking to each other right now from their point of view. We're supposed to shut up. We're not shutting up. I don't think so. OK? That's their mentality. It doesn't matter how intimidating they get or how know what hurts the new world order?

This awareness of what I'm gonna mention real quick has to be applied to everything else. When George Bush was President, they got the American People afraid because they showed you horrific unprecedented crimes of people getting their heads cut off by Al-Qaida. You don't give up your rights, you're gonna see more people with their heads cut off with knives. We don't play that game anymore. We know that that was Kroll Associates and CACI. We know who carried out that stuff. So, your little torture ops, little death squads that you used even way before 9/11. We're not afraid of that anymore. See you can show all the dead bodies you want to because we know that you carried it out. You're the criminals. You're the murderers. And it's not some ambiguous external threat.

And the last thing I'll mention. You wanna look into the heart of the new world order to see how they operate and how they think? Go and research a guy by the name of Thomas Barnett. //spells last name// Look into that guy. And there's a video that he has where he created a book called "The Pentagon's New Map". It talks about something called the Leviathan force and the Sys Admin force. It's all part of continuity of government. He's a hardcore new world order pawn. He's just some midlevel or low-level guy that is pushing their agenda for total tyrant and fascism.

When you look into their key people like that that expose...when I say key, I mean that within the context of the contents of what they're talking about, they're openly admitting and they're revealing to you, even though it's unclassified, they're showing you a window into the real operations of the new world order that they really don't want you to figure it out. They don't really want you to know that. I mean, it's not like they don't think anybody would ever figure it out. They want you to be like in your former interview where that guy interviewed you where you're talking about "Everybody talks about controlled demolition." No, no, no. You look at the big picture and everything becomes so much more into focus. And the more you know, the more incentive and the more conviction you'll have to know that you know the truth. I would like to see a mass class action lawsuit especially in light of Sibel Edmonds revelations recently against the people who we have prosecutable evidence to bring people into court. As hard as that would be to do, the real criminals who carried out 9/11, the real criminals who carried out 7/7 and so forth, they're not being prosecuted. They need to be. They need to be held accountable.

Keep on looking at George Mason University. Like I said, everything I just talked about, I'm gonna put links to it in a thread. And look into Alexander Levis. Look at the stuff that I posted on the Prisonplanet forum about him with all his documentation. And you will find that he is one of the key guys. And that even Indira Singh herself in her interview with Michael Corbin said that Yasin al-Qadi himself was a front man. They selected him because, in her own words, they would be able to handle the cover up to other people in the government. He basically served as good perception management to keep your eyes off of like say, Dick Cheney and other people and just flat out the Department of Defense. People like him are there to obfuscate I'm not saying anything said about him previously isn't true. It's just that you need to see through these people. You need to look through them and see who are the players here. Who engineered this stuff? What are all the details that surround everything? And then you get to where you really find out what this is all about.

And one last thing. And I promise you, I'm done. One of the most important things that you have to keep in mind regarding Ptech is that the man who advised Indira Singh on using Ptech for her risk blueprint for JP Morgan was none other than the father of enterprise architecture. The guy who recommended it to her, and there were other people, but the main guy was John Zachman. John Zachman, in his own words, said the following statement. And this is so damning, it's rediculous. You could subpoena him and bring him into court with this. He said in reference to Ptech's capabilities, "You would know where the axis points are. You would know how to get in. You would know where the weaknesses are, and you would know how to destroy it." That came from the father of enterprise architecture. So that statement crushes the lies of former Homeland Security head, Tom Ridge where he said that the software is safe. Hey, John Zachman is one of the new world order's key guys. He's one of their own people. And he even admitted that it back-doors all this stuff and can be used to destroy any system that it's implemented on. That's like Lord Rothchild saying Ptech can do this. That's how significant that statement is. That's what people need to realize.

JC:Absolutely. And I agree people need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and not be so focused on some of the tiny details. The picture itself is just so vast and understanding even pieces of it is quite mind boggling but definitely worth the effort. Well Anti_Illuminati, as I say, we've covered an incredible amount of information today. So, I'm looking forward to seeing that post and, as I say, I'll link that up on the documentation list for this interview. So it's been a pleasure talking with you and I certainly hope to see more of your great work on the Prisonplanet forum in the future.

AI:Alright, James. It's been a pleasure, thanks for having me.

//end transcript//


Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2010, 01:44:28 am »
A much needed thread, and a funny title.  I really think this is why people in the fifties and forward were referring to what they perceived as a conspiracy of the military-industrial complex though we know it is so much more, and that it is really an extension of a planetary control grid to be instituted largely by the international banking cartel on behalf of the global elite such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Windsors (House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha) etc.

They had infiltrated the military establishment and military contractors early on, in all likelihood and the military and military supply chain became the model for the system of total control they wanted to institute around the world in every sphere of life -- a truly totalitarian system of control.

When Rockefeller was taped clandestinely talking about a conspiracy toward world government in the early nineties, he said it had been in place about forty years (thanking various media outlets for their cooperation in keeping it secret for all that time).  This takes us back to the early fifties -- exactly when Eisenhower in his famous farewell address warned the nation about a military-industrial complex which could potentially take over and may well have done so by assassinating his successor in the White House, J.F.K.

We are living in the aftermath of that era.  What has been going on is that through their covert control of our overt government, these elites have been slowly working toward creating through it their dream society of total control.

A lot of people may not get why anti_illuminati is si dogged in his investigation of the military and the military supply chain (military industry) -- together, the military industrial complex, because so much analysis of the functioning of the global elite nowadays does not focus on this aspect of it, but it is a much neeeded field of research, though it is sometimes filled with obscure concepts, methodology and systems -- it is sometimes material filled with jargon or terminology specific to this industry (necessarily) and so sometimes appears dry, or irrelevant, or obtuse (which it really is), though in order to really get into the midset of the people we are up against on the other side (those people Dig calls the "sub-elite") it really is necessary to look at this kind of material and try to analyze what they are trying to do.

Anyways, definitely deserving of a tribute.

Offline grapecrusher1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2010, 02:08:27 am »
Yup, kudos to AI.

Impressive that someone is motivated to read through all of that ultra-dry pulp and interpret its relevance to reality.

I'm sure we only see a fraction of what he consumes.
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2010, 11:52:31 am »

I plugged this study guide in the Infowars / prison planet comment sections, so please mods, don't re-name or move for at least 2 days,   thanks.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2010, 12:06:13 pm »
Where to find most of Anti_Illuminati's research:

PhD Investigative Reports (only for the hardcore)

Cyberterror false flags used to promote scientific dictatorship (cyberterrorism is a racket)

Ptech and the use of transportation (Planes, Trains, and Automobiles) for assassinations and false flags

SWINE FLU EXPOSED! Evidence that NOVARAX/CDC/WHO/BAXTER/ROCHE created the PANDEMIC for power and profit!

Smart Power! Smart Grid! Smart Genocides! Smart Exterminations

(also the child boards within the Swine Flu Exposed board)

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2010, 09:22:59 pm »
Anti-Illuminati is super hot! My hero :D
Make it so!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2010, 11:09:24 pm »

I plugged this study guide in the Infowars / prison planet comment sections, so please mods, don't re-name or move for at least 2 days,   thanks.

It ain't going nowhere!

Thanks for all your work on this BTT!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline XR500Final2

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2010, 05:41:04 am »
This is  awesome,  Their is one failing point in all of this.  There is only 3 comments on this forum, and I guess I'm about roughly the fourth.  My only point is that this is like a genius mathematician who found the anti-Gravity formula, but its so complex, inter-twisted and convoluted that only 3 other people in the world can (and will) take the time to understand it.  De-tangling the Illuminati's tangled spider web is basically the same thing.  Most people don't have the comprehension or patience or time to do the same.

However if you can just summarize the key points, and make it into a documentary, you'll wake up a million and they'll all understand what you two guys have figured out.

One documentary that went over that exact topic was 'Wake Up Call'  - I termed it a 'pinnacle documentary' because it was one of the few that tied the money, military, and yep - thirst for total spectrum dominance inside its 2 1/2 hours roughly, and pieced it all together.  They talked specifically that the objective was a 'All Seeing Eye' that is everything tracked, everyone watched, and the electronics moving forward rapidly was just an attempt at this, and the US military was the implementation of this around the world.

14 seeders as of the time of this writing have a copy of it over at

Offline XR500Final2

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2010, 05:49:39 am »
Secondly the fact we have all this breaking research all concentrated on this forum (which could easily be knocked off by the US government is quite disconcerting)..  It would be really wise and prudent to packet the information into a portable PDF file, and toss it up to and anybody's computer that wants a copy.

An opensource PDF creator that can 'print to PDF' is namely PDFCreator. (totally free)

EVERYBODY should have a copy of it, and be using it to packet up information into a portable format so it can be shotgunned around the world and impossible to censor.

Question : Didn't someone make an archival copy of in its entirety it would be nice to get a copy of it.  I had a linux box attempting a crawl a couple years back but didn't follow up on it.  Anyone know where to find it.

Truthfully is really a researcher's forum it is so detailed and so much information here.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2010, 12:31:50 am »

Treasonous NORTHCOM/DHS Scientific Dictatorship, Prison Grid
by Anti_Illuminati
October 23, 2008
9min 55sec

This is a compilation illustrating the scientific New World Order dictatorship governed by Lord Rothschild/Queen Beatrix, and David Rockefeller's criminal jack booted Northern Command army which was used to threaten the U.S. Congress with physical martial law in America if the so-called bailout bill was not passed. One of their jobs is to protect this globalist crime syndicate who looted 10+ trillion from the retirement accounts in the U.S.A. Northcom's HQ is located in Colorado Springs, CO in a mountain facility. They were directly involved in carrying out the attacks of 9/11 against the Republic of the United States. They have committed high treason besides mass murder, and they must and will one day be held accountable and be judged for their works. I know their works, I know their minds, and I have laid before you here a glimpse of their evil in such a way that is very damaging and discrediting to them. Knowing your enemy is half the battle.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2010, 11:16:10 pm »
CAESAR III is a temporal analysis program used for wargaming and predicting "enemy" behavior.

You can read more about it here:

CAESAR III - Inferring Adversary Intent & Estimating Behavior
Upgrading CAESAR via successful 7/7/05 False Flag Execution

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2010, 11:23:48 pm »
Thank you for this, I am also a fan of AI's work. And I understand it well, I just had a hard time conveying it in simple terms, again thanks for this work.
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2010, 01:46:49 pm »

Cloud computing

Cloud computing is Internet-based computing, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices on demand, as with the electricity grid.  Most cloud computing infrastructures consist of services delivered through common centers and built on servers. Clouds often appear as single points of access for consumers' computing needs.

Cloud computing is a natural evolution of the widespread adoption of virtualization, Service-oriented architecture and utility computing. Details are abstracted from consumers, who no longer have need for expertise in, or control over, the technology infrastructure "in the cloud" that supports them. Cloud computing describes a new supplement, consumption, and delivery model for IT services based on the Internet, and it typically involves over-the-Internet provision of dynamically scalable and often virtualized resources. It is a byproduct and consequence of the ease-of-access to remote computing sites provided by the Internet. This frequently takes the form of web-based tools or applications that users can access and use through a web browser as if it were a program installed locally on their own computer. NIST provides a somewhat more objective and specific definition here. The term "cloud" is used as a metaphor for the Internet, based on the cloud drawing used in the past to represent the telephone network, and later to depict the Internet in computer network diagrams as an abstraction of the underlying infrastructure it represents. Typical cloud computing providers deliver common business applications online that are accessed from another Web service or software like a Web browser, while the software and data are stored on servers.

In today's computing, most consumers have a personal hard drive.  In the future, personal hard drives will no longer be made, and all of your data will be stored on an outside server.

Carbonite, which is advertised heavily on Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh's shows is an example of cloud computing.  All of the contents of your personal hard drive end up on a Carbonite server if you sign up for their service.

Offline lordssyndicate

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,141
  • Stop The New World Order
    • LinkedIn Profile
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2010, 05:05:34 pm »
a small addition ... the evolution of P-Tech and the entire new set of AI systems rely on CORBA, AGILE, and other frameworks developed by the Object Management Group. aka OMG.
"Biotechnology it's not so bad. It's just like all technologies it's in the wrong HANDS!"- Sepultura

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2010, 12:19:04 am »
Read this 52 page white paper on Information Warfare:

A Research Paper
Presented To
The Research Department
Air Command and Staff College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements of ACSC
Major Mary M. Gillam
March 1997

Offline TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,404
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2010, 11:19:04 pm »
Anti_Illuminati:  You have a very obscure company that you don't hear about very much. (That) is EDS, Electronic Data Systems. A very central player in terms of the overall continuity of government agenda and martial law engineering on the technical end of things. They worked with Object Management Group, which, as you heard earlier, I mentioned that James Cerrato had dealings with them.

Interesting how Perot ( 1990's patriot movement presidential candidate)  was head of EDS....

Can you say  "Controlled Opposition" ?

Perot founded Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in 1962, ...

sold the company to General Motors in 1984,
and founded Perot Systems in 1988. Perot Systems was bought by Dell for $3.9 billion in 2009
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2010, 11:24:17 pm »
And Perot started out working for IBM, but I don't know if it is as simple as that -- unless the PTB really wanted me to wake up form the left-right paradigm at the time, because Perot certainly helped lead me down the road that would lead to that.

Unintended consequence.

You mean Bob Dole wasn't controlled oppostion?  What the was he then?

They needed more thatn one?

They knew they needed to branch out back then?

I'm not sure I believe that.  Maybe, it's not that simple.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2011, 08:35:56 pm »

The OODA Loop model was developed by Col. John Boyd, USAF (Ret) during the Korean War. It is a concept consisting of the following four actions:

    * Observe
    * Orient
    * Decide
    * Act

This looping concept referred to the ability possessed by fighter pilots that allowed them to succeed in combat. It is now used by the U.S. Marines and other organizations. The premise of the model is that decision-making is the result of rational behavior in which problems are viewed as a cycle of Observation, Orientation (situational awareness), Decision Making, and Action. Boyd diagrammed the OODA loop as shown in the figure below:

Cycling Through OODA

An entity (whether an individual or an organization) that can process this cycle more quickly than an opponent can “get inside” the opponent's decision cycle and gain the advantage.


Scan the environment and gather information from it.


Use the information to form a mental image of the circumstances. That is, synthesize the data into information. As more information is received, you "deconstruct" old images and then "create" new images. Note that different people require different levels of details to perceive an event. Often, we imply that the reason people cannot make good decisions, is that people are bad decisions makers — sort of like saying that the reason some people cannot drive is that they are bad drivers. However, the real reason most people make bad decisions is that they often fail to place the information that we do have into its proper context. This is where "Orientation" comes in. Orientation emphasizes the context in which events occur, so that we may facilitate our decisions and actions. That it, orientation helps to turn information into knowledge. And knowledge, not information, is the real predictor of making good decisions.


Consider options and select a subsequent course of action.


Carry out the conceived decision. Once the result of the action is observed, you start over. Note that in combat (or competing against the competition), you want to cycle through the four steps faster and better than the enemy, hence, it is a loop.

Interactive Web

The loop doesn't mean that individuals or organizations have to observe, orient, decide, and act, in the order as shown in the diagram above. Rather, picture the loop as an interactive web with orientation at the core, as shown in the diagram below. Orientation is how we interpret a situation, based on culture, experience, new information, analysis, synthesis, and heritage

Thus, the loop is actually a set of interacting loops that are kept in continuous operation.


“OO-OO-OO!” is the sound of a broken OODA Loop.  The goal is to get your adversary to never make decisions or to act on them.  You want your adversary to constantly observe and orient over and over again until they are overwhelmed.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2011, 08:43:27 pm »

Colonel John (Richard) Boyd (January 23, 1927 – March 9, 1997) was a United States Air Force fighter pilot and Pentagon consultant of the late 20th century, whose theories have been highly influential in the military, sports, and business.

Military theories
During the early 1960s, Boyd, together with Thomas Christie, a civilian mathematician, created the Energy-Maneuverability, or E-M, theory of aerial combat. A legendary maverick by reputation, Boyd was said to have "stolen" the computer time to do the millions of calculations necessary to prove the theory, but it became the world standard for the design of fighter planes. At a time when the Air Force's FX project (subsequently the F-15) was foundering, Boyd's deployment orders to Vietnam were canceled and he was brought to the Pentagon to re-do the trade-off studies according to E-M. His work helped save the project from being a costly dud, even though its final product was larger and heavier than he desired. However, cancellation of that tour in Vietnam meant that Boyd would be one of the most important air-to-air combat strategists with no combat kills. He had only flown a few missions in the last months of the Korean War, and all of them as a wingman.

With Colonel Everest Riccioni and Pierre Sprey, Boyd formed a small advocacy group within Headquarters USAF which dubbed itself the "Fighter Mafia". Riccioni was an Air Force fighter pilot assigned to a staff position in Research and Development, while Sprey was a civilian statistician working in Systems Analysis. Together, they were the visionaries who conceived the LFX Lightweight Fighter program, which ultimately produced both the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet, the latter a development of the YF-17 Light Weight Fighter. Boyd's acolytes were also largely responsible for developing the Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II or "Warthog" ground-support aircraft, though Boyd himself had little sympathy of the "air-to-mud" assignment.[4]

After his retirement from the Air Force in 1975, Boyd continued to work at the Pentagon as a consultant in the Tactical Air office of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation.

Boyd is credited for largely developing the strategy for the invasion of Iraq in the first Gulf War. In 1981 Boyd had presented his briefing, Patterns of Conflict, to Richard Cheney, then a member of the United States House of Representatives.[1] By 1990 Boyd had moved to Florida because of declining health, but Cheney (then the Secretary of Defense in the George H. W. Bush administration) called him back to work on the plans for Operation Desert Storm.[1][5][6] Boyd had substantial influence on the ultimate "left hook" design of the plan.[7]

In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying "The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he'd commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert."[8]

The OODA Loop
Boyd's key concept was that of the decision cycle or OODA Loop, the process by which an entity (either an individual or an organization) reacts to an event. According to this idea, the key to victory is to be able to create situations wherein one can make appropriate decisions more quickly than one's opponent. The construct was originally a theory of achieving success in air-to-air combat, developed out of Boyd's Energy-Maneuverability theory and his observations on air combat between MiGs and F-86s in Korea. Harry Hillaker (chief designer of the F-16) said of the OODA theory, "Time is the dominant parameter. The pilot who goes through the OODA cycle in the shortest time prevails because his opponent is caught responding to situations that have already changed."

Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

    * Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
    * Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
    * Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
    * Action: the physical playing-out of decisions

Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes.

This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

In 2007, strategy writer Robert Greene discussed the loop in a post called OODA and You. He insisted that it was "deeply relevant to any kind of competitive environment: business, politics, sports, even the struggle of organisms to survive", and claimed to have been initially "struck by its brilliance".

Foundation of theories

Boyd never wrote a book on military strategy. The central works encompassing his theories on warfare consist of a several hundred slide presentation entitled Discourse on Winning & Losing and a short essay entitled Destruction & Creation (1976).

In Destruction & Creation, Boyd attempts to provide a philosophical foundation for his theories on warfare. In it he integrates Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to provide a context and rationale for the development of the OODA Loop.

Boyd inferred the following from each of these theories:

    * Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: any logical model of reality is incomplete (and possibly inconsistent) and must be continuously refined/adapted in the face of new observations.
    * Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: there is a limit on our ability to observe reality with precision.
    * Second Law of Thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system always tends to increase, and thus the nature of any given system is continuously changing even as efforts are directed toward maintaining it in its original form.

From this set of considerations, Boyd concluded that to maintain an accurate or effective grasp of reality one must undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with the environment geared to assessing its constant changes. Boyd, though he was hardly the first to do so, then expanded Darwin's theory of evolution, suggesting that natural selection applies not only in biological but also in social contexts (such as the survival of nations during war or businesses in free market competition). Integrating these two concepts, he stated that the decision cycle was the central mechanism of adaptation (in a social context) and that increasing one's own rate and accuracy of assessment vis-a-vis one's counterpart's rate and accuracy of assessment provides a substantial advantage in war or other forms of competition.

Elements of warfare
Boyd divided warfare into three distinct elements:

    * Moral Warfare: the destruction of the enemy's will to win, via alienation from allies (or potential allies) and internal fragmentation. Ideally resulting in the "dissolution of the moral bonds that permit an organic whole [organization] to exist." (i.e., breaking down the mutual trust and common outlook mentioned in the paragraph above.)
    * Mental Warfare: the distortion of the enemy's perception of reality through disinformation, ambiguous posturing, and/or severing of the communication/information infrastructure.
    * Physical Warfare: the destruction of the enemy's physical resources such as weapons, people, and logistical assets.

Military Reform
John Boyd's briefing Patterns of Conflict provided the theoretical foundation for the "defense reform movement" (DRM) in the 1970s and 1980s. Other prominent members of this movement included Pierre Sprey, Franklin 'Chuck' Spinney, William Lind, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Testing and Evaluation Thomas Christie, Congressman Newt Gingrich, and Senator Gary Hart. The Military Reform movement fought against what they believed were unnecessarily complex and expensive weapons systems, an officer corps focused on the careerist standard, and overreliance on attrition warfare. Another reformer, James G. Burton, disputed the Army test of the safety of the Bradley fighting vehicle. James Fallows contributed to the debate with an article in The Atlantic Monthly titled "Muscle-Bound Superpower", and a book, National Defense. Today, younger reformers continue to use Boyd's work as a foundation for evolving theories on strategy, management and leadership.

   1. ^ a b c d e f Coram, Robert (2002). Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Little, Brown & and Company. p. 355. ISBN 0316881465.
   2. ^ (Hammond, 1997)
   3. ^ a b Hillaker, Harry (July 1997). "Tribute To John R. Boyd". Code One Magazine. Retrieved 2007-01-25.
   4. ^ Daniel Ford, A Vision So Noble (2010), p. 11
   5. ^ Ford, Daniel. A Vision So Noble: John Boyd, the Ooda Loop, and America's War on Terror. CreateSpace (May 4, 2010) p. 23-4.
   6. ^ Wheeler, Winslow T. and Lawrence J. Korb. Military Reform: A Reference Handbook. Praeger; 1 edition (September 30, 2007) p. 87.
   7. ^ Wheeler, Winslow T. and Lawrence J. Korb. Military Reform: A Reference Handbook. Praeger; 1st ed. (September 30, 2007) p. 87.
   8. ^ Hammond, Grant Tedrick. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. Smithsonian Books; Illustrated ed. (May 2001) p. 3.
   9. ^ United States Marine Corps, 1997

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2011, 08:47:45 pm »
Power, Seduction and War - February 24, 2007

OODA and You

Posted by Robert Greene at 1:14 PM

A few weeks ago I gave a talk at a company convention in southern California. This company has offices worldwide, is very successful in its line of work, but on the horizon are some dangers. They brought me in to address those dangers. The specifics here do not matter much, only to say that, like a lot of companies that were successful in the 80s and on up to the present, they have come to rely upon a particular business model that is part circumstance and part design.

Loosely put, their upper-tier employees operate more like entrepreneurs, each one out for him or herself. Each office tends to think of itself as an island, competing with the other branches across the globe. This works to some extent, as these entrepreneurs are very motivated to expand the business. On the other hand, it makes it very difficult to create an overall esprit de corps.

As I was preparing the speech, for some reason an image kept coming to mind--the jet-fighter pilot, and the theories of Colonel John Boyd as it pertains to this form of warfare. Many of you might be familiar with Boyd's most famous theory: the OODA loop. I will paraphrase it for those who are not familiar with it, with the understanding that it is much richer than the few words I am devoting to it here.

OODA stands for Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action. A pilot is constantly going through these loops or cycles in a dogfight: he tries to observe the enemy as best he can, this observation being somewhat fluid, since nothing is standing still and all of this is happening at great speed. With a lightning-quick observation, he then must orient this movement of the enemy, what it means, what are his intentions, how does it fit into the overall battle. This is the critical part of the cycle. Based on this orientation, he makes a decision as to how to respond, and then takes the appropriate action.

In the course of a typical dogfight, a pilot will go through maybe a dozen or so of these loops, depending on how complicated the fight, and how fluid the field. If one pilot can make faster decisions and actions, based on the proper observations and orientations, he slowly gains a distinct advantage. He can make a maneuver to confuse the enemy. After a few such maneuvers in which he is slightly ahead in the cycles, the enemy makes a mistake, and he is able to go in for the kill. Boyd calls these fast transients, and if you are ahead in these transients, the opponent slowly loses touch with reality. He cannot decipher what you are doing, and as he becomes increasingly cut off from the reality of the battlefield, he reacts to things that are not there, and his misreactions spell his death.

Boyd saw this theory as having application to all forms of warfare. He went backwards in military history and showed how this was relevant to the success of Belisaurius, the Mongols, Napoleon Bonaparte, T.E. Lawrence. He saw it as also deeply relevant to any kind of competitive environment: business, politics, sports, even the struggle of organisms to survive. In reading about the OODA loop for the first time, I was struck by its brilliance, but I was not quite sure what to make of it. How exactly does this apply to my own battles, my own life, or to those whom I advise in their affairs?

Then, working on the speech, the image and the idea began to coalesce. A fighter pilot is in a unique spot. He is a rugged individualist who can ultimately only depend on his own creative maneuvers for survival and success. On the other hand, he is part of a team, and if he operates completely on his own strategy, his personal success will translate into confusion on the battlefield.

At the same time, the battlefield itself is so incredibly fluid that the pilot cannot think in traditional linear terms. It is more like complex geometry, or three-dimensional chess. If the pilot is too slow and conventional in his thinking, he will find himself falling further and further behind in the loops. His ideas will not keep pace with reality. The proper mindset is to let go a little, to allow some of the chaos to become part of his mental system, and to use it to his advantage by simply creating more chaos and confusion for the opponent. He funnels the inevitable chaos of the battlefield in the direction of the enemy.

This seemed to me the perfect metaphor for what we are all going through right now in the 21st century. Changes are occurring too fast for any of us to really process them in the traditional manner. Our strategies tend to be rooted in the past. Our businesses operate on models from the 60s and 70s. The changes going on can easily give us the feeling that we are not really in control of events. The standard response in such situations is to try to control too much, in which case everything will tend to fall apart as we fall behind. (Those who try to control too much lose contact with reality, react emotionally to surprises.) Or to let go, an equally disastrous mindset. What we are going through requires a different way of thinking and responding to the world, something I will be addressing in my next two books in great detail. (I am happy to report that these two books have now been sold, and that is why I have been away for a while.)

In essence, speed is the critical element in our strategies. (See the chapter on formlessness in POWER and the blitzkrieg in WAR.) Speed, however, is something that is rarely understood. Napoleon created speed in his attacks because of the way his army was organized and structured. If you read Martin Creveld's book on command, he explains that the speed of Napoleon's army is comparable to any contemporary army, but with the technology of two-hundred years ago. This speed comes from the mission-oriented structure in which his field marshals had great liberty to react in real time and make quick decisions, based on Napoleon's overall strategic goals, and with the incredibly swift communications up and down the chain of command.

Napoleon increased the speed of his army by loosening up the structure, allowing for more chaos in the decision-making process, and unleashing the creativity in his marshals. Speed is not necessarily a function of technology. Technology, as Creveld showed, can actually slow an army down. Look at the North Vietnamese versus the US in the Vietnam War.

We are all in the position of those fighter pilots. Those among us who succeed in this environment know how to play the team game in a different way, not being an automaton, yet not completely a freelancer. We are comfortable working on our own initiative, but also find pleasure in making our individuality fit into the group. We are able to embrace change, to let go of old patterns of operating, and to stay rooted in the moment, observing the battlefield for what it is, not cluttered by preconceptions. We can think fast, let go of the need to control everything, stay close to the environment in which we operate (the streets, our clients), and experiment.

It is a new kind of beast that thrives in this new order.

Your mind is the key that will turn this to advantage, not your wealth, the technology at your command, the number of allies you possess. Whatever success you are now experiencing will actually work to your detriment because you will not be made aware of how slowly you are falling behind in the fast transient cycle. You think you are doing just fine. You are not compelled to adapt until it is too late. These are ruthless times.


Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2011, 12:36:17 am »

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the area of computer science focusing on creating machines that can engage on behaviors that humans consider intelligent. The ability to create intelligent machines has intrigued humans since ancient times, and today with the advent of the computer and 50 years of research into AI programming techniques, the dream of smart machines is becoming a reality. Researchers are creating systems which can mimic human thought, understand speech, beat the best human chessplayer, and countless other feats never before possible. Find out how the military is applying AI logic to its hi-tech systems, and how in the near future Artificial Intelligence may impact our lives.

Evidence of Artificial Intelligence folklore can be traced back to ancient Egypt, but with the development of the electronic computer in 1941, the technology finally became available to create machine intelligence. The term artificial intelligence was first coined in 1956, at the Dartmouth conference, and since then Artificial Intelligence has expanded because of the theories and principles developed by its dedicated researchers. Through its short modern history, advancement in the fields of AI have been slower than first estimated, progress continues to be made. From its birth 4 decades ago, there have been a variety of AI programs, and they have impacted other technological advancements.

The Era of the Computer:
In 1941 an invention revolutionized every aspect of the storage and processing of information. That invention, developed in both the US and Germany was the electronic computer. The first computers required large, separate air-conditioned rooms, and were a programmers nightmare, involving the separate configuration of thousands of wires to even get a program running.

The 1949 innovation, the stored program computer, made the job of entering a program easier, and advancements in computer theory lead to computer science, and eventually Artificial intelligence. With the invention of an electronic means of processing data, came a medium that made AI possible.

The Beginnings of AI:
Although the computer provided the technology necessary for AI, it was not until the early 1950's that the link between human intelligence and machines was really observed. Norbert Wiener was one of the first Americans to make observations on the principle of feedback theory feedback theory. The most familiar example of feedback theory is the thermostat: It controls the temperature of an environment by gathering the actual temperature of the house, comparing it to the desired temperature, and responding by turning the heat up or down. What was so important about his research into feedback loops was that Wiener theorized that all intelligent behavior was the result of feedback mechanisms. Mechanisms that could possibly be simulated by machines. This discovery influenced much of early development of AI.

In late 1955, Newell and Simon developed The Logic Theorist, considered by many to be the first AI program. The program, representing each problem as a tree model, would attempt to solve it by selecting the branch that would most likely result in the correct conclusion. The impact that the logic theorist made on both the public and the field of AI has made it a crucial stepping stone in developing the AI field.

In 1956 John McCarthy regarded as the father of AI, organized a conference to draw the talent and expertise of others interested in machine intelligence for a month of brainstorming. He invited them to Vermont for "The Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence." From that point on, because of McCarthy, the field would be known as Artificial intelligence. Although not a huge success, (explain) the Dartmouth conference did bring together the founders in AI, and served to lay the groundwork for the future of AI research.

Knowledge Expansion
In the seven years after the conference, AI began to pick up momentum. Although the field was still undefined, ideas formed at the conference were re-examined, and built upon. Centers for AI research began forming at Carnegie Mellon and MIT, and a new challenges were faced: further research was placed upon creating systems that could efficiently solve problems, by limiting the search, such as the Logic Theorist. And second, making systems that could learn by themselves.

In 1957, the first version of a new program The General Problem Solver(GPS) was tested. The program developed by the same pair which developed the Logic Theorist. The GPS was an extension of Wiener's feedback principle, and was capable of solving a greater extent of common sense problems. A couple of years after the GPS, IBM contracted a team to research artificial intelligence. Herbert Gelerneter spent 3 years working on a program for solving geometry theorems.

While more programs were being produced, McCarthy was busy developing a major breakthrough in AI history. In 1958 McCarthy announced his new development; the LISP language, which is still used today. LISP stands for LISt Processing, and was soon adopted as the language of choice among most AI developers.

In 1963 MIT received a 2.2 million dollar grant from the United States government to be used in researching Machine-Aided Cognition (artificial intelligence). The grant by the Department of Defense's Advanced research projects Agency (ARPA), to ensure that the US would stay ahead of the Soviet Union in technological advancements. The project served to increase the pace of development in AI research, by drawing computer scientists from around the world, and continues funding.

The Multitude of programs
The next few years showed a multitude of programs, one notably was SHRDLU. SHRDLU was part of the microworlds project, which consisted of research and programming in small worlds (such as with a limited number of geometric shapes). The MIT researchers headed by Marvin Minsky, demonstrated that when confined to a small subject matter, computer programs could solve spatial problems and logic problems. Other programs which appeared during the late 1960's were STUDENT, which could solve algebra story problems, and SIR which could understand simple English sentences. The result of these programs was a refinement in language comprehension and logic.

Another advancement in the 1970's was the advent of the expert system. Expert systems predict the probability of a solution under set conditions. For example:

Because of the large storage capacity of computers at the time, expert systems had the potential to interpret statistics, to formulate rules. And the applications in the market place were extensive, and over the course of ten years, expert systems had been introduced to forecast the stock market, aiding doctors with the ability to diagnose disease, and instruct miners to promising mineral locations. This was made possible because of the systems ability to store conditional rules, and a storage of information.

During the 1970's Many new methods in the development of AI were tested, notably Minsky's frames theory. Also David Marr proposed new theories about machine vision, for example, how it would be possible to distinguish an image based on the shading of an image, basic information on shapes, color, edges, and texture. With analysis of this information, frames of what an image might be could then be referenced. another development during this time was the PROLOGUE language. The language was proposed for In 1972,

During the 1980's AI was moving at a faster pace, and further into the corporate sector. In 1986, US sales of AI-related hardware and software surged to $425 million. Expert systems in particular demand because of their efficiency. Companies such as Digital Electronics were using XCON, an expert system designed to program the large VAX computers. DuPont, General Motors, and Boeing relied heavily on expert systems Indeed to keep up with the demand for the computer experts, companies such as Teknowledge and Intellicorp specializing in creating software to aid in producing expert systems formed. Other expert systems were designed to find and correct flaws in existing expert systems.

The Transition from Lab to Life
The impact of the computer technology, AI included was felt. No longer was the computer technology just part of a select few researchers in laboratories. The personal computer made its debut along with many technological magazines. Such foundations as the American Association for Artificial Intelligence also started. There was also, with the demand for AI development, a push for researchers to join private companies. 150 companies such as DEC which employed its AI research group of 700 personnel, spend $1 billion on internal AI groups.

Other fields of AI also made there way into the marketplace during the 1980's. One in particular was the machine vision field. The work by Minsky and Marr were now the foundation for the cameras and computers on assembly lines, performing quality control. Although crude, these systems could distinguish differences shapes in objects using black and white differences. By 1985 over a hundred companies offered machine vision systems in the US, and sales totaled $80 million.

The 1980's were not totally good for the AI industry. In 1986-87 the demand in AI systems decreased, and the industry lost almost a half of a billion dollars. Companies such as Teknowledge and Intellicorp together lost more than $6 million, about a third of there total earnings. The large losses convinced many research leaders to cut back funding. Another disappointment was the so called "smart truck" financed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The projects goal was to develop a robot that could perform many battlefield tasks. In 1989, due to project setbacks and unlikely success, the Pentagon cut funding for the project.

Despite these discouraging events, AI slowly recovered. New technology in Japan was being developed. Fuzzy logic, first pioneered in the US has the unique ability to make decisions under uncertain conditions. Also neural networks were being reconsidered as possible ways of achieving Artificial Intelligence. The 1980's introduced to its place in the corporate marketplace, and showed the technology had real life uses, ensuring it would be a key in the 21st century.

AI put to the Test:
The military put AI based hardware to the test of war during Desert Storm. AI-based technologies were used in missile systems, heads-up-displays, and other advancements.
AI has also made the transition to the home. With the popularity of the AI computer growing, the interest of the public has also grown. Applications for the Apple Macintosh and IBM compatible computer, such as voice and character recognition have become available. Also AI technology has made steadying camcorders simple using fuzzy logic. With a greater demand for AI-related technology, new advancements are becoming available. Inevitably Artificial Intelligence has, and will continue to affecting our lives.

This website succinctly explains the History, Approaches, Applications, and People behind Artificial Intelligence:

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2011, 01:00:28 pm »

Written by NIST on December 1995, but very relevant to today.

This bulletin provides background information on Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), a technical means for controlling access to computer resources. RBAC is appropriate for consideration in systems that process unclassified but sensitive information, as well as those that process classified information.

What is Role-Based Access Control?

Access is the ability to do something with a computer resource (e.g., use, change, or view). Access control is the means by which the ability is explicitly enabled or restricted in some way (usually through physical and system-based controls). Computer- based access controls can prescribe not only who or what process may have access to a specific system resource, but also the type of access that is permitted. These controls may be implemented in the computer system or in external devices.

With role-based access control, access decisions are based on the roles that individual users have as part of an organization. Users take on assigned roles (such as doctor, nurse, teller, manager). The process of defining roles should be based on a thorough analysis of how an organization operates and should include input from a wide spectrum of users in an organization.

Access rights are grouped by role name, and the use of resources is restricted to individuals authorized to assume the associated role. For example, within a hospital system the role of doctor can include operations to perform diagnosis, prescribe medication, and order laboratory tests; and the role of researcher can be limited to gathering anonymous clinical information for studies.

The use of roles to control access can be an effective means for developing and enforcing enterprise-specific security policies, and for streamlining the security management process.

Users and Roles

Under the RBAC framework, users are granted membership into roles based on their competencies and responsibilities in the organization. The operations that a user is permitted to perform are based on the user's role. User membership into roles can be revoked easily and new memberships established as job assignments dictate. Role associations can be established when new operations are instituted, and old operations can be deleted as organizational functions change and evolve. This simplifies the administration and management of privileges; roles can be updated without updating the privileges for every user on an individual basis.

When a user is associated with a role: the user can be given no more privilege than is necessary to perform the job. This concept of least privilege requires identifying the user's job functions, determining the minimum set of privileges required to perform that function, and restricting the user to a domain with those privileges and nothing more. In less precisely controlled systems, this is often difficult or costly to achieve. Someone assigned to a job category may be allowed more privileges than needed because is difficult to tailor access based on various attributes or constraints. Since many of the responsibilities overlap between job categories, maximum privilege for each job category could cause unlawful access.

Roles and Role Hierarchies

Under RBAC, roles can have overlapping responsibilities and privileges; that is, users belonging to different roles may need to perform common operations. Some general operations may be performed by all employees. In this situation, it would be inefficient and administratively cumbersome to specify repeatedly these general operations for each role that gets created. Role hierarchies can be established to provide for the natural structure of an enterprise. A role hierarchy defines roles that have unique attributes and that may contain other roles; that is, one role may implicitly include the operations that are associated with another role.

In the healthcare situation, a role Specialist could contain the roles of Doctor and Intern. This means that members of the role Specialist are implicitly associated with the operations associated with the roles Doctor and Intern without the administrator having to explicitly list the Doctor and Intern operations. Moreover, the roles Cardiologist and Rheumatologist could each contain the Specialist role.

Role hierarchies are a natural way of organizing roles to reflect authority, responsibility, and competency:

the role in which the user is gaining membership is not mutually exclusive with another role for which the user already possesses membership. These operations and roles can be subject to organizational policies or constraints. When operations overlap, hierarchies of roles can be established. Instead of instituting costly auditing to monitor access, organizations can put constraints on access through RBAC. For example, it may seem sufficient to allow physicians to have access to all patient data records if their access is monitored carefully. With RBAC, constraints can be placed on physician access so that only those records that are associated with a particular physician can be accessed.

Roles and Operations

Organizations can establish the rules for the association of operations with roles. For example, a healthcare provider may decide that the role of clinician must be constrained to post only the results of certain tests but not to distribute them where routing and human errors could violate a patient's right to privacy. Operations can also be specified in a manner that can be used in the demonstration and enforcement of laws or regulations. For example, a pharmacist can be provided with operations to dispense, but not to prescribe, medication.

An operation represents a unit of control that can be referenced by an individual role, subject to regulatory constraints within the RBAC framework. An operation can be used to capture complex security-relevant details or constraints that cannot be determined by a simple mode of access.

For example, there are differences between the access needs of a teller and an accounting supervisor in a bank. An enterprise defines a teller role as being able to perform a savings deposit operation. This requires read and write access to specific fields within a savings file. An enterprise may also define an accounting supervisor role that is allowed to perform correction operations. These operations require read and write access to the same fields of a savings file as the teller. However, the accounting supervisor may not be allowed to initiate deposits or withdrawals but only perform corrections after the fact. Likewise, the teller is not allowed to perform any corrections once the transaction has been completed. The difference between these two roles is the operations that are executed by the different roles and the values that are written to the transaction log file.

The RBAC framework provides administrators with the capability to regulate who can perform what actions, when, from where, in what order, and in some cases under what relational circumstances:

only those operations that need to be performed by members of a role are granted to the role. Granting of user membership to roles can be limited. Some roles can only be occupied by a certain number of employees at any given period of time. The role of manager, for example, can be granted to only one employee at a time. Although an employee other than the manager may act in that role, only one person may assume the responsibilities of a manager at any given time. A user can become a new member of a role as long as the number of members allowed for the role is not exceeded.

Advantages of RBAC

A properly-administered RBAC system enables users to carry out a broad range of authorized operations, and provides great flexibility and breadth of application. System administrators can control access at a level of abstraction that is natural to the way that enterprises typically conduct business. This is achieved by statically and dynamically regulating users' actions through the establishment and definition of roles, role hierarchies, relationships, and constraints. Thus, once an RBAC framework is established for an organization, the principal administrative actions are the granting and revoking of users into and out of roles. This is in contrast to the more conventional and less intuitive process of attempting to administer lower-level access control mechanisms directly (e.g., access control lists [ACLs], capabilities, or type enforcement entities) on an object-by-object basis.

Further, it is possible to associate the concept of an RBAC operation with the concept of "method" in Object Technology. This association leads to approaches where Object Technology can be used in applications and operating systems to implement an RBAC operation.

For distributed systems, RBAC administrator responsibilities can be divided among central and local protection domains; that is, central protection policies can be defined at an enterprise level while leaving protection issues that are of local concern at the organizational unit level. For example, within a distributed healthcare system, operations that are associated with healthcare providers may be centrally specified and pertain to all hospitals and clinics, but the granting and revoking of memberships into specific roles may be specified by administrators at local sites.

Status of Current RBAC Activities

Several organizations are experimenting with the inclusion of provisions for RBAC in open consensus specifications. RBAC is an integral part of the security models for Secure European System for Applications in a Multi-vendor Environment (SESAME) distributed system and the database language SQL3. In addition, the Object Management Group's (OMG) Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) Security specification uses RBAC as an example of an access control mechanism which can be used with the distributed Object Technology defined by the OMG. (See reference below.)

CSL has been developing and defining RBAC and its applicability cooperatively with industry, government, and academic partners. In conjunction with Dr. Ravi Sandhu of George Mason University and Seta Corporation, CSL is defining RBAC and its feasibility. We are working with Dr. Virgil Gligor and his associates at the University of Maryland and with the National Security Agency (NSA) to develop a formal reference model for RBAC to provide a safe, effective, and consistent mechanism for access control. This effort is also implementing RBAC on NSA's Synergy Platform, a secure platform based on the Mach Operating System. CSL is also developing a demonstration of RBAC use in healthcare. The access policy used in this demonstration is based on a draft consensus policy for patient record access developed in the United Kingdom. In conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), CSL is defining roles and operations suitable for the IRS environment. In conjunction with the Veterans Administration (VA), CSL is studying the applicability of RBAC to VA systems.

Based on current research and experience, RBAC appears to fit well into the widely varying security policies of industry and government organizations.

For additional information on Role-Based Access Control see:

Background on access control:  DAC, MAC, and RBAC

Access control technology has evolved from research and development efforts supported by the Department of Defense (DoD). This research has resulted in two fundamental types of access control: Discretionary Access Control (DAC) and Mandatory Access Control (MAC). While initial research and applications addressed preventing the unauthorized access to classified information, recent applications have applied these policies to commercial processing environments.

DAC permits the granting and revoking of access control privileges to be left to the discretion of the individual users. A DAC mechanism allows users to grant or revoke access to any of the objects under their control. As such, users are said to be the owners of the objects under their control. However, for many organizations, the end users do not own the information for which they are allowed access. For these organizations, the corporation or agency is the actual owner of system objects as well as the programs that process them. Access priorities are controlled by the organization and are often based on employee functions rather than data ownership.

MAC, as defined in the DoD's Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC), is "A means of restricting access to objects based on the sensitivity (as represented by a label) of the information contained in the objects and the formal authorization (i.e. clearance) of subjects to access information of such sensitivity."

These policies for access control are not particularly well suited to the requirements of government and industry organizations that process unclassified but sensitive information. In these environments, security objectives often support higher-level organizational policies which are derived from existing laws, ethics, regulations, or generally accepted practices. Such environments usually require the ability to control actions of individuals beyond just an individual's ability to access information according to how that information is labeled based on its sensitivity.



  • Guest
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2011, 11:00:55 am »
Note:  embedded images no longer show up from the source site.

By IgnoranceIsntBliss

The net-centric Global Information Grid is the future of combat communications technology, but in fact, its already here. The true future of combat systems will be the GIG interfaced with DARPAs Super AI systems, that will be publicly operational by 2010-2012. As you will learn, the future of combat communications is already here, and the true future is within the decade.

Many readers of this have probably heard the term Global Control Grid; I know I have. Ive heard this mentioned several times now, but Ive never heard what that GCG actually is. In some contexts its made out to be a combination of the national biometric and cashless society systems, but whatever is meant by users of the term GCG, this is what it really is.

The GIG is the technology system and format that is referred to as net-centric computing. Its purpose is to link all available information technologies into one single interface for war time commanders and planners. The problem is that war-time is now a policy that applies to American soil, thanks to drastic changes in national doctrine during this millennium.

The doctrine was outlined by Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and is now national systems doctrine. The goal, drafted in response to 9/11, is to improve effectiveness and efficiency in responding to federal, state and local in Homeland Security & Homeland Defense operations.

This initiative is being developed and built under DISAs ACTD program (see videos), and is now a part of the toolbox suite being used by the DOD, National Security Agency, the Dept. of Homeland Security, and others including business users.  This technology is known by people in the know, but even our elected Democrat leaders allow this blasphemy of the Constitution to continue unchecked and unacknowledged in the public eye.

The scope and objectives of this system is defined as, The GIG will be a net-centric system operating in a global context to provide processing, storage, management, and transport of information to support all Department of Defense (DoD), national security, and related Intelligence Community missions and functions-strategic, operational, tactical, and business-in war, in crisis, and in peace.

This suite makes Digital Angel look like played out Sega 8-Bit, and could certainly interface into Digital Angel if deemed necassary. Its a combination of several different information and DoD intel formats that are worth mentioning here, but arent limited to this short summary. Some notable ACTD components include ASAP, ABA, CTL, Gridlock, D-SIDE, JBFSA, TEBO, AT21 which all apparently interface into HLS/D C2, and which utilize and expand on the GCCS Integrated Imagery and Intelligence (I3) system.

The GCCS System (2001) Component Block Diagram:

The suite utilizes all possible camera and surveillance technologies, that certainly includes satellite / drone / plane imaging systems, and will surely utilize the ITS artificial intelligence operated street camera system, which is actually part of DARPAs Combat Zones that See (CTS) system for monitoring everything that moves in a city. Other capabilities and tasks include GPS RFID  tracking, logistics, mission planning and forces deployment (including multi-national military forces) and GPS guided smart munitions that can be targeted using video and image archives from the GCCS I3 system databases. Furthermore, this suite applies to DOD information systems, which indicates that it will function as the vehicle for conducting Information Operation Roadmap operations, that include high level internet attacks and civilian PSYOPs operations.

Many of the tools appear to be designed for overseas operations, but many are stated for HS/HD use and most appear to be inter-operational with the HLS/D C2 operations and communications system for Homeland Security tasks in combating terrorism, disaster relief and other domestic threats.

These DOD military systems are on standby for Homeland Security missions and have already been used domestically for planning and response to events such as the 2004 Presidential Inauguration and Hurricanes Katrina & Rita. This threatens the Posse Comitatus Act that legally prevents military from being used in domestic operations, and it will only proliferate if left unchecked by The Media and The People.

Time and time again Ive mentioned that the DODs coming super-AI system will be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient which are all crucial to characteristics attributed to God Himself. The Federal Government is literally building God/ Heaven on Earth. Considering all of the things sourced herein, who could argue, and who thinks that this is all a good idea?

Offline zdux0012

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2011, 09:32:59 pm »
Anti-Illuminati mentioned SAIC
I can verify that these bastards are evil. Chemtrails, automated killing machines.
Get off of Windows / Mac!! You are not safe.
Get an OS you can trust. Linux, Free BSD. Ask for help!

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2011, 02:39:42 pm »

Fog of War

The fog of war is a term used to describe the uncertainty in situation awareness experienced by participants in military operations.[1] The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign. The term is ascribed to the Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:
"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."

The nature of the ambiguity described as the fog of war varies according to the level at which participants are engaged:

Grand strategic
Ambiguity is related to the political intent, capabilities and logistical strengths of an adversary. Sources of information include diplomatic intelligence, secret (or special) intelligence, strategic modeling and data derived from open source intelligence. Affected participants seek to understand intent of and political motivations. Outcomes at this level may encompass military action but are more concerned with socio-political and economic outcomes from which it might cascade if left unattended.

Military strategic
Militarily, the ambiguity experienced at this level relates to the structure, strength, capability, and disposition of own and adversary offensive and defensive assets. Own-force ambiguity can be caused by failure to report material deficiencies or an unwillingness to escalate concerns, leading to an optimistic view of own capabilities. Adversary ambiguity may be a result of inaccurate intelligence, sources being subverted or deceived, or adversary intelligence presenting a superior picture allowing one's decision cycle to be compromised. In addition, if unanticipated situations occur they can hamper the execution of long term planning.

Within the operational theatre the commander undertakes tasks as directed by the Military Strategic level, ambiguity continues to relate to adversary capability and intent but is coupled with own directive ambiguity, the commander not having the full sight of the strategic imperative. As operational tempo increases at this level the ambiguity experienced by the commander is susceptible to delays in communication of the tactical situation and the ebb and flow of own force, and adversary force interaction. The commander seeks to penetrate the fog of war through significant use of reconnaissance assets and a comprehensive Joint Operational Picture.

Ambiguity stems from several factors at the tactical level, both by deliberate means by the enemy (including active deception and/or electronic attack on communications and sensors) as well as factors inherent to battle resulting in lack of comprehension by commanders as to the tactical environment, the logistic status of their own units, how they are interacting with each other, or their intentions. This lack of comprehension can stem from many factors, individually or in combination, such as poor reconnaissance; inaccurate intelligence; or faulty communication. The tempo of decision making at the tactical level is much greater than at other levels, increasing the risk of escalating ambiguity as assumptions build and resources are allocated based on those assumptions.

The practical experience of the fog of war is most easily demonstrated in the tactical battlespace. It may include military commanders' incomplete or inaccurate intelligence regard their enemy's numbers, disposition, capabilities, and intent, regarding features of the battlefield, and even including incomplete knowledge of the state of their own forces. Fog of war is caused by the limits of reconnaissance, by the enemy's feints and disinformation, by delays in receiving intelligence and difficulties passing orders, and by the difficult task of forming a cogent picture from a very large (or very small) amount of diverse data.

When a force engages in battle and the urgency for good intelligence increases, so does the fog of war and chaos of the battlefield, while military units become preoccupied with fighting or are lost (either destroyed by enemy fire or literally lose their way), reconnaissance and liaison elements become unavailable, and sometimes while real fog and smoke obscure vision. Much of the modern military's technological efforts, under the rubric of command and control seek to reduce the fog of war. Although even the most advanced technology cannot completely eliminate it, military theorists continue to develop ways to reduce it.


  • Guest
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2011, 04:22:53 pm »
Everyone born before 1985 is a non-net-centric 'old world fossil' - RMA exposed

RMA: Cybernetics applied to the military to later apply domestically worldwide

"Sense and Respond" + Fascist Carbon enslavement problem reaction solution

Network Centric Warfare in the Context of ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’

Shitanshu Mishra


The Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) moves on the wheels of Technology, Doctrine and Organisation; however, the main support structure, which gives it the predominant strength, is undoubtedly the technology. The changing concepts of warfare are driven by the available technology of the times. While sophisticated weapons and sensors have greatly enhanced combat efficiency, developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have enabled greater connectivity and information sharing among widely spread force components. The concept of networking in business enterprises has found an equivalent in warfare in what is now referred to as ‘Network Centric Warfare (NCW)’. NCW rests on the premise that the power of a force grows proportionate to the extent of networking among the weapons, sensors and the command and control (C2) elements, quite akin to Metcalf Law, which is applicable to any network. NCW not only enhances situational awareness, it is expected to drastically reduce the time for decision-making at higher levels of command.

This paper looks at the basic concepts of Network Centric Warfare and then goes on to examine how these concepts were actually tried out and put into practice in the recently concluded Gulf War II. The Indian efforts in this particular field, which are at a comparatively nascent stage, are also examined.

Finally, the paper tries to explore the future frontiers — what are the new technologies, which may usher in the global technological revolution with equally important consequences for warfare.


The concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) originated in the erstwhile Soviet Union in the early 1980s, and was referred to as Military Technological Revolution (MTR). Any revolution is expected to usher in fundamental changes in the system, and hence one may state that RMA is not a new concept, though the term has come in vogue only of late. The nature of warfare has changed continuously and newer technologies and concepts have been successful in creating a distinct asymmetry between two warring sides, resulting in a total rout for the side which failed to change with the times.

Strategic Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 4, Oct-Dec 2003
© Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
Revised paper received on December 17, 2003

In the words of Saida Baider, “The information revolution and globalisation challenge two basic paradigms that used to lie at the heart of modern state security and strategic thought and practice: national sanctuarisation and global’ pan-optic surveillance, through the use of spatially organised power for social control. Transnationalisation and interconnection (of players, vulnerabilities, risks and conflicts) are making the idea of a national sanctuary pointless, while global surveillance can do little to counter the virtuality and ubiquity of cyberspace, the invisibility allowed by new means of camouflage and deception, or the difficulty of identifying adversaries in’ grey areas (Civil or military? Warrior or criminal? Combatant or non-combatant? Political group or mafia?)”1.

RMA has three basic constituents. These are:-

•   Technology: The integration of new IT into existing weapons systems and integrated C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance);
•   Doctrine and operations: Experimenting with technology to create new types of warfare; and
•   Organisation: There can be no RMA without far-reaching institutional change, (jointness, business-style revolution in defence management, civilian-military integration).

It is the synergy among these three constituents that, according to Pentagon forecasts, will bring about RMA by 2025.

Wars are fought in three distinct domains: Physical, Information, and Cognitive.2  The physical domain is the place where the situation that the military seeks to change, exists. It includes the reality parameters of strength, weapons, dispositions, etc., all very clearly measurable in terms of overall combat power. It is the domain where the physical platforms and the interconnecting communication networks reside. The Information domain is where information is created, manipulated and shared, and ultimately utilised by the commanders and subordinates. The information, however, may not truly reflect the ground truth, unlike in the case of the physical domain. The cognitive domain is in the minds of the participants and relates to their perceptions, awareness, understanding, beliefs and values, which give a final shape to their decisions. This is the domain of intangibles: leadership, morale, unit cohesion, level of training and experience, situational awareness and public opinion. Battles and wars are actually won and lost in this domain. The attributes of this domain are extremely difficult to measure, and each sub-domain, i.e., each individual mind, is unique.

Thus, the realities of the physical domain are converted into selected data, information, and knowledge by the systems in the information domain, and these further assist the leaders in making judgments and taking decisions in their cognitive domains. A right kind of synchronisation in the time and space, resulting from conscious coordination and collaboration of the three domains, would lead to a winning act. Minimising the uncertainties in a war situation is the key to success, which usually comes to a side that makes the least errors and not necessarily to the side that was imaginative or bold.

The range and lethality of weapon systems have increased over the years, as a result of technological advancement, and the time to target has reduced. The battle-space has also expanded in all the three dimensions. In part, this expansion has been the result of the improved flow of information. Distances in battle-space are no longer constrained by communications. Another factor is the development of rockets and missiles with longer ranges. This has further obscured tactical and strategic boundaries. In a digitised battlefield, timely access to intelligence can be matched with the operational mobility with great effect.

The increasing availability and affordability of information, information technologies, and information-age weapons have increased the potential of converting impotent adversaries into formidable foes. The resultant asymmetric warfare involves each side playing by its own set of rules that emphasise their respective strengths, while attempting to exploit adversary’s weaknesses.3     Each side would vie for information superiority, which is defined as, “A state of imbalance in one’s favour (relative advantage) in the information domain that is achieved by being able to get the right information to the right people at the right time in the right form while denying an adversary the ability to do the same”.4

Network Centric Warfare

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) recognises the centrality of information and its potential as a source of power. The RAND Corporation defines NCW as, “... the linking of platforms into one shared awareness network in order to obtain information superiority, get inside the opponent’s decision cycle, and end conflict quickly.5” NCW is not narrowly about technology, but about an emerging military response to the information age. It involves networking in all the three domains, and displays the following characteristics:6

•   Physical Domain: All elements of the force are robustly networked achieving secure and seamless connectivity and interoperability.

•   Information Domain:   The force has the capability to share, access and protect information to a degree that it can establish and maintain an information advantage over an adversary. Also, it has the capability to collaborate in the information domain, which enables a force to improve its information position through processes of correlation, fusion and analysis.

•   Cognitive Domain:   The force has the capability to develop high quality awareness and share this awareness. It also has the capability to develop a shared understanding including the commander’s intent. Moreover, it has a capability to self-synchronise its operations.

In addition, the force must be able to conduct information operations across these domains to achieve synchronised effects in each of these domains. The force will thus be able to generate increased combat power by better synchronising effects in the battle-space, achieving greater speed of command, and by increasing lethality, survivability and responsiveness. Structurally, the NCW model involves an operational architecture with three critical elements:

•   Network grid for sensors (sensor grid).

•   Network grid for shooters (engagement grid).

•   Command and control grid (C2 grid).

Metcalfe’s Law, as applicable to communication networks contends that the power of a network increases with the square of the number of nodes connected to the network. NCW builds on this law by asserting that maximising the number of nodes increases the chances of realising the promise of the networks through ubiquitous connectivity and interoperability. It also increases the survivability of networked operations in case of an attack since the functionality of the network stays even when a large part of it is adversely affected.7

The concept of calculating conventional force levels to achieve an objective has been radically altered on account of force multipliers. Smart munitions delivered from a single aircraft or a ship are more likely to accomplish certain missions, which perhaps could be achieved by employing an air-force squadron during the Second World War. Advancing columns of armour can be identified from space, and targeted in real time using a handful of missiles. Enemy command and control structure can be identified and attacked with crippling accuracy. A small well equipped and better trained force can cause much more devastation and accomplish more than what was possible in earlier wars.

President George W Bush characterised US military as, “…defined less by size and more by mobility and swiftness…relying heavily on stealth, precision weaponry and information technologies.” The transformation of the military is built upon new systems, such as Cooperative Engagement Capability Sensor linking system, new capabilities such as striking distant and time- critical targets, and most of all, an integrated war-fighting machinery with full interoperability among all the components of decision-making and executive authority. NCW is all about relationships, adaptability, and change, with information technology allowing it to happen.

Communication Infrastructure for NCW Communication support topology in network-centric warfare environs is more infrastructural and network-based as against hierarchical. Dispersed and well spread out static and mobile infrastructure forms the basic backbone fabric, with the users hooking on at convenient points to derive vertical and horizontal communication support. The key characteristic is that, bandwidth is always scarce, required as it is for transmission and reception of digitised terrain topologies with three-dimensional overlay enhancements along with realtime battlefield visualisations from the airborne platforms such as unmanned aircrafts and satellites. Information and electronic warfare are yet other consumers with large bandwidth requirements. The battlefield electronic scenario would be a milieu of the conventional and the state-of the art.

The operational tempo would be overwhelming, with enhanced situational awareness of commanders aided by the electronic and automated sensor systems that would convey a wide array of inputs to the central data bases of the C4I2 (Command, control, computers, communication, intelligence and interoperability) systems. These would, in turn, assist in making well informed decisions. The deployment of the sensors and the forces would be geographically widespread, dictated by the terrain and other operational imperatives. The sensors would be integrated to the datacentric systems through reliable, secure, scalable and redundant data networks comprising an assorted mixture of media and  technologies, both state-of the art and legacy, like copper cable, Microwave (MW), Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs), satellite stations, Optical Fibre Cable (OFC), Wireless in Local Loop- Code Division Multiple Access (WLL-CDMA), etc. Battlespace management in these bits-and-bytes-dominated environment has to be an integrated seamless process in which the flow of information, tied to its time sensitivity, is of paramount importance.

Security of Communication and Data Networks

Security of the Defence networks involves protecting the networks at multiple levels and multiple points to ensure fallback support in the event of breaches. The media, whether wireless or wire line has to be secured by use of bulk media encryption systems in addition to the use of Terminal/ Subscriber End Secrecy Devices (TESD/SESD) to ensure user-to-user confidentiality of voice communication. On the other hand, data systems need to be made impregnable by additional measures such as physical access control, employment of application level security systems like Firewalls, Intrusion Detection Systems, Anti-Virus Systems, etc. The use of Public Key Infrastructure for encryption and digital signatures is necessitated to ensure integrity of data, confidentiality of information, authentication of users, as well as non-repudiation for all messaging and formal correspondence over the data networks. The backbone is required to be secured by use of bulk media encryption systems. The security of the network, however, would have multi-layered architecture, depending upon time criticality and the consequentiality of the information being carried.

NCW: ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’

‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ (called ‘Operation Telic’ in UK and ‘Operation Falconer’ in Australia) was launched by coalition forces comprising of forces from USA, UK and Australia besides some other smaller countries, under the leadership of USA. The coalition headquarters was established in As Salihiyah, Qatar in the deployable Central Command (Centcom) Forward headquarters. The US’ 101st  Airborne Division, 1st Armored Division, 3rd  Infantry Division, 4th  Infantry Division (Mechanized), the 1st  Marine Expeditionary Force, Special Forces, US Navy and US Air Force were the main players, besides the contingents from other countries. The following were under the Force HQ :-

•   Special Operations Component Commander Brigadier-General Gary Harrell, in Qatar.

•   Coalition  Maritime  Component  Commander  (CMCC)  Vice- Admiral Timothy Keating, at Al Manamah, Bahrain.

•   Coalition  air  Component  Commander  (CACC)  Lt  General Michael Moseley, at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia; and

•   Coalition  Land  Forces  Component  Commander  (CLFCC) Lt General David McKiernan, at Camp Doha in Kuwait.

Strategic communications were provided by the Operational Strategic Communication Architecture (OSCAR). Bandwidth, rather than military robustness was a major consideration, and hence commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment was mostly used. OSCAR, with a hub-and-spoke configuration, ultimately covered eight countries, with 44 nodes, 30 satellite heads, six security domains, and provided access to eight secure voice networks, with a 54 MBPS information flow.8

At the tactical level, a two-layered network was assembled.9  The first layer focused on a single channel radio and Tactical Satellite System (TACSAT). All the command posts — Division Main and Rear, the Assault Command Post (ACP), and brigade and separate battalion Tactical Operation Centres (TOCs) — were hooked up into single channel networks. The TACSAT provided a 25 khz and a 5 khz channel, the former being used as the command net and the latter for the fire support. TACSAT had to be duplicated with Combat Net Radio (CNR). The radio used was in High Frequency (HF) and Extremely High Frequency (EHF) bands.

The second layer was a more robust voice and data network using Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE), onto which the division, brigade and battalion TOCs and command posts were connected. The MSE network also enabled video conferencing among commanders. The Defense Collaborative Tool Suite enabled them to share data files and alter displays as if they were video conferencing a Powerpoint presentation. Other divisional elements such as air defense artillery, logistics and military intelligence employed their own specific data networks through the MSE network. Company-battalion and platoon-company levels had their own internal communication, with a capability to connect to the nearest MSE node.

The MSE network comprised several signal nodes. At the heart of this network was the node centre providing switching, radio systems, network management and support. This node is responsible for backbone network connectivity, subscriber number management, network communication security management and line-of-site radio links to adjacent node centres and other units. The node centres provide 1,024 kbps links.

The divisional signal unit also had a few Contingency Communications Parent Switch (CCPS) and Contingency Communications Extension Switch (CCES) nodes which provided telephone line connectivity, remote radio access unit support and a CNR interface. The CCPS and CCES are also referred to as the Force Entry Switch. Its role is to provide connectivity from a force entry location to the sustaining base or an intermediate staging base. In addition, Small Extension Nodes (SENs) supported the aviation brigades, separate battalions and brigade support areas.

MSE is linked from node to node with line-of-site (LOS) radio shoots, mainly using the Enhanced Position Locating Reporting System (EPLRS). For long distance hauls, multi-channel satellite terminals, or MUXSATs were utilised. These were specially useful for providing the vital links between TOCs separated by hundreds of kilometres. MUXSATs provided a 2,048 kbps link between Division Main Headquarters and Division Rear Headquarters, and   1,024 kbps links were provided from divisional command posts to brigades, as also to the corps. Army’s Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) battle management system, initially designed to work with EPLRS and create a battlefield picture of friendly and enemy platforms, was provided with a satellite interface and fielded to every coalition ground force unit down to company commanders.

Another interesting feature was the Jump Command Post created for the airborne assault. Known as C2 helicopter, it provided frequency Modulation (FM) and ultra-high frequency (UHF) and HF radio communications, and also single channel satellite links for command and control purposes, in the same way as that for the ground forces. The C2 aircraft is actually a flying command post, which could carry the divisional commander. The communication suite for the more advanced, upgraded version, known as advanced airborne command and control system (A2C2S) includes LOS radio such as the Single Channel Ground Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS), Advanced System Improvement Program (ASIP) and UHF HAVE QUICK II. Non-LOS links include demand assigned multiple access (DAMA), wideband radios such as Near-term Digital Radio (NTDR) and the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System.

The backbone of US command and control network are the two Internet Protocol (IP) networks engineered over the data communication infrastructure explained above — the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), which provide web access to various types of data. The latter, being secure, is used for operation orders, situation reports, intelligence reports, etc., but it is a ‘NOFORN’ system, implying that foreigners are not allowed access. For the coalition forces a Coalition Wide Area Network (COWAN) was engineered using a software which replicated SIPRNet web pages on COWAN provided that the security classification was appropriate. The UK also developed and introduced ‘X-Net’, which provided limited interoperability with SIPRNet to British Headquarters, enabling them to exchange information with certain addressees and limited access to information.10

The most effective exploitation of the networks came in the form of K- web or the knowledge wall, a large screen display panel, with web data feeds from an anchor desk. Each war fighting and support function – strike, air defence, intelligence, meteorology — had an anchorperson feeding latest updated information from that functional area to the respective portion of the wall. The K-web was used effectively for planning, briefing and execution of plans. The screens could display large scale GIS maps and provide multi-source data fusion for collaborative visualisation and decision- making. An added advantage was offered by the chat service on the web, which could assist in clarifying any nagging doubts.

The information operations encompassed the whole spectrum of effect- based missions from psychological operations and system security to intelligence gathering and infiltrating enemy communication networks. In order to have an idea of the gains of the NCW during the operation, one must look at the following facts:- 11

•   A total of 1,801 combat aircraft were fielded by the USA, Australia and the UK , from March 19 to April 18, 2003. The largest subset of aircraft within this was dedicated to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) activities. The coalition forces also fielded 80 ISR-dedicated platforms in support of their operation. Collectively, these aircraft are reported to have completed 1,000 ISR sorties, and as a result, generated 42,000 battlefield images, 3,200 hours of full motion video, 2,400 hours of signals intelligence (SIGINT) coverage and 1,700 hours of Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radar imagery.

•   RQ-4A ‘Global Hawk’ unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was used first time as a strike coordination and reconnaissance asset, and it was found to be particularly effective in locating air defence and surface-surface missile targets. Pairs of ‘Rivet Joint’ aircrafts were used to accurately locate moving targets, such as surface-to-surface missiles and SAM launchers.

•   US Navy E-2C ‘Hawkeye’ 2000 aircraft was used to direct air strikes during adverse weather conditions.

•   E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircrafts were used to provide dynamic surveillance and targeting during ‘brown out’ conditions. The MTI capability of the B-1 strategic bomber’s radar was used in an ISR role.

•   There was a use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) guided munitions, providing a high degree of resistance to adverse weather conditions and enhanced accuracy.

•   Extensive usage of electro-optical and laser guidance pod systems was done for targeting and damage assessment.

•   Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACs) aircrafts were used as dynamic tasking tools. The availability of the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) and other types of data modems played a significant role in the direction and redirection of airborne strike assets.

•   A combination of dynamic data exchange and the latest generation of guided munitions allowed single platforms to effectively engage multiple targets during the same mission.

•   Space-based reconnaissance assets, as part of the overall sensor network detected 26 missile launchers, 1,493 static ‘infra-red’ events and 186 high explosive events.

Instant communication systems, GPS and laser-targeting systems meant that the US Special Forces on the ground could call in an air strike at a moment’s notice. Rather than take off from their carriers to attack pre- arranged targets, Navy warplanes could fly out to loiter, waiting for the call. With their new generation of precision weapons, the warplanes could strike a column of men suddenly materialising out of the hills. The best example of the success of NCW was the attack on a restaurant in Baghdad where President Saddam Hussein was expected to be present. A B-1B bomber was tasked in the air, and a successful attack was effected in 12 minutes from the first information to the aircraft.

RMA: The Ultimate Objective

Operations in Iraq were demonstrators of the transformations encompassing a variety of advances in Information Technology (IT), Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and Space Technology. The combined effect of these resulted in total asymmetry of the two warring sides, in spite of the fact that the coalition forces were numerically weaker than the Iraqi forces. Even a semblance of resistance, as was witnessed during ‘Operation Desert Storm’, was not to be in the Gulf War II. A beleaguered
Iraq, devastated by long spell of wars, and sanctions imposed by the world at large, was no match for the technological skills of the US military during the main phase of the war. However, this asymmetry was eroded considerably after the capture of Baghdad, when widely dispersed pro- Saddam troops chose conventional methods of attack in a kind of guerilla warfare for inflicting casualties.

A high degree of battlefield transparency in the form of Sensor-Shooter integration was achieved through network technologies and availability of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets like UAVs, and space platforms. During ‘Operation Desert Storm’, the USA had no more than 15 per cent information on militarily significant targets. This figure increased to above 65 per cent during ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. Likewise, whereas in Kosovo, about half the ordnance dropped was precision-guided, and in Afghanistan, it was about two-thirds; in Iraq more than 70 per cent of smart bombs were used.

Use of precision munitions is increasing in part because the falling prices of electronics has made this class of weapons a one line-item in the Pentagon budget that is getting cheaper. At the time of Gulf War I, smart munitions cost US$ 250,000 to US$ 1 million apiece; the new smart bomb that debuted in Afghanistan, called JDAM, cost around US$ 20,000. While getting cheaper, smart munitions have also become more effective. According to a Pentagon analyst, about 80 per cent of smart bombs struck within a few yards of their aim points with dramatically better accuracy than in any prior air campaign. NCW made a very positive contribution in achieving this sophistication.

Another important aspect of the operations was the extensive use of the space technology and satellites. Rapid and responsive military operations require timely and accurate reconnaissance reports, weather monitoring, precise navigation, and long haul   fail-safe communications. Global Positioning System (GPS), Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and satellite communication system assets were used for detecting, identifying, monitoring, tracking and ultimately destroying enemy resources. In numerous examples in Afghanistan and Iraq, a soldier on the ground would use a laser rangefinder linked to a Global Positioning System receiver to get a target’s coordinates. Those coordinates could be sent via satellite radio to a command site hundreds of miles away, which would then send them to a bomber.

The coordinates were then loaded into GPS-enabled bombs that receive navigational signals from satellites and can adjust their course in flight. Bombs fitted with GPS kits allowed the airplane to stay safe at 30,000 feet or higher while dropping bombs that are accurate to within a few yards, even through heavy cloud cover or darkness.
Lastly, the communication infrastructure created for NCW also assisted greatly in the Psy-ops during the entire operations. Military operations have become spectator events watched in real time by the people worldwide. The ability to provide graphic and live coverage of events is compressing time and space. The gap between political, strategic and tactical levels is being bridged. Media is becoming a potent weapon to shape public opinion (Perception Management). It gained momentum with the trend of embedded journalists in Iraq, who could report directly from the battlefield.

Communications for Joint Operations: An Indian Perspective

Even though an Integrated Defence Staff headquarters has been in existence for sometime, a communication network to cater to joint operations in theatres of our concern by all the three services will take long. Indian aspirations towards RMA will remain unfulfilled till we are ready for the NCW, the first and foremost requirement for which is a communication network which allows interoperability of the highest order among all the constituents of the war fighting machinery. It may, however be added that the three services have modernised their respective networks, and suitable gateways have been catered to for limited integration at appropriate levels.
The future may beckon the Indian military to fight a war as part of a coalition force, in a NCW environment. It is therefore imperative that adequate infrastructure be developed to be able to meet the challenges of C4I2SR (Command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, interoperability, surveillance and reconnaissance), not only in terms of hardware, but software and most importantly, joint training too. A few aspects, which may pose serious concerns, and hence need to be given due thought, are as follows:-

•   Will there be an information overload? How do we manage and ensure that the data received from various sensors and other sources are adequately filtered, evaluated and used in a timely manner?

•   There is bound to be significant interference and spectrum management problems, both intentional (due to enemy actions) and unintentional. Devices are available to disrupt the GPS, and jam the satellite communications. The electronic warfare will have a much larger scope and a role to play in the future.

•   Cyber warfare, especially the offensive part may have a more devastating effect. This aspect needs a more detailed analysis and necessary defensive countermeasures should be developed indigenously to make our own systems more robust.

•   Considering the fact that space technology has an important role to play in NCW, India must increase its space activities and set up platforms to support indigenous GPS-like systems in order to avoid negative interference or denial by others, when most needed. For this purpose, better coordination between the Space Agency, DRDO and the Services is essential. It needs to be noted that China has already embarked upon an ambitious plan in this field.

•   More emphasis ought to be given to the psychological operations as part of overall strategy, and all fresh approaches and means should be explored in this area.

•   NCW demands a new strategic thought, doctrine and organisation to support the operations. The Integrated Defence Staff must commence concretising the same for effecting the transformation in right time.

India certainly has an edge over all her neighbours in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and this advantage must not be lost. The present symmetry between India and Pakistan can be turned to an asymmetry advantageous to India by leveraging the technological prowess by the right mix of strategic thinking, planning, better coordination with DRDO and defence industry, and most important, envisioning our objectives for tomorrow.

Fresh Horizons

The global technology revolution will bring in many new technologies in the not-so-distant future, and quite a few of these will have implications for warfare. It may be difficult to predict what will be the next step in the RMA, or how the war domains would be influenced by new technological developments. Some of the recent advances in the fields of electronics, bio-informatics, materials engineering and molecular/nano-technologies do point to a different world in not-too-distant future.12 The following are some printers in that directions:-

•   Smart—Reactive materials combining sensors and actuators, perhaps together with computers, to enable response to environmental conditions and changes thereof. (Note, however, that limitations include the sensitivity of sensors, the performance of actuators, and the availability of power sources with required magnitude compatible with the desired size of the system). An example might be robots that mimic insects or birds for applications such as space exploration, hazardous materials location and treatment, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

•   Multi-functional—Micro Electromechanical Systems (MEMS) and the ‘lab-on-a-chip’ are excellent examples of systems that combine several functions. Consider aircraft skins fabricated from radar- absorbing materials that incorporate avionic links and the ability to modify shape in response to airflow.

•   Environmentally compatible or survivable — The development of composite materials and the ability to tailor materials at the atomic level will most likely provide opportunities to make materials more compatible with the environments in which they will be used.

•   Miniaturisation — This brings all-pervasive, self-moving sensor systems; nanoscrubbers and nanocatalysts; micro-electomechanical (MEM) devices; nano-robots; and even inexpensive, networked ‘nanosatellites’. For example, the so-called ‘nanosatellites’ are targeting order-of-magnitude reductions in both size and mass (e.g., down to 10 kg) by reducing major system components using integrated microsystems. If successful, this could economise current missions and approaches (e.g., communication, remote sensing, global positioning, and scientific study) while enabling new missions (e.g., military tactical space support and logistics, distributed sparse aperture radar, and new scientific studies).

•   Precision    weapons    and    non-lethal,    anti-sensor/anti-electronic weapons — These including High Power Microwave (HPM), and laser weapons will influence the warfare with an aim of minimising the collateral damage, especially during peace support operations and operations other than war.13

Beyond individual technology effects, the simultaneous progress of multiple technologies and applications could result in additive or even synergistic effects. It is also possible that certain combinations of realised advances could have negative effects on each other, resulting in unforeseen difficulties. Unforeseen ethical, public concern, or environmental difficulties may be examples. This, only time will reveal.

References/ End Notes

1   Bédar, Saïda, The Revolution in Military Affairs and the Capabilities Race.
Disarmament Forum. UNIDR.
2   Alberts, Davis S., et al, Understanding Information Age Warfare. US DoD Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), August 2001.
3   Alberts, David S., et al, Network Centric Warfare. CCRP, August 1999.
4   Information Superiority: Making the Joint Vision Happen. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I), Pentagon, Washington DC, CCRP, November 2000.
5   Mackrell,   Eileen   F.,   US   Navy:   Network   Centric   Intelligence   Works.
Proceedings. July 2003.
6   Alberts, David S., et al, no. 3.
7   Chen, Clement C., Anatomy of Network-Centric Warfare. SIGNAL. August
8   UK Command and Control During ‘Iraqi Freedom’. Jane’s Intelligence Review.
July 2003.
9   SIGNAL. July 2003. Special issue on ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.
10   UK Command and Control During ‘Iraqi Freedom’, no. 8.
11   Airborne surveillance assets hit the spot in Iraq. Jane’s Intelligence Review.
July 2003.
12   The Global Technological Revolution. RAND Publication at http://www.rand. org/publications/MR/MR1307/MR1307.

Col Shitanshu Mishra is Research Fellow in IDSA, and is presently working on ‘Communication Technology and Counter Terrorism’.  He is Fellow of Institution of Telecommunication and Electronics Engineers (IETE) for more than 10 years, and a member of Computer Society of India (CSI) for well over 15 years. He is one of the founding members of ‘Association for Security of Information Systems’.

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2011, 03:20:13 pm »
Bumping this for 9/11
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2012, 06:44:04 pm »

  Great research!