Space Weapons in Use: Bob Fitrakis @Yoryevrah

Uploaded October 2007 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago

'High tech space weapons are in use. The U.S. and Israeli military are lying about them. They're well established in the public record.' Video shows the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) & mobile version (MTHEL). Lasers have been weaponized since 1971, at least. See Col. Doug Beason's glorification of ABL (airborn lasers), ADS (active denial systems), RME (relay mirrors) and SSL (solid state lasers) in his book The Electron Bomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought (2005). Vid calls attention to the prize-winning documentary Panama Deception. The GHW Bush invasion of Panama in Dec 1989 was used as a testing ground for laser-maser-crazer weapons. Prof. Fitrakis spoke at the Madison 9/11 conference hosted by Prof. Jim Fetzer, Aug 5, 2007 filmed by Josh Harvey of Snowshoefilms (pt. 2 of 2). Scenes from Star Wars in Iraq and Panama Deception. Music thanks to Alistair Hulett, 'Shot Down in Flames'. (see Joe Friendly (youtube) for unedited version). See our video on youtube,'Can You Help Us Please?' for pictures of some of the advanced Israel-US weapons used on Lebanese civilians in July 2006.

Trump draws 12,000 + in Erie, PA Oct 10 2018

Military Commissions Act 2006 / Western New York

Guide to the Perplexed over Trumps Climate Accord Exit

Canada must control its own money: Rocco Galati

$IPCC lousy computer models: statistician Wlm Briggs ...NOT JUST BAD BUT LOUSY COMPUTER MODELS says William Briggs, statistician, a speaker at the 10th annual conference on climate change, June 11-12, 2015. He is the author of UNCERTAINTY: THE SOUL OF MODELING, PROBABILITY & STATISTICS and other books. He says The models used to make predictions are based on their [global warming] theory, and those projections they have made for the past two decades are not just bad but are lousy. Theyre terrible. And it used to be a fundamental precept of science that when you have model that makes such lousy predictions, you knew that they theory that underlies it was wrong. And so why arent scientists acknowledging this? They know exactly what I know, but theyre not saying anything, and why? Because they dont want to be attacked. They dont want to face the kind of nonsense that we have to face. We have some senators wanting to prosecute us under the RICO Act. For what? I get not a penny from anybody, no oil company, nothing like this. Im an independent scientist. I do this out of my own dime. And if anything, it costs me money because Ive been denied jobs; Im called a denier; no one wants to work with people like me. Its nonsense. But the scientists know what I know. If they all spoke out, even if just a fraction of them spoke out, had the guts to speak out, this stuff would end, and shortly. Its the education system as a whole. Were not taught to think about answers; they want to talk instead about how you feel about certain subjects: give me your reaction to that; dont tell me how you think, dont tell me how you reasoned to get to this [conclusion], tell me how you feel. Theyre trying to inculcate the right feelings. And thats the problem. Instead of facts, we have feelings. The need to believe – the level of belief about global warming depends on who youre talking to. There is a set of environmentalist true believers, and these people need to believe the solution to global warming. To them its sort of axiomatic that mankind is a pest, a cancer on the planet, some of them say – and these people dont really care so much about global warming, I think. Just as they didnt care so much about global cooling in the 70s, but what they do care about is people, they think there are too many people. They dont like what people are doing; they think that people use up too many resources, when in fact its the opposite; its the other way around. The world population was growing until the 1900s at a fairly slow pace and it really took off after that because of improvements in technology and agriculture primarily, and in shipping food and getting food to more people because of the internal combustion engine. Once the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel were able to be utilized, all of a sudden people had more food, and this led to an increase in population because people werent dying so young any more. And thats whats really the cause right now of ann increasing population; people are not dying at the same rates; infant mortality rate has dramatically lowered; and of course people are living longer because of medical technology – all because of our use of fossil fuels...so the environmentalist have it backwards. A lot of people are saying [for example] that Africans are having a lot of kids. But theyre having a lot of kids because theyre still working out in the fields; these people are farming, theyre herders and things like this; they need to have the human muscle that goes along with this; if we took that away from them by sort of enforced policies of limited numbers of children and so forth, wed be plunging them back into poverty. If we really cared about poor people, wed try to make sure theyre as developed as we were. This is the true believer environmentalists; they think there are too many people. What leads to more population is having less. The [contemporary] culture as a whole is anti-human for some reason...the people who are doing well – our society in particular – its we who say when we get married young and so forth, we cant afford children. Well, its the very poor people who can afford plenty of them. So we have our priorities backwards. And that needs to be – thats nothing that government can do; I mean, this is a cultural thing; this is a religious, philosophical, spiritual thing.... yoryevrah$

Soros verboten on Fox: Gingrich silenced

AIDS & MYCOPLASMA: The crime beyond belief

No wind turbines ! Cassadaga NY residents