U.S. General: QAnon is Army Intel…Calls for Better Science Education
General Paul E. Vallely (Major General, USA, Ret.) was interviewed by show host Mike Filip on AmeriCanuck Internet Radio of Canada, October 14, 2019.
In a wide-ranging interview Filip and Vallely talked about Q-Anon, Antifa, the Deep State, politics, and the biggest threats facing the US.
Gen. Vallely was asked by a listener in Mike’s chatroom, “Who’s the individual calling himself or themselves Q?”
Gen. Vallely answered the following:
“Q-Anon is information that comes out of a group called ‘The Army of Northern Virginia.’ This is a group of military intelligence specialists, of over 800 people that advises the president. The president does not have a lot of confidence in the CIA or the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) much anymore. So the President relies on real operators, who are mostly Special Operations type of people. This is where ‘Q’ picks up some of his information.”
Mike Filip spoke about 8 Chan being dropped and relaunched as 8Kun, which would be backed up by a military satellite. Gen. Vallely said he didn’t know about that, but that there is a separate internet being created, one that could not be compromised because it is so high-tech. He said the Chinese are working on the concept as well. Q-Anon is expected to be posting on 8Kun very soon.
Gen. Vallely discussed the five biggest threats facing our country today:
- Movement toward a socialist state in America
- Cartels and illegal border-crossers
- China’s expanding military and continuing support of North Korea
- Undermining of Europe
- Education of youth (who lack basic History & Science education)
Quick Explanation of Q-Anon!
Q-Anon came on the scene in late October 2017. “Q” dropped clues through posts that led to research by Patriots around the world. Q-Anon’s main mission is to educate, expose evil, shed light on darkness, and bring awareness and truth. Q-Anon taught Patriots how to stand up against the Deep State/NWO operatives.
Read more at: patriotssoapbox.com
WWG1WGA
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
One of the five biggest threats facing our country today according to Paul E. Vallely (Major General, USA, Ret.) was: “Education of youth (who lack basic History & Science education)”
Yet the headline stated he called for “For Better Science Education”. Which gives no clue what ‘Better Science Education’ might be. Which is the fundamental problem of the present Science Education. My daughter’s first major in college was history. Which is not a major with many job opportunities. But as I read some science textbooks it becomes why a science education problem is the lack of basic historical knowledge.
What we term Science is a unique method of learning which was formalized little more than four centuries ago by Galileo Galilei, an Italian mathematician and natural philosopher. Galileo, as best known, communicated this unique method to use in his book–Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638)–which was written in the Italian language. Unfortunately, an English translation of this book had not commonly existed before 1914 for about two centuries. Hence, English reading science students could not assigned to read even portions of this book this long period of time.
So when Galileo’s book translated into English by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio became available it did not immediately become required reading by the teachers and professors of science. For during those 200 years so much scientific knowledge had become known that maybe therefore I can speculate that most teachers and professors of 1914 questioned: What could Galileo have known what we do not already know? So it seems few teachers and professors themselves rushed out to buy Crew and de Salvio’s translation. It was ancient history and in 1914 there were some pretty exciting new physical science ideas to study and to evidently begin to teach students about.
And a historical fact is that matter is composed of atoms and elementary matter was not air, earth, water, and fire was being ‘learned in the midst of the two centuries when there was no English translation of Galileo’s book.
To make the general’s point about history, I ask the question: Do you know what the Tyndall Effect is? or When Tyndall observed (discovered) it?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
History is helpful but as the saying goes, histories written by the winners. History is usually the story of how current accepted beliefs came into being and is used to support the current beliefs. An example of this is your not knowing that E=mc^2 was not developed by Einstein but is attributed to him. History is used to validate accepted beliefs.
The Tyndall, effect is basically the same phenomena that occurs in the dual thin slit experiment. When light passes close to an object it refracts or bends. This effect was accepted as proof of the wave nature of light, which does not support the current photon theory. The Zeeman and Stark effect (not widely discussed) where a change in the strength of electric and magnetic field causes a shift in the spectrum of light emitted by atoms also supports the wave nature of light and would explain why light bends around the sun, where these fields are stronger. Instead of including and examining what effect the changes in strength of these fields would have on light the phenomena of light bending around the sun was used to support the current photon theory even though this meant multiplying 0 times a large number did not result in 0.
The history of science is like others histories. It includes what the author chooses to support what he believes and excludes what doesn’t add credence to his beliefs. It supports orthodoxy instead of development, which is the basis of science.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Please describe for us how we might observe the Tyndall Effect, other than by the double slit experiment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
In the Tyndall effect light refracts around particles in a colloid suspension causing the blue-white smoke when an engine burns oil. You don’t see any similarity between this light refracting and the bending of light around the sun during an eclipse? The moon in front of the sun doesn’t affect the light going around the sun it just allows us to see the change in direction of the light. Normally the light from the sun would cause interference with this bending light making it invisible.
Light normally refracts in water and solutions. The higher the concentration of a solution the more refraction there is (brix). The way to distinguish a micro emulsion (clear colloidal suspension) from a solution is to shine a beam of light through it. In a micro emulsion there will be no refraction. Why?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Just what is your description (definition) of a ‘(clear colloidal suspension)’ relative to that of a ‘colloidal suspension’. Please use the words commonly used when referring to ‘colloidal suspensions’ and the phenomenon termed the Tyndall effect.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A clear colloidal suspensions were the suspended particles are not visible (unlike milk which is oil in water) and the colloidal suspension has the appearance of a clear solution. A common example is the cleaner PINESOLVE which is a suspension of pine oiling soap solution. When the cleaner is diluted it turns into a milky white suspension similar in appearance to milk.The way to determine the difference between a solution and a clear emulsion is by the shining a beam of light through the solution. In a solution there will be a refraction of the light beam but in the clear emulsion it will pass straight through. My guess for this happening is that the suspended particles in water cause refraction where there is cancelation and reinforcing of light waves causing an un-refracted beam.
Isn’t JELL-O a clear suspension of water in a solid?
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I claim there is a unquestionable example of a colloidal suspension which human’s have observed since there were humans. What might this example be? And anyone else should feel free to beat Herb in answering this question
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
That would be the ocean.
A mermaid told me.
Regards
Matt
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t know if this is the suspension to which you refer but the large red sun at sunrise and sunset is from the light refracting around particles in the atmosphere. At noon the sun appears as a smaller white/yellow sphere directly overhead because the light you see is not being refracted.
Have a good day,
Herb
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
I forgot the blue of the sky.
I presume you are still referring to the Tyndall Effect
Not all early men saw the ocean but most of them came out of their cave and looked up or even just ahead.
Matt
jerry krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
My answer is milk.
Have a good day, Jerry
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
I did not realize prehistoric man had glass containers for milk to observe this.
I am taking this to the international court of arbitration for quizzes.
Best wishes.
Matt
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
A transparent glass container makes it easier to observe that milk is a colloidal suspension but an observed fact all animal milk that I am aware contains two types of colloidal particles (very small particles that cannot be seen with the naked-eye but still far larger than water molecules. Another colloidal scatter light (radiation) so the liquid is not transparent as pure liquid water is.
Of course, you know the difference between a transparent liquid like water and a non-transparent liquid like milk. But it seems Herb does not.
But Herb is correct about the fact that milk contains oil (or fat colloidal particles. I do not know if you or Herb know that if you let natural milk ‘stand’ in a container these fat (hydrocarbons) will begin to form larger particles as they collide with each other and eventually float to the top and form a layer of what is commonly termed cream. And that this cream layer (which is also opaque (not transparent) can be skimmed off leaving skimmed milk.
But if you do not skim off the cream layer and instead stir the two liquids they will reform the whole milk with its original appearance as it came from the animal which is capable of producing milk.
Now skimmed milk, whole milk, and cream have different colors. Skimmed milk is blueish. Whole milk is white. And the natural cream that I have observed is yellowish . And I believe that prehistoric humans could have observed this without have glass containers.
But moderns like you and me, seldom see what I have just described because we have unnatural homogenized whole milk in which the fat (cream) particles do combine with each other and float to the top.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
And yes, it seems my old fingers are not controlled well by my old mind so a reader needs to translate what I intended to write.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I know what a transparent liquid is. It’s the glass you pour the milking.
Have a goody,
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
That should read, pour the milk into.
Herb.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I learn something new from you often. Now it is “I know what a transparent liquid is. It’s the glass”
Have a good day, Jerry
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry & Herb,
Here is an observed condition about the two slit phenomena.
Firstly, the effect is different if the material the slit is made in is thicker or thinner.
Secondly, the effect is different if different materials with the same thickness is used.
Thirdly, if the sheet in which the slits are scribed is not at 90 degrees to the beam then the observed effect is different.
Fourthly, under certain conditions one can observe the formation of the source of the light, very hard to achieve but possible.
Am I seeing things?
Michael
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
The dual thin slit experiment was accepted as proof of the wave nature of light, since particles could not produce the interference patterns of bright and dark bands. (No such proof exist for the photon or particle nature of light.) If the medium in which light waves travel is the electric and magnetic fields produced by objects then changing the material, thickness, or angle would affect the strength of theses fields and the interference pattern produced.
Are you seeing things? Yes, that is the nature of light and what you see helps to discover how light works. DesCarte, who founded modern philosophy/science said that his eyes could be fooled therefore he could not trust his senses to discover truth and must use his mind. “I think therefore I am.”
Herb
Reply