Rinaldo Francesca Among the many explanations have been offered the strange die-off of fish and birds that hit parts of our planet so far apart two months ago, from Sweden [ 1] ' Arkansas [2], none - in my opinion - it seems more plausible' interpretation that draws a connection between this enigma and the ecological disaster caused by BP last summer. [3]
Moreover, the author Ian R. Crane had already predicted at the time, in an interview published on these pages [4], that the environmental catastrophe BP license plate would have had an impact on the ecosystem in areas well away from the Gulf of Mexico, because of the Gulf Stream that would transport contaminated rainwater Corexit settenrionale to Mexico in the U.S. Midwest and beyond. Sure enough, an alarming phenomenon occurred in those latitudes, and now no longer need a genius, in this case, to connect the dots.
no coincidence that the only explanation seems to have been carefully avoided by the Italian television program Voyager that in ' episode broadcast on January 17, questioned the fact the mysterious phenomenon ("a real puzzle," according to the present).
Incidentally, solo nei tragici media italiani, dove sembra quasi che ci sia la legge non scritta di non lasciare mai trascorrere più di un quarto d'ora nel palinsesto senza che vengano citate un po' le Sacre Scritture, e dove per ogni tema da trattare di volta in volta c'è sùbito pronto il santino archetipico (sei scettico? Allora sei un po' come San Tommaso; ti ravvedi? Allora sei come San Paolo sulla via per Damasco, e via dicendo), solo in quelle squallide reti catechizzate si potevano sprecare preziosi minuti d'introduzione per lasciare la parola al visionario allucinato Giovanni evangelista, e alle sue cosiddette profezie nel suo folle libro l'Apocalisse.
Questo in una trasmissione che si ritiene "scientifica". Vedere per credere. [5]
Whatever it is, well give me the romantic sentimental, but I can not help but feel the lack of a voice, in this context would be the highest authority in the past: I am referring to the American philosopher Charles Hoy Fort (1874 - 1932).
A brief digression for cinephiles: Anyone who has ever seen the movie Magnolia (1999) can not but have wondered what was the connection between the bizarre episodic introduction of just over five minutes at the beginning of the film, and the rest of the plot. What was the purpose of showing three urban legends, passed off as "facts" really happened, with the sole aim to conclude, just before the beginning of the movie itself: "We refuse to believe that these things happen by chance "?
Well, it so happens that the film's director, Paul Thomas Anderson, both - or whatever it was, on the construction of Magnolia - an avid reader of Charles Hoy Fort, of the unexplained and the inventor of the unexplained, as some have called.
course, remains to be seen the extent to which Anderson clearly had digested the work of Charles Fort, an author who, having never hesitated to let it leak out from his writings to be atheist, agnostic, or at least, never wrote anything that would suggest a conviction that events for which science had no explanation had to be done on an unidentified disegno soprannaturale.
E, andando a ben vedere, anche gli episodi selezionati da Paul Thomas Anderson non fanno molto credito alla causa dei fortiani: il riproporre la leggenda del sommozzatore morto perché pescato in un lago da un veivolo antincendio e poi gettato nel bosco in fiamme assieme all'acqua per spegnere l'incendio – una leggenda tanto falsa quanto vecchia come il proverbiale cucco – è una mossa quantomeno dubbia, [6] né le si conferisce più credibilità assicurandoci che la notizia fu riportata sul Reno Gazette nel 1983 (abbiamo verificato: non è mai successo).
In realtà, nell'introduzione di Magnolia , l'unico episodio genuinamente fortiano (in reported on the book Wild Talents by Charles Fort - 1932) is what opens the film. The event is narrated in the film as follows:
"The New York Herald, November 26, 1911, is the news of the hanging of three men. They were put to death for the murder of Sir William Edward Godfrey, husband, father gentleman of family and resident of Greenberry Hill, London. The man was killed by three tramps, whose sole motive was robbery. bums were identified as Joseph Green , Stanley Berry and Daniel Hill .
Greenberry Hill. "
True, true: in this case, you should check two or three Facts: The victim in question is in fact Edward Berry Godfrey and his murder were arrested Robert Green, Henry Berry and Lawrence Hill ... but the event happened back in 1678!
will tell you more: the mystery still looming and the smell of conspiracy about this story, in which Green, Berry and Hill could also be the scapegoats.
And for those who, like myself, living in London and wonder where on earth is this mysterious Greenberry Hill, that's solved the mystery: it is the ancient name of Primrose Hill, the historic and currently is home to many millionaires: it seems of having seen Robert Plant once and, to mention a millionaire's most famous, Primrose Hill was also the residence in which Friedrich Engels lived for many years, while between a glass of Chateau Lafite and the other, put down on paper the horrible conditions of the working class (undoubtedly eased only by dedicating its studies by the significant income derived from the exploitation of child labor the textile firm Ermen & Engels, of which his father was a major shareholder). [7]
Pardon me, you'll notice that I used to wander.
What I meant is that, while I am grateful to Paul Thomas Anderson for having revived Charles Fort to the general public, the other would prefer that the American had done better out its tasks.
Then, we discover a little 'Who was Charles Fort?
Please, I'm not going to compete with the impeccable biography located on the site fortiani studies [8] (yes: his work was taken and continues to be bolstered by a "dynasty" of followers ). I would just add my own modest interpretation of his work.
To put it in one sentence: we are talking about a man who refused to have it told. A man who does not drink. And sorry if a site called Àp0ti committed the sin of waiting so long to devote some time.
We are talking about a man who, at some point in his life, he realized that for too many events from nature inspiegabile, le frettolose spiegazioni che la scienza presuntuosa di allora (di sempre?) pretendeva di dare erano decisamente sospette e puzzavano di storielle di comodo. A Fort non sfuggiva che suddette spiegazioni funzionavano solo purché si scegliesse di ignorare certi fatti, minimizzarne altri, ingigantirne altri ancora. Fu lui, nei suoi scritti, ad insistere nel collegare fatti che le onnipresenti "autorità", nella stampa e nelle accademie, rifiutavano di vedere come connesse.
Il suo sdegno per chi si arrogava la posizione di "autorità" – in qualunque campo questo accadesse – era sempre espresso con un'ironia abrasiva e uno stile ermetico non sempre facile da seguire. Ecco che cosa scrive di lui Stefano Panizza:
"Because of their traditional mindset official scientists tend to dismiss the stories of strange objects that fall, dismissing it as jokes or outright falsehoods. And if any orthodox science is dealing with it seriously, usually brings up the weather exceptional, such as tornadoes, as is known, can raise and fall back to even large animals like oxen.
But this explanation is far from exhaustive, since they are often reported falls of unusual items in the days of all serene. And even the waterspouts, which scientists believe raise sea animals and they would fall on land, clarify these events. These, in fact, usually can not get much in the mainland to download fresh fish on the plains, at least was never detected a similar case.
The truth is that rain of frogs and fish have always occurred over the centuries and have been duly recorded. Fort
noted an endless series of strange events. "
Remember the mysterious - and never explained - raining frogs in Magnolia ?
Now, before you hurried to think that the good Rinaldo has gone out of his head, and suddenly decided to care for animals that rain from the sky - with the much more pressing emergencies of the moment - I just want to make clear that is all the events reported, as the method strong that I think there is always something to learn. It is, in a nutshell, simply this: always be wary of the authorities and stories that they tell us, always be willing to see connections where apparently there are none and keep an open mind and willing to change their opinions when a new fact ( and verified!) is presented to disprove it.
Sorry if it is little.
And even those who have turned their noses up at my use of the word "philosopher", referring to Fort (as this can never be considered who has never even worked on ontological empiricism? Tsk!), I humbly remember that the "authorities "(here again the office) who decided at the time such thinkers were, or were not dovesero be included in programs of philosophy that we were taught in high school - and which excluded due Fort - are the same as that inflicted far more socks philosophers with ideas of Charles Fort (from Lucretius, Kepler, through Hobbes: I bet that each of you has his own list).
On the contrary, in his writings, beyond the mere facts (and we're talking about something like twenty-five thousand inexplicable facts, he noted that Fort slavishly, verifying the authenticity and linking them chronologically), a thread reads all right applicant to the philosophical method. Quoting again Panizza:
"science island phenomena and things to observe them. The Fort is a great idea that nothing is distinguishable. Each isolated thing ceases to exist. And most of the things living in intermediate states. For example, between living and dying there are other steps, such as where an individual is not living but simply prevents you from dying. The student sees things as occupants of degrees, of the stages in the path of knowledge of a phenomenon. We must not choose a fact because it leaves the quiet right, but consider the facts are disturbing because not all facets of the same occurrence. Are not only important events, especially the relationships between them. There is a 'unity that underlies all things and all phenomena. "
Hope this makes the idea.
Of course, some theories fortiane, such as teleportation, or the Great Sargasso Sea (which I will not explore here) are still, well, being examined. But I suspect that even in this case Fort - the irony was not always implemented by all - he was going to parody the science, showing how easy it was to produce, as did the "authorities" any theory "stopgap" which, although in its absurdity, it seems appropriate to explain everything.
Let me quote from some person in Fort. From
Lo! (1931):
"There are of course other explanations for the 'hidden powers' of children. One is that children, instead of being atavistic, can occasionally be ahead of their parents, showing promising latent human powers, because their mind is not still oppressed by conformism. Then go to school and lose their superiority. Few children survived prodigy-education. "
From Wild Talents (1932):
" One of the interesting paradoxes of our existence - that deprives the mathematics of all meaning - a crime that is multiplied by one million to become patriotism. "
" Well [you say], if indeed there are magicians, then why are not magicians to have acquired political power? I'm not sure have not done. "
From The Book of the Damned (1919):
" The simplest strategy seems to be this: Maybe not ever bother to fight something, rather than leave it to its share to fight the against each other. "
"[...] no one has really investigated one thing, but rather has always sought to demonstrate a positive, positive or negative, something that was already convinced at the start."
Again convinced that this man does not deserve to be included in the pantheon of philosophers?
Personally, the idea of \u200b\u200bseeing everything as an intermediate stage, and masterfully expressed by the phrase "Everything merges away with something else "(everything is transformed into - and joins - something else to translate nell'inadeguata bombastic and Italian), is an idea that helps me every day and that - well want to see - Fort would like as a person who coined the concept of "Everything is relative" in 1919. Where one thing ends and another begins where do we draw the line? And maybe not in danger of losing everything when we insert this line? When I
happened to read the biologist Jacques Monod who, in his famous Chance and Necessity , wondered what were the criteria that allow us to say what a body "alive" and that things were not (A question the answer more difficult than we tend to think), or Massimo Fini [9] where he was questioned on the point at which began and ended the dictatorship and democracy - in both cases - where you were to put the boundary between the one and the other thing, just a name I mix for the head of Charles Fort. The American philosopher Charles Fort
arrived at a certain point in his life, concluded that the Municipal Library in New York had nothing to teach him, and moved to London with the sole purpose of being able to have daily access to the British Museum and the British Library.
I need to say more?
His apartment was on the 39th of Marchmont Street - actually near the British Museum, and also a short walk from Russell Square and the Hotel Russell, places central to the culture, the search e. \u200b\u200b.. well, many other things, as we hope to clarify below.
The building is a plaque that reads: Charles Fort (1874 - 1932). American founder of the Fortean Society, the study of anomalous phenomena. Rest In Peace
Rinaldo Francesca
[1] See: More Dead Birds Dead crows fall from sky in Sweden , The Examiner, January 5, 2011, posted here: http://www
.examiner.com / cultural-Oddities-in-national / more-dead-dead-birds-crows-fall-sky-from-sweden
[2] See: 3.000 Nearly Dead Birds Fall From Sky Arkansas, Fox News, January 3, 2011, available at:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/02/ dead-birds-fall-sky-ark /
[3] Maryann Tobin: Dead birds and BP oil spill: Is there a connection? All Voices, January 5, 2011, published here:
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7811925/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5leGFtaW5lci5jb20vcG9saXRpY2FsLXNwaW4taW4tbmF0aW9uYWwvZGVhZC1iaXJkcy1hbmQtYnAtb2lsLXNwaWxsLWlzLXRoZXJlLWEtY29ubmVjdGlvbg ==
an Italian version is here:
http://saigon2k .altervista.org/2011/01/2709 /
[4] Vedere: Ian R. Crane: BP, sostanze tossiche, decisioni inspiegabili e morti sospette ,
http://ap0ti.blogspot.com/2010/12/ian-r-crane-bp-sostanze-tossiche.html
[5] La puntata è reperibile qui:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORA-8BBeQo
[6] Per chi non la conoscesse, qui se ne trova una versione:
http://www.leggendemetropolitane.net/post/2003/09/04/Occhio-al-Canadair.aspx
[7] Michael Edwards: Ten Years of War Against Poverty: What Have We Learned? 7 settembre 2010, pubblicato qui:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/michael-edwards/ten-years-of-war-against-poverty-what-have-we-learned
[8] Stephen Panizza: Who was Charles Hoy Fort? , available here:
http://www.centrostudifortiani.it/chi-era.htm
[9] Massimo Fini: Democracy: The Great Scam . A version is available here:
http://www.anticorpi.info/2010/06/democrazia-il-grande-imbroglio.html
Moreover, the author Ian R. Crane had already predicted at the time, in an interview published on these pages [4], that the environmental catastrophe BP license plate would have had an impact on the ecosystem in areas well away from the Gulf of Mexico, because of the Gulf Stream that would transport contaminated rainwater Corexit settenrionale to Mexico in the U.S. Midwest and beyond. Sure enough, an alarming phenomenon occurred in those latitudes, and now no longer need a genius, in this case, to connect the dots.
no coincidence that the only explanation seems to have been carefully avoided by the Italian television program Voyager that in ' episode broadcast on January 17, questioned the fact the mysterious phenomenon ("a real puzzle," according to the present).
Incidentally, solo nei tragici media italiani, dove sembra quasi che ci sia la legge non scritta di non lasciare mai trascorrere più di un quarto d'ora nel palinsesto senza che vengano citate un po' le Sacre Scritture, e dove per ogni tema da trattare di volta in volta c'è sùbito pronto il santino archetipico (sei scettico? Allora sei un po' come San Tommaso; ti ravvedi? Allora sei come San Paolo sulla via per Damasco, e via dicendo), solo in quelle squallide reti catechizzate si potevano sprecare preziosi minuti d'introduzione per lasciare la parola al visionario allucinato Giovanni evangelista, e alle sue cosiddette profezie nel suo folle libro l'Apocalisse.
Questo in una trasmissione che si ritiene "scientifica". Vedere per credere. [5]
Whatever it is, well give me the romantic sentimental, but I can not help but feel the lack of a voice, in this context would be the highest authority in the past: I am referring to the American philosopher Charles Hoy Fort (1874 - 1932).
A brief digression for cinephiles: Anyone who has ever seen the movie Magnolia (1999) can not but have wondered what was the connection between the bizarre episodic introduction of just over five minutes at the beginning of the film, and the rest of the plot. What was the purpose of showing three urban legends, passed off as "facts" really happened, with the sole aim to conclude, just before the beginning of the movie itself: "We refuse to believe that these things happen by chance "?
Well, it so happens that the film's director, Paul Thomas Anderson, both - or whatever it was, on the construction of Magnolia - an avid reader of Charles Hoy Fort, of the unexplained and the inventor of the unexplained, as some have called.
course, remains to be seen the extent to which Anderson clearly had digested the work of Charles Fort, an author who, having never hesitated to let it leak out from his writings to be atheist, agnostic, or at least, never wrote anything that would suggest a conviction that events for which science had no explanation had to be done on an unidentified disegno soprannaturale.
E, andando a ben vedere, anche gli episodi selezionati da Paul Thomas Anderson non fanno molto credito alla causa dei fortiani: il riproporre la leggenda del sommozzatore morto perché pescato in un lago da un veivolo antincendio e poi gettato nel bosco in fiamme assieme all'acqua per spegnere l'incendio – una leggenda tanto falsa quanto vecchia come il proverbiale cucco – è una mossa quantomeno dubbia, [6] né le si conferisce più credibilità assicurandoci che la notizia fu riportata sul Reno Gazette nel 1983 (abbiamo verificato: non è mai successo).
In realtà, nell'introduzione di Magnolia , l'unico episodio genuinamente fortiano (in reported on the book Wild Talents by Charles Fort - 1932) is what opens the film. The event is narrated in the film as follows:
"The New York Herald, November 26, 1911, is the news of the hanging of three men. They were put to death for the murder of Sir William Edward Godfrey, husband, father gentleman of family and resident of Greenberry Hill, London. The man was killed by three tramps, whose sole motive was robbery. bums were identified as Joseph Green , Stanley Berry and Daniel Hill .
Greenberry Hill. "
True, true: in this case, you should check two or three Facts: The victim in question is in fact Edward Berry Godfrey and his murder were arrested Robert Green, Henry Berry and Lawrence Hill ... but the event happened back in 1678!
will tell you more: the mystery still looming and the smell of conspiracy about this story, in which Green, Berry and Hill could also be the scapegoats.
And for those who, like myself, living in London and wonder where on earth is this mysterious Greenberry Hill, that's solved the mystery: it is the ancient name of Primrose Hill, the historic and currently is home to many millionaires: it seems of having seen Robert Plant once and, to mention a millionaire's most famous, Primrose Hill was also the residence in which Friedrich Engels lived for many years, while between a glass of Chateau Lafite and the other, put down on paper the horrible conditions of the working class (undoubtedly eased only by dedicating its studies by the significant income derived from the exploitation of child labor the textile firm Ermen & Engels, of which his father was a major shareholder). [7]
Pardon me, you'll notice that I used to wander.
What I meant is that, while I am grateful to Paul Thomas Anderson for having revived Charles Fort to the general public, the other would prefer that the American had done better out its tasks.
Then, we discover a little 'Who was Charles Fort?
Please, I'm not going to compete with the impeccable biography located on the site fortiani studies [8] (yes: his work was taken and continues to be bolstered by a "dynasty" of followers ). I would just add my own modest interpretation of his work.
To put it in one sentence: we are talking about a man who refused to have it told. A man who does not drink. And sorry if a site called Àp0ti committed the sin of waiting so long to devote some time.
We are talking about a man who, at some point in his life, he realized that for too many events from nature inspiegabile, le frettolose spiegazioni che la scienza presuntuosa di allora (di sempre?) pretendeva di dare erano decisamente sospette e puzzavano di storielle di comodo. A Fort non sfuggiva che suddette spiegazioni funzionavano solo purché si scegliesse di ignorare certi fatti, minimizzarne altri, ingigantirne altri ancora. Fu lui, nei suoi scritti, ad insistere nel collegare fatti che le onnipresenti "autorità", nella stampa e nelle accademie, rifiutavano di vedere come connesse.
Il suo sdegno per chi si arrogava la posizione di "autorità" – in qualunque campo questo accadesse – era sempre espresso con un'ironia abrasiva e uno stile ermetico non sempre facile da seguire. Ecco che cosa scrive di lui Stefano Panizza:
"Because of their traditional mindset official scientists tend to dismiss the stories of strange objects that fall, dismissing it as jokes or outright falsehoods. And if any orthodox science is dealing with it seriously, usually brings up the weather exceptional, such as tornadoes, as is known, can raise and fall back to even large animals like oxen.
But this explanation is far from exhaustive, since they are often reported falls of unusual items in the days of all serene. And even the waterspouts, which scientists believe raise sea animals and they would fall on land, clarify these events. These, in fact, usually can not get much in the mainland to download fresh fish on the plains, at least was never detected a similar case.
The truth is that rain of frogs and fish have always occurred over the centuries and have been duly recorded. Fort
noted an endless series of strange events. "
Remember the mysterious - and never explained - raining frogs in Magnolia ?
Now, before you hurried to think that the good Rinaldo has gone out of his head, and suddenly decided to care for animals that rain from the sky - with the much more pressing emergencies of the moment - I just want to make clear that is all the events reported, as the method strong that I think there is always something to learn. It is, in a nutshell, simply this: always be wary of the authorities and stories that they tell us, always be willing to see connections where apparently there are none and keep an open mind and willing to change their opinions when a new fact ( and verified!) is presented to disprove it.
Sorry if it is little.
And even those who have turned their noses up at my use of the word "philosopher", referring to Fort (as this can never be considered who has never even worked on ontological empiricism? Tsk!), I humbly remember that the "authorities "(here again the office) who decided at the time such thinkers were, or were not dovesero be included in programs of philosophy that we were taught in high school - and which excluded due Fort - are the same as that inflicted far more socks philosophers with ideas of Charles Fort (from Lucretius, Kepler, through Hobbes: I bet that each of you has his own list).
On the contrary, in his writings, beyond the mere facts (and we're talking about something like twenty-five thousand inexplicable facts, he noted that Fort slavishly, verifying the authenticity and linking them chronologically), a thread reads all right applicant to the philosophical method. Quoting again Panizza:
"science island phenomena and things to observe them. The Fort is a great idea that nothing is distinguishable. Each isolated thing ceases to exist. And most of the things living in intermediate states. For example, between living and dying there are other steps, such as where an individual is not living but simply prevents you from dying. The student sees things as occupants of degrees, of the stages in the path of knowledge of a phenomenon. We must not choose a fact because it leaves the quiet right, but consider the facts are disturbing because not all facets of the same occurrence. Are not only important events, especially the relationships between them. There is a 'unity that underlies all things and all phenomena. "
Hope this makes the idea.
Of course, some theories fortiane, such as teleportation, or the Great Sargasso Sea (which I will not explore here) are still, well, being examined. But I suspect that even in this case Fort - the irony was not always implemented by all - he was going to parody the science, showing how easy it was to produce, as did the "authorities" any theory "stopgap" which, although in its absurdity, it seems appropriate to explain everything.
Let me quote from some person in Fort. From
Lo! (1931):
"There are of course other explanations for the 'hidden powers' of children. One is that children, instead of being atavistic, can occasionally be ahead of their parents, showing promising latent human powers, because their mind is not still oppressed by conformism. Then go to school and lose their superiority. Few children survived prodigy-education. "
From Wild Talents (1932):
" One of the interesting paradoxes of our existence - that deprives the mathematics of all meaning - a crime that is multiplied by one million to become patriotism. "
" Well [you say], if indeed there are magicians, then why are not magicians to have acquired political power? I'm not sure have not done. "
From The Book of the Damned (1919):
" The simplest strategy seems to be this: Maybe not ever bother to fight something, rather than leave it to its share to fight the against each other. "
"[...] no one has really investigated one thing, but rather has always sought to demonstrate a positive, positive or negative, something that was already convinced at the start."
Again convinced that this man does not deserve to be included in the pantheon of philosophers?
Personally, the idea of \u200b\u200bseeing everything as an intermediate stage, and masterfully expressed by the phrase "Everything merges away with something else "(everything is transformed into - and joins - something else to translate nell'inadeguata bombastic and Italian), is an idea that helps me every day and that - well want to see - Fort would like as a person who coined the concept of "Everything is relative" in 1919. Where one thing ends and another begins where do we draw the line? And maybe not in danger of losing everything when we insert this line? When I
happened to read the biologist Jacques Monod who, in his famous Chance and Necessity , wondered what were the criteria that allow us to say what a body "alive" and that things were not (A question the answer more difficult than we tend to think), or Massimo Fini [9] where he was questioned on the point at which began and ended the dictatorship and democracy - in both cases - where you were to put the boundary between the one and the other thing, just a name I mix for the head of Charles Fort. The American philosopher Charles Fort
arrived at a certain point in his life, concluded that the Municipal Library in New York had nothing to teach him, and moved to London with the sole purpose of being able to have daily access to the British Museum and the British Library.
I need to say more?
His apartment was on the 39th of Marchmont Street - actually near the British Museum, and also a short walk from Russell Square and the Hotel Russell, places central to the culture, the search e. \u200b\u200b.. well, many other things, as we hope to clarify below.
The building is a plaque that reads: Charles Fort (1874 - 1932). American founder of the Fortean Society, the study of anomalous phenomena. Rest In Peace
Rinaldo Francesca
[1] See: More Dead Birds Dead crows fall from sky in Sweden , The Examiner, January 5, 2011, posted here: http://www
.examiner.com / cultural-Oddities-in-national / more-dead-dead-birds-crows-fall-sky-from-sweden
[2] See: 3.000 Nearly Dead Birds Fall From Sky Arkansas, Fox News, January 3, 2011, available at:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/02/ dead-birds-fall-sky-ark /
[3] Maryann Tobin: Dead birds and BP oil spill: Is there a connection? All Voices, January 5, 2011, published here:
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7811925/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5leGFtaW5lci5jb20vcG9saXRpY2FsLXNwaW4taW4tbmF0aW9uYWwvZGVhZC1iaXJkcy1hbmQtYnAtb2lsLXNwaWxsLWlzLXRoZXJlLWEtY29ubmVjdGlvbg ==
an Italian version is here:
http://saigon2k .altervista.org/2011/01/2709 /
[4] Vedere: Ian R. Crane: BP, sostanze tossiche, decisioni inspiegabili e morti sospette ,
http://ap0ti.blogspot.com/2010/12/ian-r-crane-bp-sostanze-tossiche.html
[5] La puntata è reperibile qui:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORA-8BBeQo
[6] Per chi non la conoscesse, qui se ne trova una versione:
http://www.leggendemetropolitane.net/post/2003/09/04/Occhio-al-Canadair.aspx
[7] Michael Edwards: Ten Years of War Against Poverty: What Have We Learned? 7 settembre 2010, pubblicato qui:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/michael-edwards/ten-years-of-war-against-poverty-what-have-we-learned
[8] Stephen Panizza: Who was Charles Hoy Fort? , available here:
http://www.centrostudifortiani.it/chi-era.htm
[9] Massimo Fini: Democracy: The Great Scam . A version is available here:
http://www.anticorpi.info/2010/06/democrazia-il-grande-imbroglio.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment