The Asteroid Vesta is confirming Electric Universe ideas about planetary scarring.

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Stephen Smith        Find Article Here:-

Equatorial grooves on Vesta. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

Vesta appears to have experienced some powerful forces. Several craters more than 50 kilometers in diameter mar its surface. Near Vesta’s south pole is a particularly large example that is 460 kilometers wide. Since Vesta has a mean diameter of 529 kilometers (Vesta is not quite spherical: 564 x 531 kilometers), it represents an impressive portion of the asteroid’s over all physical size. The crater is about 13 kilometers deep, with an 18 kilometer high central peak.

Dusty aggregations, or so-called “protoplanetary disks,” are thought to be where gravity pulls wispy gases together until they reach pressures great enough to ignite thermonuclear fusion. As the “Nebular Hypothesis” concludes, any remaining clumps of dust and gas not absorbed by the new star swirl around, attracting other bits, until they condense into planets. The Solar System is said to have been created in this way billions of years ago. Asteroids are typically considered to be the “leftovers” after the major planets and moons formed.

A close examination of Vesta’s surface casts doubt on the notion that the large craters could have been created by an object smashing into it, especially when those craters share walls that are thin and undisturbed by blast effects. The alternative explanation—formation by plasma discharge—is well supported.

The shallow craters, the overlapping rims and the lack of impact debris are important considerations in the theory of electrical effects. By thinking only in terms of meteor impacts, landslides and other familiar geological forces, NASA is ignoring the one possibility that makes all the disparate features they see cohesive: an electrically dynamic Solar System in its formative phases, when cosmic thunderbolts carved the surfaces of planets and moons.

In a standard Newtonian impact scenario, craters should form as dish-shaped holes with a blanket of blast debris surrounding the rims, sorted from largest to smallest particles depending on distance from the explosion. On Vesta, there is a decidedly different landscape. The craters are clean and most are found in collections, as if a shotgun blast struck the area.

The most obvious evidence for a plasma discharge is the steeply carved cliffs on Vesta. These features are not expected in an impact scenario. The visual evidence also reveals long canyons and furrows, some of which are ten kilometers wide, cut into the equator. A closer examination shows that those trenches (no matter what size) are chains of craters.

Asteroid formation does not require that one object smash into another one for there to be craters. Electric arcs can scoop out material, accelerate it into space, and leave behind deep pits. They tend not to disturb the surroundings, so they are used in industrial applications to finely machine metal parts. Based on laboratory analysis, that is what has occurred on Vesta: spark discharge erosion.

Planetary scientists ignore electrical explanations, which rectify the anomalies in other theories, because they know almost nothing about plasma and electric charge movement in space. Electricity can create the very things they are sending out probes to study.

Stephen Smith

Canadian Fish Tests for Radiation – Negative, But Where’s It From?

By Wawmeesh Hamilton September 20th, 2011   Find Article Here:-

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CIFA) has deemed fish tested in the wake of the Japan nuclear disaster as radiation free, but will not divulge where samples were taken from.

According to the CFIA, results from 12 fish samples showed minimal detectable levels of the radioactive particles Cesium -134 and Cesium -137. The results are below Health Canada’s “actionable levels,” said CFIA spokesperson Mark Clarke. The CFIA released the results of its tests on Friday, September 16.

West Coast salmon migration routes are near waters that are feared contaminated with radioactive fallout from the nuclear reactor that was damaged by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan last spring. The agency did not answer repeated questions about where the samples were taken from in B.C., saying only that they were came from various processing stations.

The testing was done just as a precaution, authorities said. They had not expected to find anything. They waited till now because, although the twin disasters happened in March, the fish did not return to spawn until now.

Stó:lō Tribal Council fisheries advisor Ernie Crey said he is puzzled at the agency’s reticence about where the fish were taken from.

“It’s this kind of response from government officials that give rise to suspicion among Canadians,” Crey told Indian Country Today Media Network. “There is simply no good reason to withhold this information from the public.”

Testers could have picked the fish up from a processing plant, caught them on a recreational fishing charter or bought them from a commercial boat, Crey said.

CFIA will continue to monitor the situation in Japan and assess impacts on Canada’s food supply. But “no additional testing is planned,” CFIA spokesperson Alice d’Anjou said.

Fish continue to migrate through waters affected by the reactor disaster, Crey said. Therefore salmon testing should be longitudinal, he said. If long-term testing isn’t carried out and something is found later, then there could be consequences from the top down, he added.

Crey recalled Canada’s 1985 ‘Tuna-gate’ scandal, in which tuna found by officials to be unfit for human consumption was later given political assent to be sold.

“The minister and likely several people down the line lost their jobs over that,” Crey said. “Those are the kind of consequences that current and future politicians responsible for public health can expect over this if something is found down the road.”

BBC 3 – “9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective.

September 8th, 2011  Author: Emily Louise Church  Source: 9/11 Truth News

Hello, my name is Emily Church and I am a mute.Well, according to the masters of propaganda at the BBC/Renegade Productions.   Find Full Article Here:-

September 8, 2011

This summer I participated in a BBC hit piece on 9/11, entitled “Conspiracy Roadtrip”. The premise is simple: five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet “experts” and victims of the attacks, guided by “comedian” Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 commission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story.The show aired a few hours ago and I felt compelled to write my version of what happened on that 8 day roadtrip, to give you the perspective you were not shown by BBC 3.Firstly, I must tip my hat to them. They did a wonderful editing job. Anyone who has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.I wasn’t.Throughout my time on the show I asked question after question. I asked every single person we met whether they believed the official story to be true and the vast majority of them said no. Ask yourselves this question: why has the footage of us meeting Tom Owen, a voice analyst who worked on the Osama Bin Laden “confession” tapes, been cut completely? There is a simple answer. Because he told us not to believe the official report. Why? Because we aren’t in the “need-to-know” category, his words, not mine. Throughout our entire meeting with Tom Owen it was pretty much clear that the director of the show wasn’t happy with his take. Like most of our meetings with “experts” she would try and steer the conversation in a direction that would better fit her hit piece.I’d also like to ask why footage of [FAA National Operations Manager] Ben Sliney saying that someone needs to be held accountable for 9/11 was cut? Surely that’s something that the TV license paying public should be able to see? But no, it didn’t fit their requirements for the perfect hit piece.On the journey I was one of the most vocal contributors, consistently asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I wonder why? Is it completely out of this world to assume that the answers to my questions might have made the truth about 9/11 a little too clear to the viewer? Is it a ridiculous conspiracy theory to assume that the reason the BBC turned me into a mute was to create a biased hit-piece? As with most 9/11 “conspiracy” documentaries, they focused on mostly debunkable theories such as no plane hit the Pentagon and fake phone calls. In other words, shit that pushes us further away from real truth and accountability. They also did a great job at making it seem like I believed most of these theories. I’ll freely admit that before I went on the show I was a “9/11 was an inside job” sort of girl. Hell, I even have a t-shirt from infowars.com. Yes that’s right, I knowingly gave money to Alex Jones.Before I went on the show I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that all evidence points to a plane hitting a Pentagon, that maybe the twin towers and Building 7 weren’t a controlled demolition and maybe Dick Cheney and co hadn’t plotted the whole thing with fake hijackers. Now I don’t know what is true and what isn’t. I am not 100% convinced about controlled demolition but it is a distinct possibility. I just decided to focus on the other, less spoken about side of 9/11. The fact that with multiple warnings, the US failed to prevent an attack on their own shores. The fact that so many people have been gagged from talking about 9/11 and revealing information they might know. The fact that the 9/11 commission report, by it’s own ADMISSION was set up to fail. These are just a few of the facts that I brought up on the show. Were they shown? No.