Joint Task Force Told Face to Face, Blackout was a Military Test
Oliver J. Midelson
At an under publicized public comment meeting, which was publicly 'announced' by a Department of Energy news release, Michael Kane outlined his report, published at Global Free Press, stating that the August 14th blackout was part and parcel to a multi-faceted military test. The Task Force was very attentive, attempting to take notes as fast as Michael spoke.
[Okay, what we know so far is that someone named Oliver Midelson is reporting that someone named Michael Kane outlined his report--at an under publicized public comment meeting. Why Kane chose this venue, or indeed who he is, we do not know. But it appears clear that Oliver Midelson is no journalist, since he clearly stands opposed to the under-publicizing of this meeting at which this person (his friend?) Michael Kane chose to speak. The line about the task force "appearing to take notes as fast as Michael spoke" could be wrong, by the way, unless Midelson actually looked at the notepads held by The Task Force. My bet is they were doodling, drawing big smiley faces with koo-koo clocks protruding from the forehead.]
His comments can be heard in Windows Media player format (now playing). They were the last comments made to the panel.
It was a snowy Friday afternoon in Manhattan and very few people showed up. Both Forbes and the Akron Beacon Journal left out Michael's comments in their "coverage" of the New York pubic comment meeting. Once again the mainstream media completely fails the public, and Global Free Press is the only publication brave enough to run the real coverage of this so-called 'public' comment meeting. How public can it be if no one reports it? The "New Media" such as GFP, FTW, INN, SGTV, and many more are proving to be our only salvation.
[At this point in the article, I am looking for some substance, but instead the author retreats into commonly-voiced complaints about the news media.]
Michael made the only interesting comments given the entire day with the exception of Carole Dortch-Wright, who spoke on behalf of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. The NY Times, who had a reporter present at this meeting, seem to have provided no coverage in their Saturday edition. For the record, I personally saw Michael's report handed to the NY Times reporter. Hopefully they are saving it for their Sunday edition, but I won't hold my breath.
[In this paragraph, the author edits the entire meeting for us by making the claim that Kane "made the only interesting comments given the entire day" with one exception. What that exception said we are not told. But the thrust of this article does begin to come clear here: the author, obviously in some way enamored of Kane's statements, awaits . . . what? validation in the form of the statements being published in mainstream media? No . . . this person clearly sees more validation in the fact that the mainstream media does NOT publish Kane's alleged report. Validation by negative response? Try this on for size:
"No news media will publish the truth."
"I think turtle people have taken over the planet."
"No news media has published my turtle-people hypothesis."
Therefore: "My turtle-people hypothesis is 100% validated!"
It's magical.]
Very few people showed up to the public comment meeting in Cleveland, Ohio on December 4th, prompting Rep. Dennis Kucinich and four other members of Congress to accuse the D.O.E. of failing to adequately notify the public, according to the Akron Beacon Journal
The first point Michael made was that the Task Force Interim Report failed to address the possibility of Electro Magnetic Pulses causing the blackout. He noted that it is known HAARP was turned on at 4pm on August 14th, just 11 minutes before the blackout occurred. He stated the Air Force should be contacted and required to turn over all documentation pertaining to what HAARP was used for on that day.
[Here is an example of why it is important to understand grammar. Generally speaking, when a news reporter employs the passive voice, it can be assumed that the reader is being lied to, or at the very least, that important information is being either covered up or made up. "He noted that it is known HAARP . . . etc." The passive voice, in this instance, attempts to intimidate the questioning reader. "Who, exactly, knows that, and how?" we might ask. But only if we are paying attention.]
Michael detailed the aerial aerosol spray operation he witnessed the night of the blackout, as well as referencing the proximity of the Determined Promise '03 national military drills announced just one day after the blackout. He also mentioned he received a report that the Canadian border was militarized at 1pm on August 14th, just three hours before the blackout, in the Mohawk River Valley region. Why?
Dr. Nawal Kamel appeared to be pleased to hear Mr. Kane's comments, as he was the only person who appealed to the Task Force as a citizen void of any special interest. In addition to this, Senior Policy Advisor James Glotfelty was nodding his head up and down as Michael began to speak of PD-16.
Wayne Madsen has revealed National Security Presidential Directive 16 (PD-16) gave the president authority to wage cyber-warfare against other countries, including bringing down their power grids. Michael pointed out we do not know if any elements of PD-16 pertain to North America.
He continued by referencing Tommy Franks' recent comments in Cigar Aficionado. General Franks' stated if another terrorist attack occurs in America, the Constitution would be scrapped for a military government. Visibly upset by this outrageous statement, Michael put down his prepared statement and made a much-needed comparison to the current 'independent' commission to investigate 9-11.
[Could someone get the actual quotation by Tommy Franks, from Cigar Aficionado? Being asthmatic, I don't subscribe. But I would be curious to see the exact quotation. Also I note that in the above paragraph as well as throughout the article, certain adjectives make it clear that the writer is less than objective. "Much-needed"?]
He noted how the victims family members were terribly disappointed with the 9-11 Commission, and that it is clear the commission will not withstand historical scrutiny. He ended by warning this Task Force the only way for them to avoid the same destiny is to address the questions outlined in his report. He then offered to hand his report to any one interested in reviewing it.
At this point, Alison Silverstein, co-chair of the Electric System Working Group (ESWG) threw both her hands out, prompting Michael to personally hand his report to all nine Task Force members.
I asked Michael what he thought of the Task Force's response:
"I wanted to appeal to their hearts as well as their minds," said Michael in the Park Central Hotel Lobby, "…I think I may have touched one or two hearts in there today."
[The rest of this article seems genuinely like a news article, except that it subjects Mr. Kane to no scrutiny whatsoever, and therefore is suspect. Just who is this citizen Kane? What are his credentials? How did he come to bring such a globally important issue to light before such an under-advertised meeting? And how did Oliver J. Midelson just happen to be there when he did? And why does Midelson appear so prejudicial toward Kane's report? Is Midelson secretly a fan of Kane? A lackey? A toady?]
