The sabbath year (shmita Hebrew: שמיטה, literally “release”) also called the sabbatical year or sheviit (Hebrew: שביעית, literally “seventh”) is the seventh year of the seven-year agricultural cycle mandated by the Torah for the Land of Israel, and still observed in contemporary Judaism.
Psalm 83 will come first.
Then possibly Ez. 38-39, partial nuke exchange.
Once this takes place the world will be ready…
to receive their false messiah.
Passover, April 15, 2014, total lunar eclipse
(Partial solar eclipse, April 29, 2014)
Feast of Tabernacles, October 8, 2014, total lunar eclipse
(Partial solar eclipse, October 23, 2014)
(Jewish Civil New Years Day, total solar eclipse, March 20, 2015)
Passover, April 4, 2015, total lunar eclipse
(Feast of Trumpets, partial solar eclipse, September 13, 2015)
Feast of Tabernacles, September 28, 2015, total lunar eclipse
March 27, 2014: For people in the United States, an extraordinary series of lunar eclipses is about to begin.
The action starts on April 15th when the full Moon passes through the amber shadow of Earth, producing a midnight eclipse visible across North America. So begins a lunar eclipse tetrad—a series of 4 consecutive total eclipses occurring at approximately six month intervals. The total eclipse of April 15, 2014, will be followed by another on Oct. 8, 2014, and another on April 4, 2015, and another on Sept. 28 2015.
“The most unique thing about the 2014-2015 tetrad is that all of them are visible for all or parts of the USA,” says longtime NASA eclipse expert Fred Espenak.
On average, lunar eclipses occur about twice a year, but not all of them are total. There are three types:
A penumbral eclipse is when the Moon passes through the pale outskirts of Earth’s shadow. It’s so subtle, sky watchers often don’t notice an eclipse is underway.
A partial eclipse is more dramatic. The Moon dips into the core of Earth’s shadow, but not all the way, so only a fraction of Moon is darkened.
A total eclipse, when the entire Moon is shadowed, is best of all. The face of the Moon turns sunset-red for up to an hour or more as the eclipse slowly unfolds.
Usually, lunar eclipses come in no particular order. A partial can be followed by a total, followed by a penumbral, and so on. Anything goes. Occasionally, though, the sequence is more orderly. When four consecutive lunar eclipses are all total, the series is called a tetrad.
“During the 21st century, there are 8 sets of tetrads, so I would describe tetrads as a frequent occurrence in the current pattern of lunar eclipses,” says Espenak. “But this has not always been the case. During the three hundred year interval from 1600 to 1900, for instance, there were no tetrads at all.”
The April 15th eclipse begins at 2 AM Eastern time when the edge of the Moon first enters the amber core of Earth’s shadow. Totality occurs during a 78 minute interval beginning around 3 o’clock in the morning on the east coast, midnight on the west coast. Weather permitting, the red Moon will be easy to see across the entirety of North America.
A quick trip to the Moon provides the answer: Imagine yourself standing on a dusty lunar plain looking up at the sky. Overhead hangs Earth, nightside down, completely hiding the sun behind it. The eclipse is underway.
You might expect Earth seen in this way to be utterly dark, but it’s not. The rim of the planet is on fire! As you scan your eye around Earth’s circumference, you’re seeing every sunrise and every sunset in the world, all of them, all at once. This incredible light beams into the heart of Earth’s shadow, filling it with a coppery glow and transforming the Moon into a great red orb.
Mark your calendar for April 15th and let the tetrad begin.
ECLIPSES DURING 2014
Published in Observer’s Handbook 2014, Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
In 2014, there are two solar eclipses and two total lunar eclipses as follows.
Predictions for the eclipses are summarized in Figures 1
, and 4
. World maps show the regions of visibility for each eclipse. The lunar eclipse diagrams also include the path of the Moon through Earth’s shadows. Contact times for each principal phase are tabulated along with the magnitudes and geocentric coordinates of the Sun and Moon at greatest eclipse.
All times and dates used in this publication are in Universal Time
or UT. This astronomically derived time system is colloquially referred to as Greenwich Mean Time
or GMT. To learn more about UT and how to convert UT to your own local time, see Time Zones and Universal Time
Blood Moon Tetrads and Triples and Solar Eclipses
The State Department Says Russia Is Invading Ukraine—Should We Believe It?
A memo to Angela Merkel from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
September 2, 2014
Angela Merkel (Reuters/Tobias Schwarz)
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO
We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicions of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President Barack Obama
tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift.”
Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration—who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.
Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.
Experience With Untruth
Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know.”
Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.
That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were “increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence” and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to “widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.
If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.
We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.
Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”
Just yesterday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the February 22 coup d’etat in Kiev. “Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, “Fuck the EU.”
Timing of the Russian “Invasion”
The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.
According to the “press service of the President of Ukraine” on August 18, Poroshenko called for a “regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances.”
If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.
Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)
No Invasion—But Plenty Other Russian Support
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point—mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards—and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia—and especially not in support of the rag-tag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)
A foreboding report sent from the Office of the President (OoP
) to all Kremlin departments today states that President Putin has ordered all nuclear forces to their highest alert status and is, in effect, now running the Federation from one of Russia’s most secretive bunker complexes belowBarnaul Airport
located in the Altai Republic
which is part of the Siberian Federal District
According to this report, while Putin was returning to Moscow from his 5-hour visit
with his Mongolian counterpart Elbegdorj Tsakhia in Ulan Bator
, he was “strategically redirected” to Altai whereupon the Kremlin Press Service stated that he would chair a government meeting
in the Republic dedicated to rehabilitation measures after last year’s heavy floods and would remain there for at least 48 hours.
Upon his landing at Barnaul Airport, however, this report continues, Putin was “rushed” into the vast bunker fortress underneath this massive complex whereupon he then ordered all nuclear forces to their highest alert status and informed the West, per treaty obligations, that the Federation would be conducting a massive nuclear exercise in Altai involving over 4,000 troops.
In a Kremlin authorized statement
to the RIA News Service regarding Putin’s orders, Major Dmitry Andreyev of the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF
) further stated that these troops would practice countering irregular units and high-precision weapons in Altai, and would be
“conducting combat missions in conditions of active radio-electronic jamming and intensive enemy actions in areas of troop deployment”.
Major Andreyev also said enemy forces would be represented in these exercises by Spetsnaz (Special Forces) units and that Supersonic MiG-31 fighter-interceptors and Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft would take part, while also noting that the scale of air power involved was “unprecedented for exercises of this kind
Though Obama and his own State Department continue to give conflicting accounts
to if Russian forces are in Ukraine, this report says, the real truth lies in the recently sent letter from the US-based Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS
) to Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, who warned
“We the undersigned are long-time veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on Sept. 4-5.
You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
Of even greater concern to the Federation, this report warns, was yesterday’s threat from Islamic State (IS
) [formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)] militantsvowing to oust Putin
and start a war in Russia’s Chechen Republic and the whole Caucasus region due to Moscow’s support of the Syrian regime against these murderous Islamic barbarians.
Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov
(The Kremlin’s Dragon
) in response to this IS threat quickly retorted
: “Taking all responsibility, I declare that those who have voiced a threat against Russia or who have mentioned the name of our president Vladimir Putin will be destroyed right where they made their statement. We will not wait for them to get behind the steering wheel of a plane. They will go where his fellow terrorists are rotting.”
Unbeknownst, however, to these Middle Eastern monarchies, this report says, is that instead of using IS against Shiite-backed Syria and Iraq, the Obama regime is now directing them against the very Sunni monarchs who funded in them in the first place, a move which caused a very rattled Saudi King Abdullah to warn last week
: “If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month.”
To King Abdullah’s plan to destroy
the Green Dome
, which covers Muhammad’s tomb and these living quarters, and the ultimate removal of the Prophet’s body to a nearby cemetery to be buried in an unmarked grave, this report concludes, would unleash a “cataclysmic” response from the entire Muslim world unprecedented in all of human history…and which the US and EU are seriously deluded in thinking they can control it.
30 sept. 2011 – Kennedy’s robolution against banksters’ss debts at interests. The 5 dollar with the red seal (without interest) and not the green seal ( please, …
François de Siebenthal: Guerre nucléaire ou robolution ?
Il y a 21 heures – Relevée sur Internet cette interview qui émanerait d’un haut-responsable russe. À prendre avec précaution mais les arguments développés …
François de Siebenthal: Vive la robolution !
10 févr. 2014 – La robolution, une révolution-solution par les robots ou des guerres atroces . … 2011 – François de Siebenthal: Tridel, 5 milliards de m3 de …
François de Siebenthal: 01/12/11
9 déc. 2011 – François de Siebenthal: Tridel, 5 milliards de m3 de nano-particules . …..La robolution, une révolution-solution par les robots ou des guerres …
François de Siebenthal: 01/05/11
24 mai 2011 – LA ROBOLUTION EST DANS LA PLACE ! Dans le passé, les guerres permettaient de relancer la machine. économique, mais les nouvelles …
de Siebenthal Franç. (DeSiebenthal) on Twitter
The latest from de Siebenthal Franç. (@DeSiebenthal). A. Consul gén. des … Don’t miss any updates from de Siebenthal Franç. … Pour une vraie robolution: …