... above the table, under the table ...

Ustica 40 years later ... 
... above the table, under the table ... 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. " ... It never happens that the "under the table" can just be explained on a daily basis (to the unwary) ... This is something that will be explained by historians. ..." (Gianni DeMichelis)
----



P.S.+ This is only a summary translation for use by those who don't speak Italian.
In this memorable interview released before he died, President Emeritus Cossiga (*) describes his experiences during the most difficult years of Italy, the last years of the "Cold War".
On the -still controversial- story of the DC-9 Itavia (shot down with 81 passengers in 1980) he wanted to provide his version of events, if only to return at least some truth to those whom it has been denied.
Although it is not possible to take for granted his explanation in the absence of a final verdict - in the appropriate fora - it is important to hear the testimony of those who lived that atmosphere at the highest levels, together with that of other important protagonists of that period and of those tragedies.
Not being in the position of translating the entire text, I will make an extract of the highlights. The interview appeared -at least in part- on Italian television networks, but it does not appear that it is well known in its entirety, however there is a book and a DVD on the subject.
The President begins by stating, as a premise, with a peremptory statement:
"French Secret Service is one of the most ruthless organizations in the world."
"They stop at nothing ... In the days of the (Liberal !! ...) President Mitterand, he had a plane (of pacifist protesters) shot down with 4 people on board because they contested the French nuclear tests in the Pacific".
"Italy had to expel the head of the French Sevices from our country because they used to hunt the Algerians and simpply kill them ... on our territory ...".
"According to what I remember, the ITAVIA DC-9 was shot down by a French Navy fighter that took off from an aircraft carrier and fired aiming for a Libyan MIG in a 'hidden' flight (with the transponder off) very close to the civilian plane, and in which the Libyan leader (terrorist, ie: Lockerbie, PanAm-103) Gaddafi purportedly traveled.
Cossiga also claims that: "... apparently, the pilot, once he returned and discovered the error, would later commit suicide."

In the continuation of the service, the investigating magistrate Priore - who formalized this hypothesis at the time - also appears, according to which these reckless behaviors could hardly ever be recognized by governments and lead to some clear and honest admission: There were (are?! ...) political and strategical choices behind this tragedy and you know, the ... 'raison d'État' oblige ...

Toward the end, the former Secretary of State (Foreign Minister) Gianni DeMichelis is interviewed, and he explains that this hypothesis - although not definitively proven - is perfectly plausible, especially in view of those years and -with bitterness- he adds an account of it on the basis of that type of mindset (that cannot be ruled out even today): There is a truth we are dealing with 'above the table', and one - that we obviously cannot talk about- that takes place 'under the table' ... We certainly cannot openly tell this truths ... it is not up to us ... it is only a duty for historians.




--------
(*) The President Emeritus Francesco Cossiga: former Secretary of Homeland Security (Interior Ministry), Prime Minister, and President of the Republic.

---


==

They have deliberately hidden the cure for Covid ...

They have deliberately hidden the cure for Covid ... Is it perhaps because it is completely at "zero costs" ?! ... or is it? ...

---
Quote from original Italian article, from "lasiciliaweb.it":

"We have the cure for Covid at no cost, but we have been disparaged and hindered"
by Roberto Lunghi. The Head Physician of Mantua Hospital: “With plasma excellent results, but someone does not like it. Sicily white zone " - VIDEO - Date: Monday 04 May 2020 - in Sicily


The plasma of the cured by coronavirus, rich in antibodies, as a cure for the seriously ill. The news had been beaten by the agencies at the end of March, with the announcement that the hospitals of Mantua and Pavia stood as the leader of the practice that dates back to "Spanish influenza" times, that is 100 years ago, with subsequent appeals also in more recent times.
From then on there was almost the silence of the scientific world that took turns in the most well-known salons of national televisions, on a practice that, before being defined interesting by the ISS, had to go through the delegitimization of its supporters and the questioned the safety of the plasma, and then went on to argue, as recently done by Roberto Burioni, that the creation of a synthetic plasma would be desirable.
Social media has received compact support for Giuseppe De Donno, head of the Pneumology department of the Mantua hospital, as well as for Giulio Tarro, the internationally renowned virologist who considers hyperimmune plasma the only real remedy for the seriously ill.
Thematic groups were born, where, as often on these occasions, there is the risk of running into news that it would always be important to verify, such as that relating to an incursion of the Nas to the hospital of Mantua, which De Donno himself denies us at telephone: "If the Nas had come I would have been the first to make it known".
Plasma, for De Donno “is democratic because it belongs to the people. Probably someone will not like it - he added - but it is the greatest gesture of solidarity ", moreover at no cost. “We managed in Mantua, together with Pavia, to carry out this experimentation which is very serious. We tried to find a magic weapon - he explains - that would allow us to save as many people as possible. We never said that we created something new, we perfected an idea that already existed ".
The protocol, he stresses, “is very ambitious. Between Mantua and Pavia we treated nearly 80 patients with plasma. Of all these patients, who had serious but not very serious respiratory problems, none have died, the mortality of our protocol so far is zero ".
Donors, he specifies, “must have fundamental characteristics: they must be donors cured of coronavirus. Healing is ascertained with two sequential swabs and the diagnosis must have been made with a positive swab. These healed donors give us 600 ml of blood. " Now however, "every time we have to ask for authorization from the Ethics Committee and this - he says - is a huge impediment because it makes us waste precious time to save people".
Plasma, he explains, “can be frozen and last up to 6 months in storage, so we created a plasma bank in Mantua. We also manage to help other hospitals that are asking us for help. By creating plasma banks around Italy - concludes De Donno - we will be able to stem a possible second wave of the Covid-19 epidemic ".
On Sicily Professor De Donno is very optimistic: “I think the government of the Region has worked well, making the island a 'white area', but if you decide to adopt plasma therapy in your hospitals, pending the creation of your donor bank, we would be able to cover your needs "

lasiciliaweb.it








--

Video credits: Telecolor   (Through "lasiciliaweb")

--

This one post is only a joke: To those to whom it may concern.

Dark Science Fiction

" ... The regressive characters [prominent clitoris] present in some individuals of our species would seem to indicate that - in earlier times - it is possible that there existed an alternative "gender" to the female one, which today is the only present in our perfectly evolved society.

We paleontologists suppose that - in those days - there could be conflicts and some form of competition between the two genders ... And even that there may have been periods in which one of the two genders prevailed over the other! ...

Today, we have no more memory of those primitive eras, in our society there is only one gender, and perhaps - from what the fossil record tells us - it is indeed thanks to this that we know neither wars nor conflicts. ... " (*)

I hope you know how to take a joke ...   ; =))

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) Excerpt from :"Treatise of Evolutionary Paleontology"  (Chapter IV, page 257) - D.S.F. Editions.

==

Tutto il mondo è paese ...

[It's a small world after all ... (see below for English translation)]

La risposta alla domanda liebniziana “Perché esiste qualcosa invece di niente?” è forse l’unica (in quanto filosofica) alla quale abbia senso rispondere – servendosi del cosiddetto “Principio Antropico” – affermando che noi non saremmo qui a parlarne se fosse vera la prima ipotesi e che ne possiamo parlare esclusivamente in quanto vera la seconda.

Se invece di straparlare di “multiversi” i fisici teorici lasciassero ai filosofi il loro mestiere, scoprirebbero che certi loro “presunti” ragionamenti sono del tutto sconclusionati:

Ammettiamo, per un momento di accettare la loro proposta di un “universo spazio-temporalmente infinito”; cosa ne dovremmo ricavare?

Io dico che le loro principali risposte sono a dir poco infantili e dimostrano che ognuno dovrebbe limitarsi a fare il proprio mestiere: gli scienziati facciano scienza e lascino che i filosofi (quelli bravi!) si occupino di ragionare in termini teoretici.

Non sto qui a ripercorrere le soluzioni proposte dagli scienziati, perché non voglio invadere il loro campo; mi limito a richiamare in causa tutte le varianti proposte del cosiddetto “Multiverso”, per contestarne la validità in toto: sono tutte inutili quanto dannose.

Perché dunque io mi rifaccio in questo caso – e solo in questo caso – al cosiddetto “Principio Antropico”? …

La risposta dovrebbe essere ovvia: non c’è modo per la scienza di rispondere ad un “perché”, la scienza risponde ai “come” e dovrebbe lasciare i “perché” ai filosofi (quelli bravi!).

Nessuna idea di “multiverso” risponderà mai, tuttavia, né ad alcun “perché”, né ad alcun “come”!

“Multiverso” è solo una clamorosa, inutile bufala: non è altro che la resa mascherata dei cosiddetti “fisici teoretici” di anglo-sassone cultura. Solo la filosofia ha i titoli e la cultura storica per rispondere, o “non” rispondere a tali domande sulla base dei propri “metodi”.

Alcune delle teorie più “avanzate” dai cosmologi erano state già avanzate, dai FILOSOFI indiani,  a partire dal IX-VIII secolo a.C. !! … E senza disporre di alcuna tecnologia! … A parte il buon senso comune. L’idea di un universo ciclico, per esempio, è presente testi religiosi e filosofici indiani noti come “Upaniṣad”, solo per fare un esempio fra molti possibili. Ma se vogliamo dirla tutta, non sono forse stati i filosofi a “fondare” la scienza? …

Torniamo a noi. Inventarsi le parole non risponde ad alcun quesito: lo scopo del termine “universo” è quello, non di affermare una teoria, ma di descrivere un fatto: da qualche parte e in qualche modo la “molteplicità” dovrà necessariamente ricondurci alla “totalità”. Il “tutto” – cui anche noi apparteniamo - è ciò che si è sempre inteso col termine ”universo”: già con la scoperta delle galassie, qualcuno avrebbe potuto parlare di “tanti universi indipendenti”, o “universi isola” … Ma il buon senso ha prevalso allora … ma non oggi, a quanto pare.

Affermare che – sulla base di una teoria (inflazione e sue varianti arcobaleno) non dimostrata e forse persino non dimostrabile – noi tutti dovremmo cambiare il senso di parole, che hanno millenni di storia, sono consolidate ed hanno un senso molto ampio e profondo è un atto di patetica arroganza e di sicura greve ignoranza.

“Universo” è un concetto che richiama la profonda intuizione umana, che dietro a tutte le infinite possibilità che abbiamo incontrato, che incontriamo ogni giorno e che potremo incontrare, non solo noi, ma tutte le generazioni e le specie che esisteranno, vi sia una qualche forma di unitarietà: l’esistenza del cosmo è allo stesso tempo la prova della sua unicità.

“Multiverso” è solo una clamorosa, inutile … BALLA.

Ma perché? … Ecco la domanda filosofica principe. E la risposta? …

Per i soldi. E che altro sennò. (*)

Cominciano a esserci un po’ troppi “scienziati” in circolazione, ormai … Che devono fare, se non ci sono abbastanza scoperte “vere” su cui lavorare? … Inventarsele! …

Tutto il mondo è paese.

Sono piccolo ma crescerò ...

=== Correct English version =========

It's a small world after all ...

The answer to the liebnizian question "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" Is perhaps the only (as it is philosophical) to which it makes sense to answer – by means of the so-called "Anthropic Principle" - stating that we would not be here to talk about it in the the first case hypothesis, and that we can speak of it exclusively because the latter is true.

If, instead of talking about "multiverses", theoretical physicists would leave to philosophers their own profession, they would discover that some of their "alleged" reasoning are completely rambling:

Let us admit, for a moment, to accept their proposition of a "space-time infinite universe"; what should we get from it?

I say that their main answers are childish to say the least, and show that everyone should limit themselves to doing their job: let scientists do science, and let the philosophers (the good ones!) deal with reasoning in theoretical terms.

I am not here to retrace the solutions proposed by scientists, because I do not want to invade their field; I will just mention all the proposed variants of the so-called "Multiverse", to challenge their validity in their entirety: they are all as useless as they are harmful.

Why then do I refer in this case - and only in this case - to the so-called "Anthropic Principle"? ...

The answer should be obvious: there is no way for science to respond to a "why", science responds to the "how-s", and should leave "why-s" to philosophers (the good ones!).

However, no idea of ​​"multiverse" will ever respond to any "why", or to any "how"!

"Multiverse" is just a sensational, useless hoax: it is nothing but the disguised surrender of the so-called "theoretical physicists", of Anglo-Saxon culture. Only philosophy has the titles and the historical culture to answer, or "not" to answer such questions, on the basis of its "methods".

Some of the most "advanced" theories by cosmologists had already been advanced by the Indian PHILOSOPHERS, starting from the IX-VIII century BC !! ... And without having any technology! ... Apart from common sense. The idea of ​​a cyclic universe, for example, is present in Indian religious and philosophical texts known as "Upaniṣad", just to give an example among many possible ones. To put it plainly, were they not the philosophers to lay the "foundations" of science? ...

Let's get back to us. Inventing words does not answer any questions: the purpose of the term “universe” is that, not to affirm a theory, but to describe a fact: somewhere and in some way the "moteplicity" must necessarily lead us back to "totality". The " totality" - to which we also belong - is what has always been understood by the term "universe": Already with the discovery of galaxies, someone could have spoken of "many independent universes", or "island universes" ... But the common sense prevailed then ... but not today, apparently.

To affirm that - on the basis of a theory (inflation and its rainbow variants) unproven and perhaps even not demonstrable - we should all change the sense of words, which have millennia of history, are consolidated, and have a very broad and deep meaning, it’s an act of pathetic arrogance and coarse ignorance.

“Universe” is a concept that recalls the profound human intuition, that behind all the infinite possibilities - that we have met, that we meet every day, and that we will meet, not only us, but all generations and species that will exist - there is some form of unity: the “existence of the cosmos” is at the same time the proof of its uniqueness.

"Multiverse" is just a resounding, useless ... RUBBISH.

But why? ... Here is the MAIN philosophical question. And the answer? ...

For money … what else?! (**)

There are – these days - too many "scientists" in circulation, i’m afraid ... What should they do, if there aren't enough "real" discoveries to work with? ... Invent them! ...

The world at large - in the end - is nothing but a little village. (Italian saying. Or as the English’d say:  “It's a small world, after all.”).

==



==
Image credit: publicly available 
--
(*) Sotto forma di finaziamenti, ça va sans dire.
(**) In the form of funding, ça va sans dire.
==

ESSERI UMANI … che più umani non si può …

Quale sia la vera differenza tra il pessimista e l’ottimista, in un mondo come il nostro, che vive nell’indifferenza, non tanto l’uno dell’altro dei suoi disgraziati partecipanti, quanto verso l’immensa mole di vittime, che nel corso della nostra storia hanno pagato il prezzo di potersi definire … ESSERI UMANI:

Il pessimista sa di non essere altro che una carogna da qualche parte in una montagna di cadaveri …

L’ottimista è felice di trovarsi in cima a quella montagna.

===
Image credit: publicly available 
===




===

Tibi serviat … ultima Thyle …

Ognuno di noi ha bisogno di spiegarsi le cose (di ogni genere, dalla più minuta alla più grande …), ma questo non significa che vi sia una qualche verità da scoprire, o che una spiegazione univoca esista del tutto (e “per” tutto). Si tratta solo di una nostra (comune agli umani) necessità psicologica e niente più, soddisfatta la quale la nostra “coscienza” (chiamiamola così) è a posto e lo siamo anche noi … Tutto il resto è storia e non serve a niente speculare su eventuali differenze fra come, in ognuna delle nostre personali menti, si sia ricomposto il quadro: non esiste alcuna fantomatica “verità ultima”, sulla quale potremo mai convergere tutti! … E’ inutile, è solo tempo sprecato e senza costrutto … Chi ci creda, spera invano e, oltre a perdere il proprio tempo, lo fa perdere anche agli altri …

Per la verità … nemmeno questa lo è … Nessuna verità, nessun confine … NESSUNA CONSOLAZIONE! … 
Ma la realtà sì, eccola qua … Ogni giorno, implacabile e incomprensibile!

===

Image credit: publicly available 

Quote credit: “Tibi serviat ultima Thyle” ( Virgilio, Georgiche, libro I, 30).

===
===

Che fenomeno! ... anzi no: che EPIFENOMENO !!!

Siamo solo epifenomeni !!!!! Questa non è (come per altro potrebbe) solo una considerazione filosofica, basata sull’assoluta mancanza di senso del mondo che ci troviamo di fronte, no!

E’ la conseguenza logico/scientifica delle teorie che attualmente descrivono l’universo di cui facciamo parte, in quanto elementi di una fenomenologia generale, che appunto quelle teorie tentano di ricomporre. Possiamo ignorarle, ma cosa ci rimarrebbe in mano in quel caso? … Per coloro che si consolino con le religioni questa può essere la soluzione, ma per gli altri non resta che fare affidamento sul massimo sforzo che le migliori menti umane nel corso dei secoli hanno saputo mettere insieme. Essi, con indubbia saggezza, si sono basati collettivamente sul metodo scientifico e a partire dalle osservazioni, dall’esperienza pratica, dai ragionamenti e dalle simulazioni computerizzate, per giungere alla conclusione che il nostro universo risponda - plausibilmente - a due principali sistemi di leggi: la Relatività e l’insieme delle teorie quantistiche del campo note come Modello Standard, più qualche correzione aggiuntiva per rispondere ai fatti scoperti più di recente, come la Materia Oscura e l’Energia Oscura.

Da queste conoscenze non resta che una conclusione da trarre: Noi – come umani e come cultura, per quanto millenaria - non siamo che accidentali “EPIFENOMENI”, all’interno di un colossale groviglio di altri incidenti, molto più pregnanti e ingombranti, nell’economia globale del cosmo … Del resto, basterebbe prenderci le misure …

===
Image credit: publicly available 
===
===