Author: NW0.eu

Press TV
Friday, January 8th, 2010

Saudi fighter jets have launched another round of
aerial bombardment of Houthi positions in northern parts of Yemen along
the border with the oil-rich kingdom.

According to a statement released by the fighters on Thursday, Saudi
forces carried out 13 aerial raids on Jebel al-Madood as well as
villages in close proximity to the border region in northern Yemen.

The statement added that Saudi forces fired some 1400 rockets against the rugged area.

The conflict in northern Yemen began in 2004 between Sana’a
and Houthi fighters. It intensified in August 2009 when the Yemeni army
launched Operation Scorched Earth in an attempt to crush the fighters
in the northern province of Sa’ada.

Yemen claims the fighters are seeking to revive an imamate that was toppled in 1962.

The Houthis accuse the Yemeni government of violation of their civil
rights, political, economic and religious marginalization as well as
large-scale corruption.

Houthi fighters say that Riyadh has also been pounding their
positions, and that Saudi forces strike Yemeni villages and
indiscriminately target civilians. According to the fighters, Saudis
use toxic materials, including white phosphorus bombs, against
civilians in northern Yemen.

Saudi forces began fighting with Yemeni Shia resistance fighters,
known as Huthis, and bombing their positions on November 4 after
accusing the fighters of killing Saudi border guards.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that since 2004, up
to 175,000 people have been forced to leave their homes in Sa’ada
and take refuge at overcrowded camps set up by the United Nations.

Press TV
Friday, January 8th, 2010

A senior Yemeni official has warned that any military intervention
by the United States in the country to fight al-Qaeda will not go as
planned and to the contrary would make the terrorist network stronger.

“Any intervention or direct [military] action by the United
States could strengthen the al-Qaeda network and not weaken it,”
Rashed Al-Alimi, the deputy prime minister for defense and security
affairs, said on Thursday.

“Our position is clear; we will fight and chase the al-Qaeda
group depending on Yemeni forces and security agencies,” he added.

The comments came amid reports that Washington is reviewing targets
for possible strike on Yemeni soil in retaliation for a failed
Christmas Day attack on a Detroit-bound airliner.

Two senior US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in late December
that the preparation is aimed at being ready with options for the White
House, should US President Barack Obama order a retaliatory strike.
They added that the effort is to see whether the targets can be
specifically linked to the planning for the airliner incident.

“US special operations forces and intelligence agencies, and
their Yemeni counterparts, are working to identify potential al-Qaeda
targets in Yemen,” one of the officials said.

Watts Up With That?
Friday, January 8th, 2010

Back on December 12th 2009 I posted an article titled:

Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low – what does this mean for climate?

We then had a string of sunspots in December that marked what many
saw as a rejuvenation of solar cycle 24 after a long period of
inactivity. See December sunspots on the rise

It even prompted people like Joe Romm to claim:

The hottest decade ends and since there’s no Maunder mininum — sorry deniers! — the hottest decade begins

But what Joe doesn’t understand is that sunspots are just one
proxy, the simplest and most easily observed, for magnetic activity of
the sun. It is the magnetic activity of the sun which is central to
Svensmark’s theory of galactic cosmic ray modulation, which may
affect cloud cover formation on earth, thus affecting global
temperatures. As the theory goes, lower magnetic activity of the sun
lets more GCR’s into our solar system, which produce microscopic
cloud seed trails (like in a Wilson cloud chamber) in our atmosphere, resulting in more cloud cover, resulting in a cooler planet. Ric Werme has a nice pictorial here.

When I saw the SWPC Ap geomagnetic index for Dec 2009 posted
yesterday, my heart sank. With the sunspot activity in December, I
thought surely the Ap index would go up. Instead, it crashed.

Annotated version above – Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Ap.gif

Source data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

When you look at the Ap index on a larger scale, all the way back to
1844 when measurements first started, the significance of this value of
“1″ becomes evident. This graph from Dr. Leif Svalgaard
shows where we are today in relation to the past 165 years.

 

Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Monthly-Averages-1844-Now.png

With apologies to Dr. Svalgaard, I’ve added the
“1″ line and the most current SWPC value of “1″
for Dec 2009.

As you can see, we’ve never had such a low value before, and the only place lower to go is “zero”.

But this is only part of the story. With the Ap index dwindling to a
wisp of magnetism, it bolsters the argument made by Livingston and Penn
that sunspots may disappear altogether by 2015. See Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015

Above: Sunspot magnetic fields measured by
Livingston and Penn from 1992 – Feb. 2009 using an infrared
Zeeman splitting technique. [more] from the WUWT article: NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?

The theory goes that once the magnetic strength falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots will become invisible to us.

Note where we are on this curve that Dr. Svalgaard also keeps of LP’s measurements:

Source: http://nw0.eu/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/d5bfa3e629f66fc30fa8731e1d86f7df.png

It appears that we are on track, and that’s a chilling thought.

NOTE TO COMMENTERS AND MODERATORS:
No off-topic discussions of Landscheidt, “electric
universe”, or “iron sun” will be permitted on this
thread. All will be snipped. Stay on topic. – Anthony

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Friday, January 8th, 2010

Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News’
Neil Cavuto on Thursday that “hundreds of millions” of
Muslims are terrorists.

Taking up the now-standard conservative political talking point, in
the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, that political
correctness prevents the US from identifying Muslim terrorists as such,
Koch said:

We’re afraid of calling them Muslim, Islamist
terrorists. We’ll call them anything but. Because we don’t
want to alienate Muslim countries. That’s ridiculous. Of course
the vast majority of Muslims — there are a billion, four hundred
million — are not terrorists, but there are hundreds of millions
who are. They want to kill every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu who
won’t convert. And we ought to put it on the table.

Host Neil Cavuto did not attempt to correct or even question Koch’s claim.

Joshua Holland at AlertNet
gives Koch “the benefit of the doubt” and assumes Koch
meant to say “hundreds of thousands” of Muslim terrorists.
Even so, Holland argues, that suggests Muslim terrorists aren’t
doing their job very well.

“Given that there were a total of around 9,000 fatalities
worldwide resulting from Islamic terrorism in 2008 (the most recent
year for which data is available), those hundreds of thousands must
have been pretty damn incompetent,” he quips.

Koch was a Democratic member of Congress in the 1960s and 1970s, and
was the Democratic mayor of New York for much of the 1980s. But in
recent years he has taken to endorsing Republican candidates, including
endorsing George W. Bush for president in 2004, although he endorsed
Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. In his interview with
Cavuto, Koch said he would fire National Counterterrorism Center
Director Michael Leiter over the Christmas Day bomb attempt.

The following video was broadcast on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, January 7, 2010, and uploaded to YouTube by user therightscoop.

Popout

Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
Friday, January 8th, 2010

Even popular liberals can come under fire from the media if they
offer heretical views on global warming, which many in the media
promote with near-religious fervor.

Rolling Stone magazine went after 17 global warming dissenters on Jan. 6, hyperbolically labeling them “The Climate Killers.” Topping the list was Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Obama supporter and media darling Warren Buffett.

The magazine criticized Buffett for “doing far more than
bad-mouthing climate legislation – he’s literally banking
on its failure” by adding 1.28 million shares of ExxonMobil to
his books and acquiring a railroad that hauls coal.

Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates also told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Buffett “trashed climate change legislation calling it a huge tax saying it will cost jobs.”

That’s not even news, CBSNews.com reported in September that the Obama administration said cap and trade “would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year.” But Obama didn’t make the list of ”Killers.”

The Heritage Foundation estimated that capping carbon would act as an energy tax of nearly $2,000
on every American household. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute has said “it would destroy tens of millions of
good-paying jobs.”

Also on the Rolling Stone list were a number of predictable targets for left-wing vitriol, from News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch
and ExxonMobil’s Rex Tillerson to Sen. James Inhofe and retired
physicist Fred Singer. Each person on the list was given a nasty
moniker like “the Fake Protestor” or “The Know
Nothing.”

With this sidebar to its “As the World Burns” cover
story, Rolling Stone continued its one-sided crusade to stop global
warming. On Nov. 11, 2009 writer Naomi Klein made the case for climate reparations
in the magazine. Back in 2007, Rolling Stone was entertaining
predictions from climate extremist James Lovelock (founder of the Gaia
theory) who said that by 2100 global warming will kill 6 billion.

The Business & Media Institute has documented how a number of
media outlets favor global warming alarmism rather than including other
viewpoints in news reports. For every dissenter appearing on the
networks, there were 13 alarmists
airing their views. By censoring the global warming debate, the news
media often leave viewers with the impression that the “science
is settled.”

Those same networks ignored the November 2009 climate e-mail scandal “ClimateGate” for two weeks despite the looming climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Will You Let TSA “Gods” Ogle Your Naked Daughter?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 8, 2009

With the Bureau of Justice Statistics now reporting
that children are at most risk from pedophiles when in government
custody, it’s no surprise that TSA “Gods” are licking
their lips at the prospect of ogling your naked daughter’s body
at airport screening checkpoints.

“Some 12 percent of minors held in government
custody are sexually abused, and in some facilities the rate reaches a
stunning one in three children, says a report released Thursday by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics,” reports Raw Story.

“The first-ever National Survey of Youth in Custody
found that no less than 10 percent of the 26,550 juveniles being held
in detention facilities in the US are abused by staff at the facility,
while another 2.6 percent report abuse at the hands of other
inmates.”

Of course, the fact that pedophiles seek out government
jobs as an avenue of imposing their perversion on others makes perfect
sense. Government jobs allow such monsters to express their control
freak tendencies and abuse the innocent with virtual impunity.

All the more alarmed we should be therefore that TSA
thugs will be given carte blanche to enjoy naked images of our sons and
daughters following the installation of virtual strip-search body
scanners that Obama promised would be rolled out at all major U.S.
airports last night.

As we have highlighted, claims that the body scanners did not provide details of genitalia were disproven after a London Guardian journalist who was present at
a trial for the machines earlier this week reported that the devices
produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible.”

German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, “show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises”.

Indeed, as was admitted when the scanners were first being rolled out over a year ago, they don’t function properly if areas of the body are blurred out.

A report from October 2008,
when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne
Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices
don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through
them are visible.

“It will show the private parts of people, but what
we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out,
because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said
Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.

We were also given an insight into how the TSA agents
responsible for bossing these systems will act after an incident at LAX
which was reported on by NBC Chicago yesterday.

“A TSA agent was arrested on January 3rd in
Terminal One at LAX, a source told NBCLA. He had just gotten off duty
and was behaving erratically, saying, “I am god, I’m in
charge,” states the article.

Another TSA agent at LAX was fired after a videotape emerged of an after-hours party during which the agent had taken drugs.

With innumerable reports over the past ten years of TSA
agents completely abusing their authority and going on petty power
trips with little other motivation than to humiliate and degrade old people, pregnant women, and even prominent war correspondents,
while proclaiming themselves to be “Gods,” government
reassurances that TSA thugs will treat pictures of our naked bodies
with the utmost professionalism are somewhat difficult to believe.

Watch the video below.

Popout

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 8, 2010

Not only does the government want to see your naked body in full,
living color, they also want to read your mind. “A would-be
terrorist tries to board a plane, bent on mass murder. As he walks
through a security checkpoint, fidgeting and glancing around, a network
of high-tech machines analyzes his body language and reads his
mind,” reports the Associated Press.

An Israeli company is developing a system that matches high
technology up with and behavioral psychology. It’s called WeCU,
short for “We See You” (the same way Big Brother sees you).
It projects images on a wall and monitors reactions of people.
“If you strolled through an airport and saw a picture of your
mother, Givon explained, you couldn’t help but respond.” Or
if you were a terrorist, the logic goes, you’d respond to a
terror group logo or other familiar imagery. The reaction to these
images could be a darting of the eyes, an increased heartbeat, a
nervous twitch or faster breathing, said company CEO Ehud Givon.

If the system observes suspicious behavior, a person is detained and
interrogated. “One by one, you can screen out from the flow of
people those with specific malicious intent,” Givon said.

Okay, now the problems begin to arise. We are told the underwear
bomber and the shoe bomber and a number of other would-be bombers (all
of them in fact false flag patsies) are from al-Qaeda, an organization
without formal structure and no branding or logo (unlike Hezbollah or
Hamas). The only readily identifiable image associated with al-Qaeda is
the face of the late Osama bin Laden.

If a large photo of Osama was plastered on the wall at the airport,
what would your reaction be? You’d certainly dart your eyes. You
may even stand there with your mouth open. You’d likely get
special treatment by TSA goons.

How about a lie detector test? The Ministry of Homeland Security has
actually proposed this. “One system being studied by Homeland
Security is called the Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST,
and works like a souped-up polygraph,” reports the Associated
Press. “It would subject people pulled aside for additional
screening to a battery of tests, including scans of facial movements
and pupil dilation, for signs of deception. Small platforms similar to
the balancing boards used in the Nintendo Wii would help detect
fidgeting.”

FAST project manager Robert Burns said the system could be made to
work passively, scanning people as they walk through a security line.

How many false positives such a harebrained idea would produce is not addressed.

U.S. officials are considering the Israeli model for airport
security. Israel practices profiling. “At Ben-Gurion Airport,
Jewish Israelis typically pass through smoothly, while others may be
taken aside for closer interrogation or even strip searches.” In
other words, if you are an Arab or a Palestinian, you will be strip
searched and be subjected to body cavity searches.

Imagine the predictable result of this: thousands of people who look
like Arabs pulled aside with the ultimate result of producing chaos in
airport operation. Don’t count on the dim bulbs hired by the TSA
to be capable of telling the difference between Arabs and Mexicans.

This idea, however, thrills the neocons. Blogger and concentration
camp apologist Michelle Malkin went on Fox News the other day and said
Arabs should be profiled and get the same sort of treatment Arabs
endure in Israel.

Finally, the Cato Institute believes airport security should be
privatized. Jim Harper, director of information policy at Cato,
“concedes that privatizing airport security is probably wishful
thinking, and the idea has not gotten any traction.”

Of course it has not gained any traction. Because the idea is not to
catch supposed terrorists (who are demonstrably false flag patsies) but
is rather part of a government effort to condition the public that it
is normal (even patriotic) to submit to unreasonable, dangerous, and
invasive “security” measures. Airports are incubators for
tyranny and the emerging police state. It has nothing to do with your
safety and security. It’s all about conditioning you to submit to
government.

Incremental erosion of freedom will ensure victory for terrorism

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jan 8, 2010

It is Christmas 2012 and I have a story to tell.

Three years ago on a cold Christmas day in 2009, a Nigerian national
without a passport was aided on board a plane from the Netherlands
bound for Detroit by a mysterious sharp dressed man.

The Nigerian had a small amount of explosives in his underpants which he attempted and failed to detonate.

Two weeks later the U.S. government ordered the Department of Homeland Security Department to acquire $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment, including naked imaging body scanners, for screening passengers at airports, pushing all foreign governments to do the same.

Previous efforts to ban the use of such invasive technology
suddenly became secondary to a mass media driven effort to champion the
scanners as the grand solution to future security breaches at airports.

Dissenting citizens were told to “Shut up and get scanned already” and the machines became commonplace by the end of 2010 in all airports despite fierce opposition from freedom advocates.

Now everyone, including children must step through the naked imaging machines, not only in airports, but also at other public places, such as train stations, stadiums and any other large public gatherings.

In early 2011, however, the naked body scanners failed to stop a man
of Yemeni descent being escorted onto a plane by another sharp dressed
man in an American airport and attempting but failing to blow it out of
the sky. The man said he was seeking revenge for attacks on his country by U.S. military forces.

By the end of 2011, governments all over the world had implemented, in all public places, mind reading technology, which had been in development since the mid 2000’s.

Now, under something called “Project Hostile Intent”,
everyone is remotely screened by passive scanners that pick up brain
waves in order to to determine whether they intend to commit violent or
terroristic acts.

Almost all forms liberty have been replaced by a greater need for safety against terrorism and America has adopted wholesale the Israeli model of security.

But alas, now on an extremely cold Christmas day in 2012, I have
just read that the mind readers have failed to stop a man without a
passport being helped on board a plane bound for New York and trying to
blow it up.

Now the media and the government are calling for traceable microchip implants for everyone.

Oh how I wish more people would have stood up to the freedom stripping technology in 2010 before it had gotten this far!

Coming tomorrow: Notes from 2016 on the mass implementation of
placing everyone in sealed pods in response to the failed Christmas day
“escorted onto a plane by yet another sharp dressed man”
bomber.

OK, that’s not coming tomorrow, but you get the idea.

Lewis Page
The Register
Friday, January 8th, 2010

As the smoke clears following the case of Umar Farouk Abdul
Mutallab, the failed Christmas Day “underpants bomber” of
Northwest Airlines Flight 253 fame, there are just three simple points
for us Westerners to take away.

First: It is completely impossible to prevent terrorists from attacking airliners.

Second: This does not matter. There is no need for greater efforts on security.

Third: A terrorist set fire to his own trousers, suffering
eyewateringly painful burns to what Australian cricket commentators
sometimes refer to as the “groinal area”, and nobody seems
to be laughing. What’s wrong with us?

We’ll look at the first part to begin with.

In order to destroy an airliner and kill everyone on board, one
needs to do a certain amount of damage to it: a lot if it is on the
ground without much fuel in it, not so much if it is fuelled up, less
yet if it is flying at low altitude, and least of all if it is flying
high up.

Formerly there was the option of gaining access to the flight deck
– perhaps using the aircraft as a weapon, as on 9/11, perhaps to
carry out a hostage strategy – but those days are gone. The 9/11
hijackers have seen to it that the best and most effective ways for
terrorists to employ airliners are no longer open to them. Pilots will
never open flight deck doors again, no matter the threat to hostages in
the cabin; passengers will not permit themselves to be dominated; armed
sky marshals are back. If all these fail, following the bloodbath at
Ground Zero fighter pilots will not hesitate to shoot.

So the damage must nowadays be done by other means than crashing,
most practically by detonating a charge of high explosives on the plane
while in flight. This doesn’t need to be too big, especially if
the jet is at cruising height so that the explosive effects will be
enhanced by depressurisation. This is why airliners are a favourite
target: because a fairly small amount of explosive can potentially kill
a large number of people in one go, which is not the case under most
circumstances.

It is an unfortunate and pretty much unavoidable fact that the
necessary amount of explosives can easily be carried through any
current or likely-future airport security regime, short of universal
strip + cavity searches and a total ban on carry-on luggage.

Let’s consider, for instance, a future security check
involving backscatter X-ray-through-clothes perv scans – much
more effective than millimetre wave – and X-raying of carry-on
bags as is already normal. There are several ways to beat this.

Firstly, detonators and firing devices can be disguised within
permitted electronic equipment such that they will pass through
X-raying without trouble. An AA battery casing full of
hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine (HMTD) – or some similar
sensitive primary – with a flashbulb filament in it is almost
impossible for an X-ray operator to pick out from among others, and can
be triggered by the flash circuits of any camera.

The difficult bit is the main charge, which needs to be a decent
weight and volume of acceptably stable high explosive. But it’s
not that difficult. Here are just a few ideas:

• Several terrorists – only one of whom would need to go aboard
  the target flight – could carry permissible amounts of liquid
  explosives through security, combining them later in the air-side
  lavatories.
• Readily available plastic explosives can be rolled out into flat,
  uniform sheets – they can actually be bought in this form, for
  instance under the name “Sheetex” – and cut to shape
  with ease. Such sheets can easily be inserted into luggage, where they
  won’t look noticeably different from normal cardboard or plastic
  structure, partitions etc under X-ray if they aren’t too thick.
  There are many other ploys along these lines; a sensible and
  well-resourced terror group could probably buy an X-ray machine and
  develop a bag containing a charge, detonator and firing circuit which
  looked entirely legit under scan.
• Reasonable amounts of main charge can be carried stuffed into body
  cavities, undetectable by any body-scan. They would need to be removed
  before use in order to escape the pronounced dampening effect of the
  human body, and probably combined with other such payloads to get a
  bang sure to do the job, but again teamwork and lavatories will see to
  this.
• There’s more scope still for the use of checked baggage. US and many other airports nowadays X-ray this,
  but there are airports which don’t. You can easily find out, as a
  terrorist organisation, routes on which a checked bag won’t be
  X-rayed by packing some unexposed film and making some flights. Once
  you have identified an airport that doesn’t X-ray checked bags,
  simply put a large time- or barometrically-triggered bomb into a
  suitcase and have your suicide operative check it before boarding.

The list goes on – and on. Any reasonably competent terrorist
organisation, with access to funds, capable technical experts and a
small number of operatives able to move about the world freely can blow
up airliners in flight. You wouldn’t even necessarily need
suicide volunteers to carry the bombs, if you were cunning: dupes might
be convinced that they were smuggling drugs, money or other contraband,
or IRA-style “proxy bombers” could be forced to do your
bidding by seizing and threatening their families.

Full article here

Dutch News.nl
Friday, January 8, 2009

Rotterdam police are trying to develop a portable scanner which will
allow them to see through people’s clothing and look for
concealed weapons, the NRC reports on Friday.

The force has been given a €500,000 government grant to develop
the mobile weapons detector, which would use similar technology to the
scanners being introduced at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, the
paper says.

The aim is to develop a prototype ready for production within three years.

The paper bases its claim on a confidential document which suggests
the scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body
searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the
search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people
suspected of carrying concealed weapons, police spokesman Paul De
Kruijf told the paper.

The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out
long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football
matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer
detector which would analyse an ‘air sample’ from a suspect
for traces of drugs or explosives, the paper says.

Full story here.

Claim that devices did not show details of genitals exposed as a lie

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 8, 2010

The full body scanners that President Obama last night
authorized to be rolled out in airports across the country at a cost of
over $1 billion dollars not only produce detailed pictures of your
genitals, but once inverted some of those images also display your
naked body in full living color.

And you don’t need to be a graphics wizard using
a $600 software suite like Photoshop to pull off the trick –
inverting a photo is a simple process that takes one click and is an
option available even in the most basic image editing software.

We were sent examples of the process by readers and
then tested it for ourselves to confirm that simply inverting some of
the pictures produced by the body scanners creates a near-perfect
replica of a naked body in full color. (SOURCE OF IMAGE).

It is important to stress that this is a low resolution image. Airport
screeners will have access to huge high definition images that, once
inverted, will allow them to see every minute detail of your body.

The inversion trick doesn’t work for all the
sample images produced by body scanners, but with or without its
application, every image will still show details of your sexual organs.
Even without being inverted, the images already break child porn laws in the UK.

Reassurances that airport screeners won’t be abe
to save the images will provide little comfort to parents who know that
the crystal clear image of their naked son or daughter being ogled by a
TSA thug can merely be snapped with a handheld camera for their
enjoyment later.

Apologists for the scanners have routinely described
the images they produce as “ghostly” or
“skeletal” in an effort to downplay the intrusion of
privacy they really represent.

As we reported yesterday, claims that the body scanners
did not provide details of genitals were disproven after a London
Guardian journalist who was present at a trial for the machines earlier
this week reported that the devices produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible.”

German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, “show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises”.

Indeed, as was admitted when the scanners were first
being rolled out over a year ago, they don’t function properly if
areas of the body are blurred out.

A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

“It will show the private parts of people, but
what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those
out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said
Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

“It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine,” she admitted.

TV news reports have been deliberately misleading viewers by
blurring out faces and genitals of people in images produced by the
scanners. When it comes to the real thing, your sexual organs and those
of your children will be on full display to officials sat alone in back
rooms, and with a simple inversion trick, your daughter’s naked
body in full living high definition color will be there to be enjoyed
by screeners.