Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

 Modern (Western) "science" was born out of the Renaissance.

By one account, the Renaissance was born out of a peculiar set of circumstances rooted in the 1453 pillaging of what was then Constantinople.  The Eastern church had a mutual defense pact with the Roman church.  Before the attack, they approached Rome for help.  To show what would be lost if the attack and promised destruction, they brought with them a sample from their library.  That sample was brought to a villa in Italy as part of negotiations.

Rome declined to help.  The library sample was left in the villa by the disappointed petitioners.

Some considerable time later, this sample library was discovered or re-discovered.  It is thought by some that the seeds of the Rennaisance were contained in that library.

Let's entertain the idea that core ideas of Newton's calculus were contained in that library.  Newton's calculus was handy for ballistic and financial calculations.  These in turn would be useful to persons or organizations interested in prosecuting wars for fun and profit.

Newton's calculus also lent itself well to his mechnical universe paradigm.  Newton's paradigm of the mechanical universe is being pelted first by Einstein's general theory of relativity and later by quantum physics, which I think may have grown out of one of Einstein's papers on the photo-electric effect.

In 2011, I was stuck in a dark place.  Long-standing highly-conflicted personal relationships had me in florid PTSD mode.  I was in a bad way.  I knew I needed to forgive the other parties involved.  I also knew I needed to forgive myself.  But I was blocked.  I knew I was blocked in some way by my core beliefs, core beliefs that had served me well enough up till then.

A significant part of those core beliefs was the Newtonian paridigm of the mechanical universe, the influence of which extended into my spiritual life.

During that time, a friend handed me a copy of Goswami's The Self-Aware Universe.  When I got to the part about non-local signals, I had a religious experience.

The astute reader will notice that I am not asking anyone to place their hands on the radio before inserting a small sum of cash into an envelope addressed to a post office box in San Antonio, Texas.

You can see the universe in a grain of sand.

At the time of this experience, I was not focussing on a grain of sand.

I was focussing on another person's ideas about sub-atomic particles.

One idea - Newton's paradigm of the mechanical universe - was making me sick.

Another idea - the idea of non-local signals - made me well.

It's that simple.

The same idea that was making me sick leads to all the "scientific" activity decried in this article.

Newton's limited calculus grew out of that limited sample of a library destroyed over 500 years ago.  If there were a more complete, robust calculus recorded there, perhaps a calculus that leant itself more readily to peace, that other calculus was lost.

The source of that other calculus may well have been (fabled) Atlantis, or even an ultra-civilization proposed (fabled) by Velikovsky as having been destroyed 35,000 years ago.

Or maybe that other calculus never existed.

For me, the bread crumb trail reaches back at least to the time of King Tut.  It seems he may have been assassinated by the Amun (amen) priests.  The Dogons fled west from the Nile River at that time.  The Dogons seem to have knowledge of astronomy and quantum physics.

The Amun priests were polytheists.  Tut was supposed to create an accomodation between the polytheists and the monotheists.  He failed.  But the idea of monotheism was apparently not the only thing to which the polytheists were opposed, based upon the Dogons' hasty migration 120 miles to the west.

It was from Carmen Boultier of Pyramid Code fame (or notoriety) that I got the idea of Amun/amen.  She also pointed out the mention of the Shikti (sp?) dolls mentioned in the Book of the Dead and compared them to the practice of Indulgences.  Then there's the Egyptian story of Horus which bears a striking resemblence to the story of Jesus.  (And, to be "fair and balanced", surprise surprise surprise I recently spotted a link to an article declaring that the story of Horus and the story of Jesus were totally unrelated.  I didn't visit it, but it exists.)  And let's not forget Amunhotep, whose name I just saw in text the other day.  By the first four letters in his name, am I to surmise that he is a member of the Amun priests?  After all - his work in anatomy was based in the practice of mummification, was it not?

So how far back do the roots of "sick" science go?  I'm sure I don't know the exact answer to that.

Do the Dogons or others have the remedy?  I also don't know the answer to that.

Like Michael Jackson, I kept asking the man in the mirror to change his ways.  Eventually, I was handed the idea that made that possible.

Keep looking for the idea you need.

DC Treybil



Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

Revelation 11:18 (NIV)

"The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small- and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”

Comment by Anonymous75
Entered on:

There is no such thing as "scientific suicide". The phrase is a stupid oxymoron. Scientific research and discovery are meant to give life, not to take life, to make life better – never to make life more miserable.

Let me educate the author of this oxymoron. The discovery of the use of the fissionable atom [he should read more books of science] was meant to improve life, not to destroy life. Philosophically [if you are still with me to where I am driving at] even the purpose behind the discovery of the nuclear bomb was not meant to create a massive destruction at all – it was to DETER "maniacs" from destroying life and civilization.

In the unfortunate eventuality that the "human race" is terminated, it was not caused by terrific scientific discoveries of mankind but by the horrific stupidity of the human


Science maybe compared to a gun in your hand. It kills a deer for food or trophy or just there to kill when simply you are in that psychotic mood of killing. You may use it to kill for self-defense, or you may simply use it to kill and commit murder. But it is so retarded for anyone to say that the murderer was the gun. Just as stupid when this author Mike Adams convicts "science" as the perpetrator of all the miseries he could think of in life.

C’mon … take a hike. Don’t give me this foul air to breathe.

Comment by Kalantiaw
Entered on:

So irresistibly interesting! I want to put my brain where Annonymous75 put his. I have a WWII book on this subject and I have written a column on Hitler’s botched nuclear bomb project years back.

In WWII when Hitler saw the ominous signs that the Allies would defeat him, his scientists were rushing the perfection of the nuclear bomb. But it was too late. Those scientists and their scientific works to create a Nuke fell into the hands of the victorious Allies, notably the United States and Russia.

In this historical account of the Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler’s purpose was not to level Washington, London, Paris and Moscow to the ground with nuclear bombs but to serve notice to the invading Allies that he has the "ultimate" weapon to destroy them if they don’t stop marching towards Berlin – a deterrent to Hitler’s impending defeat! Thus [1] merely creating a weapon FOR mass destruction is different from [2] the PURPOSE of creating such weapon for mass destruction.

Part [1] concerns scientists who are working on it, while Part [2] is that of politicians or decision-makers who decide what to do with it [who decides when, how, where to use the Nukes that the scientists create].

Now I ask you Annonymous75: How do I fare in this interesting comment you just started?

Comment by Anonymous75
Entered on:

I just read your comment Kalantiaw. I am giving you  Minus A. The minus is for making my point SO obvious you left no more thrill for the less sophisticated to discover the angle of surprise from this brain-teaser that I put forward as the gist of my comment.

Make a Comment