Posts Tagged ‘science’

Beware, beware of the *implantables*

March 19, 2017

Beware, beware of the *implantables*. Tracking software and “citizen” control enters hidden in a Trojan Horse. Most likely excuse for sneaking in the controls as they get discovered (leak away now guys) will be control over “money laundering”, criminals, child abusers, sexual predators, and the like, but inside lurk “master class” apps.

Note in the linked article that there are some devices for behavior control.

Brain wave behavior control has been an experimental research thing for decades now. School textbook conditioning to accept the subject’s governing authority is breaking down. That’s why they are trying –somewhat successfully– to use the conditioning cultural infrastructure to break down anti-state cultural institutions like the traditional nuclear family and religious faith in a God that demands obedience to laws like “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and even more so, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, rather than blind obedience to the state.

Fracking and LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

November 25, 2016

I’ve been following Helena’s posts on current events. Many were interesting especially in this election year, and had some new insights for me. I was surprised though to see her tear into fracking the way she did:

So this is my reply…

#1. The list of numbers of earthquakes is interesting but (a) I would have to see contextual numbers and measuring technology details before jumping to a conclusion about apples and apples vs. oranges and apples, plus (b) then if the coincidental statistical AND geographical correlations hold up, then consider this a problem.

But the fracking issue is in the context of the much bigger problem of politicized science, in which the Control Cabal Mafia uses “environmental” religions to drive clueless believers into stopping technological advances that make life more comfortable for most of us overall.

Whatever made you think the high priests of Gaia worship were not adding fracking to their list of heresies? It’s all over the place.

Here are some examples of the craziness:

Here’s another link, this one specifically about the earthquake hype:

The the counting increases are due to better measurements of the smaller ones, from a study by Frolich 2012:

Most earthquakes identified in the study ranged in magnitude from 1.5 to 2.5, meaning they posed no danger to the public.

I didn’t find any higher risks from disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids than was thought before,” says Frohlich.”My study found more small quakes, nearly all less than magnitude 3.0, but just more of the smaller ones than were previously known. The risk is all from big quakes, which don’t seem to occur here.”

All the wells nearest to the eight earthquake groups reported high injection rates (maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water). Yet in many other areas where wells had similarly high injection rates, there were no earthquakes. Frohlich tried to address those differences.

The so-called “environmental” movement is simply a Trojan horse front for the forming worldwide dictatorship. It is meant to produce coordination among sovereign nations and provide cover –along with managed Crony-friendly Trade Agreements (mislabeled “free” trade agreements)– for central planning integration and control over the masses (that’s us).

If you want to really blow the cover off these willfully ignorant hypocrites, ask them why they don’t demand more research into advancing the most promising technology for the cleanest possible energy source that we should all know about, the technology addressed in Eugene Mallove’s excellent treatment of the subject in his book “FIRE FROM ICE“.

After he wrote the book, there came a time when Eugene Mallove grew so furious with his MIT colleagues and other academicians’ lies about their lab results in their repeats of the experiments of Fleischmann and Pons, that he quit his writing for various science-related publications to create a Foundation for financing the research. He started the Infinite Energy Magazine to report on the field, and he wrote the president and anybody who would listen to gin up interest.

There are too many billions at stake in the gigantic hot fusion research centers like at MIT to let it go quietly into the night. Not only that there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake for all traditional energy concerns, and I include solar and hydro into that class.

The first thought I had when they found Eugene Mallove dead, brutally murdered, was that as an effective advocate of this science, he was a threat to lots of billionaire industries and it struck me as “What a coincidence?”

Now, I don’t trust the CFR any more than I trust the Trilateral Commission, or Bilderbergers, or HIllary Clinton. But in what gives me a kind of weird Twilight-Zone kind of effect, it is on their flagship magazine’s web site that they publish an article that goes into detail about Mallove and the saga at MIT.

In that article they point to his discovery of success in MIT’s laboratory in replicating the results of this “cold fusion” phenomenon, only to see that the data were altered three days after the results were attained.

None other than Arthur C. Clarke financed the first months of the publication of Infinite Energy. The article notes that Mr. Clarke had already been “incensed” by the “cold fusion caper”, meaning its suppression, “perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science”.

(Note that I have my unrelated reasons for regarding Clarke as a morally despicable person but what he did for Mallove was unquestionably of good effect).

Anybody who knows me can vouch for me that I do NOT turn my eyes away from evidence of Big-Industry or Governmental conspiracies. They exist. Lots of them exist, for real. Elsewhere I have listed many of them. But the description at the CFR article reflects the story of Eugene Mallove’s death from other sources and it looks to be true. I already have corroboration from and elsewhere, so my rule about sources like CFR to require at least TWO other verifying sources may be satisfied.

The article notes that the U.S. Department of Energy at one point requested proposals for $10 million in studies into the technology, but at the time of the article, July 7, 2016, not one cent had been disbursed.

Copernicus, the Printing Press and the Reformation

July 5, 2015

Some secular writers need some  education on the realities of history. As we can see in looking around us, neither good nor bad “religion” suffered at all from Copernicus’ theory, and neither did God, any more than it did from the pagan mass murders of the Roman emperors, or at the hand of the atheist and secular mass murderers of the Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Maoist regimes.

They even admit that at first the Pope himself was pleased to learn from Copernicus. Then came the secular “science” lobby with its emotional attachment to their own clinging to Aristotle instead of Ptolemy, and they found a way to convince the Church Establishment that their pet paradigm was scriptural and the Church itself was in peril if it did not accept the established “consensus” view of science”, their take on it.

After all, the geocentric view was taken from one of the secular/pagan Greek traditions, not the Biblical. We have the same problem today.

False “Religion” took a blow because it cowed to the secular lobby then, until new generations took to the new paradigm. This happened as well with Mendelssohn’s inheritance experiments with plants, until Darwin’s ideas were “safe” enough to let it hit the presses.

And then the howls of pain at the very idea that the universe had a beginning like the Bible said, earning this discovery the atheist pejorative of “The Big Bang”.

The process of liberation from the religious and secular leaders began NOT with Copernicus but the process began more with the printing press, which made it easier to spread ideas, and made Bible reading available to many times as many people. Therefore, while John Huss had been burned at the stake for his Bible-believing heresy, the ideas of freedom that the Bible itself had spread lit the fire in Martin Luther’s bosom and inspired his friends in nobility to hide him from the oppressor.

And while a lot of Christian kings including King James himself believed in a false doctrine of “divine right of kings”, what the Bible itself teaches is that ungodly and unrighteous kings don’t have any such “right” at all. It is a testament to the man himself and to the King James Bible that the translation that is known by his name today rings a death knell for any “divine right” of anybody to rule over anybody else.

In fact it is very clear that God himself was very angry with the Israeli elders when they demanded a king at all to rule over them. People who want kings (or rulers, or even representatives) to rule over them are declaring that they do not want God to rule their lives.

Jesus wisely replied to his enemies, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”,  meaning render NOTHING unto him that you are not forced to do under threat of violence. Jesus’ lesson the apostles at the end of Matthew 17 makes clear that kings and conquerors are thieves by definition. “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”


Atheism is irrational

January 29, 2015

The insanitybytes blog at: inspired this response…

Many an anti-creationist posting on Christian blogs is just a troll.
He’s just ranting and accusing others of ranting.
He’s condescending and sneers that you’re condescending. He ridicules, and just makes a caricature of himself.
His whole rant is ad hominem, and he thinks it makes him smart to accuse somebody else of ad hominem.
He uses an Egyptian-sounding moniker, thinking this makes him some kind of spiritually superior, but it only labels himself as a snob.

His ravings turn his accusations of lunacy upon himself and corroborate this blog.
The most loudmouth anti-creationist scientists go into panic mode when they contemplate debating a real live Creationist scientist. Even with an audience full of people who have been indoctrinated in the materialist (null) explanation of Origins through twelve and even sixteen years, while subjected to the same indoctrination in “news” reports, movies, anti-Christian lawsuits, they still go into panic mode and warn their colleagues against trying it. I saw the memo in the book “Science and Creationism”, in which the editor and compiler of these anti-creationist essays admits having been resoundingly humiliated in such a debate. In order to bolster his darwinian fantasies, he asked a bunch of people for their essays.

In those essays, a biochemist in the book fantasized how a few linkups among a few amino acid molecules “proved” abiogenesis. Harvard recently got a million-dollar grant to study how abiogenesis could have happened.

Meantime, anti-creationists run with panic from the issue, saying it’s not part of evolution. Read on ahead when you can stop laughing.

Asimov made his points against a creationist argument that creationists would never use with an unbeliever, and avoided the science.

Stephen Jay Gould came right out and said explicitly that science has to believe some things that are not provable using the scientific method.

One guy from UC Berkeley couldn’t refrain from proudly using the label “pagan”. A haughty spirit goeth before a fall.

Just shows: The mouth of a fool poureth out foolishness.

So many dead scientists, too many microbiologists

October 11, 2014

Dead scientists list, 2004-2014:

(a lot of “apparent suicides in the list seems like)
and more from before, 1994-2003:

A list of 115 scientists dead:

and more:

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove was one of them in 2004:

He was a many-lettered professor at MIT and enraged by MIT’s press conference on the Pons-Fleichmann experiments, he told the press and anybody who would listen that the results had been promising, that MIT lied to protect billions in research, and started a new energy foundation to fund LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) research. It is finally creeping -slowly- into “mainstream” labs. (I use it to expose the leadership of the enviro-racket).

Wired article about so-called “cold fusion” (Mallove preferred LENR):

Evidence-based Christianity

June 14, 2014

I’m one Bible believer who got there through science, history, facts, reasoning and logic. The tautological circle is true of many Christians who don’t think much, and much Christian evangelical media. But even they are allowing the evidence-based arguments. Christianity is the one related by way of historical events. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”, not tautologies. “Global cooling is part of global warming” is a tautology. You should put “scientists” in there. Michael Crichton did. See his essay “Aliens cause Global Warming”, from a talk at Cal Tech, where he totally demolished “Drake’s equation”, the blind-faith basis for SETI. Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” should have convinced them to “Question everything”, which they don’t.

History has hundreds who sought evidence against Christianity and ended up as believers, including thousands of scientists today who renounced Darwinism based on science. An archaeologist once set out to falsify the Bible by checking on the place names in Acts and dug them all up. The Jewish rabbis showed Alexander the prophecy that Greece would trounce Persia and conquer shockingly fast and then his empire divided to four. As happened. And that was after he fulfilled other prophecy by throwing the old Tyre literally into the sea.

A student once challenged atheist Harvard dean of Law Simon Greanleaf to apply his own rule (no conclusions without first considering the evidence) That in turn is held up by the evidence of history, archaeology, and logic, and the rules of historical evidence as detailed by the atheist-turned-Christian Simon Greanleaf, author of “Testimony of the Evangelists”. To this day a man’s dying testimony has weight, and to die for it proves belief. An archaeologists looking to disprove Acts, for example, excavated so much of it he became a believer. Lew Wallace is another one. Isaac Newton said the fact that (true) science is reliable shows design. It was his version of the “anthropic principle”, in the NON-circular definition of it.

It’s much more fact-based than Darwinism, for sure. That’s where the lack of evidence of “punctuation” in fossils (and only equilibrium) is offered as evidence for “punctuated equilibrium”. Mendel’s experiments were ignored at length and DNA made it so incredible a co-discoverer postulated aliens.

Peer review is dead; Long live the free Inter-Networks!

April 24, 2014

Ah, forget about peer review. All those arguments against it, and then you throw it all away by simply saying that peer review is good, we just need good peer *reviewers*.

But having peer reviewers are exactly what is wrong with this thing. It’s a moral hazard, a massive temptation for enforcing conformity.

The greatest advancements in science history have been made against the resistance of the cabal of the majority of those who make a living based on the ideas they believe in, or have vested interest in.

Joao Mageijo, British Royal Fellowship recipient, wrote of his wrestling match with peer reviewers trying to get his paper published on his theory of the variable speed of light.

The article mentions the Krebs Cycle. Consider a recent episode in which a solution to the problem of “P versus NP” was proposed on the Internet directly, no “publishing”, no peer review, straight to the Web. It only took one day for dozens, maybe hundreds, to prove that the “proof” was wrong.

The Internet has already killed any lingering relevance peer review may have had. The Internet, or rather the penetration of interconnected electronic communications networks (doesn’t have to be “the” Internet) involves media that are basic and ubiquitous change to culture and the body politic, that it promises historical upheavals comparable to the discovery of the printing press.

So “peer review” today as a gatekeeper for the scarce resources of paper publication, is defunct. Its defenders are those who have already entrenched themselves in positions of power and authority in their respective disciplines, and wish to protect their emotional and career investments. Or call it “feeling threatened” by the wild free-for-all of the Internet.

Crazy ideas about and are quickly also shot down in the wider context of the Internet, and relegated to the dunce corner. Giving them wide coverage quickly exposes their flaws.

You can now tell which ideas are on shaky ground by how much they depend on peer review today for their continued circulation, in fact. Climate-gate exposed one of those. Creationist scientists’ papers are shut out when the science is sound, because the authoritarians in power “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. That’s a quote from one of them, in his “explanation” for why scientists hold ideas that make no sense.

It’s like Gamaliel at the council of the Sanhedrin discussing the apostles in the book of Acts. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Acts 5:39.


Creation debate, Ken Ham and Bill Nye

January 17, 2014

MEMO to the clueless: Many of the biggest names in young-Earth Creation Science came there following the evidence, where they found a fact-based faith.

Somebody said it’s not a good idea to debate creation science because “there’s no debate”? Oh right. This is another algoreian myth: True because authority says so? Anti-creationists used to use this as an argument against Creation Science, as if a Creation scientist expected an atheist to believe in Creation just because the Bible says so.

Creationists hear this today and roll their eyes, “There they go again!” And then they say so-and-so percent of the population believes [darwinian] evolution happened, as if that were another “evidence” as to why there should be no debate? So how did new ideas in science ever overcome the prevailing ones? Oh, that’s right, the old paradigm fought against the young mavericks until the mavericks took over and began enforcing new “scientific” dogmas.

These are certainly arguments even some of the “stars” of attacks against Creationism use, and it is a striking example of how even the smartest people, ahem, “brightest”, can use some of the dimmest ever arguments for something.

If something is true just because a majority of scientists believe it, then how can we ever expect to learn anything? Or, as some say against creationism, science is always “correcting itself”!

So your argument is about consensus among scientists? You know, the ones that used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth and got The Church to go along with it.

So long-ages cosmology is beyond question? That’s faith, and in this case, faith because the new Priestly Class, scientists blessed by Big Money and stagnant institutions, say so!

Too bad the very entertaining, quick-thinking and articulate Kent Hovind won’t be there. He even makes Ken Ham squirm. He has a way of clarifying the issues with a sharp wit that holds up pagan-era origins myths up to ridicule.

JEREMIAH 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.

27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.



Pastor Jeffress is wrong: Billions?! O’Reilly likes Bible doubters

March 25, 2013
English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were n...

English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were not ashamed, as in Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (KJV) illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is my reaction to this story at Christian News:

Pastor Jeffress CANNOT believe in the Bible “cover to cover” if he does not believe its historical accuracy in the straightforward reading of it. The six-day creation is emphasized scripturally in 21 different ways right there in Genesis One, by the word “day” itself, PLUS the ordinal numbering of the day (the 2nd day is the day after the 1st day), PLUS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the emphasis given to the 24-hour day as we know it by the use of the “evening and the morning”.

Make no mistake: Jesus believed in the Creation as told in Genesis, it’s plain to see and clearly shown. He talked about Adam and Eve, and He who made them.

Wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing have infiltrated congregations and are teaching doctrines of devils.

Jeremiah 2 shows you that Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution are just ancient pagan myths, a “stock art my father” and a rock “hath brought be forth”. Nothing new under the sun. This is a materialistic superstition of modern pagans (atheists) who cling to these dogmas so as to escape believing in God.

Besides, the facts of science itself has brought 10s and 100s of thousands of hard physical scientists to faith in God. Polonium halos, polystrate fossils, inverted sedimentary layers, sea shells covering the land surface in every conceivable corner of the world, the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record testifying to original special creation of each kind, the spectacular design of the purely symbolic digital coded language of DNA, the spot-on prediction of the magnetic field strength of Saturn and Uranus by young-earth Creation scientist Russ Humphreys (putting to shame all the official dogma-enforcing NASA scientists –and prediction based on Genesis One)…

The list is tens of thousands of proofs of the precise accuracy of the word of God and the facts make fools out of the smarter-than-thou snotty-nosed class that have to revise their own dogmatic just-so blabber every couple of years because the FACTS keep proving them wrong over and over again.

The moon: another sign of the times and decline of the West

January 21, 2012

China builds new rockets, fuels, a space station and plans to put crews on the Moon by Andrew Malcolm –

Private enterprise could do, or could have done, a better job in space than NASA, with two disclaimers, in my opinion.

One is, such private efforts would have run into the same regulatory balls and chains as the rest of the private sector has to face.

Two, NASA no doubt sucked up much of the private industry resources that could have gone to space exploration. It is easier to make more money from the organization that can just go get more “unlimited” budget by forced confiscation, which is what taxation is.

Three, the military participation in NASA meant that one of the best parts of government had a say in much of it.

So one of the least odious and least wasteful of government programs has been shut down by the current administration.

And get this screamer. When he announced the shutdown of the space shuttle program, Obama said private enterprise could do it better! Does anybody else see the disconnect here, from a guy who said government central planning could do better than bankruptcy court for saving the auto industry, the financial industry, and private sector prosperity in general?

This from the guy who shut down the wildly successful voucher program that helped some of the poorest D.C. kids get a better education?