[ Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Scalar energy ] [ Universal Seduction ] [ Morgan / Bearden ] [ Scientific Dictatorship ] [ Bright skies ] [ Free energy ] [ Geo science ] [ Suppressed archaeology ] [ Origins of oil ] [ True geology ] [ Education ]
Einstein Conspiracy -- Page
2 -- Page 3 -- Page 4
-- Page 5
18. Conspiracy against Daniken
Along with other factors involved in UFOLogy, there has been an ongoing campaign
by people with a religious fervour to promote their point of view and try to
subvert Science to their own beliefs. This has led to the pieces of the jigsaw
that add up to solving the UFO Mystery being unfairly discredited. One of their
targets has become Daniken.
Ignoring the book Gold of the Gods, where Daniken admits to being deceived by
certain information. He tries to reclaim his reputation that was debunked on
such topics as the Nazca Lines, and demonstrates how the Truth can be covered up
by people.  The Truth - namely being the possibility of alien visits going
back a very long time.
(Personally I wonder if the hoax that Daniken was deceived by in Gold of the
Gods, was not some unknown group once again engaged in trying to deceive the
public. Similar groups seem involved in other UFO issues such as crop circles -
diverting attention from making possible genuine phenomenon seem like hoaxes and
Respected scholar Maria Reiche who has spent most of her life studying the Nazca
lines from about 1946, compared the Nazca lines to being like a landing strip,
in Secret of the Desert
"Looking down from the plane upon the flat surface of the desert, the
traveller will discover, etched into the high terraces and slopes, gigantic
triangles and squares whose outlines look as though they have been drawn with a
ruler, and whose light surfaces contrast clearly with the dark ground. One could
almost believe they were airstrips."
Daniken got ‘slagged off’ for saying much the same thing in Chariots of the
"The 60 kilometre long plain of Nazca, seen from the air, has the undoubted
look of an airport - Is it really too far fetched to suggest that lines were
drawn down here to give the message to the gods: ‘Land here! Everything has
been prepared as you ordained it!’...."
Maria Reiche is a respected part of the Science Establishment, but Daniken gets
labelled a ‘crank’ for saying much the same thing. Reiche says it looks like
an airstrip, Daniken gets ‘slagged off’ for speculating if it is an
airstrip. The Establishment applies ‘double standards.’
Daniken then goes on to complain that he is misquoted as saying that the Nazca
plain was once a ‘landing station’ for spaceships.
When he was trying to make the idea out ‘speculation’, the debunkers wanted
to take the ‘idea’ as making a statement of belief from him.
He cites an example of his being mis-cited in a recent scientific magazine
Felix Legare, La Revue Quebec Science 1995:
"At the beginning of the seventies, a certain Erich von Daniken announced
that the lines were landing strips for spaceships. His pseudo - proofs were
pictures of geoglyphs with a startling similarity to modern airstrips. He added
that it was impossible to create such large signs and markings without the help
"The scientific literature is full of such bath - tub toys purporting to be
truth. Not only have none of these clever writers read the book in question -
let alone the ones which followed, instead copying down nonsense from each other
- but they also maliciously invent and attribute to me things which cannot be
found anywhere in any of my books...."
In other words this is how the Establishment covers things up, and can be
thought of as a textbook example of how falsely interpreted statements get
carved in stone then placed in archives to be cited again at every opportunity,
covering up the Truth. (To be fair see note )
This methodology of unfair debunking goes back a very long way, and has been
used time after time to cover up pieces of the UFO jigsaw. As will be revealed
the reasons behind this campaign are because of Religion. One important example
is the unfair debunking of Spinoza. Spinoza is surprisingly another piece of
this Gigantic Suppressed UFO Jigsaw puzzle going back to the 17th century, as
will become shown anon:
19. Conspiracy against Spinoza
Benedict Spinoza (1632 - 1677), a Jewish - Dutch philosopher,  is recognised
as one of the great philosophers, but he was subjected to the same debunking
campaign as Daniken faced. And the religious ideas associated with Spinoza are
connected with Einstein and his Physics.
Spinoza’s philosophy was not approved of by the Establishment, and in 1697 a
scholarly refutation of it was published in Pierre Bayle’s Dictionary. [ 5]
"Leibniz expressed relief that Spinoza’s ‘pitiful or unintelligible’
arguments were not only ‘well held up to ridicule,’ but thrown into serious
philosophical disrepute." 
However, it was not ‘really’ a refutation of Spinoza, as Margaret Gullan-Whur notes:
"Yet in his Dictionnaire Bayle effectively conceded the persuasive power of
Spinoza’s principles by calculatedly playing down their potential for
religious and political agitation... Bayle set out to massage the beliefs of the
orthodox and to assure the impressionable, or already impressed that the
greatest danger to them from Spinoza was of making themselves look foolish by
defending him...." [ 7]
Bayle’s Dictionary was an unfair debunking of Spinoza, but it got continually
referred to by other philosophers, such as David Hume:
"David Hume... hastily dismissed in 1739.... Spinoza’s ‘hideous
hypothesis’ of ‘two different systems of beings presented.’ By speedily
referring readers to ‘Bayle’s dictionary, article of Spinoza’ for further
enlightenment, Hume affirmed both his own lack of interest and Bayle’s still
potent and damaging authority [ on Spinoza’s philosophy]" 
Margaret Gullan Whur notes that thanks to Bayle’s Dictionary:
"By the late 18th century Spinoza had, thanks largely to Bayle, little
following among European literati, and his doctrine was treated mainly to
flippant, sketchy and inaccurate second - hand interpretation...." 
Spinoza was subjected to the same debunking as Daniken was subjected to. For
over a hundred years the debunking of Spinoza’s philosophy discouraged any
followers taking up his ideas. Margaret Gullan Whur notes the further smear
campaign against Spinoza and says:
"Spinoza was thus denied the thoughtful readership he sought." 
In the late 18th century, his philosophy became incompatible with Scepticism:
"... the stigmas of atheism and incoherence which had flung his work into
ignominy were beginning to fade in relation to the incompatibility of his
philosophy with the late 18th century scepticism. Spinoza’s battery of quasi-scholastic arguments for the necessary existence of God, and for the necessary
self-containedness and all-inclusiveness of the one substance, God or
Nature, were now considered worthless speculation." 
So, Spinoza was unfairly debunked in the 17th century, and when he escaped the
smear in the late 18th century his message was seen as ‘worthless.’ Does
that not strike you as ‘odd’?
Spinoza was writing in the 17th century in the context of what his
contemporaries believed in, and his contemporaries were so upset by what he said
that they unfairly debunked him, to discourage others from reading him.
Eventually people decided to follow different ideas in the 18th century, so the
ideas that Spinoza was talking about in the 17th century seemed antiquated. He
was writing to a different audience, and only when his ‘message’ no longer
meant what it once meant to his audience, was his ‘message’ allowed to be
freed of the debunking. For an audience more than a hundred years after his
death, his ideas would have needed rephrasing in the new context.
Thus Daniken and Spinoza are linked by this Debunking method. They are also
linked by another means, they both pronounced Heresies.
Spinoza was a heretic, led into his heresy by intellectual process. 
In his day, heretics could expect very harsh treatment. The Christians had
Inquisitions and witch hunts against heretics. The Jews, from the Christian
perspective were often considered to be heretics. Spinoza was a Jew. He lived in
Holland, where there was a fair amount of religious tolerance. The Jews lived in
their own close knit communities, and tried to defend themselves from Christian
persecution. But what is not widely appreciated is that the Jews had problems
with Heretics among their own ranks, and dealt with their Heretics as severely as the Christians dealt with Heretics.
One example of how Jews dealt with Heretics against their Faith was Uriel d’
Acosta. He came to Amsterdam from Spain in 1618 as a law student, yearning to
take up his ancestral religion. However, he became seriously disillusioned by
the rabbinical Judaism, and by challenging the Jewish religion, he insulted the
authority of the synagogue leaders. The leaders banned him from their community,
and he fled to Hamburg, but a German-Jewish expulsion sent him back to
Amsterdam. He upset the Jewish leaders again, and was condemned to public
confession and 39 lashes: a terrifying street flagellation. Margaret Gullan Whur
describes from d’Acosta’s diary what happened next:
"The Amsterdam Jews set their children upon me in the streets, who insulted
me in a body as I walked along, abusing and railing me, crying out, there goes a
Heretic... They spit upon me as they passed by me in the streets, and encouraged
their children to do the same... During the time of the whipping they sang a
psalm ... I Prostrated myself [at the synagogue door] whilst all both old and
young, passed over me, stepping with one foot on the lower part of my
Margaret Gullan Whur then says d’Acosta shot himself.
D’Acosta’s crime was ‘free thinking.’ The Jews did not approve of
‘free thinking’ among their own, and the Christians did not approve of
‘free thinking’ either. Spinoza committed the same crime, and was
excommunicated by the Jewish leaders, but was more fortunate than d’Acosta and
fled his Jewish community. Unfortunately the Heresy he committed against his
Jewish Faith was still Heresy in the Christian Faith, and so he upset the
Christians as well. Hence we see the reason why Spinoza was unfairly debunked.
He was saying things that upset religious leaders.
Now Daniken asked the Big question: ‘Was God an Astronaut?’. This was Heresy
also, if you happen to believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Spinoza was
persecuted for his Heresy, would Daniken be persecuted for his? Or would modern
Society be more open minded than the 17th century and allow ‘free thinking’
even when it upsets certain peoples’ religious beliefs?
My surprising answer is: that ‘things’ haven’t changed that much since the
17th century in society, and if you commit Heresy you are still subjected to the
same ‘old’ religious persecution.
In the Middle Ages it was more obvious when a heretic was being subjected to
religious persecution, because it was more easily seen that this was happening:
heretics quite often ended up on the Bonfire, so a casual onlooker could see
that Society did not like Heretics. It is true that no more Heretic Burnings go
on, but that does not mean that the persecution has stopped. It just means that
the religious persecutors are more subtle in their operations, they are no
longer overt in their operations, they are now covert. The debunking that was
successfully used against Spinoza, was used once more against another heretic
Daniken: the same old methods.
Now, lets get to Spinoza’s philosophy:
Scholastic was the philosophy taught in the schools in monasteries and abbeys in
the Middle Ages, it had is ‘Golden Age’ in the 13th century. 
The labours of the scholastics, was to try to state Christian doctrine in as
literal a language as they could command or as the doctrine itself would permit.
They obtained partial success and accumulated a series of definitions of the
term ‘God’. But had left the term somewhere - about- half way between
metaphor and literal statement. They had defined God as a being that needs
nothing else in order to exist, or as a being which possesses all possible
attributes (i.e. everything that can be said about God), or as a being whose
very nature implies existence.  The efforts of the Scholastics can be listed
as definitions for God such as:
1. God is the being that needs nothing else in order to exist.
2. God is the being of which all possible assertions can be made.
3. God is the being of which the very nature implies that it exists.
If we change this list into questions and ask ‘what is God’ or ‘what being
is there’ we turn the list into:
1. What being is there that needs nothing else in order to exist?
2. What being is there of which all possible assertions can be made?
3. What being is there of which the very nature implies that it exists?
The answer to each of these questions seems obvious, namely the Universe.
Spinoza jumped to this answer for these questions, and concluded that: God and
the universe are identical.
A rather crude deduction, but a valid answer to the definitions. Thus Spinoza
decided that the Universe was God. This is belief is called Pantheism: Pan
meaning ‘all’ , Theism meaning ‘belief in god or gods’, so Pantheism is
the belief that God is everything i.e. God is the Universe.
Barrows Dunham points out that Pantheism is heresy:
"...... all Western religions regard pantheism as heretical. Judaism needs
a personal God to validate the Law, Christianity needs a personal God to
validate the Church’s authority, and Mohammedanism needs a personal Allah to
validate Mohammed’s prophetic mission......." 
Hence we have the reason why Spinoza’s philosophy was persecuted, he used
Logic on Religion and deduced an answer that Religious leaders did not want to
believe. He was debunked for over a hundred years, so that no philosophers would
pay attention to his conclusion, and after peoples’ attitudes changed and they
no longer had a 17th century outlook, he was allowed to be ‘undebunked’ -
allowed to be a reformed philosopher, that was allowed to be studied. But in the
new attitude that people had adopted since Spinoza’s time, his method of
deducing Pantheism was meaningless, and so it no longer had the ability of changing any one’s beliefs. i.e. it had been rendered harmless with the
passing of the centuries.
All was safe once again for the Judeo-Christian Religious Cult to continue
believing whatever it liked, with the Heresy of Spinoza’s Pantheism having
been neutralised. That was until the early 20th century when the Heresy threaten
to raise its head once again, with a new Heretic : Einstein.
Einstein became world famous in 1919, which was not a very good time to become
famous if you were a Jew, as notes Dennis Overbye in his book Einstein in Love:
"Not everybody was enraptured by this general trend of celebrity and
idolatry. If you were a conservative, or a German physicist who had won the
Nobel prize (as Einstein had not yet done) without having your face decorate
magazine covers and being anointed a new Copernicus, there was something vaguely
ominous about the brown-eyed face staring out from the newspapers and magazine
covers. It was, after all a Jewish face. And the word "relatively" was
being heard entirely too often these days in contexts that had nothing to do
with moving trains and the speed of light. It was a joke, it was a code, a
shorthand for a certain kind of corruption, a moral rot, "the purest
subjective idealism", in the words of the London Times, substituting for
the pillars of culture and knowledge."
"Berlin, Albert had told Ehrenfest late in 1919, was rife with anti
Semitism, adding that "political reaction is violent, at least among the
intelligentsia." Soon he began to see it everywhere."
Einstein was subjected to a hate campaign by anti Semites who became the Nazis.
He had to be defended by his friends, who were fellow Jews and Christians. But,
what if he had upset them as well? A way of doing this would be if he upset
their religious beliefs and propose say an old Heresy such as Pantheism. So,
would he do this? The answer is yes, from the book, Albert Einstein: Historical
and Cultural Perspectives:
"In the spirit of Spinoza’s logic and pantheistic thought; Einstein
defined religiosity as faith in the ‘rationality and intelligibility of the
world,’ a faith based on the cognitive assumption that the world is rationally
comprehensible. The religion was not conceived as a set of dogmas, rituals, or
authoritative institutions, nor was the concept of God conceived as a
‘personal God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human
beings.’" [ 18]
Note that this last statement is blasphemy according to Christian and Jewish
religious dogma. The article continues:
"Rather - and here too Einstein was close to Spinoza - God is a rational,
logical concept, sometimes even metaphoric, as necessitated by the basic notion
that the world is constructed according to the ‘orderly harmony of what
Note that Einstein now commits the same heresy as Spinoza, and is his influence
on his outlook to physics. If you reject Einstein’s approach to physics, then
it is possible to reject the religious heresy that goes along with it. A big
motive for trying to make an alternative approach to physics, which indeed was
achieved in the 1920s.
Religious ideas more in keeping with Eastern Mysticism (and Native American,
aboriginals etc.) than Western Religion, giving a big reason for Religious Cover
up. In the philosophical criticisms of Spinoza’s Pantheism it is accused of
being a big step to Atheism. If God is the Universe, then God is a redundant
term, because one might as well just call the Universe the Universe, then there
is no place in it for the old use of the word ‘God’ , which is atheism.
All heretics before the 20th century were dealt with harshly, so why not treat a
heretic in the 20th century in the same manner. There could only have been
Religious persecution against Einstein’s Relativity, because there had always
been religious persecution against heresies since the beginning of Christianity.
Loren R Graham notes:
"Einstein’s theory of relativity was such a radical break with common-
sense notions possessed by lay people of all societies - whatever the prevalent
philosophies, religions, or ideologies - that it caused great concern. In
England and America in the twenties, underneath the fascination with Einstein
and the titillation with popular lectures on relativity, there lurked an anxiety
about how this new theory could be fitted in with conventional beliefs,
particularly religious ones." [ 20]
The Establishment was faced with a problem, a physics theory that was Religious
Heresy. Its response was to usurp Einstein from his throne as the head of
physics theory, and in the 1920s Quantum Mechanics was created to replace
Einstein’s physics and reject his philosophical approach to physics.
It was a rejection of an approach to physics that is summed up by Einstein as:
"‘My views are near Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in
the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and
only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect
knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely
human problem - the most important of all human problems...’" [ 21]
The approach to physics by Einstein is to try to unify concepts. His religious
heresy means that problems created by humans have to be solved by humans, and
there is no Personal God to come to save them. Something that the Judeo -
Christian religious Dogma does not want to believe.
The Scientific methodology that arose from the Copernican Revolution led to the
Heresy of Spinoza in Religion, mirrored by support in physics by Einstein. The
only way to cover up was to change the methodology of Physics, as has been done.
Under the old scientific method in the old philosophy we have unification under
Boscovich. (Roger Boscovich had a unified theory of physics, and has been seen
as a forerunner of modern physics theory, but the popular account of modern
physics unfairly dismisses him.)  But the new scientific method does not
give us unification. There are many more links that just this, which lead back
to a long tradition of other persecuted Heretics. Links that connect to
Pythagoras and through him Ancient Wisdom coming from Egypt and beyond.
For the sake of Judeo - Christian Religious Beliefs physics has been corrupted.
A major attempt was made to deviate from the approach to physics that
underpinned Einstein’s version of physics, because it was the Heresy of
The Proper Scientific approach that leads to solving the UFO Problem is
religiously unacceptable, and has been Debunked, and replaced by a corrupt
approach that has now been applied to all Sciences. A methodology that now
prevents anything offensive from being proven, because it takes as its starting
position the assumption that such offensives things do not exist. It prevents
any lone scientists from solving the puzzle and upsetting the religious
fanatics, because the proof that he must provide to get any piece of the UFO
jigsaw accepted by the Establishment is unreasonable.
Further we can now seek to answer Dainken’s question: "Was God an
Astronaut?" From Pantheism - God is the Universe, and the Bible describes a
very different God, namely a Personal God, where Man is in the image of God. The
God of Spinoza and Einstein cannot be the same as the Biblical God. It therefore
seems likely that something like a UFO encounter happened in very ancient times
and was interpreted in religious terms. Carl Sagan has described a scenario
where some primitives met someone or something from a more advanced civilisation,
and founded a religion on that encounter, what he calls a "UFO Cargo
Cult". We thus see the link now as : the foundations of our Society is
based upon a UFO Cargo Cult Mentality.
It seems likely that we were visited by aliens, then some of our ancestors
converted this into a religious cult based on mistaken ideas, that their
descendants vigorously defend, and now impose upon their children in State
Einstein was exploring many unorthodox ideas such as Professor Hapgood’s Pole
Shift ideas, and according to Peter Kolosimo:
"Einstein, for instance, believed in a plurality of inhabited worlds, and
is said to have maintained that the navigators of "flying saucers" are
human beings who left earth 20,000 years ago and return to see how their
descendants are getting on." 
And if we are visited by ‘cousins’, why not other aliens? All these ideas
the Status Quo tries to debunk, and a major step on its way to debunk is to
misrepresent Einstein’s theory and his approach to physics, i.e. to corrupt
The Establishment does not want to consider the UFO - ET question seriously and
has already defined it as a non-question. And when faced with heresies such as
Daniken, it uses any means at its disposal to debunk, going as far as mis-citing
the things it is debunking to ‘muddy’ the waters, and I suspect even go as
far as to hoax UFO - ET type evidence so as to throw into any possible genuine
evidence into doubt.
The Establishment does not work from proper science, where different ideas are
supposed to be tested. Instead it works from religion, because it has already
decided what to believe, and won’t genuinely consider alternatives. But when
you look at the human race in more detail, you find it true of most people, that
they are Homo Religious. They all have their different beliefs based on Faith.
It is just that the Establishment pretends it works from science, but is really
a religion masquerading as Science.
All UFO related jigsaw pieces such as the phenomenon of poltergeist, telepathy,
telekinesis, demonic possession etc., issues that are ignored by Mainstream
Science because it cannot explain them, fit within the Proper Science Scheme of
Einstein, based on the unifying approach of Spinoza. But worse: We now have a
Science so badly corrupted from this Religious Controversy, that it cannot
properly solve problems such as AIDS, Cancer, BSE, the failure of antibiotics
etc., and instead of solving these problems its is now creating new problems.
There are two versions of History, the one the Establishment tells us and the
Conspiracy version. The Conspiracy version of History has been suppressed by the
Establishment for a very long time, because of its Religious significance.
UFO Investigator Timothy Good notes that the Military treat the UFO Subject as
being above Top Secret, higher than the Secrets of the Atom Bomb. The reason it
is so secret is because it is the reason for Wars, namely Religion. Religion has
been used as an excuse for war for centuries. There can be no deadlier threat
than a Reason for War. Hence this is why the UFO issue is such a delicate one of
National Security. Religious people must not be upset, or else they find another
excuse for War.
So, for the benefit of Religious Fanatics we die from an increasingly polluted
Environment, prevented from using a proper effective Science. Religious fanatics
are convinced that this is the way it is supposed to be, namely that the World
should end so that they can meet their Saviour. Thus they create the self
-fulfilling prophecy. The world ends either through the misuse of Science or
through religious fanatics starting war. Both scenarios are created by the
corrupted beliefs of Modern Religion. Which means that the Status Quo UFO Cargo
Cult Mentality is a Suicide Cult. The foundations of Christianity were laid by
Christians who were willing to martyr themselves against the Roman Empire. The
Christian Martyrs died believing it was a quick and instant way to Heaven. The
Mentality still persists after two thousand years, and has set in motion steps
to martyr us all.
It requires people to start to show a little bit of Sense and take charge of
Additional: Religious Fundamentalists try to corrupt Biology, because they
dislike the Theory of Evolution. They succeeded in corrupting Physics, but were
less successful with Biology, and proceed to point out flaws in Evolution
Theory. The flaws in Evolution Theory appear to have been created by these
Religious Fanatic's corruption of Physics. From the Proper perspective it
appears that there is most likely artificial manipulation of mankind’s
evolution. And the Theory of Evolution as it stands assumes ‘natural
selection’ no ‘artificial intervention’, hence its flaws, which the
Religious fanatics try to capitalise upon. Thus after corrupting one science
they then proceed to corrupt the next.
References and Notes
 Arrival of the Gods, Erich von Daniken, Element, UK 1998
 Secret of the Desert, Maria Reiche, Stuttgart, no date.
 Daniken accuses the Establishment of unfairly treating him. The alternative
side of this is: Daniken in his first books states the vast majority of his
ideas about Aliens visiting us in the remote past, as questions. In other words
he is stating his ideas as speculation: as ‘open ended’ questions that do
not allow themselves to be criticised. Instead they ‘beg’ the Establishment
to test his ideas. But, these ideas are very difficult to test. However, it is
quite obvious that Daniken himself believes in most of the speculation that he
is stating, and is stating his questions in such a way that they appear like
statements of fact inviting the readers to believe them. The critics when faced
with this took the easier option of not testing his ideas, and instead tried to
‘slag’ him off, by criticising his beliefs, and ignoring that Daniken was
not explicitly stating facts of belief. The end result of the smear campaign
against Daniken is to associate the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis with him, and
thus also smear the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis itself and discouraging others
investigating such ideas. Something which is unfair to the Hypothesis as well as
 Dictionary of Philosophy, G Vesey and P Foulkes, Unwin Hyman, UK 1999 p 273
 Within Reason: A Life of Spinoza, Margaret Gullan - Whur, Pimlico, UK 2000,
 ibid. p 306
 ibid. p 307
 The Heretics, Barrows Dunham, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1963, p 334
 Within Reason p 37
 Dictionary of philosophy p 262
 The Heretics, Barrows Dunham, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1963 p 334 -5
 ibid. p 335
 Einstein in Love, Dennis Overbye, Bloomsbury, UK, 2001, p 369
 Albert Einstein: historical and Cultural perspectives, ed. Gerald Holton
and Yehuda Elkana, Dover, USA 1982 p 308 -9
 ibid. p 129
 ibid. p 308 - 309
 Roger Boscovich : the forerunner of modern physical theories, H V Gill, M H
Gill and Son, UK 1941 Foreword: "This small volume contains a simple
account of the remarkable way in which a theory proposed by Roger Boscovich two
hundred years ago is now found to be in harmony with conclusions arrived at by
methods of scientific research."
Nexus vol. 8 no 5 Roger Boscovich article.
 Timeless Earth, Peter Kolosimo, Garnstone Press, UK 1973, p 192 - 3.
20.1 Pole Shift
Hapggod’s theory of Pole Shift was ignored by the Science Community despite
the support of Einstein. This is another example of Cover -Up.
Einstein gave his support to Hapgood’s theory that the Poles have shifted
several times in our past. John White in his book Pole Shift, tells us:
"In 1958 Hapgood published the results of the decade long joint inquiry.
The Foreword to Earth’s Shifting Crust was written by none other than Albert
Einstein. Hapgood and Campbell had approached Einstein in 1954 and found, just
as they had heard, that he welcomed new ideas. During the following months,
before he died in 1955, Einstein not only gave his reactions to their
presentation but also offered suggestions for their further development.
..... Despite the endorsement by Einstein and by Harvard professor of geology
Kirtley F Mather, who wrote a Foreword to the British and foreign - language
editions of the book, the reception of Earth’s Shifting Crust was, in
Hapgood’s phrase to a recent audience, "noteworthy in the negative
sense." In other words, he said, "the silence has been deafening.
There were very few reviews ... I can say that no crude errors have been found
in the work, but it is clear that the basic challenge it presents to accepted
geological ideas has been too extreme to be taken up by the Establishment."
(The book was later revised as The Path of the Pole.)
Einstein supporting a theory gave it no special treatment in the Science
Community, and the Science Community went ahead and ignored it. It supports my
thesis that there was a conspiracy against Einstein. If there was no conspiracy
against Einstein, then Einstein’s support to a maverick theory such as
Hapgood’s would have been looked at by the Science Community instead of
Velikovsky also had a maverick theory that connected to the Pole Shift idea, but
the Science Community did not ignore him like they did Hapgood, instead:
"Brown and Hapgood [both Pole shift advocates like Velikovsky ] had also
challenged dogma, but the response to them was principally silence and
sequestration. Velikovsky was to experience something different: unbridled
outrage. Whereas Brown and Hapgood were to be largely ignored, Velikovsky would
feel the full wrath of some virtual (but not virtuous) pillars of the scientific
community. In the process, much would be shown about the fragile assumptions and
cliquish associations upon which presumed truth is often built. Much would also
be shown about the state of mind prevailing in the scientific community - a
state characterised by intellectual arrogance. Consciousness is the key to
understanding new knowledge such as Velikovsky brought to light. The state of
consciousness prevailing in the scientific community, as displayed in the
Velikovsky Affair, was simply incapable of handling it, and was decidedly
The Science Community effectively set about trying to debunk Velikovsky.
Einstein entered the fray:
"........Years later, Einstein would enter the Velikovsky Affair as one who
disagreed with Velikovsky’s views but who defended his right to be heard
without prejudice and abuse being heaped on him." [ #]
This did not stop the Science Community. Which also supports my thesis that the
Science Community did not respect Einstein. If they had respected Einstein, then
they would have backed down from their attack against Velikovsky.
Velikovsky’s theory was that Earth had undergone a catastrophe, and he formed
this opinion from looked at Ancient mythologies:
"... Velikovsky began to reconstruct Middle Eastern history, Pensee tells
us, taking this catastrophe - which brought the downfall of the Egyptian Middle
Kingdom - as a starting point from which to synchronise the histories of Egypt
and Israel........." [ #]
".......A survey of other sources around the world convinced Velikovsky
that a global cataclysm had indeed overtaken the Earth, and that Venus played a
decisive role in the cataclysm." [ #]
He asked himself why this catastrophe was not more widely known about and
"With this discovery [of the catastrophe] , Velikovsky asked himself how a
disaster of such magnitude could be blotted from human memory. His
psychoanalytic training suggested the answer. If individual memories could
submerge painful experiences from normal recall, so also might the human race
blot out recollection of a devastating catastrophe that virtually destroyed
society. "He called such a process collective amnesia," Fred
Warshofsky reports... ‘and began a monumental life’s work, a reconstruction
of ancient history according to his catastrophe theory.’" [ #]
Velikovsky was :
"....... a scholar -psychologist reconstructing history from long ignored
data found in myth and literature, and was supporting his reconstruction with an
incredible array of evidence from the physical, biological and social sciences.
" [ #]
He interpreted it as a record of a catastrophe from the mythologies. However, he
did not care that the idea of Venus coming close to the Earth and causing the
catastrophe violated what scientists believed about celestial mechanics. He
placed more emphasis on what the ancient people said in their mythologies than
whether the account contradicted science beliefs. Hence Einstein although
supporting Velikovsky’s freedom of speech, did not believe his theory.
The general outline of some catastrophe happening in the past was still
consistent with Hapgood and other ‘s Pole Shift theory.
Velikovsky was an easier target than Hapgood’ theory, and the Science
Community attacked his theory:
"... What seemed a campaign led by Shapley had begun among college
professors and scientists to pressure Velikovsky’s publisher, Macmillan, not
to bring out the book at all. When it nevertheless appeared and quickly rose to
sales prominence, the pressure tactic changed to threats of boycotting all
Macmillan books. Fearing for its textbook sales, Macmillan took a step that was
unprecedented in publishing history. While Worlds in Collision was holding the
number one position on The New York Times list, Macmillan gave it to Doubleday,
which had no textbook division and thus was immune to boycott threats. Macmillan
also fired the editor who had purchased Worlds in Collision. He was one of
several people who would be sacrificed by various institutions to appease the
wrath of the high priests of science." [ #]
"........the treatment given Velikovsky constitutes an ugly record of
intellectual dishonesty, moral cowardice and scientific hubris. Except for a
handful of courageous men who stepped forth to defend Velikovsky’s right to be
heard in a fair and professional manner, without emotional attacks, Velikovsky
was shunned by the scientific and intellectual communities for a decade." [
"Velikovsky’s work was primarily a reconstruction of early history based
on the testimony of early civilisations. From that reconstruction he inferred
certain astronomical events, which he claimed would be proven by scientific
experimentation. In the 1960s, when space research began to give startling new
data about the nature of the solar system, many of Velikovsky’s predictions
were shown to be correct. " [ #]
Which suggests that there was some truth in Velikovsky’s theory, although he
might not have got all the details right. He even seemed to have eventually got
Einstein to think that maybe there was something in the theory:
"’Space,’ Velikovsky had declared, "is not a vacuum; and
electromagnetism plays a fundamental role in our solar system and the entire
universe." Although some stars were known to give off radio waves, the idea
of noisy space, crackling with radio waves, pressed by magnetic fields and riven
by electrical charges and radioactivity, was not a widely accepted part of the
astronomy of 1950. Thus, few astronomers gave any credence to Velikovsky’s
claim in a 1953 lecture at Princeton University that Jupiter was emitting radio
"Our picture of Jupiter has been vastly expanded since then."
"Albert Einstein was sympathetic to some of Velikovsky’s fundamental
concepts, but vigorously opposed his theory that space was permeated by magnetic
fields, that the sun and planets are charged bodies and that electromagnetism
plays a role in celestial mechanics."
"In June 1954 Velikovsky offered in writing to stake the outcome of his
debate with Einstein on the question of whether Jupiter emits radio noises, as
he had claimed. Einstein replied, as was his custom, by making marginal notes,
one of which discounted the idea."
"Ten months later, early in 1955, astronomers at the Carnegie Institution
were shocked to hear strong radio signals pouring in from Jupiter. When Einstein
heard the news, he empathetically declared that he would use his influence to
have Velikovsky’s theory put to experimental test. Nine days later he died - a
copy of Worlds in Collision open on his desk." [#]
So, Velikovsky got Einstein to think that there was more to his theory, and that
it needed a better look at, but alas too late.
It strikes me that it - took a rather long time from the invention of radio to
1955 to suddenly realise that there was radio signals coming from other planets.
If Einstein was going by what was being reported by the Science Community up to
1955, then he might have been under the impression that such an obvious things
as radio signals from outer space would have been looked for. In 1955 it might
have been a surprise to him that the Science Community had only just got around
to thinking about looking for radio signals from outer space. When it came to
theorising, such an observation would have been useful to know, because being
under the impression that such things were not possible then he would have been
looking for a theory which excluded it.
Radio pioneers such as Tesla and Marconi claimed that they were getting radio
signals from outer space, but the Science Community claimed that these radio
pioneers were mistaken. It looks like observational and experimental data was
being deliberately slowed down before its dissemination and acceptance in the
Thus experimental and observational data was withheld from Einstein, and this
would have hampered his approach to trying to find a Unified Theory of physics.
Einstein was trying to find a unification between gravity and electromagnetism.
The physics that Velikovsky speculated in this area to fit with his catastrophe
theory was : that electromagnetism played a fundamental role in the solar system
along with gravity.
It suggests that electromagnetism and gravity are much more intimately connected
than one might now suspect. With electromagnetism filling space, then may be
gravity was using electromagnetism as a medium to travel along.
A rather simple idea, and one that Einstein would have easily thought of. But
given no data about space being filled with electromagnetism (i.e. no radio
signals from the planets), he might have quickly dismissed that theory as being
It is my contention that the electromagnetism and gravity are connected together
in a very simple way by a very easy theoretical framework, that Einstein would
have easily found if he had been given the relevant information. For some
strange reason that information was very late in coming forward. (Was it
deliberate -so as to stop Einstein getting his Unified theory?)
[#] Pole Shift, John White, ARE Press, USA, 1980, 1991 , 89 - 90, 25, 111 - 115
20.2 Pole Shift and the Ether
Hapgood’s theory of Pole Shift connects to Ether Physics: physics that the
Science Establishment ignores. But which the Secret Agencies use as Psychotronic
Hapgood’s (and others) theory of Pole Shift was ignored by the Science
Community. But if the theory is true then it connects to a different
understanding of physics than Modern Physics community adheres to. A physics
that enables control of earthquakes, flipping the Earth’s magnetic field and
other interesting phenomenon by much easier mechanisms than Modern physicists
are led to believe exist. That physics is sometimes called: Etherian physics.
"According to Trevor James Constable, whose book The Cosmic Pulse of Life
offers the best introduction to etherian physics, ‘Nobody can speak with
precision or accuracy about polar shifts without a knowledge of etherian
physics.’" [ #]
Fair enough, but there are a lot of Conspiratorial claims that go along with
In the book Pole Shift:
"..... The spectre of governmental and military applications of etherian
physics is already a reality, according to persistent rumours circulating among
researchers of the paranormal. The stories indicate that Soviet researchers have
advanced far beyond their Western counterparts in developing technology that
functions on psychic or etheric energy. Their creations are formally named
psychotronic weapons, although these devices are unlike any weapons seen before
because their operation is such a radical breakthrough in parascience." [
"One class of psychotronic, or PT, weapons is based on the pioneering work
of Nikola Tesla, the Yugoslavian -born genius who revolutionised the field of
electrical technology with his inventions. Early this century, Tesla
demonstrated wireless transmission of electricity over 26 mile distance by
sending through the ground. Apparently, Soviet scientists have progressed from
Tesla’s discoveries to the point where electromagnetic signals can be
broadcast through the earth to form standing waves in the earth itself. By
triangulating signals from transmitting stations (Riga, Gomel, Semipalatinsk and
Novosibirsk), coherent patterns can be set up that, through an effect known as
"kindling", are amplified by drawing energy from the core of the
planet. The amplified energy in the standing wave can in turn be directed and
focused to induce a variety of effects, including earthquakes and appear to
naive observers as natural (rather than man-made) phenomena. It is suspected by
one researcher that the Iranian earthquake of 1978 may have been created by this
One claim that is rather old now, (but there are similar newer claims on the
same use of Etherian physics that can be found on the web) is:
"The researcher, retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Thomas A Bearden, a
nuclear engineer and former intelligence officer, writes in a journal he edits,
Specula (July - Sept. 1978), "It is the author’s thesis that the
foregoing ... [accounts] for some of the drastic weather effects that have
occurred in the past two years, as well as some of the major earthquakes that
have occurred throughout the earth in the last several years. The Soviets, I
believe, have been orienting and aligning - and operationally testing - actual
weapons systems to be used as precursors to war or during war. The recent
Iranian earthquake, e.g.., may well have been Soviet - induced." ....... [
So, the idea that some catastrophe destroyed a lost civilisation is best
explained by the Pole Shift Theory. But the physics of the Pole Shift theory is
Etherian physics, and if that is true then the governments of the world have
reason to conceal that fact, as it connects to a new class of weapons called
Certain theories such as the Pole Shift by their very nature connect to national
security issues, and have to be suppressed. Ether Theory would seem to be the
Hidden Physics that is suppressed.
We can however, look at the Ether theory’s history. The Ether idea goes back a
long way in history:
"The ether theory of physics is another example of death and rebirth in
scientific history. Derived from the Greeks and upheld by such giants of science
as Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, the concept of the luminiferous ether - the
medium that transmitted electromagnetic waves - fell into disrepute when the
famed Michelson - Morley experiment in 1887 found no evidence of an ether.
Einstein assumed in his theory of relativity that there was no ether, [ - GROAN
] and his developing scientific stature resulted, as with continental drift
theory, in the abandonment of the concept by the scientific community for
several decades." [ #]
I don’t like the statement "Einstein assumed in his theory of relativity
there was no ether" above.
Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity does not use the Ether idea to explain
experiments like the Michelson - Morley experiment. So, in Special Relativity
the Ether idea is a redundant concept. But Einstein also had another Relativity
theory, namely General Relativity.
And in a lecture delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden,
Einstein summarised the lecture by saying:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore,
there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of
space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed
with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to
In other words Einstein was saying that the ether exists, or rather a type of
ether exists. (Ether idea got updated by Einstein and was called by him Unified
Field.) General relativity has the Ether idea. Special relativity does not
consider gravity, and has no need of the ether idea, but general relativity is
considering gravity and reintroduces the ether idea.
So, when it was earlier said "Einstein assumed in his theory of relativity
there was no ether", it needs the quantifier that it was in special
relativity that the ether does not exist, while in general relativity the ether
exists. The statement as it stands is misleading and seems to suggest that the
ether does not exist in both general relativity and special relativity, which is
wrong, because the more complete relativity theory of Einstein has the ether
idea in it.
There have been many statements in many articles similar to: "Einstein
assumed in his theory of relativity there was no ether", and people have
taken this to mean the erroneous belief that general relativity does not have
the ether idea.
This erroneous belief has led to the main conflict between promoters of
Einstein’s relativity and promoters of Ether Theory, both parties erroneously
assume that the Ether idea is not in Einstein’s general relativity.
One of the main confusions by some pro - Ether believers is to keep insisting
that Einstein’s relativity is wrong. But when they say this they are really
referring to Einstein's Special Relativity, and overlooking the fact that
Einstein reintroduced ether back in General Relativity. When the Ether believers
say Einstein’s relativity theory is wrong, they are not making it clear that
what they really should be referring to is only Einstein’s special relativity.
But in a sense saying Special Relativity is wrong is itself a mistake. Because
Special Relativity is merely a theory that is not considering gravity, and is
thus not the more complete relativity theory of General Relativity.
It is over this confusion of words, that the battle lines have been drawn.
Mainstream Physics Community uphold Einstein’s Relativity, but do not admit
that Einstein’s General Relativity has ether in it, and the Ether believers
insisting Einstein is wrong.
Truth once again gets lost in the middle between two warring factions,
squabbling over some nonsense. When what Einstein was really saying never
corresponded to what either of this warring factions claimed he said. And these
two warring factions ‘hog the limelight’ squeezing out any opinion different
to the two polarised extremes that each warring faction is advocating i.e. the
warring groups say ‘you are either with us or against us’. Thus a person
claiming that both groups are wrong, finds himself condemned by the Einstein
believers as an Ether believer, and by the Ether believers he is condemned as an
Einstein believer. In this manner the ‘third point’ of view is destroyed,
because although both warring groups fight among themselves, they unite and
condemn the ‘third point of view’, thus destroying it.
Similar scenarios occur like this in many areas of human conflict. Two warring
parties decide to fight over some confusion they both share, and destroy anyone
who tells them that they fight over a confusion in understanding.
Several attempts seem to have been made to bring the Ether idea back into
Mainstream Physics. The book Pole Shift mentions:
"In 1957, however, the Nobel physicist P A M Dirac asked (as the title of a
paper), "Is there an ether?" He answered affirmatively, and since then
other atomic scientists have suggested that the ether may be defined as an
energy - rich subquantic medium composed of neutrinos, pervading all space,
interpenetrating all matter, and acting as the common denominator in all
particle reactions. The question is still being debated, but my point is that
the ether concept is another example of scientific thought returning to vogue in
a modified form." [#]
Dirac’s attempt seemed to have failed. There have been other attempts. But the
two warring factions squabbling over nonsense, managed to block any such move in
In Quantum Mechanics, the Ether idea has been reinvented several times and
has gone by several names such as zero point energy .
In the book Pole Shift it says:
"Dozens of terms exist for an all-pervasive life force, or vitalising
principle, in nature. They come from cultures around the world ranging from
ch’i (Chinese) and prana (yogic) to the Holy Spirit (Christian)." [#]
And John White claims to have listed more than one hundred of these terms in
another book. [#]
Ether physics connects to the mechanism of how the paranormal works, another
name for ether theory is biorelativity: the idea of the human body being itself
an energy machine able to influence ether :
"........ biorelativity is a term coined by Goodman to denote the
psychokinetic interaction of people with their environment via psychic or mind
energy - the energy of thought. From the psychic point of view, the energy upon
which thoughts are impressed gives rise to thought forms. Thought forms are
produced constantly, whether or not we are aware of it, the psychics say, and
they constantly impress themselves upon the energy matrix sustaining the
physical environment, including the planet itself. "The psychics
[say]," Goodman reports, "that the thought forms given off and created
by man interact with the factors behind earthquakes, volcanoes, and geological
activities, as well as the factors behind climatic change". The effect of
humans is there all the time, inescapably. The only question, therefore, is
whether we are to have our thoughts affect the total process of the world’s
energy activity in a positive or a negative way." [#]
Biorelativity then gets all New Age mystical:
"The traditionally disapproved character traits of anger, greed, hatred,
fear, self-aggrandizement, aggression, lust for power and so forth are
powerfully negative influences on the energy processes of the earth. On the
other hand, virtuous thought and behaviour act to maintain harmony and balance.
Most important of all is to maintain a loving sense of relatedness to the planet
and its life forms as a single living organism - a senior member in the
community of life that extends upward in a great chain of being to the Creator.
This is what Native Americans call "walking in balance on the Earth
Mother". Violation of this biological - moral principle, the psychic
sources say, will surely bring on our destruction. It has happened before, with
Atlantis, Lemuria and other high civilisations before ours, they claim, and it
can happen again. If there is atomic conflict and the human race survives it,
those detonations could start chain reactions in the subsurface geology that
build up just as other naturally occurring factors, including thought form
influence, reach a critical state. In that case, we will have directly brought
on pole shift and will have no one to blame but ourselves." [#]
"But it need not happen. From the psychic point of view, the choice is
ours. The quality of our living can change at any time, and with that change
will go all the positive effects upon the energy matrix of the earth.
Consciousness is the key to intelligently controlling and directing psychic
energy and thought forms." [ #]
Ether physics thus connects to the paranormal and cultures such as native
American being intuitively aware of how to use that physics. Thus making it
another area that the Conspirators have to cover up.
I disapprove of some of these claims that the psychics make: ‘balance with
nature’, descriptions of Lost civilisations of Atlantis and Lemuria,
reincarnation and so forth. But given Ether theory - telepathy seems possible,
and it then becomes a problem of whether some psychics are genuinely telepathic,
and if they are where does the information transmitted to them come from. As
highlighted in such books as The Hungry Ghosts by Joe Fisher, the entities
channelled can tell lies, which raises the question how much channelled
information is lies? It might be that religions based on beliefs in
reincarnation are founded on being lied to by these entities. This sort of
psychic phenomenon has got itself too tied up with religious perceptions, and
has not been investigated by a proper science that believes in telepathy.
Anyway: All the anomalies connect into one Vast Cover Up, that the authorities
have to keep denying for national security reasons. And the warring factions
that squabble over misunderstandings manage to maintain that Cover up.
[#] Pole Shift, John White, ARE Press, USA, 1980, 1991, p 375 - 9, 53 - 4.
20.3 Einstein - Hapgood Conspiracy
More details on the Cover -Up connections between Hapgood’s theory and the
conspiracy against Einstein comes from Colin Wilson in his book The Atlantis
Rand Flem - Ath and Colin Wilson in their book The Atlantis Blueprint, mention
Einstein’s interest in Professor Hapgood’s theory of pole reversals, lost
civilizations that mapped the world etc.
To Hapgood’s material on Pole Shift, Einstein replied:
"I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your
hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the
earth’s crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time." 
Hapgood’s two famous books are: Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, and The Path of
the Pole, books that in part inspired Daniken with his ‘Ancient Astronaut’
beliefs, but were much more scholarly written.
Believers in these sort of ideas, however get split between two camps - those
that believe ancient knowledge came from ancient astronauts, and those that
believe it comes from a lost human civilization. In order to try to gain some
respectability from the orthodoxy, these two groups are encouraged to fight
among themselves. For instance: if you want respectability with ancient
knowledge then the orthodoxy might not be so loath to listen to you, if you
denounce ideas like Atlantis and ancient astronauts as being nonsense, as you
try to get another scenario to fit the ancient wisdom hypothesis.
The question is why, would such a split be created? Answer it’s all part of
the conjuring trick to prevent any organized agreed alternative to the orthodoxy
from being presented. Create dissent in the enemy’s camp, stop them from
uniting, and you prevent them from attacking you. Then the orthodoxy wins by
What if in the ancient past there was a civilization far more advanced than the
20th century’s. It does not then really matter too much at first introduction
to this ‘lots civilization' hypothesis, whether the civilization was human or
alien. At ‘first investigation' it is merely an ‘unknown lost civilization',
that needs to be investigated to decide how much of the ‘unknown’ can be
made ‘known.’ If such a human civilization existed, then it might have been
capable of space travel and contact with aliens. If it was alien, then it might
have been in contact with primitive humans coexisting at the same time.
All scenarios for ancient knowledge eventually merge into one, depending upon
how advanced you think that lost civilization was. What does it then matter,
which type of civilization it was? - it would still have had a profound effect
on us. Rather than seriously investigate this, the Mainstream Academics leave it
to the Unorthodox to be divided and split in their arguing as to the nature of
the ‘lost unknown civilization.' And being split, ‘they’ are not able to
provide a unified front to attack Mainstream Beliefs, that then win by default
as the Beliefs that get taught succeeding generations of students, with the
Unorthodox being dismissed and unmentioned, or debunked and unfairly mocked.
Now Einstein was interested in these ideas of lost civilization, and related
issues. The book reports, that when Einstein tried to get official backing to
finance researches into Hapgood’s theories, he failed - i.e. he was opposed.
Wilson and Flem- Ath report:
"In spring 1954, Einstein supported Hapgood’s application for a grant or
research appointment at the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton., where
Einstein was based. Unfortunately, Robert Oppenheimer, the ‘father of the atom
bomb’, who was an influential member of the committee, opposed Hapgood, and
the request was turned down....." 
Having failed there, they tried again:
"...in November 1954, Einstein supported Hapgood’s request for a research
grant from the Guggenhedim Foundation. Once again, it was turned down..."
So, we note that the Establishment manages to put a ‘block’ on pursuing the
ideas of Hapgood, refusing to allow them to be opened up to other Academics to
investigate. One can wonder why this is so. From my investigations the hints are
that whenever ideas threaten ‘national security’, then just mentioning these
two words is sufficient for a block to be placed on the relevant science.
Hapgood’s ideas at first look harmless, but they connect to other ideas that
look more and more threatening.
Anyway, ignoring those issues for the moment, and just looking at the issue of
Pole Shift at face value. A ‘block’ was placed on testing that hypothesis,
and Einstein’s name was not sufficient to impress the orthodox science
community to investigate this unusual idea.
Does this not strike you as odd?
When you check the biographies on Einstein you find that while Einstein was
alive - although the public image of Einstein was that of a genius, the academic
circles encouraged the new physics students to view Einstein as a ‘fool.’
Then what do the orthodoxy do? They adopt Einstein as their hero, and make out
that their science is based upon Einstein. If you check the history, you find
that the orthodoxy rejected Einstein from 1920s onwards and put words into
Einstein’s mouth, that he never said.
Science students are usually discouraged from checking the real history of their
subject, and are presented with myths. The greatest myth they are presented with
is how Einstein fits in with the orthodoxy, because he does not. Einstein went
his way, and the orthodoxy went their way.
One of the mythological attempts made to make sense of science history comes
from Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He talks some
nonsense about scientists forming an emotional attachment to their theories, and
refusing to consider alternatives. (All of what Kuhn is saying has been made up
to try to find reasons why the science community engages in some changes of
opinion in some subjects and refuses to do so in other areas.)
Wilson + co cite this in their book and say:
"This is why the great scientific revolutions - of Copernicus, Newton,
Einstein and quantum theory - encountered such furious resistance." 
It is unfortunate that ‘Einstein’ is placed next to the words ‘quantum
theory’, it makes out that Einstein’s revolution to physics was the quantum
theory. When in fact it was not the case. Einstein opposed the quantum theory
that became the orthodoxy. The impression given by Wilson + Co is thus false.
Many books give a similar false impression of history, making out that
Einstein’s contribution to physics "encountered furious resistance"
before it was accepted. When you check the real history, you find out that what
really happened: Einstein was "furious" in his resistance to the
revolution in physics, while the majority of the rest of the physics community
readily accepted the revolution. Einstein stood virtually alone in condemning
the new physics as being wrong. A far different scenario than many myth-makers
present for science students’ history lesson.
If there was a revolution in physics coming from Einstein, the orthodoxy decided
to not pursue it. And after not following Einstein’s revolution, the orthodoxy
have the ‘cheek’ to make out that Einstein is their hero and the
‘source’ of the physics they are pursuing.
With such a monumental twist in the facts (to believe whatever they like despite
the evidence), the orthodoxy claim the ‘high ground’ of laying claim to
undeserved authority (giving them the ‘best of both worlds’) and then have
the fun of denouncing the ideas that Einstein was really interested in as part
of the 'lunatic fringe.’
Einstein conspiracy was the start of the 20th century’s attempt to cover up
the UFO mystery and all its related topics.
There was never any ‘real’ freedom in science to open discussion. It is just
another conjuring trick played upon us. The orthodoxy wanted to believe certain
things, and then performed the conjuring that enabled them to create that
The science community has always held a set of religious beliefs (that it does
not explicitly state) and refuses to accept ideas that contradict its core
religion. If eventually an unorthodox theory can be adapted to fit in with that
core belief, then it is eventually accepted, while the ‘bits’ of the theory
that still contradict its religion is rejected.
An example of this is Wegner’s theory of continental drift (talked about in
Flem - Ath and Wilson’s book). Wegner was ridiculed by the orthodoxy for such
an idea, but eventually the orthodoxy came around to accepting it. However, the
orthodoxy modified it to fit with existing ideas as the theory of Plate
Tectonics. The full consequences of Wegner’s theory with its connections to
Hapgood’s theories of Pole reversal has still been rejected so far by the
orthodoxy. i.e the orthodoxy does it best to keep things much the same as they
always were, admitting only reluctantly any heresy when forced to, and then
modifying the heresy so that it does not upset the orthodoxy’s core religion
Science has never escaped religious restraint. It is just that the religious
restraint on science, is more subtly controlled than it used to be.
Conjuring tricks like turning the heretic Einstein into a supporter of the
orthodoxy, are now an easy feat to perform.
According to a TV programme on Conjuring tricks- in the Middle Ages, conjurers
had to convince the Inquisition that they were not using genuine magick when
performing their tricks, else they got burnt at the stake as witches. This
entailed the conjurers having to explain all their tricks to the Church, with
the Church writing them all down.
I wonder whether this vast wealth of conjuring knowledge has ever been used by
an organized group of people?
I wonder if the Church eventually realized there was a better way at keeping
control other than using bonfires for heretics? The use of a bit of conjuring
would be far more effective, subtler and a more humane way to deal with heretics
surely? Maybe the Spanish Inquisition never went away. Maybe they just got
cleverer, and so we failed to notice that they were still going around, trying
to deal with evidence and heretics they did not like, by a much more improved
If a genuine alien lands a ship, then do a bit of conjuring - flood the news
with hoaxed copies, then reveal the hoaxes as being hoaxes. Then the genuine
event gets lost within the hoaxed copies, and loses credibility due to ‘guilt
Some one has demonstrated an incredible amount of conjuring skills within the
UFO topic, or else there has been an amazing number of coincidences that
conspire together to give the impression of such a conjurer.
UFO investigator John Keel was very interested in this ‘conjuring trickery’
part of UFOLogy.
UFO investigator Morris Jessup who tried to emphasis the importance of
Einstein’s physics in connection with UFOs became embroiled in any interesting
conjuring trick of a ship that disappeared - The Philadelphia Experiment.
Its time to ‘bite the bullet’ - what we think is reality is simply a clever
illusion. We are as much duped as medieval intellectuals who thought they were
at the centre of the universe.
If aliens exist, that might have traumised us too much at one time. Now a lot of
the general public are coming around to the idea that aliens might exist, and
might visit us.
The next consequences of such a scenario is - our orthodox science and religious
beliefs are wrong.
A sudden meeting with aliens, and a revelation of such a nature, would still
traumise a great number of people. If the scenario is - ‘science and religion
is wrong’, then it might be far better for us to discover it for ourselves
than be told by aliens, that we are "thickos".
One conjuring trick was ---- Daniken was slagged off by orthodoxy by a lot of
heavy criticizing Hapgood’s ideas seem to have been dismissed because of
‘guilt with association’ with Daniken. This was a good conjuring trick -
can’t dispute some hard scholarly work, so put up a ‘straw dummy ‘ that
says similar but with much weaker arguments, knock the stuffing out of the straw
dummy, and claim to dismiss the hard evidence along with that dummy. it is a
diversion trick from conjuring. Leaves people like Wilson + co trying to work
out why Hapgood’s theory is not looked at seriously by the orthodoxy. When the
truth is - the orthodoxy have their religion, and never wanted to look at
‘well presented’ cases for alternatives to their erroneous beliefs.
 The Atlantis Blueprint, Rand Flem - Ath and Colin Wilson, Little, Brown and
Company, UK 2000, p 15
 ibid. p 42
21.1 CHALLENGER EXPLOSION - EXAMPLE OF THE UFO CONSPIRACY IN OPERATION
The inadequacies of being human led to the Challenger exploding. People engage
in complicated cover ups. The Challenger explosion illustrates how this cover up
methodology operates, which is part of a larger picture of the UFO cover up.
We are aware of the sad fate of the space shuttle Challenger exploding and
killing all its astronauts, but we are not aware that this is part of the UFO
conspiracy. However, my understanding of ‘conspiracy’ might be a lot
different from your understanding of the word. The word ‘conspiracy’ in its
normal usage is inadequate for the use I wish to use it to mean, but what other
word can be used to mean: people forming into different groups and fighting over
belief systems, or acting as ‘yes men’ and covering up their incompetences.
The roots of the UFO conspiracy is fairly droll, no super intelligence is
required to coordinate it. Instead it is just a natural part of what humans
engage in during their normal daily lives. With natural flair as this we can
create disasters like the Challenger explosion.
The way human interactions are engaged in is very complicated. People need
social skills or else they are disliked by others, and in order to be amiable
and likeable, it is often necessary not to tell the absolute truth, instead it
is preferred to tell ‘little white lies.’ For example if a lady asks whether
she looks beautiful or not, the absolute truth is not want she wants to hear, if
that answer is ‘no’, she would much prefer a different answer. It is the
consequences of our human nature that makes science a very difficult enterprise.
In science: absolute truth or something pertaining to be as near absolute truth
would seem preferred. Nature does not respond to lies in the same way as humans
do. Our species is built upon lines of deception. We engage in deception
sometimes for good intentions, but there are many other numerous reasons. Thus
we have a natural talent for failing to be able to follow the dictates of
Our prime motivation is money in our present age. Many of us require to earn a
living and we work. In order to get our money we need to satisfy our boss, and
in order to do that we need to engage in the complicated human interactions that
often lead to deception. Our boss likes to hear good news, and not bad news.
Once we associate getting the money we want with making our boss happy, we then
start to engage in our deception techniques to try to keep our boss happy with
‘white lies’ rather than the ‘absolute truth.’ When this human ability
is applied to great engineering feats such as the space shuttle, we then are no
longer engaged in what science requires of us. A space shuttle might be sent up
with major problems in it, but employees are engaged in a complicated cover up
of that fact from the hierarchy of bosses. This is what happened to the
Challenger. On previous space shuttle missions, the people who told ‘white
lies’ (people that are commonly called ‘yes’ men) were lucky and on the
Challenger mission they were unlucky. It takes an extraordinary person to come
out and say the ‘blunt truth’ - which is what science requires, such a
person was Richard Feynman.
The Challenger explosion illustrates the way that people operate in covering up
the truth, because it interferes with the human condition. People in general
cannot tell the absolute truth at work, because they risk losing monetary
income. It is this human condition that then covers up the solution to the UFO
mystery, because it operates in all spheres of human activity.
Richard Feynman prevented the Challenger accident being covered up. Richard
Feynman is one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, and winner of
the 1965 Nobel Physics Prize.  Oppenheimer had privately noted that Feynman
was the most brilliant young physicist at the WWII atomic bomb project. 
21.3 THE CHALLENGER DISASTER
The space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986, exploded after lift-off,
killing astronauts aboard : Francis Scobee; Michael Smith; Ellison Onizuka,
Judith Resnick, Ronald McNair; Gregory Jarvis; and Christa McAuliffe, 
An investigatory commission was set up under chairman, William P. Rogers,
consisting of Major General Donald J. Kutyna, Sally Ride, Neil Armstrong, Chuck
Yeager, and Richard Feynman.  The investigation would have been superficial
if not for one man Feynman being on the commission.
During the investigation was discovered that the decision to launch had been
made over the specific objections of engineers who knew of the critical danger
from the 0-rings, the final report did not attempt to hold senior space-agency
officials responsible for the decision. Evidence emerged showing that the
history of 0-ring problems had been reported in detail to top officials,
including the administrator, Beggs, in August 1985, but the commission chose not
to question those officials.  In other words the commission was proceeding
upon normal procedure of covering up, by ignoring the evidence presented to them
and not investigating properly. It would have just probably ended up a mystery
as to what had happened, except Feynman was on the commission.
Feynman alone among the commissioners, worked to expand the scope of the
investigation to include issues of decision making, communication, and risk
assessment within the space agency. He did so despite chairman Rogers's
disapproval.  This led to uncovering the ‘mess’ in NASA:
After the moon landings missions had finished in the seventies, NASA lost a
clear mission as to where it was going next, but had created a large bureaucracy
with connections to the nation's largest aerospace companies, and hundreds of
smaller companies. The shuttle project became defeated by its own technological
complexity, and government mismanagement. Every major component had been
repeatedly redesigned and rebuilt; every cost estimate offered to Congress had
been exceeded many times over.  i.e. it had greatly over run its production
Unpublicised audits had found deception and spending abuses costing many
billions of dollars. The shuttle had achieved being a reusable craft, but the
cost of refurbishing it after each flight far exceeded the cost of standard
rockets.  i.e. it was not cost effective
The shuttle could barely reach a low orbit; high orbits were out of the
question. The missions flown were a small fraction of those planned, and-despite
NASA's public claims to the contrary-the scientific and technological products
of the shuttle were negligible.
 i.e. it was pretended to be a success when it was not really.
Faced with all this difficulties , NASA then systematically misled Congress and
the public about the costs and benefits. As Feynman states it NASA , as a matter
of bureaucratic self preservation, found it necessary "to exaggerate; to
exaggerate how economical the shuttle would be, to exaggerate how often it could
fly, to exaggerate how safe it would be, to exaggerate the big scientific facts
that would be discovered." At the time of the challenger disaster the
program was breaking down internally: by the end of the year both a shortage of
spare parts and an overloaded crew-training program would have brought the
flight schedule to a halt. 
The cumulation of this farce, was the failure of the O rings, which Feynman then
demonstrated at a press conference. He explained that the material that the O
rings were made from once put in ice water, was slow to bounce back its shape
after pressure was placed on it. i.e. for a few seconds at least and more
seconds than that there is no resilience in this particular material when it is
at a temperature of 32 degrees.  Thus letting a dangerous gap for fuel to
come through. ( Official tests later confirmed Feynman’s TV demonstration,
that the failure of the cold seals had been virtually inevitable not a freakish
event, but a consequence of the plain physics of materials.  )
The commission was not interested in highlighting the problems with NASA that
had led to the disaster, bar one person : Feynman. The chairman Rogers ineptly
said at the start of the investigation , "We are not going to conduct this
investigation in a manner which would be unfairly critical of NASA, because we
think-I certainly think- NASA has done an excellent job, and I think the
American people do."  In other words it was seen as politically more
important for the American public to perceive the space shuttle project being a
magnificent success than expose any problems. It was a Personal relations
exercise, if Feynman was not on the team. Or as General Kutyna put it Feynman
was the only commissioner free of political entanglements 
This methodology of Feynman was however upsetting people. Or as Neil Armstrong
described it, "Feynman is becoming a real pain in the ass." 
Despite Feynman, the commission still attempted to portray NASA in a favourable
light (for public relations political reasons), and chairman Rogers still went
on to ‘sing the praises’ of NASA, in the first draft saying:
The Commission strongly recommends that NASA continue to receive the support of
the Administration and the nation. The agency constitutes a national resource
and plays a critical role in space exploration and development. It also provides
a symbol of national pride and technological leadership. The Commission applauds
NASA's spectacular achievements of the past and anticipates impressive
achievements to come. . . .
Feynman protested at this draft, but to no avail, and Feynman's harsher findings
were isolated in an appendix to the final report. [ 17] i.e. the important part
of the report was marginalised as much as possible, as a seemingly incidental.
If there was a summary required, from my experience the appendix would be
ignored. People do not really want to know the truth. If truth appears, then
attempts are made to remove it as much as possible, ‘spin doctoring’ is more
Feynman discovered that some engineers had a relatively realistic view of the
probabilities involved-- guessing that a disaster might occur on one flight in
two hundred, for example. Yet managers had adopted fantastic estimates on the
order of one in a hundred thousand. They were fooling themselves, he said, They
cobbled together such numbers by multiplying absurd guesses-that the chance of a
turbine pipe bursting was one in ten million, for example. He concluded his
personal report by saying, "For a successful technology, reality must take
precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." 
The commission left to its own devices, did not really want to dwell on the
problems, but instead would like say how wonderful the project was. If left to
themselves it would have liked to push aside the findings of the maverick
Feynman as much as possible. Then as now there very few people like Feynman that
have no political ties. The commission was not properly interested to find out
the root causes, they would have ignored the managers who were ignoring the
risks, if they could.
All of this adds to the classic ingredients that go to make up conspiracies and
cover ups, i.e. the group incompetence of people not interested in science but
instead interested in political spin doctoring.
Feynman got to the root of the problem by asking the engineers and investigating
it. The commission was trying to ignore the facts, and not find anyone to blame.
It was an attempt at a political farce, other attempts are usually more
successful. People like Feynman are now few, the pressures of the world we now
inhabit creates mainly people that are interested in ‘spin doctoring'. We look
now at the modern projects of NASA such as the space probes to Mars that got
lost. Should we be surprised that such failures are mysteries. It seems to me
that we have got rid of the truth seekers like Feynman, and now have the
‘cover up’ people in charge. Our political climate favours these ‘yes
men’, because of the engagement of activities under the eyes of the media
circus (newspaper men, television reporters etc.). Everything then become
political, where appearances become more important than truth. The majority of
people are now engaged in presenting a false front to the media, covering up as
much as possible, to please their bosses. True scientific inquiry as shown by
Feynman has been almost destroyed. Truth is no longer what many people want to
This infection has spread out to very area of our society. The physics community
is now engaged in this cover up. No one wants to hear that electromagnetic
fields from new electrical devices present a health problem. The research into
such an idea is suppressed. But research into finding cures for these
manufactured modern illnesses with the development of new drugs is encouraged.
So, we have the farcical situation of produce a product that causes illnesses,
make money from that and then make money from selling people the cure, once cure
is found. It would be too logical and incompletely alien to human mentality to
not cause the illnesses in the first place. To our mixed up minds: prevention
cannot be better than cure, because there is less money to be made in that
Cover up, conspiracy, call it whatever you like is now a part of our normal
lives. We can all now look at the strange lights in the sky, secure in the
knowledge that we have all engaged in activity that prevents us from solving
such a mystery. We do not want the truth, we much prefer myth and mystery. When
we look at our history that’s all we basically have is mysteries: a catalogue
of strange events and no explanation as to what really happened. President JFK
was assassinated, the Knights Templar were persecuted, the Cathars were
exterminated, etc. we do not know why any of these happened. Now, strange lights
are seen in the sky, just add that mythic mystery to all the rest of our
Every now again the conspiracy fails and the cover up is left incomplete.
Without Feynman, the Challenger disaster would have been another myth to add to
our catalogue. And when our natural human ‘cover up’ activity is exposed in
these few instances, we just largely ignore it and carry on with our next cover
up. There is something very odd in human nature when we ask for the truth, and
we do not really want to hear it. We ask for one thing and really want something
completely different. (We may not be consciously aware of what we are doing, but
unconsciously we are all ‘messed up.’)
Sadly Feynman after the commission, returned home dying from a rare form of
cancer. Feynman himself refused to consider the speculation that it might have
been caused by his work on the WWII atomic bomb project. 
 Surely you’re joking Mr. Feynman, Richard P Feynman, Vintage, UK, 1985 -
 Genius: Richard Feynman and modern physics by James Gleick, Little, Brown
and Company, 1992, p 6
 ibid. p 415
 ibid. p 416 - 417
 ibid. p 426 - p 427
 ibid. p 427
 ibid. p 425
 ibid. p 425
 ibid. p 425
 ibid. p 425
 ibid. p 423
 ibid. p 424
 ibid. p 417
 ibid. p 427
 ibid. p 423
 ibid. p 426
 ibid. p 427
 ibid. p 428
 ibid. p 428 and p 417
[ Up ] [ einstein2 ] [ einstein3 ] [ einstein4 ] [ einstein5 ]