[ Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Global Warming hoax ] [ Scalar energy ] [ Universal Seduction ] [ Morgan / Bearden ] [ Scientific Dictatorship ] [ Bright skies ] [ Free energy ] [ Geo science ] [ The weather ] [ Suppressed archaeology ] [ Young world ] [ Origins of oil ] [ True geology ]

    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. [1] 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 so forth.)

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 

[2] :

"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 Gods:

"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 of aeroplanes."

Daniken replies:

"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 [3])

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, [4] 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." [6]

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]" [8] 

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...." [9]

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." [10]

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." [11]

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. [12] 

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 legs...." [13] 

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. [14] 

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. [15] 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......." [16]

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 exists.’" [19]

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.) [22] 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 Pantheism.

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 Education.

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." [23]

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 it.

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 their destiny.

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

[1] Arrival of the Gods, Erich von Daniken, Element, UK 1998

[2] Secret of the Desert, Maria Reiche, Stuttgart, no date.

[3] 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 to Daniken.

[4] Dictionary of Philosophy, G Vesey and P Foulkes, Unwin Hyman, UK 1999 p 273

[5] Within Reason: A Life of Spinoza, Margaret Gullan - Whur, Pimlico, UK 2000, p 305 

[6] ibid. 

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid. p 306

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid. p 307

[11] ibid. 

[12] The Heretics, Barrows Dunham, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1963, p 334

[13] Within Reason p 37

[14] Dictionary of philosophy p 262

[15] The Heretics, Barrows Dunham, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1963 p 334 -5

[16] ibid. p 335

[17] Einstein in Love, Dennis Overbye, Bloomsbury, UK, 2001, p 369 

[18] Albert Einstein: historical and Cultural perspectives, ed. Gerald Holton and Yehuda Elkana, Dover, USA 1982 p 308 -9

[19] ibid.

[20] ibid. p 129

[21] ibid. p 308 - 309

[22] 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. 

[23] 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. ........" [#]

However:

..... 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 ignored. 

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 unbecoming." [#]

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 decided:

"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." [ #]

However:

"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 noise."

"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 Science Community.

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 wrong.

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?)

Reference

[#] 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 weapons.

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 this physics.

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 means." [#]

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 Psychotronic.

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 it." [##]

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 that direction.

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. 

References

[#] Pole Shift, John White, ARE Press, USA, 1980, 1991, p 375 - 9, 53 - 4. 

[##] www.evolutionday.com/

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 Blueprint. 

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." [1]

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 default.

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....." [2]

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..." [3]

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." [4] 

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 illusion. 

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 too much.

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 method.

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 by association.’

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. 

Reference

[1] The Atlantis Blueprint, Rand Flem - Ath and Colin Wilson, Little, Brown and Company, UK 2000, p 15

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] 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.

21.2 INTRODUCTION

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 science. 

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. [1] Oppenheimer had privately noted that Feynman was the most brilliant young physicist at the WWII atomic bomb project. [2]

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, [3] 

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. [4] 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. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] i.e. it had greatly over run its production budget

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. [8] 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.

[9] 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. [10] 

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. [11] 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. [12] )

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." [13] 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 [14] 

This methodology of Feynman was however upsetting people. Or as Neil Armstrong described it, "Feynman is becoming a real pain in the ass." [15] 

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. . . .[16] 

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 important.

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." [18]

21.4 CONCLUSION

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 hear.

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 avenue. 

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 history. 

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.’)

21.5 Footnote:

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. [19] 

Reference

[1] Surely you’re joking Mr. Feynman, Richard P Feynman, Vintage, UK, 1985 - blurb.

[2] Genius: Richard Feynman and modern physics by James Gleick, Little, Brown and Company, 1992, p 6

[3] ibid. p 415

[4] ibid. p 416 - 417

[5] ibid. p 426 - p 427

[6] ibid. p 427

[7] ibid. p 425

[8] ibid. p 425

[9] ibid. p 425

[10] ibid. p 425

[11] ibid. p 423 

[12] ibid. p 424

[13] ibid. p 417

[14] ibid. p 427

[15] ibid. p 423

[16] ibid. p 426

[17] ibid. p 427

[18] ibid. p 428

[19] ibid. p 428 and p 417

[ Up ] [ einstein2 ] [ einstein3 ] [ einstein4 ] [ einstein5 ]