The Residuals

One of the most curious aspects of ghost hunting to me are the so called 'residual hauntings', also known as 'recordings'.  The reason these are so intriguing to me is because they seem to make the least amount of sense.  In an intelligent haunting, the haunting seems to be caused by some sort of non-physical entity, whether it be a ghost, demon, or something else.  Although these situations can be mysterious, if you already believe or know these beings exist, then the mystery becomes more a question of why they are there, instead of  if they are there.

But a residual haunting doesn't appear to be intelligent.  It appears to just be a recording of a past event.  So if it isn't a ghost or intelligent non-physical entity, then what causes it and why?  And what causes one event to be recorded but not another?

What got me thinking about it is a friend of mine who has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since returning from Iraq.  He admitted recently that he still hears 'radio chatter'.  This is different from 'hearing voices' in the traditional sense in that the voice (or voices) don't appear to be intelligent, or 'living'.  He described it as being 'residual'.  In other words, he just hears 'recordings' of radio chatter.

The effects of PTSD don't appear until after returning from war because the adrenaline rush is no longer there.    I don't know exactly what causes it or where it is 'recorded', but there does seem to be a residual effect on the mind.

So I wonder if the earth experiences something similar?  Are residual hauntings the result of the earth experiencing a strong emotional event in a particular location?  Can the earth remember this event after the emotion - the adrenaline rush - is gone?

And if it is a recording, then what is the event recorded on?  A popular theory suggests certain types of rocks (such as limestone) can record events.  Another possibility is atmospheric conditions.  But how would events be recorded on rocks?  We can record information on magnetic surfaces with computers, but these are specifically designed for recording information.  The computer serves as a conduit.  But what is the conduit for residual hauntings?  If we assume for a moment that certain types of rock can record events, then what is the conduit that makes it happen?  Are phonograph records, casette tapes, CDs. DVDs, hard drives, and flash drives a naturally occurring phenomenon that we have overlooked?  Or are we going in the wrong direction altogether with the rock hypothesis?

If events can be recorded on certain types of rocks, then another question we could ask is can those events be erased?  If we quarry the area, would the residual haunting go away?  What if a shopping mall is built in an area where a ghost train had been seen before?  Would building the shopping mall erase the 'recording' of the ghost train?

What if these 'recordings' aren't recordings at all?  What if they are glimpses of past events as they occur?  What if there is some sort of 'wormhole' that is attached to a specific location at a specific point of time that occasionally opens and allows people to view a past event as it occurs?

But if we can see recordings of past events, could people in the future potentially see recordings of people living now?  Or if the wormhole theory is more accurate, could people from the future be watching an event occurring right now without the people involved even being aware that they are being watched from the future?

There are many questions regarding this subject.  The questions could have multiple theoretical answers, but I think it would be difficult to prove any of those answers.  But it is an intriguing mystery.

Just some quotes

I keep a list of good quotes I come across that relate to various subjects.  I thought I'd post some of them here today.  There's no single topic covered here, these are just random, 'good' quotes.

[Note: Some of these quotes may be paraphrased.]

-If the Bible is true, the time is coming when men shall travel at 50 miles an hour. -Sir Isaac Newton

-You do not understand even life. How can you understand death? -Confucius

-Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car. - Laurence J. Peter

-In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -Mark Twain

-Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. -a Knights Hospitaller, from the movie Kingdom of Heaven

-Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society -Aristotle

-So little trouble do men take in the search after truth, so readily do they accept whatever comes first to hand. - Thucydides

-God is not the author of confusion. - Paul of Tarsus (1 Corinthians 14:33)

-If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. -Jesus Christ (John 15:18)

-The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. – George Orwell

-Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good. - Ecclesiates 9:12

-There is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

-The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. -Marcus Aurelius

-A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult. -Proverbs 12:16

-Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Walk beside me that we may be as one. -Ute

-Human knowledge must be understood to be believed. Divine knowledge must be believed to be understood. -attributed to Blaise Pascal (I'm not sure if Pascal really said this, but I thought it sounded good regardless of who said it.)

The Ambiguous Results of Psychic Experimentation

Over the years, I've heard of numerous experiments set up to determine the validity of psychic phenomena and precognition, and typically, the results are ambiguous.  However, the end of most of the experiments performed is usually just a statistical analysis of the results.  The results are usually based on how often someone correctly predicted something or how accurately they described something without seeing it.

But it occurred to me that this method of experimenting may not be the best way to determine the validity of psychic phenomena.  It's unlikely that it's going to prove anything.  What got me thinking about it is what Jeane Dixon said about her inaccurate predictions; she said it wasn't necessarily that the information she received was wrong but that she interpreted it wrong.  I've heard other psychics make similar statements.  Some skeptics may think that is just a cop-out, and maybe it is, but let's assume for a moment that it's not just a cop-out.

If a psychic receives information telepathically but interprets it wrong, then the statistical analysis isn't of much value if you are trying to determine if it's possible to receive information telepathically.  Because an inaccurate interpretation of psychic information doesn't refute that they received the information telepathically.  To put it into perspective, consider a worker misunderstanding verbal instructions given to them by their boss at work.  The worker may perform the job wrong because of the misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding isn't proof that the boss didn't give the worker accurate verbal instructions.

So with that in mind, even if someone with psychic abilities was always wrong with predictions, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they weren't receiving psychic information telepathically; it would just mean they were horrible at interpreting that information.  For that matter, the information itself may be wrong, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't transmitted telepathically.

So if the question is whether or not psychic phenomena really exists, then I don't think you're going to be able to prove it with statistics.  If someone were 100% right all of the time, that might make for some pretty convincing evidence, but I doubt that a legit experiment on psychic phenomena would ever succeed at getting 100% accuracy.

So how could we test the validity of psychic phenomena?  I really don't know.  Perhaps energy readings could provide better results...sort of like how ghost hunters look for ghosts, except instead of looking for ghosts, the subject could be psychic activity with living persons.  But I think even the results of an experiment like that would be ambiguous.  Perhaps there just isn't a 'scientific' way to 'prove' psychic phenomena exists.

Finding Atlantis...again and again and again...

Ahh...Atlantis.  Plato wrote about the advanced lost civilization of Atlantis.  Edgar Cayce filled us in on some more details about it.  Some people say it never existed and is totally a myth.  Other people think it did exist.  There are some that are not only convinced that it existed, they've seemingly created myths..err..'theories' of their own about it.

There's been numerous occasions that someone has claimed to have found Atlantis.  Ironically, despite the two most commonly cited sources claiming that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean, people have claimed to have found it all over the world.  Here are some of the places people have claimed was Atlantis:

• The Azores - The Azores are isolated islands found in the Atlantic Ocean.  So the location seems to be right based on our two primary sources of information, but that's about all that seems right about it.  Some people think the Azores are the tops of mountains from Atlantis, but this is just speculation.  When the Portuguese discovered the islands, there were no indications that they had been inhabited.
• The Canary Islands - These islands are also in the Atlantic, and the Spaniards did find people there when they arrived.  The early inhabitants of the Canary Islands had brown complexions with blue eyes and blondish hair.  Some people think they may have been related to the Berber people of Northern Africa.  There is nothing particularly 'Atlantean' about the Canary islands though.
• The Caribbean - Edgar Cayce readings have contributed to this interpretation.  Being in the Atlantic, it does appear to have the appropriate location.  However, the Caribbean is generally thought to either be the outer edges of Atlantis, or the remnant of a post-Atlantean civilization after the deluge.  It's been said that Atlantis was originally a very large land mass known as Poseid, and later crumbled into a smaller set of islands known as Poseidia, Aryaz, and Og.  Presumably, the final destruction that Plato alluded to was the destruction of those three principle islands of Atlantis.  So it may be possible that the Caribbean is the outer edge of one of those islands.  Nevertheless, these stories are primarily based on Edgar Cayce readings, and there isn't much physical evidence to support these stories besides a possible connection with the so called 'Bimini Road'.  There could be more evidence, but not many people seem to be to interested in putting much effort into finding more evidence.
• The South China Sea - Atlan.org claims that Atlantis is in the South China Sea.  Not only that, they claim to have found the Garden of Eden, the Island of Avalon,  and several other places there.  Of course, the most obvious problem with these claims is they are all out of place.  The South China Sea is not part of the Atlantic.  Nor is it near the Euphrates, Tigris, Pison, and Gihon rivers.  And I just don't think Avalon is in the South China Sea either.  Just because you can find similarities between a description of one place and another place, doesn't mean they are the same place.  If I describe a big city with tall buildings by the sea, I could be describing New York, or I could be describing Hong Kong.  The description sounds similar, but obviously they aren't the same place.
• Santorini - Some people think the ruins of the Minoan civilization at an excavation site known as Akrotiri on Santorini is Atlantis.  Typically, this is often considered to be the 'inspiration' for the Atlantis 'myth'.  Indeed, many similarities have been found between Akrotiri and what Plato described as Atlantis.  The volcanic eruption at Thera is thought to have been the destruction of Atlantis that Plato alluded to.  However, we still have the problem of location.  Santorini is not beyond the 'Pillars of Hercules' as Plato described.
• Sardinia - Italian journalist Sergio Frau wrote a book theorizing that Sardinia was Atlantis.  He attempted to explain the location problem away by claiming that the Pillars of Hercules were at Sicily, instead of the Straits of Gibraltar.  
• Antarctica - Some have said that Antarctica is Atlantis, speculating that at some point in history, Antarctica was closer to the equator.  At some point, due the earth's shifting crust, Antarctica wound up at the south pole and froze over.  Professor Charles Hapgood of Keene College in New Hampshire pointed out that there are ancient charts that allegedly show the Antarctic landmass as it was before it was covered by ice.  Ancient charts that allegedly show what the landmass of Antarctica looked like before it was discovered (rediscovered?) in the early 19th century is a bit of a mystery in itself, but it's not proof that Antarctica is Atlantis.  

People have also claimed to have found Atlantis in places such as South America, Turkey, Cyprus, and in just about every other corner of the world.  The latest example I have come across is a sunken civilization off the coast of Greece.  The sunken civilization is said to be 5000 years old.  Here is an excerpt from an article about it:

The secrets of a lost city that may have inspired one of the world's most enduring myths – the fable of Atlantis – have been brought to light from beneath the waters off southern Greece.

Explored by an Anglo-Greek team of archaeologists and marine geologists and known as Pavlopetri, the sunken settlement dates back some 5,000 years to the time of Homer's heroes and in terms of size and wealth of detail is unprecedented, experts say.

"There is now no doubt that this is the oldest submerged town in the world," said Dr Jon Henderson, associate professor of underwater archaeology at the University of Nottingham. "It has remains dating from 2800 to 1200 BC, long before the glory days of classical Greece. There are older sunken sites in the world but none can be considered to be planned towns such as this, which is why it is unique."

Read the rest here.

It seems to me when discoveries such as this are made, there are two main schools of thought.  One school says it's Atlantis.  The other school says its the inspiration for the Atlantis 'myth'.  My question is, why do people have to keep labeling underwater ruins as Atlantis?  In a previous post titled Forgotten Civilization, I pointed out that there are probably a lot of prehistoric cities submerged because they were flooded when ice started melting at the end of the last ice age.  But that doesn't mean that every submerged city is Atlantis or the inspiration of the Atlantis 'myth'.  To put it into perspective, imagine if the Americas, Europe, and Asia sunk tomorrow.  Thousands of years from now, people may talk about an advanced lost civilization of 'America'.  But if somebody found London underwater, would they claim it was America?  Would they claim Moscow is America?  Beijing is America?  Would they assume every submerged city they find is America?

Although it may be somewhat ironic, I think the scientific establishment is the biggest roadblock to discoveries of submerged civilizations.  Finding advanced cities that are many thousands of years old conflicts with the Darwinist mythology that they have been trying to dictate to us for decades now.  It just doesn't fit into their timeline of prehistory.  Oftentimes, they ignore the possibility of finding the ruins of advanced cities underwater, or they make excuses that downplay the significances of the ones that are found.  In general, the scientific establishment doesn't seem to have much interest in even looking for submerged cities.  I suppose by not bothering to look, they don't have to worry about finding evidence that proves them wrong.

Sometimes when civilizations are found in the Pacific area, it's said to be a remnant of Mu (a.k.a. Lemuria).  The point I want to make here is that not every submerged civilization that is found is necessarily a part of Atlantis or Mu.  There's potentially a lot of submerged civilizations that are many thousands of years old.  While I think Atlantis (and possibly Mu) may have existed, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that every submerged city we find is Atlantis or the inspiration for the Atlantis 'myth'.

The UFO Hunters return

On Thursday, October 29th, the History Channel is going to be showing four new episodes of UFO Hunters.  For whatever reason, they don't seem to be advertising the marathon much (yet).  I haven't seen any advertisements for it on TV and I haven't seen it mentioned on the History Channel's website.  The only places I've seen it mentioned is over at the Alien Casebook Frontier and on an article about Men in Black that references material that will be covered in one of the upcoming episodes.

I'm excited about all four episodes, but I'm really excited about the Men in Black (MIB) episode (the episode is named "The Silencers").  I think the MIB stories are very interesting, not just because men wearing black suits come and try to make sure someone stays silent about a UFO they saw, but because sometimes the MIB seem to behave in an unusual manner.  Sometimes they seem to be confused by everyday items such as pens or eating untensils, and sometimes they use outdated slang.  Sometimes they are threatening, other times they may try to convince the subject they didn't really see what they saw.  Some people think that the MIB are aliens themselves (at least some of them).  The MIB typically claim to come from some government agency and may provide identification, but when verification of their identities is sought later, there is no record of them.

You also have to wonder how many potential testimonies have been silenced by the MIB.  Hopefully the new episode of UFO Hunters will provide some new insights on the subject.

And if you like the show and haven't signed the petition to get the series renewed, go here and sign it.  To read synopsis' of the four new episodes on October 29th, go here.

Disclosure Hype?

There seems to be a lot of buzz on the internet lately about a potential upcoming disclosure by the government of extraterrestrial contact.  It seems like the hype may have picked up after the British government started declassifying their UFO files.  But now, it seems some people are suggesting a potential date has been set for the disclosure; November 27 of this year.  You can view a video clip about that here.

I doubt there will be any disclosure this year.  I've looked at Bill Ryan's website (Projectcamelot.org) before, and he has some pretty far fetched stuff on there.  I just don't think the government is ready for that yet.  Heck, for all we know the government may not even be in contact with extraterrestrials.

But if I'm wrong and there is a disclosure, here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. If the government announces that they are in contact with friendly extraterrestrials, don't necessarily assume that is the truth.  Bear in mind, the government that is saying the extraterrestrials are friendly is the same government that was lying about it and covering it up for decades.  We shouldn't automatically trust everything they say just because it sounds 'cool' and is exciting.  There could be an ulterior motive.  
2. The government legitimately thinks the extraterrestrials are friendly.  But...the extraterrestrials may be deceiving the government.  Sort of like ABC's upcoming reimagining of the 1983 miniseries V.  In V, the extraterrestrials claim to come in peace, but they actually have an ulterior motive and are a threat.

I'm not saying everyone should jump to the conclusion that we are being lied to, I'm just saying we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that we are being told the truth either.  If and when disclosure ever occurs, I'm sure there will be a lot of people excited about it and readily believe whatever they are told.  This isn't necessarily a good thing.  People should still question things and think for themselves.

And speaking of V, is it just a coincidence that there is all this hype about disclosure right before the premiere on November 3rd?

The Messengers

A documentary I was watching last night about the history of angels got me thinking more about a concept I've written about before in my posts Angels, Demons, and Aliens and Those oh so standoffish aliens.  The concept suggests that aliens may be angels and/or demons, or vice versa.

The word "angel" is derived from the Latin word "angelos," which is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for "messenger."  The Bible doesn't really give a clear description of what angels look like.  Artistic depictions of angels with wings and halos didn't start appearing until around the 5th century AD.  It's pretty obvious that these depictions are just carried over from traditional depictions of pagan gods.  Numerous gods from the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman pantheons were depicted with wings.  Cupid, Eros, and Hermes are probably the most recognizable (although Hermes' wings were on his sandals, not his back).  Interestingly, Hermes was the messenger of the Greek gods.

In the Bible, it seemed people weren't always aware they were in the presence of angels, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).  But oftentimes, people seemed to recognize the angels as angels.  The Bible never really describes in any great detail what the angels look like though.

I think this fits with the modern stories I've heard of angel encounters. In some stories, people don't even recognize the angel as an angel.  Typically, the angel just seems to come out of nowhere at just the right time to relay a special message or perform some good deed (read some angel stories here).  Othertimes, the angel's appearance may be more obvious, it may be glowing.  Or it may just give off a calming 'presence'.  So various modern stories of angels seem to fit with the ancient stories, sometimes they look like regular people, other times it's more obvious that they are angels.  It seems angels can choose how they want to appear to a person.

Looking to the skies for 'alien' life isn't something new at all.  People have been doing this all along.  The ancients thought of angels as messengers from heaven, and heaven is just another word for sky.  When people capitalize it as "Heaven," then it's considered to be the dwelling place of God.  But the word "heaven" is just a word for the sky and space.  So essentially, the ancients thought of angels as entities from space.

So is it really any different for us to look for aliens from space?  Is it just a case of semantics?

Maybe part of our problem in looking for life in outer space is we are too arrogant.  It seems that people are always looking for "life as we know it," meaning flesh and blood beings who breathe oxygen and drink water and like 70 degree (Fahrenheit) temperatures.  But who's to say that other life, including intelligent life, couldn't exist in environments totally different from what we are accustomed to?  With that in mind, how would an angel from 'heaven' be that much different than an 'alien' from space?  What qualifies as an 'angel' and what qualifies as an 'alien'?  Does it have something to do with how they look?  Or does it have something to do with how they behave?  Or does it have something to do with whether or not they travel on a spaceship?  Are the angels a type of 'alien'?  Or are what we think of as aliens something totally different?  And if angels and 'aliens' are both forms of intelligent life, then what exactly differentiates them each other?  And how many different types are there?

Typically, Greys, Nordics, and Reptilians are the three most common types of aliens some people claim to have seen.  I guess out of those three, the Nordics would be the type that look the most 'angelic'.  But are Nordics the same as angels?  Or would it be more accurate to ask are angels the same as Nordics?  If not, what makes them different?  Of course, it may also be necessary to ask whether 'Nordics' exist at all.

It seems that looking to the sky for 'aliens' may just be a 20th and 21st century interpretation of looking to the sky for angels.  The big question is are they really any different?  And how many different types are there?  And if aliens and angels are different, then what exactly is different about them?  Is it the appearance?  The mode of transportation?  Their behavour?  Their agenda?  Their purpose?

Perhaps sentient life is sentient life, regardless of what form it takes.

What's in your Universe?

Per a request from Autumnforest in my previous post, I'm going to attempt to analyze a theory of multiverses presented in an article on phsyorg.com.  I've read about various theories of multiverses and parallel universes before, but I will go ahead and admit that I've never given it a great deal of thought, and what I have read about them has been mostly relegated to a footnote in my mind.  As such, this may be a rather feeble attempt to analyze the article, but I am nevertheless going to attempt an analysis of it anyways.

The idea of a multiverse has been visited numerous times in the Stargate franchise of television shows.  There are numerous times when the characters find themselves in an alternate reality where things are different, or are visited by an alternate version of themselves from another reality.  In my own life, I have sometimes wondered when making a difficult decision what might happen if I had made the opposite decision.  How might things be different?  Would they be better or worse?  On some occasions, I've also wondered if there isn't alternate version of me who made the opposite decision and is living the life I might have lived if I had made that decision.

It's an intriguing concept, but I doubt its true.  I don't think that it's impossible that it could be true, but it just doesn't seem to fit for me.

To help me write the rest of this post, I'm going to cite some comments from the end of the article.

Here is what 'dmw' wrote:

hm, maybe I've forgotten what my 8th grade science class taught me. I always thought a scientific theory needed some evidence to support it. Am I missing something?

Similarly, 'RobertKLR' had this to say:

So it's settled, there are multiple universes and no proof is required? Maybe I should be laughing at the messenger instead of the subject material.

And here's another from 'frajo':

Non-falsifiable statements are non-scientific statements.

A legitimate theoretical possibility is not equivalent to a scientific theory. "Legitimate" is not a scientific term.

Before I go any further though, here is some clarification from 'ReeseJ2':

Bear in mind that it does say "theoretical possibility", not "scientific fact". All that means is that, theoretically speaking, the concept of multiple universes is not inconsistent with what we do know about physics.

As to frajo's comment, and many others on this thread, I would respectfully point out that the claim "it is possible that our universe is one of many" is distinct from the claim "our universe is one of many". This result, then, can be stated as "IF our universe is one of many, THEN there are at most this many other universes." Furthermore, I agree that it seems strange to use the human brain as the model of an observer--but quantum physics itself reserves a special place for the observer. I think it's valid.

Although ReeseJ2 makes a valid clarification here, that clarification isn't really a refutation of the point being made by the other commenters.  One observation I've made about science, especially theoretical physics, is that some theories are built upon other theories.  If someone were to say that, theoretically, there is a god named Zeus that exists, then someone else could then add on to that by explaining lightning as Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds.  The second theory rests on the first theory as a foundation.  So if the first theory is wrong, then the second theory must be wrong too.  And not only that, part of the evidence to support the secondary theory is that it isn't inconsistent with the original theory!

The multiverse theory presented in that article rests on the Big Bang theory.  So if the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the multiverse theory must be wrong too.  So I guess you have to first ask yourself if you think the Big Bang theory is correct.  Personally, the Big Bang theory doesn't impress me, and I think it's a rather feeble attempt to explain the origin of the universe.  So for me, if the multiverse theory is based on the Big Bang theory as a foundation, I don't give it much credence.

But, some people like the Big Bang theory.  The problem is you don't really have a way to prove it one way or the other.  You can't prove it happened, but who can prove it didn't happen?

Let's look at one more comment, this one from 'HiFlier':

So far the assumption in this article and threads has been that there was ONE big bang. Over an infinite (or very long) period of time perhaps MANY Big Bangs occur, each leading to a different number of universes. This would obviously push the number of universes much higher. Prove me wrong!

So if one could occur, why not more than one?  If so, does that mean there's potentially not just one multiverse, but multiple multiverses??  Can you prove him wrong?  Can you prove there wasn't more than one Big Bang?

A scientist (don't remember his name) one time asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if they proved that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist was somewhat surprised when the Dalai Lama said that they (the Buddhists) would say people should not believe in reincarnation anymore (I guess the scientist was expecting the Dalai Lama to try to defend the belief in reincarnation regardless).  But, the Dalai Lama then asked the scientist how he would prove that reincarnation didn't exist.  The scientist didn't have an answer.

So I guess you have to ask yourself whether you believe in reincarnation or not.  Can you really prove whether it exists or not?  So with that in mind, the Big Bang theory isn't that much different than a religious belief.  Sure, there's equations and scientific jargon attached to it, but ultimately, you can't prove that it really happened.

The multiverse theory is intriguing, but I don't think its true.  But...I can't prove that it isn't!  I also don't think there is another me in another universe somewhere.  I'm pretty sure it's just me.  Anybody other than me is...someone else.

But the multiverse theory isn't completely without value.  It's made for some interesting episodes of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.    J

The Future Past of the Large Hadron Collider

Over the last 20 years, billions of dollars have been spent on building powerful particle accelerators in the hopes of being able to find a theoretical particle known as the Higgs boson.  Back in the early 1990s, they hoped to be able to find it with the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas.  Billions of dollars later, they canceled that project in 1993.  They started building the Large Hadron Collider back in 1990s, and it is nearly complete.  It was supposed to be ready last year, but operations were halted when they ran into a serious problem with two superconducting bending magnets.  They are hoping to have the Large Hadron Collider operational in December of this year.

Except there may be another problem.  It has been suggested that the Large Hadron Collider is being sabotaged from the future.  It has also been suggested that the failure of the Superconducting Super Collider may have been due to influence from the future.

So what is the source of this information?  The revelations of a contactee reported in the Weekly World News?

No, this was suggested by two physicists and reported in the New York Times.

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.

The article also says that the two physicists starting laying out their case for doom in the Spring of 2008.  It was last fall that the two magnets vaporized.

Other people have also suggested that the Large Hadron Collider could destroy the world.  They fear the collider could potentially create black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles (read more about it here).

Personally, I can think of numerous other ways those billions of dollars could have been spent.  It seems like an awful large price to pay to try to find a theoretical particle.  I'm not sure what they plan to do with it if they do find it.

Nevertheless, sci-fi fans around the world are now faced with the decision of what story is the most interesting; the potential for the Large Hadron Collider to destroy the world, or that it is somehow being sabotaged from the future.

Tunnels to the Light

Michael Prescott has been writing about Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) on his blog lately, and I was particularly intrigued by his latest posting on the subject where he cites some cases from Kenneth Ring's book Lessons from the Light.

Here is one of the cases he cited:

Then there is the case of a nine-month-old baby boy who suffered a cardiac arrest during an emergency surgical procedure and was without a pulse for 40 minutes. Afterward he was in a coma for three months. Ring reports:

Two years later, when he was five, he was having lunch one day with his father and spontaneously brought up the time "when he had died."

As the mother observed before she related this event to us, neither parent had ever heard this story before. She went on to say, "He had never, ever, been told that he had died. He was never told the things that happened to him."

In any case, as the mother recalled a conversation, it went like this:

He sat down besides his dad, and he said, "Dad, do you know what?" And his dad said "What?" "You know I died." "Oh, you did?" And he said, "Yeah." His dad said, "Well, what happened?" And he said, "It was really, really dark, daddy, and then it was really, really bright. And I ran and ran, and it didn't hurt anymore." And his dad said, "Where were you running, Mark?" And he said, "Oh, Daddy, I was running up there [pointing upward].... And he said he didn't hurt anymore, and a man talked to him. And his dad said, "What kind of words did he say?" And Mark said, "He didn't talk like this [pointing to his mouth], he talked like this [pointing to his head]." Because he couldn't tell you with his little vocabulary that it was through the mind. And he said, "I didn't want to come back, Daddy, but I had to."

Here is another case he cites:

I was hovering over a stretcher in one of the emergency rooms at the hospital. I glanced down at the stretcher, knew the body wrapped in blankets was mine, and really didn't care. The room was much more interesting than my body. And what a neat perspective. I could see everything. And I do mean everything! I could see the top of the light on the ceiling, and the underside of the stretcher. I could see tiles on the ceiling and the tiles on the floor, simultaneously: three hundred degree spherical vision. And not just spherical. Detailed! I could see every single hair and the follicle out of which it grew on the head of the nurse standing beside the stretcher. At the time, I knew exactly how many hairs there were to look at. But I shifted focus. She was wearing glittery white nylons. Every single shimmer and sheen stood out in glowing detail, and once again, I knew exactly how many sparkles there were.

I recommend you go read the whole article.  If you've ever been interested in NDEs or paranormal phenomena in general, I think you'll probably like it.

Below are my comments about his posting.
--------------------------------------------------
One thing interesting to me about the case of the nine month old boy is that at nine months, he wouldn't know how to say much of anything. But during the NDE, he was apparently able to communicate and understand what was being said to him. Not only that, at five, he was apparently able to translate that understanding into words.

Another thing of interest to me are the NDErs who describe how vivid everything was during their experience. I think that is more evidence that the spirit self is our highest self. It seems our brain's interpretations of what we see and hear around us is restricted to the limitations of our eyes and ears. Our spirit self probably soaks up all the vivid information we see and hear, but humanity doesn't seem to know - or has forgotten - how to access all of this detailed information. During an NDE though, it seems that spirits no longer confined to the limitations of body are able to fully experience a larger spectrum of reality. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that we are spirits 'trapped' in human bodies; I think it may be that experiencing life in a human body is an intended part of development, or we may have just forgotten how to access the full spectrum our spirit self is able to observe.

I sometimes wonder if the bio-magnetic energy fields around us are either our spirit selves, or an effect given off by our spirit selves. I also wonder if the 'electrical' currents flowing through our brains are not the result of 'brain activity' itself, but the result of our brain being operated by those 'electrical' currents. In other words, perhaps the brain is like a set of buttons, and the 'electrical' currents are like a set of fingers. If so, then it makes sense that the physical body would cease to operate once the 'fingers' move away from the 'buttons'.

Mysterious 'Arcs'

I came across a video earlier that posed the question of who 'built' arc shaped plateaus at the center of four continents.  It also pointed out that the highest peak in the region was on the center line of each arc.  It also asked the question as to why blond haired people have been found around the area of each arc.

Here is the video:



Obviously this video is meant to be a teaser to try and get people to buy the book mentioned at the end.  One problem I have with the 'arcs' shown in the video is that if you take away the superimposed lines, the alleged arcs are not as visible anymore.  However, I did find the question about blonde people being found around the 'arcs' to be interesting.  I did some checking online, and apparently blond haired mummies have been found in China, and there are blond haired aborigines in Australia too.  Blonds being found in pre-colonial North America isn't necessarily interesting, as it is possible Scandinavian explorers could have introduced blondness into the native populations centuries before Columbus arrived.   The video didn't mention blond people being found in South America, but I looked anyways.   I didn't find any records of blond haired people, but there was a "fair-haired" tribe called the Chachapoyas that were white skinned. Interestingly, the Chachapoyas  mummified their dead.

I thought the material presented seemed highly speculative and may be attempting to make connections where no significant connection exists.  So I doubt I'll be buying the book, but I thought I would at least make note of it.  I'm curious to hear what other people think about this.

Leaders and the Occult

It's no secret that many Nazi leaders were involved in the occult.  The Schutzstaffel (SS) was awash in the occult.  Some historians have portrayed Hitler as being a devout occultist.  I think that may be a little exaggerated, but it's true that Hitler was known to consult a clairvoyant known as Erik Jan Hanussen.  In addition to being a clairvoyant, Hanussen was also a stage actor and is credited with coaching Hitler on speaking techniques and hand gestures.  One of Hanussen's most famous predictions was that a great building (the Reichstag) would burn and a phoenix (Hitler) would rise from the ashes.  The Reichstag did burn, and Hitler passed emergency laws that gave him his dictatorial powers.  Shortly thereafter, Hanussen was assassinated.

Ironically, Hanussen may have been a clever psychic fraud.  Hitler probably consulted him more as a speech coach than as a clairvoyant.  It's thought that Hanussen probably knew the Nazi plan to burn the Reichstag and blame it on the communists, so he used it as an opportunity to make his famous 'prediction'.  Knowing to much may have been what got him killed.

I don't really think Hitler himself had more than a passing interest in the occult. If it wasn't for the fact that his most ardent supporters were occultists, he may have been just as likely to throw them in concentration camps as he was anybody else.

But occult beliefs do seem to be fairly common with leaders.  Saddam Hussein was said to consult 'magician adivsors'.  He was also said to carry around a 'magic stone' that somehow protected him from harm.  Saddam also claimed to be the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been accused of channeling a hidden force called 'The Light'.

Miyuki Hatoyama, the wife of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, is known as 'Mrs. Occult'.  I recently mentioned her on my blog when I posted an excerpt from an article saying that she claimed to have traveled to the planet Venus.  But in addition to that, she is also known for writing a monthly spiritual column in Mu magazine.  Apparently, she also claims to eat the 'morning sun' for energy.

Jeane Dixon was known as a Presidential psychic because U.S. Presidents often consulted her for psychic advice.  The Reagans were also known for consulting astrologer Joan Quigley.  Some American politicians belong to the Bohemian Club, which holds an annual three week encampment every year where they sacrifice a human effigy to a large stone owl in what is known as the 'Cremation of Care' ceremony.

Here is a video clip of the ceremony that Alex Jones took with a hidden camera.



Actually, to me the ceremony seems less a ritual and more a play performed to an audience. But most people would probably find it a little odd if their neighbors were doing this in their backyard, so it is kind of strange that world leaders get together and watch pagan sacrifices in their spare time.

Most of these rulers from the past and present seem to only dabble in the occult in regards to psychics and astrologers, but it's hard to know how much more they may be involved with it behind the scenes. Mostly, I think a lot of these 'leaders' are just self absorbed and follow a religion of 'self'.  They probably just dabble in the occult whenever they think it may benefit them.  Saddam and his magic stone sounds a lot more like propaganda than magic to me.  It's easier to maintain control over your subjects if you can convince them a magic stone somehow protects you from harm.  The people are to afraid to revolt against someone they think has some mystical powers of protection.

I guess he must have lost his magic stone sometime before December 2003.

Stargazing

If you've ever had trouble finding a particular star, planet, or constellation in the sky at night, having your own planetarium could come in handy.  Even if you don't have a domed ceiling with a planetarium projector, you can still download a planetarium application for free at Stellarium.org.  It comes with a default catalogue of over 600,000 stars (and there's extra catalogues with more than 210 million stars).  You can have it connect the constellations together, zoom in, change your location, and more.

Check it out here.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Scare

Back in 2004, the city councilors of Aliso Viejo, California were so concerned about the potential threat of poisoning from dihydrogen monoxide, they took steps to protect the community from its potential dangers. They even considered banning foam cups after they learned dihydrogen monoxide was used in its production. Here is how one article described it:

Researchers found that the presence of dihydrogen monoxide in Aliso Viejo had reached startling levels: it was present in its crude form, often spilling unmonitored on to the city streets; it was found to be a crucial ingredient in many common chemical compounds; its presence was even detected in that most ubiquitous of civilised artifacts, the styrofoam cup.

And it got worse: dihydrogen monoxide is lethal if inhaled, causes severe burns in its gaseous state, and is the major component in acid rain. Prolonged exposure to solid dihydrogen monoxide can cause severe tissue damage. It can, said the city council report, "threaten human safety and health".

The issue was also raised by a New Zealand MP in 2007. Some people have been pointing out the potential threats of dihydrogen monoxide since the 1990s though. Back in 1997, a high school student named Nathan Zohner garnered attention from newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, universities, and congresspeople because of his research on the subject. Here are some of the things that have been said about dihydrogen monoxide:

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
• may cause severe burns.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Fortunately, the government has never banned dihydrogen monoxide. In the cases above where politicians got involved, someone eventually pointed out to them that dihydrogen monoxide – more commonly abbreviated as H2O – is water.  Zohner titled his science project, "How Gullible Are We?" What a fitting name.

We can laugh about these cases now. But, there is a similar case out there that has garnered way more attention and has even become mainstream now. Instead of saying water is bad though, they tell us carbon is bad. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – the very gas we exhale and that plants breathe – is portrayed to be some kind of 'pollutant'. They try to convince people that increasing CO2 emissions somehow causes global warming. They also like to point out how bad it is to breathe in the CO2 emissions from automobiles and factories…but that is just elementary school science! In elementary school, you learn about how animals exhale CO2, and plants breathe it in. In return, plants provide animals with oxygen. It's just part of the symbiotic relationship of plants and animals on Earth. It's not that CO2 is toxic, it's just that were not supposed to breathe it regardless of what the source is.

Despite what some people may say, there is no scientific consensus that definitively states that global warming is caused by increasing CO2. It's not the first time the Earth has warmed. Did increasing CO2 emissions cause the Medieval Warm Period? The current global warming isn't anything unusual, its just part of the solar cycle. The Earth and the solar system go through periods of warming and cooling based on solar activity. Are our SUVs causing the polar ice caps of Mars to melt? Are Jupiter's increasing temperatures caused by our factories? Any effect CO2 emissions may have on temperatures is minimal. The biggest irony of all this is the so called 'Green movement'. Plants exposed to increased levels of CO2 grow stronger and healthier (one of the documentaries at the end of this post shows a study done about this). It should come as no surprise to anyone with an elementary school education that plants grow better in an environment saturated with the very gas they breathe. So essentially, if you want to be 'green', you better be increasing your carbon output!

What this boils down to is not science, but money. Funding is the driving factor for scientists espousing global warming caused by CO2 emissions. It's political propaganda for those who want a 'global carbon tax'. Yes, there are people that want to tax the very air that you exhale.



So what we have here is not good science, but a way for some people to make a lot of money. One thing you have to understand is data is not infallible. Data is oftentimes up to interpretation, and just as some religious leaders like to take holy books and cherrypick certain scriptures out of context to prove a point, so to can scientists cherrypick certain pieces of data to prove their point. If you choose to watch the videos at the end of this post, you can see how data regarding global warming has been taken out of context by many scientists.

Here is my satirical view of what has happened here:

[Some rich guys hear someone say that global warming may be caused by CO2 emissions.]


Rich guys: Hmm…maybe we can make some money off of this?

Rich guys: Hey, you over there with the PhD…c'mere.

Rich guys: Have you heard anything about global warming being caused by CO2 emissions?

PhD guy: I think I've heard it mentioned before.

Rich guys: Well, we're looking for someone that can confirm that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. We were wondering if you might be able to do some research about it for us.  [The rich guys open up a suitcase full of money at this point.]

PhD guy: Oh…yes…I think I could do that research for you!

Rich guys: Alright…you do this for us, you'll be a made man.

So what you have here is research inspired by funding. When other scientists see that scientists saying one thing get funded well, they decide to jump on the bandwagon. Truth is truth though. Just because a well funded scientist says something is true, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Nor does it become true because some younger scientists seeing dollar signs go around repeating what their well funded elder scientists tell them.

The truth is, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a part of life on Earth. The Earth – and solar system – has warmed in recent years due to increasing solar activity. The effect of CO2 emissions on global warming is minimal, if not negligible.

But there's a lot of money to be made by trying to convince people that factory and automobile emissions are a threat to the environment.

I wonder if the dihydrogen monoxide hoax was deliberately started in response to the carbon dioxide gloom and doom scenarios. Essentially, both are taking one of the essential building blocks of life on Earth and portraying it as some sort of toxic gas. The main difference is the latter is serving a lot of people well financially.


Suddenly, the dihydrogen monoxide scare doesn't seem as funny anymore.

______________________________________________________
Here are some documentaries I recommend about the global warming scare.

Forgotten Civilization: The Science of Questioning or the Questioning of Science?

I'm inclined to believe that our prehistory is a lot more interesting than what the majority of scientists would have us believe. The problem is that archaeologists, paleontologists, and the like limit themselves to preconceived notions about prehistory, scientific dogmas, and of course, whatever will get them the most funding.

I bring this up because mainstream science refuses to study anything that might bring into question what scientists already believe about prehistory. It seems that any time a prehistoric anomaly is found, the scientific establishment is quick to explain it away as something mundane and forget about the whole thing or just ignore it. It's unfortunate that it is this way.

The reason I like researchers like Graham Hancock is because they dare to ask the questions that the scientific establishment want to ignore. Hancock himself is not a scientist but a journalist, but in many ways, I think he behaves more like a 'true' scientist than some of the scientists do. The biggest irony of this to me is that centuries ago, the religious establishment ostracized guys like Copernicus and Galileo for daring to suggest that the 'established fact' of the sun revolving around the Earth was false. Today, when someone brings up a new idea or suggests that the scientific establishment is wrong, the scientific establishment behaves similarly to the medieval religious establishment.

The best example of what I mean can be seen in Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Some people may watch that film and misinterpret the point it was trying to make. It's not just a film trying to prove the validity of Intelligent Design, it's a film about how the scientific establishment behaves when someone dares to suggest that what the scientific establishment believes is wrong. All of the scientists interviewed in the film were credentialed. But the ones that chose to say or write something that didn't fit with what was already 'established' either lost their funding or lost their jobs. One professor was even blacklisted and couldn't find a job teaching anywhere….all because she merely mentioned something about Intelligent Design during a cell biology class.

Intelligent Design was the topic of choice in Ben Stein's film, but scientific dogma isn't limited to just the theory of evolution. I was watching a film by Graham Hancock called Underworld yesterday that pointed out some underwater anomalies that archaeologists refuse to take serious. Archaeologists seem to be perfectly content ignoring these anomalies or explaining them away as some type of erosion and then just forgetting about the whole thing. Part of the problem is the lack of funding. But I think pride is probably a bigger part of the problem than the lack of funding. I think most of these tenured guys just don't want to find anything that may dispute what they have so proudly taught about prehistory for so many years. A lot of the younger guys are probably afraid to break away from what is 'established' for fear of being ostracized in the scientific community. I think another part of the problem is the theory of evolution. Simply put, the scientific establishment refuses to consider anything that may suggest advanced civilizations existed during prehistory because it doesn't fit with what they already believe about prehistory. Their research is dictated by their preconceived notions of what the prehistoric world was like. They already believe prehistoric man consisted of nothing more than hunter/gatherers, so they assume anything that suggests otherwise is wrong, misinterpreted, hoaxed, or some kind of odd looking erosion.

The irony here is that the scientific establishment knows there was an ice age thousands of years ago. With that in mind, isn't it ironic that the scientific establishment has no interest in underwater archaeology (typically, most underwater archaeology done today is in regards of old shipwrecks…not prehistoric civilizations)? Think about it. Most cities and civilizations of recorded history are built where? Near coastal regions and rivers. So isn't it likely that ice age civilizations would have been built near coastlines and rivers? After the ice began melting, those coastlines would have been flooded. So if the coastlines of the last ice age are now submerged, wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? Apparently the scientific establishment doesn't think so.

Here is a picture of part of the 'Bimini Road':

Mainstream science has said this is erosion. If it is erosion, then my first question is why is this erosion confined to this one spot? Why is it not a mile away in another direction? Why that spot? And how did it erode that way? For that matter, what do they expect it to look like in the future? Presumably, if it has eroded to look the way it does now over a period of time, then it must still be in the process of eroding. So what do they expect it to look like a 1000 years from now?

Here is some more 'erosion' from Yonaguni, off the coast of Japan:

I could ask the same questions about this that I asked about the Bimini Road.

These are just a couple of popular examples of archaeological anomalies found underwater. There are numerous others and Hancock cites some of them in his film. So again I ask the question – Wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? If so, why do mainstream scientists always try to explain away anomalous finds as something mundane like erosion? Are they afraid they might find something that will hurt their pride? Or do they just form a hypothesis based on their preconceived notions of prehistory?  Or is it just the lack of funding? I think it is probably a combination of all those factors.

Imagine if North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia sunk today. Thousands of years from now, would there be scientists who assume that all men living during the 21^st century were tribal men living in hunter/gatherer societies? Would they formulate their entire interpretation of 'prehistory' on the ruins of tribal civilizations found in the Amazon and Congo? Would they stomp their feet and bang their fists on the table because someone dared to suggest that there may be ruins of advanced civilizations underwater? Would the ruins of New York City be called 'erosion'?

I'm not criticizing the scientific method here. I'm criticizing the scientific establishment. And I realize that preconceived notions are not limited to the scientific establishment. Many people have preconceived notions about something, and oftentimes, research – scientific or not – is inspired by the desire to confirm a preconceived notion. Sometime research forms a belief, sometimes beliefs form the research. But what irks me about the scientific establishment is that they try to portray the image of being objective and logical, yet they are not always as objective and logical as they claim to be.

Wouldn't the logical place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater where ice age coastlines used to be?

I have a notion to believe that prehistory is much more interesting than what mainstream science has portrayed it to be. J

Mysteries of the Human Brain

No one wants to suffer a stroke.  A stroke can lead to the inability to use limbs on one side of the body, the inability see one side of the visual field, or the inability to speak properly.  It could potentially lead to death.

But occasionally, a stroke may cause something a little more unusual to happen.  Such as change someone's accent.  People that develop foreign accent syndrome after having a stroke begin to speak with an accent they didn't speak with prior to having the stroke.  For instance, an American may suddenly start speaking with a British accent.  Or a British person may begin speaking with an Italian accent.  You can read about a couple of cases like this here and here.

That not strange enough for you?  Well how about a case where a stroke caused someone's eyesight to improve?

A grandfather revealed today that a massive stroke miraculously cured his ailing sight.

Malcolm Darby, 70, had worn glasses since the age of two due to measles.

But after suffering a stroke, he found he could suddenly see without any help at all.

Mr Darby, from Oakham, Rutland, Leicestershire, today said he now has "six pairs of glasses I don't need".

He said: "I've worn glasses my whole life. I even had them on when I had my stroke.

But it seems he had to give up one ability to gain that improved eyesight:

He added: "I'm on the mend now, so every cloud has a silver lining, especially with getting my sight back.

"But before the stroke I used to be able to speak French, and now I just can't get a word of it out."

Read the rest of that article here.

It seems the brain can be a rather strange organ.  There's a saying that says we only use 10% of or our brain. That's actually a misnomer...but it may only be 'sort of' a misnomer.  Many people have interpreted that saying to mean there are parts of the brain that aren't used.  That's not true.  We use our whole brain, but the question is are we using our whole brain to its fullest potential?  Savants have special skills that most 'normal' people don't have, such as the ability to calculate complex sums in their head, knowing the time without seeing a clock, or being able to memorize things with great ease.  The incredible memory of some savants has given them the ability to easily memorize books and maps, learn many languages, or play an entire piano concerto after only hearing it once.  The most famous example of a savant is from the movie Rain Man.  Dustin Hoffman plays an autistic savant named Raymond Babbitt, a character based on a real life savant named Kim Peek.

It's not known what gives savants their special abilities.  One popular theory is that damage to one part of the brain causes the brain to overcompensate for the injury in another part of the brain.  Whether or not this theory is accurate, imagine if it were possible for everyone to have all the special abilities savants have been known to have without the autism or brain damage most savants are afflicted with (not all savants are autistic).

If savants are able to do the things they do, then obviously the brain is capable of doing those things.  So are the rest of us using our brains to the fullest potential?  Could the rest of us learn those special abilities without limiting the potential of another part of the brain?  Could our entire brain operate at those higher levels?  Or are our brains intended to be 'balanced' the way they are?  Are our brains limited by a certain amount of potential and that potential is just balanced throughout the entire brain in most of us?  Or is the potential unlimited?

I'd like to think the potential is unlimited.