What I've been doing and a new (old) domain name

I noticed today the last time I posted on this blog was back in 2015.  When I made that last post, I wasn't sure when the next time I would post something would be.  At that point in time, my job had become increasingly busy and I just wasn't feeling as inspired as I used to be about the topics I've written about on here.  But it seems this blog has been on, and will continue to be on, an indefinite hiatus.

Basically, not much has changed in that respect since then.  Except I got a promotion at work last year, and work has probably been even busier since then.  So I really just don't have the time or energy to write new posts on this blog anymore.  I wish I did, because I liked writing posts on here, and just the other day I had some new thoughts about UFOs and aliens that I probably could have turned into a post for this blog, but honestly, I just don't feel like it.  I barely even feel like taking the time to write this post!

That isn't to say I haven't been blogging at all the past couple of years.  I've still been posting on some Tumblr blogs I have, a couple of which I still post on regularly.  The reason I've maintained them and not this one boils down to the fact that, quite frankly, they require little time and effort and are just easier to maintain.  Also, the fact that they have large followings, much larger than this blog, has given me more incentive to maintain them.

So what are those blogs?  I'm a big Star Wars fan, and one of them is WebofStarWars.tumblr.com.  I've written a few posts on there, but mostly I just post pictures, videos, and news I find.  The other blog is WebofGoodNews.com.  As the name suggests, I post links to Positive new stories and other interesting stuff.  I actually started that blog as a Blogger blog like this one (which is why it has it's own domain name), but it didn't get much interest.  I decided later to try it as a Tumblr, and it got a lot of interest thanks to the fact that Tumblr is a much more a social platform that Blogger is.

I have a few others I maintain, but I don't post to them as regularly.  If you like this history aspect of this blog, then you might like my webofhistory.tumblr.com.  I post vintage pictures I find on there.  Some are of historic events, some are just old photos I found interesting.

So as for the new domain name for this blog, I'm just going to be reverting the domain back to the original histmyst.blogspot.com domain I used when I first started the blog.  I decided to drop the historiesmysteriesandstrangeness.com domain for a couple of reasons.  One, it's a really long address!  Two, I'm working towards early retirement now (or at least early semi-retirement), and I decided to look for expenses I could cut out.  I decided to cut out domains that I hadn't been maintaining for a while.  Being that I hadn't posted on here since 2015, I decided I would cut this one.  I'm also dropping my weboffunny.com domain.  The web already has a lot of humor blogs posting content found on the Internet, so I decided not to spend time maintaining another one.  A lot of my Tumblr blogs have a custom subdomain of webofepic.com (like my webofhistory Tumblr can also be reached at history.webofepic.com).  Well, I've decided I'm going to drop that domain too, and replace it with Guvna.net.  Guvna is a nickname I've had for a while now, so I figured I would make a domain out of it and use it for my various tumblrs.

I've also made sub domains for this blog using my new Guvna.net domain.  So in addition to histmyst.blogspot.com, you'll also be able to reach this blog at historiesmysteriesandstrangeness.guvna.net or, to make it easier, just hms.guvna.net.

I'm not sure when I will post on this blog again.  Being that I'm working towards early retimement now, maybe once I'm retired I'll pick it back up again!  But it'll still be a while before that happens, so for now, I guess this blog will just stay here as an archive of some of my past thoughts.

Thanks for stopping by!

How much does "Science" really know?

I just read this article about how scientists have determined that our Milky Way is about twice as big as they previously thought it was. Well that's certainly very interesting news, but it again has me wondering how much "Science" really knows. 

The study of the various types of sciences has become extremely popular these days, and the Internet and TV have science easily accessible to anyone whether they study science or not.  I try to keep informed with various scientific understandings and discoveries, and much of the news and videos I watch tend to state things very matter of factly.  I often hear that "Science says this..." or "Science says that..." as if it "Science" was this all knowing deity that is never wrong.

But apparently it was wrong about the size of our galaxy. Or maybe they were right before and they are wrong now?  How am I supposed to know?  How are you supposed to know?  Should we just assume they always know what they are talking about and just accept it as fact?

And I think that's what bothers me about it.  I feel like too many people are just blindly accepting things that "Science" supposedly says is true as an immutable fact.  In most cases it may very well be a fact, but there are other times when the alleged "facts" fall apart.

This post isn't about the size of the Milky Way. That's just the latest thing that has me questioning how much "Science" really knows about our reality.  It's been my observation that many people have emotional attachments to various beliefs based on scientific teachings that they don't want to let go of.  If something contradicts what they have determined to be true, they will try to find a way to refute it and look for evidence that supports the view they already have (not in all cases, just sometimes).  Evolution or the Big Bang Theory could be examples. They may not want to believe in any sort of supreme deity, but they will support the Big Bang Theory as if it is an absolute fact. A theory that essentially suggests the universe exploded into existence out of nothing.  How can you really know though?  I can understand if you don't want to believe the universe was created by a deity, but isn't it ok to just say you don't know for sure?  With Evolution, if something doesn't fit into the established timeline for a fossil or artifact, they may just try to adjust it so that it does fit with what is established.  Isn't it okay to consider the possibility that the established timeline isn't correct? Maybe the timeline itself should be adjusted? I realize that new discoveries sometimes do change what was previously thought to be true (like the size of the Milky Way), but there are other times when new opinions on a subject are met with hostility (see Ben Stein's film Expelled for examples).

Sometimes science gets politicized, like with "climate change" (formerly known as "global warming," but because that mantra didn't work out to well, they decided to just basically include every kind of weather event).  It's no secret that climate does change, but the issue is that do carbon emissions actually cause climate to change?  I grew up thinking that.  It's what I was taught.  But then I found out not everyone thought that carbon emissions caused "global warming" despite the fact that we continue to be told there is a consensus.  I do not see an actual consensus, only those people who think that carbon emissions are a real problem (and their media lackeys) claiming there is a consensus. In my opinion, the evidence suggests carbon emissions have little or nothing to do with climate change. My opinion is based on what scientists who disagree with the alleged "consensus" on the subject have said, as well as predictions (and fear mongering) about the present day that were made many years ago that did not turn out to be accurate.  It's also based on questionable material put out by people in the "consensus" community such as the Climategate emails.  And the fact that there are those who want to tax and profit from the "consensus" that make it even more questionable to me.  Cui Bono?

I really don't mean to disparage the study of science.  What I've said so far might make it sound that way, but seriously, I don't mean to disparage the study of science. I think it's great and is responsible for many amazing things that has made the modern world what it is. Scientists have made incredible medical advances and traveled to the moon and have sent probes much farther into space.  But, you know, it's not always right about everything (or at least the interpretation of the data isn't always right).  And we shouldn't blindly accept everything we are told because "Science" supposedly says it is true.  We might think the galaxy is one size, only to later find out it is actually another size.  But I doubt many people have an emotional attachment or political reason to believe the galaxy is one size or another, so there isn't much of a reason to question it.  That makes it easier to change what was previously thought to be true into a new truth.

For me, when I read science news, I consider what I've read and make note of it.  I generally assume that it is very likely what I have read is true, but I also consider the possibility it is inaccurate for whatever reason.  I may not know the reason, and there may not be any pertinent reason for me to even question it, but I'd rather be able to stay open to the possibility of eventually coming to a new understanding than determined to cling to an old, possibly inaccurate understanding. So I do not keep any emotional attachments to my understanding of scientific subjects. I may hold a certain view about a certain topic, but ultimately I'm content in saying I don't know the answer for sure. I don't think excessive carbon emissions cause climate change, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be convinced of that again if someone were able to present me with better evidence.

I have my opinions, but I'm open minded and if I don't know something for sure, I'm comfortable in saying so.  Because, you know, you just never know when you're going to find out when the galaxy is bigger than you thought it was.

Maybe Nietzsche was right? Does this quote still apply today?  I think it probably does.

Unearthed Easter Island Statue

I came across this picture of a moai on Easter Island unearthed.  They already looked big, but after being dug out they look so much bigger!

via

What happened to the records of the 'gods'?

I was listening to Jim Harold's Paranormal Podcast episode titled "Lost Secrets of the Gods" and my mind wandered off on ancient mythology and what might have happened to the secrets of the 'gods' that have since been lost.  To understand where I'm coming from, let me explain how I tend to view ancient mythology.

Before doing that though, let me first describe the other three main viewpoints for interpreting ancient mythology.

1. Fiction - This camp views mythology as nothing more than fairy tales and fantasy.
2. Supernatural - This camp views mythology as stories about actual supernatural beings and events.
3. Aliens - This camp views mythology as stories about advanced alien beings that the human observers simply described the best way they knew how.

The 4th camp, which is the one I would typically associate with, view mythology as something based on real people and events that the observers described (or embellished) the best way they knew how.  

For me personally though, I figure mythology is a mixture of fiction and stories about real people and events.  The people and events in the stories may be embellished or described in a fantastic way, but are nonetheless stories about people and events someone observed.  I view the stories of the 'gods' of mythology as probably stories about ancient or prehistoric aristocratic families.  Families who were somehow able to set themselves up as rulers over other people.  Maybe they were charismatic.  Maybe they looked different or were even members of another species of human from the prehistoric era.  Maybe they were just smarter and were able to gain the respect of others, or, if they were of a more sinister nature, they may have used their wits to manipulate others.  Maybe it was a combination of those things. 

Anyway, the point is I think that at least some of the 'gods' of ancient mythology were real people (and just to be clear, I recognize that some, maybe even most, could be pure fiction).  But if the 'gods' were real people, what happened to their own personal records?  We have stories about them.  But what about their own stories?  Why has no one found the journal of Zeus?  Or the memoirs of Thor?  What about the diary of Venus?

If you look at most of the mythology we have, it's told from the perspective of someone observing the 'gods' and supernatural events.  Sure, sometimes you might have something that was supposedly dictated to someone by a 'god', but that kind of material is usually laws or advice on how to live your life.  It's not really an insight into the day to day activities of the 'gods'.  

When I think back over the various myths that I know, I'm starting to notice they seem one sided.  They seem to be from the perspective of people observing the 'gods'.  But what about the perspective of the 'gods'?  

To get a bit more specific, I started thinking about the story of Krishna in the Indian epic known as the Mahabharata where he pursues an enemy and attacks him with some seemingly supernatural weapon.  The story also mentions aircraft called vimanas and some kind of super weapon that sounds as destructive as a modern nuclear weapon.   I don't know if the story is fiction or if it's a description of an actual event.  But if it is a description of an actual event, where is Krishna's side of the story?  Who was flying the vimanas?  Did the pilots leave no record of that day in battle?  Why is there only one version of the story?

I feel like the explanation is simple for the first three camps I mentioned above.  If you think mythology is fiction, then no further explanation is needed.  If you think it's a supernatural event, then it's easy to explain as something we aren't meant to fully understand or just simply cannot comprehend.  If you think it's aliens doing battle, then you can simply say the aliens have chosen not to give us their side of the story.  

But if we are to assume mythology is based on real people and events, why did those people not leave any records?  At first, I thought the explanation may be difficult.  But the more I thought about it, the more I came up with.

The simplest explanation is that the 'gods' chose to leave no records.  Whereas the stories we have about them were public knowledge and written down, the 'gods' may have preferred to keep their private lives a secret from their subjects.  Perhaps the biggest secret they wanted to keep was that they were really no different from the people that worshiped them.  By keeping their personal lives private, any records from their personal lives have since been lost.  

Another possibility is that their records were destroyed.  Another set of 'gods' may have come and took over and destroyed any records of the 'old' gods in hopes that people would eventually forget them (and for all we know, there may be quite a lot of stories of 'gods' we've never even heard of because of something like that happening).  

One other possibility is that some sort of personal record of a 'god' may have once been known, but was since lost in a fire or something.  Who knows what all was lost when the library of Alexandria burned.  

So I'm not really sure what the answer to the question is.  For that matter, I'm not even sure that ancient mythology is based on real people; it's just that I think it's very possible.  But if any of them were real people, their own stories of their lives seem to have been lost.

Mysterious massive light flash over Russia

A Russian dash cam recorded a massive flash of light in the sky over Russia's Sverdlovsk region on November 14th, 2014.  The flash was so bright it went from darkness to almost daylight in seconds. The color didn't look right for a meteor and the the Russian military did not claim responsibility (at least not as of time the linked article below reported it).  It reportedly made no sound.




In this second video around the 20 second mark it looks as if the source of the light may be on the ground in the distance somewhere.



Read more about it here.