Nassim Haramein at Project Camelots Awake & Aware Conference September 2011

[panopticon]

G'day All,

Just a question, please don't bite my head off...
Does Nassim have work published (other than the conference paper) in any journal, ever...
If he does wouldn't it be possible to trace his theories and credibility by tracing his papers...
This is "the usual practice" so just thought I'd ask.
I'm not a physicist, mathematician, astronaut or space cadet so I don't have an opinion on his work, nor am I willing to spend long hours looking for something that I won't, in all likelihood, understand.
I also have not researched Nassim Haramein so am at a disadvantage because evidently "he da man".
I'll have a look at the video if time permits...
Just pointing out that someone who is challenging physics with physics should have a trail that can be followed and from that his credibility could be more realistically assessed (instead of relying on a single published conference paper as appears be what is being stated here).

Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
No, I do not think that just because his work goes against the grain of mainstream science proves that it is right. I never said that.
I do think that most people, including many people on this forum, don't understand what he is saying, not because they resist anything mainstream which would obviously not be typical of this forum, but because they have been indoctrinated into mainstream thinking about psychics, whether they realize it or not.

You and Nassim have both repeatedly used the fact that he's going against the mainstream as evidence in Nassim's favor.

You did not say exactly that "because his work goes against the grain of mainstream science[, this] proves that it is right." You are engaging in yet another rhetorical fallacy here, twisting what I said into something else, and then noting that the result is false. I did not allege that you claimed that going against the grain proved him right. I alleged that you repeatedly observe, as does Nassim himself, that going against the grain offers support for his being right.

Also, you have repeatedly suggested that those who criticize Nassim might be doing so "because they have been indoctrinated into mainstream thinking about psychics". When I point out my support of LaViolette as evidence that I, for one at least, have stepped outside mainstream thinking about physics, you twist my words into suggesting that I claimed, because LaViolette also has some interesting theories, therefore "that automatically make Nassim's theories garbage?"

Posted by onawah (here)
Some of the very foundations of modern psychics may be inaccurate. That's the point!

You must not have read and understood what I've been repeatedly saying, since I joined this site in Jan 2011 and first heard of Nassim, and especially since I learned (on this site) of LaViolette and have been recommending him to others since.

I absolutely agree that the very foundations of modern physics are inaccurate!

But that is not the point which enables us to discern which new proposal(s) for the foundations of physics have merit.

One actually has to understand the physics being proposed and consider whether it provides a potentially sound basis for understanding matter, energy, forces and cosmology.

Posted by onawah (here)
The glowing recommendations are from very learned people who, if you read them, you will see are people who are quite familiar with the problems that Nassim is working with now and also with Nassim's work over the years, where it started and where it is heading, as well as what it implies.
I doubt they wrote those recommendations as a mere pat on the head for Nassim or because it would look nice on his website.
I'm sure there was some professional risk for them in praising someone whose work is so controversial.

I picked one of the professionals recommending Nassim from your list (presumably bulk quoted from the link I gave in my last post - please provide reference links when quoting substantial material) -- Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Ph.D. See for example her "bio" at http://www.breakthru-technologies.com/presenters.html . She is a deep insider with decades of high powered experience inside the U.S. Military-Industrial-Academic-Intelligence community. Her resume is stunning. If she recommends Nassim, then the U.S. Military-Industrial-Academic-Intelligence community is willing to support Nassim, in some way, for some reason.

Depending on whether I put on my trusting hat or my tin foil hat, that may or may not speak well of Nassim.

Posted by onawah (here)
What is it that makes you believe you are such a better judge than these experienced scientists of what adds up to "sound psychics"?

I see more actual discussion of the Physics being proposed in my (previously linked) posts than yours.

Please - please - let's stop trying to score debating points with logical fallacies and actually consider the physics.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by panopticon (here)
Just pointing out that someone who is challenging physics with physics should have a trail that can be followed and from that his credibility could be more realistically assessed (instead of relying on a single published conference paper as appears be what is being stated here).

From what I know, Nassim has much work; he's prolific. But that one paper is the closest thing that comes to (an allegedly) peer reviewed paper in a respected journal (and as has been noted, it doesn't come very close.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)
I think the problem is that our minds find it very difficult to backtrack and unlearn something which we have accepted as truth.

You've already made that point before, and I've already rebutted it. Then you completely distorted my rebuttal by way of dismissing it. Now you make that point again.

That's not my problem.

Posted by onawah (here)
I also think he is a really wonderful person, and the Mother Lion in me tends to come out roaring with all claws unsheathed when someone is attempting to belittle him.

Yes, Nassim may indeed be a really wonderful person, and may in many subject areas have much valuable insight to offer, including (I presume) subject areas in which I am unqualified to expound.

His physics is not one of those subject areas in which his insight is valuable.

[onawah]

I think it is evidence that his work cannot be assessed when looking at it from the perspective of mainstream thinking in physics, because the latter is inaccurate, yes.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he is correct, but enough people in the field have found his reasoning to be very worthwhile, and so therefore, it should be considered and not belittled.

Posted by Paul (here)
You and Nassim have both repeatedly used the fact that he's going against the mainstream as evidence in Nassim's favor.

Nor should he be belittled because he is seeking peer review and funding for his research.
Nor should he be belittled-or those who appreciate his way of explaining his theories to the non-scientifically oriented-because we do not adhere to the mainstream way of thinking, and we "resonate" to non-mainsteam wholistic thinking. (Although Nassim is able to think both inside and outside of the box.)
And there has been a fair amount of belittlement of that kind on this thread.

I quote one of your previous posts in this thread "He gets a larger audience this way. A larger number of people, while sensing more spiritual matters in their intuitive minds, would like it validated to their verbal, rational minds as "real physics, peer reviewed science, physical reality." His way of presenting his results allows many potential listeners to reassure their rational minds with the appearance of real good, ground breaking, physics, while delivering to their intuitive minds a message they resonate with.
The set of people such as myself, who find his so called physics to be dramatically unsound, is a much smaller potential audience. "

Posted by Paul (here)
Also, you have repeatedly suggested that those who criticize Nassim might be doing so "because they have been indoctrinated into mainstream thinking about psychics". When I point out my support of LaViolette as evidence that I, for one at least, have stepped outside mainstream thinking about physics, you twist my words into suggesting that I claimed, because LaViolette also has some interesting theories, therefore "that automatically make Nassim's theories garbage?"

It did sound that way to me.
LaViolette is just one scientist, however, and that doesn't demonstrate to me a huge capacity for stepping outside of the box.
I have found his theories to be of interest also. I don't agree with his doomsday scenario, however, though my view has nothing to do with physics, and everything to do with spiritual perspective.
But that's a different conversation.

Posted by onawah (here)
Some of the very foundations of modern psychics may be inaccurate. That's the point!

Posted by Paul (here)
You must not have read and understood what I've been repeatedly saying, since I joined this site in Jan 2011 and first heard of Nassim, and especially since I learned (on this site) of LaViolette and have been recommending him to others since.

I absolutely agree that the very foundations of modern physics are inaccurate!

But that is not the point which enables us to discern which new proposal(s) for the foundations of physics have merit.

One actually has to understand the physics being proposed and consider whether it provides a potentially sound basis for understanding matter, energy, forces and cosmology.

Well, I am glad we agree about something. However, your way of understanding and my way of understanding may be very different. We speak different languages, and apparently neither of us are very interested in learning the other's language. Nor am I interested in debating with you point for point in the way that you seem to prefer.

Posted by onawah (here)
The glowing recommendations are from very learned people who, if you read them, you will see are people who are quite familiar with the problems that Nassim is working with now and also with Nassim's work over the years, where it started and where it is heading, as well as what it implies.
I doubt they wrote those recommendations as a mere pat on the head for Nassim or because it would look nice on his website.
I'm sure there was some professional risk for them in praising someone whose work is so controversial.

Posted by Paul (here)
I picked one of the professionals recommending Nassim from your list (presumably bulk quoted from the link I gave in my last post - please provide reference links when quoting substantial material) -- Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Ph.D. See for example her "bio" at http://www.breakthru-technologies.com/presenters.html . She is a deep insider with decades of high powered experience inside the U.S. Military-Industrial-Academic-Intelligence community. Her resume is stunning. If she recommends Nassim, then the U.S. Military-Industrial-Academic-Intelligence community is willing to support Nassim, in some way, for some reason.
Depending on whether I put on my trusting hat or my tin foil hat, that may or may not speak well of Nassim.

I doubt very seriously that the U.S. Military-Industrial-Academic-Intelligence community is willing to support Nassim. Or that he would accept it if they did, knowing that he would probably be compromising himself, at best.
The link I gave for the recommendations that Nassim has received from other scholars was one from the Resonance Project website.
I did not research each of those scholars independently.
I judged that to be sufficient for the present need.
What you say about Dr. Rauscher could be said about many eminent scholars, from Einstein to Von Braun.
That's the way it is today in science today, unfortunately, which makes it all the more difficult for those who try to avoid playing that game, and who don't spend all their time trying to publish their papers in journals and following all the accepted practices geared toward gaining recognition.
I don't think her endorsement makes Nassim look suspect.
You made a good choice by choosing her, however, if that was your intention.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
What is it that makes you believe you are such a better judge than these experienced scientists of what adds up to "sound psychics"?

I see more actual discussion of the Physics being proposed in my (previously linked) posts than yours.

Please - please - let's stop trying to score debating points with logical fallacies and actually consider the physics.

Here again, you push for an intellectual discussion in your own language.
But as I've said, I don't speak that language.
I am perfectly willing to stop my part in this discussion altogether, however.
I think I've made my points well enough.
If you want to discuss theorems and formulas, I suggest you strike up a conversation with Rakhyt or Auracaria or perhaps Agape.
That would probably be much more to your liking, if they are interested.

You end with "His physics is not one of those subject areas in which his insight is valuable."

Well, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, many people, respected scholars in various fields, physicists and mathematicians among them, disagree.

Namaste

[ThePythonicCow]

It seems that we agree on several points then, onawah.

I have some facility with the tools, terms, mathematics and ways of thinking of physics (both mainstream and "unconventional"). However I have no particular credentials to validate my claimed facility. I am finding Nassim's work in physics to be ... I can't find a kind word to use here ... bogus.

You have some facility with other topics, but less so in physics. You value Nassim's work in some other areas in which you are more versed. You observe that Nassim's work in physics is well recommended by distinguished scientists, but ridiculed by myself. For such reasons, you conclude that Nassim in physics is likely worthwhile, and that I am likely wrong about Nassim's physics.

So be it.

therefore, it should be considered and not belittled

I did consider Nassim's physics, with an enthusiastic and open mind ... before I belittled it.

[Calz]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
The video is found on camelot site and we have to pay for it if I am not mistaken, is this it?

Yes - if you are referring to the video that was initially posted in Post #1 of this thread. That video was copyright material of (I presume) Project Camelot, and the link to it was removed, with this note left behind in Post #1 "[admin-edit] video removed due to copyright issues.".

If you are referring to some other link above to material that should not be made freely available ... let us know ... so we can tend to that matter as well.

Thanks!

There was some mention of the possibility the whole of the conference might be available for purchase on DVD.

Has anyone heard of a follow-up on that or will it simply only be available via paid streaming?

[panopticon]

G'day All,

I'd like to thank you all for this discussion.
While I was wondering around the cyber fields looking at reviews of this bloke I came across this website:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/

And in particular this article which is a response to Nassim's critique of the authors critique of Nassim's work (my head hurts):
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...-bobathon.html

What I'm so impressed about is that there was a link in the comments that lead to the Yale University Open Lecture Series and that it is all licensed under a creative commons license.

I was looking for a new lecture series to engage with and this is perfect!

I love the way the universe helps me out if I don't try too hard.
Wu wei in action (pun completely intended)!

Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[onawah]

Posted by Paul (here)
It seems that we agree on several points then, onawah.

I have some facility with the tools, terms, mathematics and ways of thinking of physics (both mainstream and "unconventional"). However I have no particular credentials to validate my claimed facility. I am finding Nassim's work in physics to be ... I can't find a kind word to use here ... bogus.

You have some facility with other topics, but less so in physics. You value Nassim's work in some other areas in which you are more versed. You observe that Nassim's work in physics is well recommended by distinguished scientists, but ridiculed by myself. For such reasons, you conclude that Nassim in physics is likely worthwhile, and that I am likely wrong about Nassim's physics.

Your reasoning is somewhat at fault here, Paul, in that you are implying that my conclusion that Nassim's work is worthwhile is based primarily on the word of the distinguished scientists.
In fact, it was a conclusion I arrived at on my own after watching many hours of his talks on video.
My understanding is not based on theorems and formulas, but on a much more right brained process of discernment.
But I subsequently took as worthwhile the word of the distinguished scientists because they have apparently spent a sufficient amount of time and trouble reviewing Nassim's work and working with his theories; although their methods of verification would not be my own, I do take it somewhat on faith that they are correct for those reasons.
But I do so not only because their credentials are quite impressive, but the reasons for their recommendations were well considered and appropriate to the question at hand.
I also felt that the comments from those scholars on the multidimensionality and wholisitic nature of Nassim's work did them and him much credit.
And inasmuch as a lot of other right brained as well as left brained people are getting lots of AHA moments while listening to Nassim's theories, as I did, I feel quite validated, but this would NOT have been the case had I not first had those AHA moments myself.
It was merely icing on the cake.

Also, as I said before, I think it is presumptuous to assume that there is only one way to understand physics.
And in fact, it may be quite necessary to understand a whole dimension of other subjects first before one can truly understand physics.


[QUOTE Onawah]therefore, it should be considered and not belittled[/QUOTE Onawah]

[/QUOTE Paul]I did consider Nassim's physics, with an enthusiastic and open mind ... before I belittled it.[/QUOTE Paul]

No doubt you did,but while it is quite appropriate to disagree with someone's theories, I think it very inappropriate to ridicule or belittle anyone, in any case, for whatever reason.

[onawah]

I don't know, but I am hoping that in time, attendees of the Conference will be allowed to post their own videos of the events on youtube without copyright issues, as has been the case with other Conferences in the past.

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
The video is found on camelot site and we have to pay for it if I am not mistaken, is this it?

Yes - if you are referring to the video that was initially posted in Post #1 of this thread. That video was copyright material of (I presume) Project Camelot, and the link to it was removed, with this note left behind in Post #1 "[admin-edit] video removed due to copyright issues.".

If you are referring to some other link above to material that should not be made freely available ... let us know ... so we can tend to that matter as well.

Thanks!

There was some mention of the possibility the whole of the conference might be available for purchase on DVD.

Has anyone heard of a follow-up on that or will it simply only be available via paid streaming?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by onawah (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
You have some facility with other topics, but less so in physics. You value Nassim's work in some other areas in which you are more versed. You observe that Nassim's work in physics is well recommended by distinguished scientists, but ridiculed by myself. For such reasons, you conclude that Nassim in physics is likely worthwhile, and that I am likely wrong about Nassim's physics.

Your reasoning is somewhat at fault here, Paul, in that you are implying that my conclusion that Nassim's work is worthwhile is based primarily on the word of the distinguished scientists.
In fact, it was a conclusion I arrived at on my own after watching many hours of his talks on video.
My understanding is not based on theorems and formulas, but on a much more right brained process of discernment.

I did not intend to imply that I thought your conclusion was based solely on the word of the distinguished scientists.

That's why I wrote (as quoted above): "You value Nassim's work in some other areas in which you are more versed."

Posted by onawah (here)
therefore, it should be considered and not belittled

Posted by Paul (here)
I did consider Nassim's physics, with an enthusiastic and open mind ... before I belittled it.

That may be true, while it is quite appropriate to disagree with someone's theories, I think it inappropriate to ridicule or belittle anyone, in any case, for whatever reason.

Honest disagreements, between people acting in good faith, with some reasonable awareness of their competence, deserves respect even in disagreement.

I do not hold Nassim in such high regard.

[onawah]

Actually, I don't know that I am more versed in subjects other than physics.
But it all depends on how you define "physics".
Is it all about mathematical equations and formulas, or is it also perhaps about a direct perception of the Universe?
Such as one might gain from meditation and other spiritual practice.
Or from reading the works of the ancient mystics and philosophers.
Or from contemplating Nature and the Cosmos and sensing the energies that support and work behind the illusion we see, and which we are in fact, a part of?
I think we can understand more from a sudden flash of intuition than we can from studying a pile of texts full of numbers.
The challenge is putting it into a context that many kinds of minds can understand.
Which is something that I think Nassim will be held in high regard by many for, for a long time to come.
Although others will no doubt find satisfaction from the study of other teachers who have a more resonant method for their particular needs.
What I do not understand is the need to belittle and ridicule.
It seems to me to be wholly unnecessary, inappropriate and certainly not in service to the one who employs such methods.
In fact, it turns and bites back in every instance, in my observation.

[Tenzin]

Nassim seems to suggest he knows what is going to happen to our planet and we have very limited time to 'get off' the surface. He did say that in this presentation, didn't he? If that is true, I don't understand, why the need for a lab and the money.

I do find everything he says very convincing, but something else, is actually quite amiss indeed.

Ain't going to read too much into it, saving the energy for more constructive work later in my meditation. Just going to go with the heart. Seeking guidance from above. Some interesting lights we have in the skies these days if we bother to look more frequently...

[onawah]

I don't think Nassim was suggesting that in any sort of Conspiracy Theory context.
He probably just meant that we would do well to gain more unlimited interplanetary access so that we can increase our base of resources.
He is not into promulgating fear at all, to my knowledge, and never has been.
That is not his purview.
Doing the conference for Project Camelot was probably a bit of a stretch for him.
He is much more into the spiritual side of our reality.

Posted by Tenzin (here)
Nassim seems to suggest he knows what is going to happen to our planet and we have very limited time to 'get off' the surface. He did say that in this presentation, didn't he? If that is true, I don't understand, why the need for a lab and the money.

I do find everything he says very convincing, but something else, is actually quite amiss indeed.

Ain't going to read too much into it, saving the energy for more constructive work later in my meditation. Just going to go with the heart. Seeking guidance from above. Some interesting lights we have in the skies these days if we bother to look more frequently...

[RMorgan]

I have a friend, Augusto, who is a Physics genius. He used to play the keyboards in my old Yes cover band. He went to university here in Brazil with 15 years old, then he earned a scholarship for a masters in Switzerland an now, with 28, he´s a Phd.

I´ve showed Nassim´s work to him and he just could not stop laughing!!! It was really funny!!

He said that Nassim is so wrong, in such basic concepts, that he probably never went to Physics school!

[CyRus]

Onawah, why the obsession with Haramein? I suggest you take the time to view a couple of physics lectures on the internet, (start with basic mechanics etc) and then look at Nassim again in a new light. I am sure you will be able to understand Paul's (and my) perspective better.
Again, I must state that there are a lot of areas within mainstream physics which I find to be highly flawed, and I feel that we are lacking a giant piece of the puzzle if you will. I love alternative thinkers who go against the mainstream and come out victorious. The fact is, Haramein is not one of these people. He has a cult following, which he has managed to sway with fancy words and interesting thoughts. An interesting thinker, he may perhaps be, but a physicist he is not.

The reasoning behind this stance is this:

Physics is an age old science, adapted and developed through the ages by great thinkers such as Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger etc. It adheres to a certain set of laws and mathematical foundations that are solid. Now, much of the modern viewpoints in physics are based on speculative assumptions, but the foundations are solid. What Haramein does is this:
He blatantly contradicts these laws and rewrites his own foundations for reality, basically throwing the subject of physics out the window. Now to the untrained eye this could be positive, and it would be, if his physics was not so fundamentally flawed. He constantly misrepresents the most basic of physical laws, and therefore is not a physicist. It is really hard to explain to a layman who has no knowledge of mathematics or physics, but who constantly argues from a faulty authority, and who cherry picks arguments to suit their view rather than looking at both sides.

My stance on Haramein was carved by first looking at what he says, then analyzing the physics, making my assumption, then reading responses from critics and followers of Haramein alike. My conclusion is therefore that Haramein does not seem to understand physics.

This does not mean that all spirituality is false, as Haramein is not an authority of spirituality or physics, it just means that Haramein's theories are bogus. There are many other physicists who are trying to incorporate the spiritual reality with physics, and they are actually doing good science.
I consider myself to be spiritual, and I greatly support the work of "alternative physicists", but I cannot support Haramein as I find his work to be too faulty.

I implore you to sincerely look into the issue before defending someone without knowing all the facts. It can come across as ignorance, and puts this community at a disadvantage.

By the way:
My previous thread on Haramein did not die due to the fact that I felt I was beaten by the "testimonies of the experts", but rather due to the fact that my emotions were getting the better of me, and that I was growing very frustrated that my honest attempts at trying to convey how absurd Haramein's theories are were met with scorn and ridicule. Also, the fact that the people I am debating seem to be entrenched in a world-view that is fixed, and not subject to change even when presented with the evidence. Let's hope this thread is more structured, as this is a most important topic...

[Mad Hatter]

Umm...seems an apology from me is in order here... I had no idea my first post on this thread would stir up such strong feelings...

I would however, out of sheer curiosty, like to ask onawah what your position is on the current argument that CO2 is causing global warming...since purportedly most qualified scientists apparently support this hypothesis.

That aside, given your strong feelings about the mans work and the enourmous importance it may have in helping us all get to the truth of things, why do you think he would jeopardise his message and alienate a large part of his potential audience by doing something as dumb as lying about having his paper peer reviewed?

Have you also considered that the endorsements received may simply have been acknowledgement, not so much of the physics itself which may or may not prove to be bogus, but of the different approach to thinking about overlapping problems, which might have led to new insights into the respective fields for those attendees?

As an intuitive non linear thinker myself, I love some of what he points out and it does resonate with me. Some of what he says goes over my head (haven't quite done enough maths yet) and some of it, based on my albeit limited knowledge of the subject matter (most of it non mainstream), goes so hard against the grain that it is...well...laughable. I do however appreciate the fact that he is at least attempting to shine a light on areas where dots might be connectable.

As with a lot of things I think time will be the final arbiter and all will hopefully have learned lessons from the experience.

Namaste

[firstlook]

Can someone actually talk about the physics and what specific parts people either disagree or agree with. I mean as if you were writing a paper. Both sides seem to not discuss the issue specifically and scientifically showing formula.

[CyRus]

Posted by firstlook (here)
Can someone actually talk about the physics and what specific parts people either disagree or agree with. I mean as if you were writing a paper. Both sides seem to not discuss the issue specifically and scientifically showing formula.

www.azureworld.blogspot.com <------ This guy explains it better than I ever could. Again, as people have mentioned, Haramein has written a rather poor rebuttal to his criticisms. Bobathon has written a rebuttal of the rebuttal, and Haramein has been silent ever since.

Also, just to add a little personal flavour to this whole situation:
After having read Bobathon's blog, I looked at Haramein's Facebook page just out of interest. There were several people challenging Haramein on his theories, as every good scientist would. Haramein never answered himself, he only referred to his PhD colleague to answer the questions for him.
When they continued to probe, obviously not satisfied, he banned them stating that they were attacking his research. What kind of a quote, "scientist", is that?

[Agape]

See...this is from above blog of Mr Bobathon

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yaNuYvj-jcc

How beautiful.. and as old Tibetan proverb says , cause and effect are so close to each other as horns of a bull.

See the magician in the video ? What is the distance between art and mathematics ?

What is the difference between intelligence aka logic and perfect symmetry and intuition that precedes the orchestra of neural impulses carrying the work out for you and others to experience it ?

Where is the hidden symmetry if not encoded in ourselves ?


What we see is our eyes fractal reflection , can't be denied at the end ..




Hmm