Nassim Haramein: Fraud or Sage?

[RMorgan]

Hey Folks,

I´ve just finished reading this article. The author of the article explains very coherently that Nassim Haramein is not correct with his theories.

Personally, I was never a big fan of his work, but I´m mostly interested to see what you think about this article:

"I've said a number of times that Nassim Haramein is misleading people, and I'd like to try to make it crystal clear why.

Have a quick browse, or have a good old read... it's up to you.

I'm aiming to encourage people to think carefully about what he is telling them. I'm not out to discourage people from trying out any promising new ideas – what I want is to help people question what's out there for themselves. If they want to, of course. You may choose to disagree with my assessment of Haramein. I'm interested in your reasons if you want to share them."

Please, read the full article in this link, before replying:

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...nassim.html#s2

Cheers,

Raf.

Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.

[onawah]

The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

[RMorgan]

Posted by onawah (here)
The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it.

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[greybeard]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it.

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hi RMorgan
you might want to watch this video and decide on this particular subject who is fooling the public.
Not saying Nassim is right on everything but the establishment certainly protects its own view point.
Its been posted a few times

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D2_LhmSygBQ

[RMorgan]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Hi RMorgan
you might want to watch this video and decide on this particular subject who is fooling the public.
Not saying Nassim is right on everything but the establishment certainly protects its own view point.
Its been posted a few times

Hey greybeard,

Thanks for the video. I´ve already watched it.

Well, I also don´t think he´s all wrong. He´s just wrong about physics.

This is not about the establishment trying to protect itself.

Along history, there were many groundbreaking physicists, with completely out of the box ideas, who managed to get themselves accepted by the establishment. It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.

The article on post #1 shows very clearly, at least, that NH is wrong with his physics. You know, it´s science; in science, if you have a personal theory, you have to prove it using scientific methodology, then, if you succeed proving it, your theory is accepted.

If you read the article, you´ll know that´s not about bashing NH´s work. It´s about showing with scientific facts that he´s wrong on the most basic principles of physics.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Fundy Gemini]

My thought is that Nassim (whether right or wrong) is working from the heart and is very earnest in his passion to progress mankind. That doesn't make his science right necessarily, but do keep in mind that there is a lot of good sciene kept from public exploration using the snicker factor or intimidation tactics - so the best way to credit or discredit any science is with facts alone -

[cloud9]

I haven't read the article yet and I will but the link is from Ashayana Deane which to me has no credibility at all. The thing about why the night sky is black is a Joke! What? There's no jokes in physics?

In any case, the fact that someone is able to think out of the box and express new ideas is very valuable in my book, that's the way science and medicine have evolved, actually it's the only way!

[RMorgan]

Posted by cloud9 (here)
I haven't read the article yet and I will but the link is from Ashayana Deane which to me has no credibility at all. The thing about why the night sky is black is a Joke! What? There's no jokes in physics?

In any case, the fact that someone is able to think out of the box and express new ideas is very valuable in my book, that's the way science and medicine have evolved, actually it's the only way!

Hey cloud9,

I didn´t get the part about Ashayana Deane. The link I´ve posted is from another person.

Anyway, I agree with you about out of the box thinking. However, thinking outside the box is only cool when it makes sense. There´s a thin line between out of the box thinking and bull**** thinking.

The article on post #1 is very well written. It´s worth a careful read.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Bo Atkinson]

I like his flash of thought about black holes in each atom or what ever words were used. If the math connections work out, as he claimed, thats good experimental work.... Areas of less interest are for me there, but if it is replicated, good there. Also i've not been much interested in black hole theory, string theory, etc... But still dabble in relatable theories which differ in various ways. I like to hear about upbeat, flashes of inspiration, all the same. Also, there are too many other areas of relevance, my own interests differ from vids/mp3s he's recorded in.

[Leon]

If Nassim Haramein is misleading, what are your history books doing? what is your government doing?

He is showing a point aview we have not seen before... we need to support him as well as Klaus Dona

Not put him down, he is lucky to still be alive with the information he has shown us... opening our eyes a little more..

[Elandiel BernElve]

In my opinion many truthseekers are so obsessed with the Truth (as in there must be only one real Truth) they forget to acknowledge the fact that a person like Nassim Haramein, through his out of the box thinking is contributing to "The search for Truth" .
Einstein is considered a genius now because he started to think out of the box. His theory of relativity was unsurpassed back then up until now. Yet nowadays the scientific community starts to see that this theory isn't coherent and doesn't seem to explain newly discovered phenomena in the universe.
Should we dismiss Einstein as a fraud?

I think the ones who tend to point towards such a conclusion have definite arrogance issues. For they themselves probably don't have the ability to even fully grasp the theory of relativity on one side or come up with a better explanation of the physics of the universe on the other side.

Nassim Haramein, as well as Nikola Tesla, and Albert Einstein are one of the masterminds that may not have the full Truth in their works but at least cause a gigantic leap FORWARD in the understanding of our world and universe.

Nassim definately works from the heart and is crazy in his own funny way. He puts significant energy and effort in HIS search for Truth and is not reluctant to share his knowledge.
No matter the flaws in his theory. He is a genius we should cherish for his alternate points of view on our universe and he will only advance the understanding and broaden the scientific horizon.

Seriously, asking from a scientist nothing but the Truth and calling him a fraud when he makes a mistake is a demonic judgement.

I don't expect you to flawlessly build the pyramid of Gizeh on your own neither right?

[jagman]

Hello RMorgan, Thank you for posting. I have seen Nassim Haramein in a few videos and I always thought he was an interesting individual.
It is imperative IMO to question everything and everyone. I think Jefferson hit the nail on the head when he wrote " Question with boldness
even the existence of God, For if there be a God, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear."

[truthseekerdan]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.



Cheers,

Raf.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "scientific proof"... It's well known that Einstein was wrong in pretty much all his theories. Do some research before claiming anything having to do with (the so called) science.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LJThU1jDT2o

[onawah]

I have engaged in the debate about whether NH is a fraud or a genius too many times now to want to do it again, but if you are interested in my opinion and reasons for, I probably have made posts in every thread we've had about Nassim in the past few years.
He's got a definite thumbs up from me.

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
The article was probably posted already, as this subject has been hashed and rehashed many times now.

Thanks Onawah,

So, did you take any conclusions after reading this article?

I´m interested to hear what you think about it.

Anyway, as I´ve said before, if this article was posted before, the mod team should feel free to merge it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[RMorgan]

Posted by truthseekerdan (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
It happened because they backed up their ideas with scientific proof. Einstein is the most obvious example of it.



Cheers,

Raf.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "scientific proof"... It's well known that Einstein was wrong in pretty much all his theories. Do some research before claiming anything having to do with (the so called) science.

Hey mate,

Of course there´s scientific proof. There are several kinds of methodologies used in science to be as sure as possible that a discovery or theory is on the right track.

There are certain conventions that must be followed, in order to call anything scientifically accurate.

You can say that everything is an illusion, and you´re possibly right about it. However, while living in this world, we must follow certain rules in every field, so we can live in society and organize knowledge and information.

A good example is math. We can´t see math. As far as I know, math doesn´t even exists outside the human mind. However, we have created numbers, to try to represent our reality in the most accurate way as possible.

In Nassim´s case, if he calls himself a physicist, he must follow at least the very basic standards and conventions for with his work. Like the above article says and shows, he was absolutely wrong in the most basic calculations. There´s no discussion about that; these are facts.

Also, if his calculations are wrong and he´s not following scientific methodologies to validate his theories, all his work will be just useless because he simply wont be able to be brought to real life! So, how useful is a super "out of the box" free energy theory, if it doesn´t work in the real world?

At any moment, I have claimed that everything have to do with science. However, you should be more thankful about science, because if we didn´t have it, we would probably be living in the stone age by now.

Look around! Your computer, your lamp, your tables and chairs, the pant on your wall, your clothes! Each of these things were created or co-created by scientists, which did real research and showed real results.

So yes. Science is good! It´s too bad that some people have taken control over most scientific establishments out there, however, without what some call "mainstream science", most of us wouldn´t probably be alive right now.

Some people just insists in demonizing "mainstream science"! That´s just hilarious! I would love to see if anyone here would hire an "alternative engineer" to build your house, an "alternative mechanic" to take care of your car, or an "alternative doctor" to operate your daughter´s appendicitis.

Cheers,

Raf.

[jagman]

Speaking of main stream science, Neil Degrasse Tyson is on Coast tonight. I have been thinking about calling in all week.
He has done some really good work on Nova, and the History channel. IMO He is the best since Carl Sagan. Sorry about
the derail BACK to TOPIC

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.

This article has been linked twice before, from these two posts:

• Charles' comments about a False Flag ET threat event: important new information - Post $458
• Nassim Haramein - Post #15

I remain as convinced now as when I wrote the post behind the first link above that Nassim is a crock of blarney ... at least so far as his "physics" goes.

[shadowstalker]

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation).
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.
A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]
By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.
A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

[000]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey mate,

Of course there´s scientific proof. There are several kinds of methodologies used in science to be as sure as possible that a discovery or theory is on the right track.

There are certain conventions that must be followed, in order to call anything scientifically accurate.

You can say that everything is an illusion, and you´re possibly right about it. However, while living in this world, we must follow certain rules in every field, so we can live in society and organize knowledge and information.

A good example is math. We can´t see math. As far as I know, math doesn´t even exists outside the human mind. However, we have created numbers, to try to represent our reality in the most accurate way as possible.

In Nassim´s case, if he calls himself a physicist, he must follow at least the very basic standards and conventions for with his work. Like the above article says and shows, he was absolutely wrong in the most basic calculations. There´s no discussion about that; these are facts.

Also, if his calculations are wrong and he´s not following scientific methodologies to validate his theories, all his work will be just useless because he simply wont be able to be brought to real life! So, how useful is a super "out of the box" free energy theory, if it doesn´t work in the real world?

At any moment, I have claimed that everything have to do with science. However, you should be more thankful about science, because if we didn´t have it, we would probably be living in the stone age by now.

Look around! Your computer, your lamp, your tables and chairs, the pant on your wall, your clothes! Each of these things were created or co-created by scientists, which did real research and showed real results.

So yes. Science is good! It´s too bad that some people have taken control over most scientific establishments out there, however, without what some call "mainstream science", most of us wouldn´t probably be alive right now.

Some people just insists in demonizing "mainstream science"! That´s just hilarious! I would love to see if anyone here would hire an "alternative engineer" to build your house, an "alternative mechanic" to take care of your car, or an "alternative doctor" to operate your daughter´s appendicitis.

Cheers,

Raf.

Not everything mainstream science claims to be fact actually is fact. The same goes for non-mainstream science. It is not black and white. It is not either/or. It is a continuum.

Nassim is good because he dares to experiment outside of the box. It does not matter if he is right or wrong. At least he gets people to consider something different. If his calculations are not correct, someone else will find the equations which do work, and I can guarantee that mainstream physicists do not possess all of the keys to unlocking free energy technologies because they are working with incomplete data sets. Why? Because they do not dare to think out of the boundaries prescribed to them. This is not an issue of fact or not fact, it is an issue of who is willing to take the first step to publicly breaking the membrane open.

Remember, even Gravity is still only theory. The force is indeed real but mainstream science has not yet accepted that it is a wave. Earth science is not at all perfect, neither are its methodologies. It has a very very long way to go.

If you want pragmatic science, that is just peachy keen! Go ahead and use that to build homes and cars, but if you want anti-gravity vehicles and free energy? Forget it. Only the 'crazy' ones will be able to collectively trigger the discovery of just what will make free energy technologies tick. Since that technology is already available but very hidden, yet will eventually have to come out publicly, mainstream science will have to have a lot of humility in accepting that it was not always correct about what was thought to be fact. Clandestine science likely knows how to measure things which the mainstream cannot yet measure. Just because you cannot yet measure something does not mean it doesn't exist.

Nassim is neither fraud nor sage. He is simply one of many who are attempting to make new discoveries in science. Science used to be about curiosity and discovery and that is where it shall return. Yes, science is good, but science as DOGMA is NOT good at all.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Ps: If this article was posted before here, please, dear Mods, feel free to merge it.

This article has been linked twice before, from these two posts:

• Charles' comments about a False Flag ET threat event: important new information - Post $458
• Nassim Haramein - Post #15

I remain as convinced now as when I wrote the post behind the first link above that Nassim is a crock of blarney ... at least so far as his "physics" goes.

I remain convinced that he has the best "theory" (comparatively) as far as his "physics" goes... a black hole at the center of everything makes so much sense, ESPECIALLY in light of things we already "know", for example: archimedes principle, Gravity (the weak force / strong force) sunspots being black, etc...