WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am in the middle of chores, but briefly, in reading up on Mississippian culture in Hudson's masterpiece, it was the same old story that happened in all societies that engaged in intensive agriculture, beginning with Sumer.

When an agricultural surplus began to be generated, exchange began to become important. Before that, there was nothing to exchange. Since all people are descended from the Universal People (who drove all other human species to extinction), the pattern of early civilizations seems to reflect a kind of convergent evolution, as they all came up with similar "solutions," and invented civilization.

Elites were something that only appeared with civilization, as they basically conquered the new civilizations and placed themselves atop them. A hunter-gatherer religion was what the founder group left Africa with, and with civilization came professions, and the professional priesthood repressed the hunter-gatherer religion with a new one which deified the elite, among its other functions, such as lining the priesthood's pockets. In Sumer, there was no readily available stone, so the first monumental architecture was made from earth, and the ziggurat was born. Where stone was more available, then the monuments to the elite were made from stone, such as Egypt, Mesoamerica, and along the Andes. In the Eastern Woodlands of North America, once intensive maize cultivation took hold, the same pattern was observed, with an exploding population, agricultural surplus, professions and elites appearing with the surplus, and like in Sumer, there was no readily available stone, so the Mississippian culture erected earthen mounds, which were monuments to the elite, as a form of display.

But that agricultural intensification was never really sustainable, as it relied on deforestation and soils that were continually reused. All early civilizations quickly burned through the local forests and soils and collapsed. Some, like China and Egypt, had a geographical situation whereby their methods were relatively sustainable, as upriver deforestation and devastation brought fertile soils downstream, and while the soils lasted, so did the civilizations, but such practices are never going to be sustainable. The rise of fossil fuels gave Earth's forests a respite in industrial nations, although nations such as Japan and even the USA now plunder the forests of poor nations.

The Mississippian culture took a familiar trajectory, and was in decline when the de Soto entrada devastated it. By 1600, the Mississippian culture was gone. Most of the original American colonies were not established where Mississippian culture had existed, but the horticultural societies familiar to the English invaders, from Virginia to New England, were primarily matrilineal, which was a big part of their appeal.

Back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

If that were true, that civilizations began building monuments to the elite , one would expect the level of sophistication to have increased, not decreased as it seems evident it did. The further back in time a monument or building or wall was built, the better its design. There seems to be no explanation for this. How do you see this riddle, or is there even one...?

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Rebel:

When you say, "the further back in time," the furthest back for all instances of monumental architecture that I am aware of were built when the new elite were at their peak influence in their new civilizations, whether it was Egypt or the New World. In fact, in Egypt, the necropolis at Giza was preceded by pyramids, so a rise and fall of craftsmanship and quality can be seen. An agricultural surplus meant the development of professions, and the when the civilization collapsed (always due to running out of energy), it was the end of professions, "spare" labor to erect them, and the societies lost their collective skills and not only did not have the skills to build those monuments any longer, but there was no purpose, as there was no civilization, no elites, and no professions. By the 1700s, the Indians of the Southeast had forgotten who built the mounds of the Mississippian culture. It was no longer even a memory. The ruins of Classic Mayan society, which was highly sophisticated, were lost for many centuries before they were rediscovered, and the Mayans of Cortes's time were largely peasants who hid in the jungle. Heck, take Rome, where people lived among the ruins for centuries. Europeans incredibly still use Roman aqueducts and other infrastructure.

After droughts ended Egypt's Old Kingdom, monuments like those of the Giza acropolis were no longer built. They were built in a "Golden Age" century of agricultural surplus, draftable labor, and an elite whose bluff had not yet been called. Before those droughts that ended the Old Kingdom, the pharaohs were portrayed as divine beings whose primary "job" was interceding with the gods and assuring an ample Nile flood. When the Old Kingdom ended in those droughts, the elite could no longer claim godlike powers, and subsequent pharaohs were far more modest and characterized themselves as able administrators. The Middle Kingdom monumental architecture was inferior to that built in the good old days of the Old Kingdom. The Golden Age was over.

I will agree that post-Golden Age architecture was often inferior to the Golden Age, but that sure does not need to invoke ET or technologically advanced civilizations. One of the common reactions that I have seen toward the ruins of those vanished civilizations is observers remarking on how the hell anybody built such stuff in the middle of deserts and jungles, and they began invoking all sorts of fantastic scenarios. The civilizations themselves made those deserts, and when the civilization collapsed, the stonework was the only thing to last for those intervening centuries or millennia.

Again, I have seen many amateur archeologists and fringe types invoke ETs, Atlantis, etc., but in every instance that I have looked into, those theorists ignored the trajectories of the civilizations that built those monuments and why those monuments are today in deserts or buried in jungles. Some definitely collapsed because of other reasons, such as Incan civilization and architecture, which ended with the Spanish conquest, as well as in the Valley of Mexico, but the ruins of Teotihuacan provided mute evidence of the impermanence of such civilizations. In fact, Montezuma made an annual pilgrimage to Teotihuacan as a reminder of how ephemeral civilizations were.

If there is an example that falls outside of dynamics like those, I do not know what it is.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

I wasn't evoking Et influence, really. I was thinking that perhaps these ancient buildings that exhibit higher levels of craftsmanship might be the last remnants of civilizations from the dawn of time. I'm thinking divergent civilizations, each taking a similar trajectory and finally breaking down due to their own hubris and greed. Civilizations could come and go in a few hundred years. Our modern world itself has roots arguably only 500 or so years, for instance.

Just a thought.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This is probably my last post for the day, before I go help care for an invalid relative. What those early civilizations did, as they deforested the land and grew crops on the soils, was reduce their resilience. Intact forests and soils provided a store of wealth, and as forests and soils were depleted by civilization, it ate into the "energy bank" that was available. All early civilizations lived off the "savings," not the interest. The same can be said for today's industrial civilization, which is burning through its primary energy supply a million times as fast as it was created.

When societies burned through their primary energy supplies like that, whether they were megafauna, forests, soils, or hydrocarbons, they reduced their resilience, and eventually, relatively minor shocks, such as droughts, could collapse them. This is thought to be the same dynamic for mass extinctions, as increasingly rickety food chains collapsed.

This is an important concept to understand. And, as can be seen, it was the relative energy level, not the absolute level, which did them in. Whether it is running out of easy meat, forests, food, or oil, it was whatever that society's primary energy source was. And, of course, it was hard to go backwards, and going backwards usually meant a population collapse, to get back to those lower energy levels. That is what the Peak Oilers are talking about.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Rebel:

I am about to walk out the door. Scientists today see the "dawn of time" as being nearly 14 billion years ago, and I am sure you did not mean that. The dawn of Earth was 4.6 billion years ago, the dawn of complex life was about 600 million years ago, and the dawn of Homo sapiens was about 200 thousand years ago. The development of humanity and societies has been pieced together rather well by scientists, IMO, and the trajectories of civilizations have been getting charted. As always, it was an energy game, and societies collapsed when they ran out of energy, and we are in the early stages of collapse of industrial civilization today.

Greed and hubris have always characterized elites, and I live in today's most arrogant nation, which is history's richest and most powerful, so I get the hubris and greed part, but it is running out of energy and declining surplus time (for developing skills) and quality materials to produce fine "craftsmanship" that caused the declines that you note. It can even be seen in societies that built their palaces out of wood, such as Minoan civilization.

It was not greed and hubris as much as it was running out of energy, although greed and hubris definitely blinded the people as to what they were inflicting and where it was headed, which we can see today, with nearly the entire planet in denial of where we are headed, and fast.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

Just loved your last few posts!

Could I say that this is a big issue such as with evangelicals and the New Age religionists but of course your examination of the science I am sure is very sound and one must admit as I did that looking to ancient works of literature is not historical science as you quite clearly put it in your posts...

I am in humble agreement since I was of the opinion that ancient texts of all sorts were a sort of historical record and those notions according to all relevant experts have shown these notions to be false....

Wade, to the question you asked me about the Post Office and "going postal" after some thought I will try my best to answer you!

My first job at usps was the "LSM" machine some would say that it was slavery but there was much more to it than the work.

The clerks that did that job felt a bit above the rest of the others in that it was really highly skilled to do it correctly and so we felt elite in a way....

The process of our replacement was difficult:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nw0SF7Z-Xo

This is modern tech not the "LSM" machine and of course nothing changed since a human was still needed and the work force was downsized but a funny thing happened as the workforce got "right sized" the wages started dropping just as we did what we promised to raise the productivity and we were promised a share as selfish as that sounds....

And so as the tech improved we needed less humans and the question is where did that surplus go to?

Hell if I know...

A once proud "in group" member downgraded to the new "out group" the boomer retiree...

Now we are told that austerity is good for us....

Did the postal machines incite the killings?

Me thinks that it is a symptom of a greater infliction or challenge...

thanx Wade...

Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Thanks Nine:

I rarely watch videos, but enjoyed that one.

In a world of scarcity, humans are simply resources to be used, preyed upon, etc. Yes, you get promises so that you jump through the hoops, but the goodie often does not materialize.

We are trained from a young age to believe that we are being fed the truth. It is far from confined to religion, however, but it is in the "news," the history we are taught, etc. The fairy tales told about George Washington and Christopher Columbus have less excuse than the Bible. Heck, even the science texts have fairy tales in them. Science at least has an ideal of independently reproducible evidence, even if it is tossed aside often enough, and technologies that turn the physics texts into cave drawings are sequestered. The lies come from all directions, and are designed to create scarcity-based ideologies – religions, if you will – designed to control what people think, so they can be exploited. This is universal, in a world of scarcity, and is one of my primary messages, and the only solution that I know of is to end scarcity. That is really the point of my work.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

To expand on my reply to Nine, and none of this will be new to my readers, but the entire purpose of my life's work is to help this world come into being and avoid this one. It is far easier said than done.

I was blessed to be born with talent, and had training and otherworldly guidance as I followed my heart (1, 2), and had experiences that almost nobody can even believe happened, no matter how well they are documented. By age 30, I was an accomplished mystic and grizzled veteran of the free energy pursuit, as I had my head handed to me. My big surprise was not that free energy, antigravity, and related technologies are on the planet and likely older than I am, but that personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity. You could not have convinced me of that when I turned 21, but I had it beaten into my head in no uncertain terms by age 30. That my own mother, who raised me to be a Golden Boy, actually made a scrapbook of the libelous articles written about my life's work and took it on tour to my friends, family, and investors was a trivial footnote of what I lived through during my days of awakening. As my former partner admitted to me recently, he has been hurt more by his allies than his enemies during his preposterous journey. Their betrayals were shocking for me to witness for the first 20 times or so (it took my partner 50 times for the shock to wear off), but then I got used to it. It is just who humanity is at this time.

But I found some others like me, and that voice in my head guided me to the two most important ones in my journey, but I do not want to hear from the voice anymore. I carried the spears for another fellow traveler and gained more education from his ride as the Paul Revere of free energy. After riding for several years, when he had access to the highest levels of science, academia, and "progressive" organizations, he openly wondered if humanity was a sentient species, and I sadly understood.

A few years later, I was able to generalize what we were encountering: a world of frightened, egocentric people who were addicted to the scarcity-based frameworks that fed and comforted them. It was just the outcome of people not caring for anything beyond the immediate self-interest. I live in the nation that is the greatest force of evil in Earth today, and somehow my fellow citizens believe that we are some great force of light, and no amount of contrary evidence can shake their blind faith. It was initially shocking to see, but was just another variation on how people simply do not care.

My plan will only work if I can find enough people who care. They do not have to play the hero, as my former partner has, but they have to care enough to pursue the truth in a world of universal deception.

My big essay that I finished last year was the culmination of a lifetime of experience and study, and it will form the cornerstone of my further efforts to help humanity turn the corner. It will not take many people to accomplish my goal, but those people are going to be needles in haystacks, at less than one-in-a-thousand in the general population, which is why the social circle and other approaches have never worked for bringing history's most transformative technology to humanity. For every Epochal Event in the human journey, nobody could imagine it before it happened, but for this one, I am trying to find enough people who can lay aside their conditioning long enough so that they can. That is essentially what my work is about, as people cannot pursue something that they cannot even imagine, particularly when the entire system is rigged against them imagining it, much less pursuing it.

There is no use judging the sleeping and egocentric masses, but when they can experience abundance instead of scarcity, an unprecedented awakening and healing of humanity will beckon. They will not be talked or enticed into it. A tiny fraction of humanity will need to carry the ball until the rest are able to. That is the framework that informs my approach, but I am not asking anybody to risk their lives. I have witnessed far too many wrecked and prematurely ended lives, and do not want to be responsible for any more, and the free energy effort does not need any more martyrs.

Time for chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am between chores. Where to find those people who can be in the choir? That is the hard part. The curriculum is there. The plan is there, in as much detail as is appropriate at this stage, but the classroom is largely empty. Again, in the end, it comes down to people who really care, and for what I am doing, it means that people have to relinquish much of what they think they know, and that is not easy. When I staggered out of my home town in 1990, I realized that there was likely very little of what I was taught about how the world works that was accurate, and then I began to try understanding how it really worked.

I was already a veteran mystical initiate, and I saw the grim spectacle of the Southern California New Age scene, with its gurus and their harems, mystical hucksters and their gullible and narcissistic followers, and so on. My experiences informed me that the mystical side of the house was far from a big delusion, but oh, was it ever abused by people, and there were fakers.

I had already received both barrels of how the media lies, and that was after reading the newspaper daily for 20 years, but my media studies were probably my first "alternative" activities after I staggered away from home. I cast a critical eye at everything. When I found something that seemed credible, I spent a long time going through the sources and checking it out for myself. That is partly how I built my 2,000-book library, as I daisy-chained from one source to another. Some scholars earned my great respect, while others failed to.

My family went "health nut" when I was 12, which was really my first exposure to the unorthodox, and I witnessed how it could perform seeming miracles. Forty years later, The Establishment has now embraced heretical notions that it once banned. But I also exposed the lies of my second and generally final influence on matters of holistic health. I had already experienced the Medical Racket at work, and that was the other early area of study which I began in 1990, when I learned of Rife, Naessens, and alternative paradigms in biology and medicine. Were they right? I have never seen them fairly treated by The Establishment, so it can be hard to say, but their tools were most impressive, which The Establishment to this day has refused to use. That is not a very scientific approach.

My media studies expanded to history pretty quickly. They were related, as the news is often called the first draft of history. I found that the lies were more of omission than commission, but reality could still be turned upside down by artful framing of the issues.

I also began to study what could be called fringe science areas, and I suppose that alternative medical paradigms were one of my earliest areas of study, but I began poking into areas such as the moon landings, studying the "skeptics," and because my life's work was wiped out by what appeared to be an international conspiracy, and a friend who helped bust my partner from jail knew a few weeks after the JFK assassination that it was not performed by a lone gunman, I also began to dive pretty deeply into conspiratorial issues. During those early days of study and investigation, I also met a man whose spears would eventually carry, who was a scientist-astronaut and whose life was shortened when he poked his nose into the UFO issue. The UFO and free energy cover-ups are related, and that combined effort comprises history's greatest cover-up.

But I discovered that the cover-up was really not the problem. I discovered that the masses react to the very idea of free energy and abundance with denial and fear, from the dimmest to the smartest of us. That is the primary problem, not organized suppression. Also, many people on the fringes have adopted a conspiracist orientation, and that is a stunted view of how the world works and looks at the world through a victim's lens.

As I tracked the "skeptical" career of Carl Sagan, I stumbled into the Velikovsky controversy, and 20 years later, I am still on the fringes of it. I soon began to realize that syntheses such as Velikovsky produced were not easy to assess. When Albert Einstein died, the only book open on his desk was Velikovsky's. But many years of study later, I do not see that much, if any, of Velikovsky's hypothesis is valid. Literalist interpretations of ancient texts is a shaky way to reconstruct the past, but Velikovsky was far from alone, as literal interpretations of some of the world's earliest writings were used to support ideas for another plant in our solar system on an orbit that lasts millennia and is inhabited by humanoids that have profoundly influenced the human journey. Scientists and historians can find very little support for literalist interpretations of such writings. Those writings are largely myths with maybe grains of truth in them here and there, but have not only been used as the basis of organized religions, but hypotheses that aspire to being scientific.

My astronaut colleague had his mystical awakening performing the same exercise that gave me mine, and he never really returned to orthodox science's fold. He not only had his life shortened when he looked into UFOs, but his former-astronaut status saw him get sucked up into many fringe controversies, such as the Face on Mars and the subject of faked moon landings.

He and I discovered over the years that there is a great deal of chaff on the fringes. Many of the fringe proponents, to be charitable, were hucksters, while others simply did not have the discernment to apply rigor to the issues, to determine their validity, and an uncritical audience lapped it up, really no different than how the masses lap up their indoctrination. Some people have made careers for themselves promoting fringe topics, and others have made careers out of attacking the legitimate aspects of the fringes on behalf of the rackets, and there is a great deal of disinformation out there, purveyed by various parties for various purposes. It all comprises a minefield that few can navigate.

People cannot credibly accept an alternative position if they do not really understand what the orthodox one is, but those promotional hucksters play to lay audiences who cannot discern the merits or limitations that can be appreciated when both hypotheses are considered, along with the attendant evidence. Pasteur made his reputation by playing to the lay audience, as did Sagan. A scientific approach can be very helpful for winnowing the wheat from the chaff, but almost nobody has ever really taken that approach. Most people on the fringes either accept all fringe pronouncements as canon or spend their lives debunking all of it, but those debunkers are some of the most dishonest and incompetent individuals that I have encountered, particularly for people who allegedly represent the voice of reason and honest investigation.

Where are the people who love the truth? They virtually do not exist on Earth, as almost everybody digs in with whatever beliefs feed and comfort them, and they are not about to budge. Scientists are also guilty of that failing all too often. Many times, while studying for writing my big essay, I found scientific authors informing their readers that while some kind of objective search for truth is the ideal, few scientists really practice it, as they hook their professional wagons to some scientific idea and go to their graves defending it, no matter how convincingly it has been falsified.

What I have found is that if we do not love the truth enough to be willing to be wrong, we are not going anywhere. This is the crux of what it will take to be in the choir, and I know that I seek needles in haystacks. The good news is that I am devoting the rest of my life's "spare" time to finding and training them, and I probably have another 30 good years ahead of me, knock on wood.

Back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Pre-choir Q&A:

Q: Wade, is there any good evidence that Earth's oil and gas deposits were not formed from organic marine sediments?

A: No, there is no good evidence. You seem to be referring to the abiogenic hypothesis of hydrocarbon formation. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the galaxy, due to star fusion dynamics, but the evidence is very strong that Earth's oil and gas deposits were formed from the remains of marine organisms.

In the 1940s, Stalinist scientists revived that old hypothesis, and it was also championed by Western scientist Thomas Gold, but improving tools (mass spectrometers and gas chromatography) showed that the carbon-12/13 ratios overwhelmingly supported the idea that at least 99% of natural gas (methane), for instance, has a biological origin.

One reason why I put world maps in my big essay is so that readers can see the Tethyan Oceans that were born and died during the eon of complex life. Most of the world's oil was formed in anoxic events during the reign of dinosaurs, along the shores of the Tethys, early Atlantic, and similar oceans. If you examine those world maps during the Jurassic and Cretaceous, you can see the shores of those tropical seas, and that is where the oil formed. The movement of the African and Arabian plates toward the Eurasian plate is what buried those Tethyan sediments into what became Middle East oil, North American oil was formed similarly, as are the Atlantic deposits off of and under South America, and so on. The geological processes have clearly shown how those oil deposits were formed. The abiogenic oil hypothesis has been dead in geological circles for a generation, but as with so many fringe topics, outdated hypothesis live on forever, it seems.

I have even seen similar arguments regarding coal formation, as "skeptics" of the orthodox hypotheses point to some coal formations that are thousands of feet thick, as if that proved that life forms could not have formed them. Those kinds of arguments betray an ignorance of the geological and life processes of the time. About 75% of the world's coal deposits were formed in the aptly named Carboniferous Period, and there were a few key dynamics for why the coal formed then, and why it stopped forming.

First and foremost, the world's first rainforests formed in the Carboniferous, and trees had a 100-million-year head start on the fungi that eventually learned to digest lignin. Once that fungus developed the ability to digest lignin, coal formation largely stopped. Also, that sequestering of carbon in the coal deposits led to the highest oxygen levels ever, which also reduced the carbon dioxide levels to the degree that it brought on an ice age that collapsed the Carboniferous rainforests.

As far as the deep layers of coal deposits, the Carboniferous Period transpired during the formation of the supercontinent Pangaea. When continents collide, plates come into contact and one will generally "win," and one plate will pass over another, which will get subducted. Those collisions are responsible for Earth's mountain ranges, and collided and subducted plates can get folded deeply. The Carboniferous coal swamps, as well as all marine sediments that became oil, were at the edges of the continents, which is why they got subducted like they did, and marine sediments or non-rotting trees could pile up for millions of years, as they kept sinking into the earth. This is how Middle East oil deposits and coal deposits from the edges of Pangaea could be so deep. Again, the abiogenic hypothesis of how those hydrocarbon deposits formed is in the wastebasket of scientific history.

To be sure, some scientists advise caution that abiogenic theories have not been absolutely disproven, but I consider that to be like the scientists who still challenge human agency in the megafauna extinctions, or the scientists who say that the climate change and other hypotheses have not been 100% disproven. That is a prudent caution, as scientists are too aware of hypothesis that are initially dismissed but then resurrected generations later, such as plate tectonics or endosymbiotic theory. But I will be very surprised if the abiogenic hydrocarbon formation hypothesis is ever revived to explain Earth's oil, gas, and coal deposits, or that humanity is going to be absolved in causing the megafauna extinctions, including all other human species. But like with faked moon landings and so many other fringe topics, there is a state of arrested development among amateur enthusiasts, as the same discredited evidence and hypotheses get recycled ad infinitum. I went deep in the moon landings evidence, and it has really been tiring to see the same "evidence" presented over and over, long after it has been very effectively falsified, as far as supporting arguments for faked moon landings. A great example of these delusions that never seem to die is that there is still a Flat Earth Society, and it is not a parody. People can believe almost anything, no matter how much evidence weighs against their cherished beliefs.

Science is ideally about doubt, not faith, but faith in a flat Earth (look at their model of how Earth really is shaped) seems highly misplaced. Unfortunately, many fringe topics have adherents that will go to their graves believing their pet theories that they think are scientific and proven. That lack of discernment is epidemic on the fringes. As I have written, scientists are also guilty of clinging to their pet hypotheses long after they have been falsified, so I am not picking on the fringes that much, but when robustly adduced evidence falsifies a hypothesis, it is time to discard the hypothesis.

Q: Wade, isn’t there evidence of technologically advanced civilizations that predate those that orthodoxy recognizes?

A: Not that I have ever seen, and it is kind of a continuation of the above question and answer. Professional scientists have pieced together quite clearly how the pristine civilizations developed, and how they arrived at the stage where they began to make megalithic monuments to the new elite. Elites only appeared with civilization, and megalithic architecture is generally considered to be a form of display. The progression has been clearly identified, from hunter-gatherers (who had long since exterminated the easy meat) to their wild gardens (generally a couple of millennia) to horticulture (when matrilineal societies likely developed), to intensive agriculture and the formation of urban environments (which also took some millennia), to the elite taking over those pristine civilizations, and then came the construction of monuments meant to solidify elite rule. In Sumer and the American Southeast, suitable stone was not available like it was in other civilizations, and they made structures of earth. In civilizations such as Egypt, Mesoamerica, and along the Andes, stonemasonry was an early profession, and those early monuments to the elite were made of stone.

But there is a fringe cottage industry that makes the case that ETs or unknown advanced civilizations built those megaliths, or the technologies used to build them were of some kind of advanced origin. I have not encountered any professional scientists who think that way, but the fringes are filled with amateurs who write grand yarns of ETs, Atlantis, and so on, who provided the technology and expertise to build the megalithic architecture. I do not buy those arguments, for a few reasons. One of which is that no evidence of any advanced materials or technology has even been adduced from the archeological record. None. If there were all sorts of advanced technologies brought to bear, I would expect that some would have turned up by now. I have heard rumors of classified digs intended to hide the evidence, but I have never seen anything substantial to support it. Stuff like Wingmakers was long ago discredited as a New Age hoax.

Again, there is an entire cottage industry of poseurs in pith helmets who have never been part of a professional dig but traipse around the world and allege that they found evidence of vanished advanced civilizations, etc. Thirty and forty years ago, I read stuff like that and was intrigued, but once I began digging into the professional findings, those ancient advanced civilization allegations began looking about as convincing as the arguments and evidence for faked moon landings. I have seen this repeatedly on my journey, as fringe enthusiasts want to bend my ear about some "finding" by those amateurs that proves that ET technology built the Giza acropolis, etc. There is actually a very famous instance when a professional archeologist became involved in studying Giza because of Edgar Cayce's work. When he began studying Giza, however, it soon became clear that Cayce's trance pronouncements had no relevance to the reality at Giza. That scientist runs the Giza Plateau Mapping Project today. Here is an interview with him. But you can find "Hall of Records" allegations all over the Internet today, as amateur "pyramidologists" and "Egyptologists" make breathless announcements of finding where the Hall of Records is, and the like, while accusing Egyptian authorities of a cover-up. It is reminiscent of the Sturm und Drang that still goes on over the moon landings. I strongly suspect that, as usual, it will once again be much ado over nothing.

In the end, there are extremely important issues to be resolved on Earth today, such as the fact that industrial civilization is burning through its primary energy sources a million times as fast as they were created. Compared to that, everything else is noise. All of that amateur enthusiasm for the hidden meaning of megalithic architecture is very misplaced, IMO. There are vastly more important issues to deal with today.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

Best post ever!

I should memorize it!


So much going on upon the alternate media to bad most of its fake and phony and more attempts to simply build more rackets....

I was watching a flick upon Netflix about Greg Lemond the only American winner of the Tour De France and of course its all a great stage play....

Its called slaying the badger sorry no highlights....

that american lemond is a stage play in himself...of course he is a conspiricist and his coach admitted such in the film..

of course to win a long bicycle race such as the tour a new stratagey was devised and that to pit team member against team member....

What is good and evil if the big picture is to win the game?

me thinks humanity understands the rules...

And so Wade when you get that choir going you will have it filled with the very best and so the other team will have little left to play the game well but of course your team does not believe that it can win...

what to do...


I could lead you to the science that led Greg Lemond to his victory the same science that his opponent got destroyed by in that TDF....

Wade, is it cheating if all the best players end up upon the same team?

and plus of course the best riders upon the planet at the time on the same team....

thanx



Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

The "winner" for what I am trying will be all of humanity (Godzilla won’t be thrilled at first, but almost everybody on Earth reacts to the idea of FE with denial and fear, so Godzilla is in good company), and yes, it has to be "the best" if it is going to have a chance of success. The pitfalls are just too great for anything other than people of high integrity. The perils and temptations are like nothing else on Earth. But I am not advocating the hero's journey, not at all. There simply are not enough heroes.

My previous post was partly made because I am running into a big problem on the fringes and choir recruiting. Probably number one is people not being brave enough to be real people. People have to rise above that level of fear if my effort is going to go anywhere. I regard the anonymous Internet culture as strange and the realm of cowards. I really do not know what people expect to accomplish that way. I suppose it is OK for chatter, but little else. Can you imagine scientific papers authored by "anonymous"? Or businesses run by people wearing masks? The Black Bloc "protestors" are a bunch of juveniles and deluded Young Warriors, for those who are not outright provocateurs.

But the other problem seems to be almost as big or even bigger. I have shown that many stories in the Bible are little more than fairy tales, and if people want to have their faith, even a blind faith, that is their right, but I cannot base my effort on faith. Even if Dennis were to arrive to be part of the choir, he would have to leave his Christian fanaticism at the door. If he wants to talk about that voice in his head, fine, but who knows who the voice was? I don’t know the identity of the one in my head, and I do not rely on it. It certainly possessed an omniscience that I do not have, but the last thing that I am going to do is base my effort around what some voice in my head says. That voice helped guide my adventure, but it was up to me to live it. The voice was real, but my work is not about "revelation."

The only reason why I bring up my friend's underground technology show is to point out that those exotic technologies are real. Greer's Disclosure Project witnesses are describing real technologies, and yes, they were likely at least partly developed from reverse engineering ET craft. I went to see UFOs for myself and was not disappointed. What the ET motivation is is hard to say, but I have my suspicions. No matter, I do not believe that it is the "Space Brothers'" job to save us from ourselves. I report experiences such as Mark's, or Brian's, or mine in order to relate the reality of what working on the fringes is like. It is not for the faint of heart, and many of the conspiracy theories out there are in large measure true. John Kennedy was definitely killed by a conspiracy and the USA's government covered it up. You can take that to the bank.

But what I am getting a lot of is amateur enthusiast stuff that I have looked into and does not pass muster, particularly of a conspiratorial bent. Anybody who has really done their homework knows that the faked moon landings talk is just that, talk, and none of the faked moon landing evidence withstands much scrutiny. I was really disappointed that Brian did not do the work to satisfy himself that the moon landings largely happened as presented, with maybe some UFO cover-up stuff, which he knew well.

There is plenty to be suspicious of regarding 9/11, but many people have gone off the deep end on 9/11, and work such as Judy Wood's is highly speculative. In fact, her work is so speculative, and even misrepresents the evidence at times, that I wonder if she is not part of a disinformation effort. And when Jim Fetzer embraced it, that was almost enough for me to call it disinformation. Fetzer promoted some of the truly wacky Boston Marathon "evidence" in the week of the bombing (the bombings were fake, there were not really any victims of it, similar to the Sandy Hook craziness), which pretty much sealed the deal for me with Fetzer. He cannot be trusted on the "conspiratorial" front. I have had dealings with him, and people who embrace his work and use it as some guide likely cannot be part of the choir, or people who promote the idea of faked moon landings, and many other fringe topics that I have investigated and found wanting.

There is all manner of fringe stuff that just does not cut it, but I am besieged by people who promote it, such as Cremo's stuff, lots of "alternative" archeology that no professional takes seriously, and many "conspiratorial" topics that have about the tabloid level of support for them. If people cannot leave that stuff at the door, they cannot be part of what I am doing, and the fact that they embrace that stuff tells me how poor their powers of discrimination are. What I am doing cannot be full of people who believe whatever fancy story they hear. My story is exceedingly well documented, as is Brian's. I was Brian's biographer while he was alive, and Brian himself was led down the path more than once, but when he discovered that Hoagland was stretching the data on Cydonia, Brian largely disassociated himself from the Face and Cydonia issue before that 1998 image came back. There are hazards to having an open mind in today's world, especially on the fringes. An open mind is fine, but the powers of analysis and discrimination then need to be applied to new ideas. That is the virtue of the scientific method, and it is not easy to come up with new hypothesis or test them, but that is where the gold is, and what has made mainstream science as formidable as it is.

I don’t mind being challenged on the veracity of my experiences, or Brian's, but I have yet to see even one challenger do his/her homework. I have seen world-renowned debunkers take on Dennis and Brian, and their dishonesty and incompetence were breathtaking. They often just made it up as they went along, or engaged in irrationality that was stunning. World famous ones could not string two rational thoughts together, backed up by any evidence, and I have yet to see the "amateurs" do any better, and they have virtually all been anonymous cowards, too.

Many disciplines have tried to ape science, but they adopted the trappings, not the process, such as mainstream economics. Science certainly has its limits, both in its conception and how it works in practice, and for the vitally important issues, mainstream science has become irrelevant, largely due to the meddling of vested interests, with Godzilla at the top of that heap.

Another problem that I am encountering is FE newbies and enthusiasts who are stuck in the FE field's state of arrested development. Some are in deeper than others, but they have to let go of that stuff if they are going to get anywhere. People approach me who are already disappearing down the rabbit holes, and want to take me with them. Been there, done that! But they just cannot let go of what they think they know. Sigh. FE will be the biggest event in the human journey, by far, but the choir has to be comprised of members who have their powers of discrimination as well as imagination intact. One without the other will not cut it.

I clearly show, to anybody with powers of discrimination, that the dominant ideologies are founded upon the assumption of scarcity and are means of social control. It really does not take an Einstein to understand that. But that does not mean that all of the alternative frameworks out there are valid, either. There is a mountain of chaff for every kernel of wheat on the fringes, and I am somewhat sympathetic to mainstream scientists and scholars who reject it all outright. That is not the proper approach to take, and led to spectacles such as the Wright brothers flying through the air for five years before science was finally forced to accept the reality of man-powered flight, and Brian said that science is even worse today, and I believe it. But very little fringe stuff is as incontrovertible as opening one's eyes and watching a plane fly by. But I have also found that the denial and fear of the masses is so entrenched against FE that the only thing that will wake them up will be the equivalent of watching that plane fly by. Only when FE and abundance are delivered into their lives with they wake up and begin to understand. It does no good to judge them in their sleep, but they won't be awakened with talk. I know that I seek needles in haystacks, and the search for needles continues…

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Before I go hiking, I want to relate an important anecdote relating to FE. Again, the Wright brothers were ignored and ridiculed for five years after they first flew. In 1908, they accepted a challenge to publicly demonstrate their planes… in France. It is crazy that they had to leave the USA to be publicly recognized. But France was only slightly more open-minded than the USA was. There was actually a big crowd that arrived to watch the Wright brothers fly, but it was more to go to some kind of circus and jeer their failure than it was to really see them fly.

So, the festive and boisterous crowd was there to jeer and ridicule…and the plane flew. An eyewitness to that event described that moment: everybody there had a delighted shock. They stood there, awestruck, as the "impossible" happened before their eyes. Soon, multitudes arrived for subsequent flights, and the Wright brothers were global celebrities before they returned to the USA and finally had their feat accepted, after five years of denial and ridicule.

That is how it is going to be for FE. Of course, manned flight posed no immediate threat to any robber baron empires, so the Wright brothers were not bought out, sabotaged, murdered, etc., as happens with FE inventors who have the goods. So, the challenge for FE is far greater than what the Wright brothers faced. The world is in ignorance, denial, and fear of FE, and it will not be until the equivalent of the Wright brothers' French flight that the masses will begin to awaken. Not an easy nut to crack, but it will be the biggest event in the human journey.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

If Fe and ET are not fringe topics, I cannot understand how other areas are so firmly disputed. FE and ET open up a whole new can of worms. Together they shout conspiracy. Together, they point to a science and a history that has been withheld from us for maybe as long as we have been , arguably, sentient. FE and ET pretty much are the reason our world is in the state of arrested development that it finds itself in. Heck, FE and ET are also most likely the reason we have been conditioned to scarcity to the point we can't even dream of abundance. Fe and ET also demand a new physics and an entirely different approach to evolution. Fe and Et could also have influenced other phenomena that today we regard as natural processes, so that every area of white scientific study is in question. You cannot have our white science and FE and ET, they are mutually exclusive on many fronts.

Energy is the big game, I get that. It is where we should focus if we want a better way of life for ourselves and our children.

If FE and ET are true phenomena then white science has a lot of back-tracking to do, at the very least, and much of its tenets have to be revisited, revised and refocused.

Is this not so?

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Rebel:

No, FE, ETs and today's scientific findings or its process are not so mutually exclusive. I get the concern, but once again, the ideal of the process of science is a good one: come up with a bright idea after examining all the evidence, then try out that bright idea in the real world and see if it flies.

There are inherent problems, and the dual nature of light points to a big one right at the bedrock of our reality: how objective is it, really?

I happily admit that how life began on Earth is a mystery that may never be solved. Heck, in the news today are scientists who think that they know how life was seeded here by ETs.

We all live subject to gravity, the need to eat, and the like. And science is equipped to study those subjects. I have long stated that technologies that I am aware of turn the physics texts into doorstops, but does that invalidate the scientific process? Not in my opinion. Plenty is being covered up. I know that for a fact, but FE and electrogravity will not make the scientific process obsolete, and I doubt it will even make many scientific findings invalid, but many will be seen in a new light, just as has happened with all paradigm shifts.

Even if the ETs landed on the White House lawn and claimed that they were our ancestors, I would not expect anybody to accept such claims until those ETs had some DNA tests performed on them. I would not expect the scientific process or its findings to become entirely obsolete in the face of the ET presence or FE, but it would certainly be in for an overhaul of sorts, and radical in ways.

Would the story of evolution as told by scientists today become invalid? I highly doubt it. Darwin's idea of descent with modification is one of the most battle-tested theories in science, and I have yet to see any finding that contradicts it. But consciousness and evolution, that is another matter entirely, and the best scientists say that their methods cannot answer that question. Today's science has its limits, but the "skeptics" and materialists such as Sagan and Hawking have tried to turn science into a religion. In that, they have erred most grievously, which the true greats of science knew well.

Maybe the ETs somehow helped shepherd along the evolutionary process on Earth, but I have yet to see any instance when scientists reached a point where they said, "Here is where we come to the magical part, where only divine or ET intervention can explain it." I am currently reading Hans Thewissen's The Walking Whales and will report on it soon, which chronicles his discovery and research of the fossils that show how animals like hippos migrated to the oceans 50 million years ago and became whales (like archosaurs did more than 200 million years ago), which torpedoed one of the key areas that creationists long crowed about. Materialists and religious fundamentalists both miss the boat, but that does not invalidate the process of evolution.

Sparky Sweet is just one of many scientists who have written about FE physics, but Sparky had a gizmo that worked. Now, 4-D physics is damned hard to wrap one's mind around, but if the technology works and the inventor invokes 4-D physics, there may well be something to it.

I have long stated that the science of consciousness may be the greatest science of all, but it won’t make gravity an invalid phenomenon.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thanks Wade.

One last comment.

As cosmologists and others of that ilk have uncovered the vastness of space, the Standard Model has been under constant siege. To keep the theory intact has required some very interesting sleight of hand. In the heady days of cosmology the universe seemed to be getting brighter and larger as more sensitive instruments delved deeper and deeper into the depths of space. But as the findings began to counter the Standard Model, the universe began to look darker - and its enormous size to accelerate its rapid rate of expansion. Today, all that work, it has been realized, has focussed on less than 4% of the known universe. The rest of that universe is dark and unknown. What is known has not increased - it has decreased. But what is known, is known with a certainty usually reserved for religion and its fanatical branches.

96% of the universe is awaiting our perusal. We have no idea what to expect there.

Much like a world of abundance based on the principles of FE (an unending source of clean, cheap abundant energy).

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ernie (formerly rebel ):

Yes indeed, we hardly know anything, and the best scientists like Einstein happily admitted it (FE and electrogravity will definitely wreak havoc on the Standard Model). That is one reason why Einstein let Velikovsky, Reich, and Hapgood bend his hear. Einstein never bought Velikovsky's planetary billiards scenario, he rejected Reich's orgone idea (a ZPF idea) with questionable logic (of course, with Reich wiped out like he was, it is hard to continue investigations along those lines), and today would readily admit that Hapgood was wrong. That is supposed to be how science works. Einstein had big problems with quantum theory, even though it makes the most battle-tested predictions known to science. It was not enough to have accurate predictions: Einstein and Schroedinger wanted to know what was really happening, which the Copenhagen interpretation glossed over.

Is the universe expanding after a Big Bang? Beats me, and I look forward to the day when ETs can openly interact with humanity, and then we will be about to learn a whole lot more.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Attached is a photo taken today of one of the Christmas trees scattered across my favorite hiking mountain. Hikers pick a likely tree and decorate it. This one is only two miles in, less than the five miles of the one I went to for years, until some ranger-type removed the decorations.

The recent abiogenic oil and evolution topics on this thread spurred an observation. One thing that has made evolutionary theory so much more robust in my lifetime is molecular biology, not only for DNA testing, but scientists have been able to chart evolutionary paths, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. At the complex life level, they have been able to show that all changes happened bit by bit. There are no big evolutionary leaps. Even something like the formation of the complex cell happened piece by piece. When the canvass stretches for billions of years, there is no need to explain anything with explosive and miraculous change.

Similarly, petroleum geologists and others have investigated oil formation at the molecular level, which the abiogenic oil proponents have not really done, and have built an impressive case that the abiogenic proponents have not even challenged, regarding the molecules from organisms that find their way into forming oil.

These extensions of tools to the molecular level have only further vindicated Darwin and the organic theory of hydrocarbon formation. When people say that they reject the evolutionary process or they believe the abiogenic hypothesis for hydrocarbon formation, they have a huge body of work at the molecular level to overcome. I have not seen any of those people have the slightest bit of competency to credibly reject that body of scientific knowledge.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I have made clear many times, I am not a conspiracist. That does not mean that I deny that there are conspiracies, but that I do not see that elite machinations are really that powerful in the big picture. Godzilla's organization I imagine is less than 100,000 people, maybe far less, and humanity is more than 7 billion. They only have power because humanity is so easily manipulated. If people woke up, those elite games could not be played. I have suffered directly from those elite games, so I know that they exist.

Somewhat paradoxically, the number of people that I think are needed for my plan to work is around the same number that is in Godzilla's organization. There is probably something significant about that, but I am not sure what it is, other than the power of committed people, for either good or evil.

As my previous post gave a nod to evolutionary processes that can be traced in great detail today, I imagine that the evolution of Godzilla could be similarly charted. Elites are as old as civilization, and they all had similar MOs, which reflected a kind of convergent evolution, IMO. As with life on Earth, when civilizations collapsed, it was a kind of local mass extinction, and unless the elites found refugia, they went extinct, too. As I have stated, elites probably could not begin to think in global terms until Europe began conquering the world, and I am sure that there was plenty of competition between elites as they jockeyed for supremacy, similar to how European nations did. That capitalism, an ideology that elevated greed into a virtue, appeared with the rise of European empires is no coincidence. Godzilla is capitalism on steroids, as I discovered during my adventures. Godzilla has his refugia prepared in case his games make Earth uninhabitable, but what he fears the most is loss of control over humanity, and FE would collapse capitalism from the bottom up, and he knows it. This is why he is so actively mischievous on the FE front. That nightmare world that Roads visited only saw Godzilla's game honed to previously unimaginable levels. But once again, it was the masses that made that world possible, and Godzilla and friends were merely opportunists.

On an unrelated note, my NASA brat background, my association with Brian O, my moon landings studies, and my adventures in getting Brian's NASA bio published has brought me into contact with quite a few NASA types over the years. That famous astronaut who was assigned to work with me was initially a bit terse, but became warm and friendly during the process, and I was very pleasantly surprised at how humble and helpful he was. Since that experience, I have had other interactions with NASA people, and a few who worked in the Mission Control Room like my father did. That helpful astronaut was also CAPCOM on a number of missions, and one of my NASA contacts told me that during mission planning meetings at Mission Control, the CAPCOM was usually the humblest person in the room, as egos clashed (this was about a generation after my father worked there). My initial reaction was "Wow!", but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. It was similar to that leading paleontologist spending the day reading my big essay, unsolicited, and then informing me that it was one of the best efforts that he ever saw, or the kinds of responses that I have received from Uncles Howard, Noam, and Ed. The truly greats are great for a reason, and all the best that I ever encountered were humble and approachable. I would imagine that it had something to do with who they were, but I also imagine that it had something to do with the journey. I can imagine that being strapped on top of a rocket like that must be a humbling experience. Time to watch some Star Trek with the wife.

Best,

Wade