WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

What I am seeing a lot of these days, which is a hazard of the fringes, is that people cannot distinguish the wheat from the chaff, and for what I am doing, people need to leave the chaff at the door.

I regularly encounter people who know nothing about archeology, for instance, but their introduction to the subject is some fringe work on "lost civilizations" or "Giants on Earth" or "Tales of Atlantis," and that becomes their orientation to the issue. They never digested one work on those subjects by professional scientists, historians, or scholars, but have lapped up some fringe work that they then orient their perspective around. That is a quick and easy way to becoming deluded, and I see that I am going to have to write a series of posts, which I will also post to my forum, on the process that I went through over the past 50 years or so, so people can see how I came to my views and how people can productively navigate the fringes and not disappear into the many rabbit holes that await amateurs and newcomers. I watch people disappear into them all the time, and they invite me to go diving in there with them, and it is often in areas where I already dove long ago, or it looks very similar to what I dove into long ago, and they almost never heed my cautioning words as they jump in with both feet, never to be seen again.

I need to start back at the beginning, so the trajectory of my learning experiences becomes clear. It is not the only way to learn, but it was how I learned. As I have stated, I was a bookworm from the time that I could walk, and was recognized as gifted from the time I began school, and had my IQ measured pretty regularly in grade school, and once by a psychologist to get into the gifted programs of Johnson's Great Society programs. I was always measured in the genius range, but on the "low" end of it, not the Einsteinian 160 and above, but more like the 140-150 range. I have known numerous 150-170 range types. I can pretty quickly tell when somebody is smarter than me, and I regularly deferred to their intelligence on various matters. It can be an amazing experience to be around minds like that. I have about a one-in-1,000 IQ, so it is not easy to meet people smarter than me, but in my professional life and in other areas I have encountered them, and I can definitely see the advantages of those lofty IQs. That high intelligence did not make them saints, and I watched people abuse their intelligence to play with the minds of others, and that can be the dark side of intelligence. People who do that are probably setting themselves up for future lives as idiots. Any talent abused that way can lead to many lifetimes of penance. So-called "intelligence" is far from the be-all, end-all, but as with any other human trait, talent can be useful.

What I also noticed was that those Einsteinian types had difficulty in conversations with average people. I have my challenges with that, too, but I could tell that for them, talking to "normal" people could be like trying to have a conversation with a dog, and sometimes they saw me as a relatively smart dog that they could kind of converse with. Given enough time, I usually eventually understood what they meant, and it could mean spending time digesting math, such as algebra and calculus. Because I am a lot closer to "normal" than those Einsteinian types, I seem to be able to connect with lay audiences a little better than they can. That is partly why I do my public writings.

I got my brains from my father, who is a lot smarter than me, and when he was recruited to work in Mission Control in the Space Race, I was being recognized in the schooling system as a chip off the old block, and I had training and opportunities that few children enjoyed, and I can only be appreciative. From the third grade onward, I was specifically trained to become a scientist. I just searched my Avalon thread and did not see where I discussed it, so here goes.

My parents were born and raised in Bellingham, Washington, and my father never traveled more than 10 miles from his home until he was 16, and in that kind of isolation, he ended up marrying a women whom he knew from age six, and her IQ was about half of his. That kind of situation is rarely seen in the West anymore, if ever, and that wide gap in IQs made for some interesting dynamics in my immediate family, with three geniuses and two people whose IQs are well under 100. Intelligence has therefore been a family theme. While I was being trained to become a scientist (I read every paleontology book in my grade school's library by the fifth grade), my mother, with an IQ of around 90, was a TV addict, and every week when she went shopping for the family groceries (she was a full-time housewife in those postwar boom days), she brought home the National Enquirer. While my father read a book a day while growing up, my mother bragged that she graduated from high school and never read even one book. When she had to do book reports, she would read the first and last chapter and fake it. My parents were on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I read the local newspaper daily beginning about age nine or ten, and did so into my thirties (until I discovered that the National Enquirer actually had more journalistic integrity than the mainstream media did ), but I also read that National Enquirer that my mother brought home, too, and I avidly read the Guinness Book of World Records. While I always hated rote memorization, I could recite most of the records in that book from memory, and many of them are still lodged in my memory today. A near-photographic memory also runs in my family, and I got that, too. I have only met one person in my life whose memory I know is better than mine, and his is the legendary kind, such as for many years, you could name any date on the calendar for the previous 40 years of his life (after age five or so) and he could tell you what he was doing that day, in detail. I did not read the National Enquirer for the celebrity gossip, but for all the fun facts in it. By age 12, I was also reading Ripley's Believe it or Not and I still have two "Strange" books by Frank Edwards from my childhood.

On one hand, I was being raised to be a scientist, but I had a mother bringing home tabloids. As I look back, I can see the strange incongruity of that. I had those Boy Scout traits since birth, and all of my friend's parents kind of adopted me as another son, and that happened all the way into college. When I was 13, a friend's father, who was a nuclear scientist, had his son take me to task for reading the National Enquirer. The basic message was that nothing in the National Enquirer could be called reliable, like the Guinness Book of World Records was, so why was a smart boy like me reading that kind of unreliable material? I remember it being kind of a shock to hear that. I was not really shamed to stop reading the National Enquirer, but that approach of it being unreliable worked with me, and I stopped reading it at age 13. As I look back, I wonder why my father did not do that with me, first, but he was busy with his career and probably saw that as a battle that he could not fight, so it was up to a friend's parent to finally set me straight.

But I still read Ripley's and Frank Edwards. At age 12, however, I was introduced to health alternatives, and my parents had me read the book that really opened me up to alternatives, on how diets affected health, and our family went "health nut" so that my father would not succumb to a heart attack, as his father recently had. Nearly 45 years later, I still largely follow that regimen. The booklet that changed my life was banned in the USA in the 1980s, and it has been interesting to see the medical establishment now embrace what it previously banned, in The Land of the Free.

In summary, I had this curious mixture of scientific training, tabloids, healthy amounts of TV, (my father never watched TV, nor did he read tabloids), and being introduced to an alternative health regimen that worked to cure my father. At age 15, I began high school, and from then until college graduation was my life's happiest stretch of time, which lasted eight years. In ways, it was the calm before the storm.

Not only was I in training to be a scientist, a world-class inventor took me under his wing and I even helped build some of his contraptions. One of his many inventions was hailed as the world's best engine for powering an automobile. At age 16, I got my first dream of changing the energy industry, during the USA's first energy crisis. I was awakened in more ways than one at age 16, but I want to back up for a moment to when I was 15. Just before I turned 15, Comet Kohoutek was sighted, and it was predicted to be a big one. That summer before high school, I somehow obtained what I have to call the first New Age book that I ever read, which predicted all sorts of amazing changes that would accompany the comet's passing. I did a book report on it in my English class in the first month or so in high school. The teacher questioned the credentials of the author, and I recall being taken aback a little by the questioning. Of course, Kohoutek fizzled out, none of those New Age predictions happened (although it coincided with the end of the most prosperous period in world history, in history's richest and most powerful nation, and the energy crisis probably began the same month that I gave that book report; hmmm). That was my first experience with grand New Age pronouncements that failed to pan out.

That Kohoutek experience was probably my first like that, and I began to take a no-nonsense approach to such stuff, stopped reading Ripley's and Frank Edwards, and began the math/science curriculum in high school and was once again recognized as a prodigy. I got my first job that sophomore year of high school, and just after I turned 16, my parents sent me to Europe for two months, against my wishes, and I had the summer of my life. Two months in Europe was one hell of a cultural awakening for me, and I returned with pretty much my adult mind. My parents treated me like an adult after that. After I came back was also when I began dreaming of changing the energy industry.

I was really beginning to advance along the math/science path in my junior year of high school (I was in my first year of chemistry class, and I was extremely gifted in that area, as in teachers and fellow students who eventually obtained doctorates in chemistry wondered if I would win a Nobel Prize one day)…until that fateful day when my father and brother said that they could read my aura. The next month, the entire family took Silva Mind Control and I had those incredible experiences with remote viewing. While I was able to nail my "cases," the moment that changed my life forever was when that woman held up her hand and described the missing end of Isaac Brown's index finger. When that happens, you know. Nobody can ever take away the knowledge gained by experiencing events like that, and until you have experiences like that, you will not know. Five years later, Brian O'Leary had a similar experience performing the same exercise that I did, and he was forever after wrecked as a mainstream scientist. He could no longer drink the materialist Kool-Aid. Many years later, during my FE adventures, I discovered that my fellow travelers that I respected the most all had similar experiences: they were all scientists or scientists-in-training before they had their mystical awakening, usually in their late teens or early twenties. Brian was a relative latecomer in my circle, not having his awakening experience until his late thirties.

After having that dramatic mystical awakening, I became quite the mystical student. I never read fiction until my father handed me The Hobbit just after I turned 14, and I became a huge science fiction fan in high school, and even wrote a short story and submitted it in a competition. While I was pretty much straight A's from first grade through college, the only A+ that I ever officially received was in my science fiction class in my senior year in high school. The second and last book that my father handed me to read was Richard Bach's Illusions, and during my late teens, I was studying math and science by day and reading Richard Bach's work, Seth, and The Aquarian Gospel by night. I was working, dating, a track star, with my own car, and living large in those days.

While I assumed that I would become a scientist, I really did not know what kind, but I ate chemistry up and imagined that I was going be some kind of chemist. My father retired on a medical disability when I was a junior in high school, and the thought of college costs was kind of daunting, and here is more of my background that is relevant. My mother's side was all Scandinavian and migrated from Sweden and Norway in the late 19th century, as part of that migration boom that filled a "virgin" continent.

My family name can be traced to Scotland in the 1730s, and they were Quakers early on, and that is where my bookish heritage comes from. But my paternal grandmother's side is where I have most of my Indian blood (nearly an eighth) and that is also where my hillbilly/redneck heritage comes from. Most of my relatives from that side of my family were classics: none of them graduated from high school, the women were all pregnant by age sixteen, and the men all worked blue collar jobs, for the ones who did not go to prison for crimes such as armed robbery and murder. For all of my father's high IQ, he was a redneck, and I was also steeped in racism while growing up, and it is the most shameful part of my upbringing. I left home at age 21 unthinkingly spouting racist garbage, and I did not start getting called on it until my roommates at the university began asking me what barn I had been raised in. I put it behind me pretty quickly, and it eventually became like going into a time warp when visiting home. I would go an entire year without even hearing a racist slur until ten minutes after I returned home and my father would begin telling racist "jokes" about blacks and Mexicans. I do not want to pick on my father too much, as the USA is history's most racist nation. In those days, there were best-selling American joke books that targeted Polish, black, Mexican, gay, and virtually every ethnic and racial group in the USA. My youngest brother got the short end of the intelligence stick from my parents' genetic roulette. While he also got a nearly photographic memory, his IQ is around 75, his favorite reading material is tabloids, just like his mother, and he went my father one better and joined the Ku Klux Klan and other racist organizations. He even got in trouble with the FBI because of his activities, and his "friends" even tried to kill him to prevent him from testifying in a landmark federal case against his racist organization, and my father was put in the position of having to tell his son that he was taking racism too far, which may have cured my father of some of his racism. My brother once even lived with me while the FBI was looking for him (when I lived with Dennis and his family).

Part of that quasi-redneck upbringing was being indoctrinated into thinking that I would not quite be a man unless I had been a soldier, and mostly for the free college, I applied and was nominated by my congressman for a slot at the Air Force Academy. I would have been a shoo-in. Thank God my mother was looking out for me and had my father talk me out of it.

That is all part of my upbringing, both the good and the bad. I had a world-class throwing arm (I got that from my father) and could have probably pursued professional athletics, as some of my pals did, but I was also a nerd. If I had not been an athlete, I would probably be a classic nerd. My father was a genius redneck nerd.

I attended the local community college and I had my wakeup call that caused me to give up the final bad habit that I got from my mother: watching television. I was raised on Gilligan's Island and the rest of that 1950s-1960s fare, was raised near LA and even went to a child actor audition, and acted in high school (another Artisan soul talent that I could have pursued professionally, as some of my acting pals did). I thought that I "needed" to get in my 20-30 hours of TV per week. That was not going to fly with my collegiate math-science curriculum. When I flunked a calculus test, I realized that something was wrong with that picture, gave up TV for a month to get my grades up, and never went back. After a month away from TV, I could not see the point in wasting my time with that insipid drivel. It is well-known that men's physical fitness gets no better than when they are between 18 and 22, which is why they become soldiers. As I look back, I can tell that my mental powers peaked when I was in college. It has been a long, slow decline since then. I have certainly learned plenty since then, but my "CPU" was operating at peak power back then, and I never got inebriated until my 22nd birthday (and subsequently had a battle with the bottle for 20 years, gave up drinking when I was 42, and will never have a drop again). My mother and her mother went demented in their old age, and so has most of my father's side, and I partly took a career break to write my big essay while I still could do it. I know that I will not write its like again in this lifetime, and I am fine with that. I probably would not be capable of writing it in another decade. The peak of my writing "career" is over.

In my second year of college, I came to my first existential crisis (my second and so far last was my nightmare of a midlife crisis), as I began to realize that spending a career in a chemistry lab did not look like fun. I was in my third year of chemistry studies (at the top of my class, as usual), but one day I really took in the lab, my instructor, what we were doing, and decided that I did not want to do it. Up until that moment, I had never questioned that I would be a scientist, but if I abandoned my chemistry studies, then what? I began dropping my math and science classes, losing all enthusiasm for them, and one night, after months of growing disillusionment and frustration, I prayed for guidance with all my might. Even though I was quite the mystical student by then, I did not know if anybody would hear me and respond, but that voice in my head spoke up for the first time and suggested that I study business. I did not even know what studying business meant, but I was instantly enthused and the rest is history.

I went from being the chemistry prodigy to the accounting prodigy. As I look back, I can tell that the "guidance" that I was receiving was a lot more than that voice, and I can tell that I was being led down the path to what I became. Although I tried with all my might to avoid it, I ended up in Los Angeles in 1983, worked in Skid Row for six months, and had the three unhappiest years of my life. I went from record test scores in college to being fired from my first job to regularly being told that I was stupid in my LA job, and my career was not on an auspicious trajectory. What a brutal, worthless profession.

I can now clearly see that it was part of my "training." After three years of growing professional frustration and disillusionment, I prayed for guidance for the second and so far last time in my life, the voice came through again, and the rest is truly history. My years with Dennis are when I received my true education. Everything that happened in my life before then was just a warm-up. There is no way that I could ever properly relate what it was like, probably similar to how a soldier cannot really make a civilian understand what combat is like. I learned lessons with Dennis that would probably take 50 or so "normal" lifetimes to learn. While so much of the journey in those years was horrifying and I will always be recovering from those days, I kept my eyes and mind open the entire time, bringing all of my awareness to the issues we faced. It is one thing to think about stuff like that, but living it is something entirely different, which is partly why I say that people need some kind of awakening experience before my work will begin to make much sense to them.

This post is a warm-up for what I learned after my initial stint with Dennis, but during my days with Dennis, we were playing not only the applied science game, but were developing and bringing disruptive energy technologies to market. That has been Dennis's goal since I met him, and he is still incredibly at it, even after being run out of his home nation, as Brian also was. Two flag-saluting "patriots" were run out of their home country, in The Land of the Free.

I really could write for days on my life up until I staggered out of my home town, radicalized, but wanted to give some background to set the stage for my later studies, and this will have to do for now.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This is part two of what will likely be several posts. When I followed Dennis out to Boston, I did not even know how his heat pump worked. When Dennis began talking FE, I soon became his partner and brought in Mr. Mentor to check out what we were doing. Was it feasible? Mr. Mentor was not quick to call it impossible, and eventually proposed marrying his engine to Dennis's heat pump to do FE. A few months later Victor Fischer came aboard with his own hydraulic heat engine, and we began building a prototype of his engine when we were raided. While all that was happening, I was the controller, and helping run the business took all of my time and then some.

I really did not begin studying the feasibility of the technologies until everybody was chased off, Dennis was in solitary confinement, and I planned to help brief any expert witnesses that my money could bring in. I then obtained the patents for Mr. Mentor's and Fischer's engines and performed some archival research. When my quixotic gesture miraculously busted Dennis from jail (we all knew it was divine intervention of some kind), I knew that the worst was over and stopped studying so hard. The crisis was over, but I still staggered from Ventura the next year, radicalized.

I realized that very little of what I had been taught about how the world worked was likely accurate, and I began the deep dive that eventually led to my site as it stands today. I began studying the media, I continued my mystical studies and joined the mystical/fringe science community in Dayton, which was how I met Brian, I began looking in earnest into alternative medicine (I had already experienced the medical racket in action in previous years), and I really began to go deeply on those technologies that we pursued during my days with Dennis. I had library privileges at my wife's university and I began obtaining various science books. I needed to study thermodynamics if I really wanted to understand the virtues of Dennis's heat pump and those hydraulic heat engines.

I obtained a thermodynamics textbook from the university library, and the calculus began on page two. I had not worked a calculus problem in a dozen years. I kept searching, and found what was essentially Thermodynamics for Poets. Brian taught Physics for Poets at Princeton, and Einstein was a big fan of popularized science. Einstein avidly read such works as an adolescent, and Einstein was one of the best popularizers of his relativity theories. Those popularizer works seek to engage the layman and get across the concepts without resorting to advanced math, heavily specialized terminology, and the kind of mind-breaking complexity that can characterize many theories. Physics is not easy. Math has been used to unnecessarily mystify much of science, and Einstein worked without math whenever possible, and famously said that the more elegant and impressive the math to explain a theory, the more likely the theory was wrong. My big essay is essentially popularized science and history.

I spent about a month of my spare time studying those engine patents and other schematics, and studying thermodynamics without the calculus. The Second Law of Thermodynamics said that what we were trying in Ventura was impossible. Mr. Mentor and Fischer both thought it was possible, however, and Fischer cited Carnot's assumption of an ideal gas as the fatal flaw in his theory. Part of me was kind of ticked off at the entire situation. Dennis's heat pump was the best heating system that had ever been put on the market, Mr Mentor's engine was widely hailed as the world's best engine for powering an automobile, and Fischer's engine was the first new heat engine cycle in a century. The entire "free energy or bust" approach to those earth-shaking technologies, from both our direction and by the prosecution, really seemed to miss important aspects of the situation. Each one was worth billions even if they could not do FE in concert. I spent weeks tracing the working fluid through those engine schematics, thinking about thermodynamics, and came to a pretty good understanding of how they worked, but the possibility of them doing FE, while intriguing, I was far from sure about, and I understood the objections from scientists and was even sympathetic.

But another dozen years later, Eugene Mallove and others were saying that our approach could have worked. Soon before I left Ventura, one of our scientists met with Sparky Sweet, and technologies like his are likely why we were taken out, not our heat pumps and heat engines. Sparky had the goods and paid dearly, hounded to a lonely and perhaps violent end.

I think that it is really important to understand the ideal of scientific practice. It is not conceptually difficult. Science is not about having all the answers, but it is ideally a process of discovery. Scientists should be trying to prove hypotheses wrong more than trying to prove them right. The most useful experiments were often those that failed, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. What many fringe figures do is propose hypotheses and stress what they seem to explain, not what they do not, and they tend to ignore that which falsifies them, and that is where fringe enthusiasts generally miss the boat.

When I decided to sacrifice my life to give Dennis at least a snowball's chance, I met with Gary Wean, who gave me the best advice that I could get, which helped lead to Dennis's release. Gary had recently published his book, and I read as much of it as I could stand back then (I long ago read it all long ago, and have performed the equivalent of reading it about three times by now), and his account of his meeting with John Tower, Audie Murphy, and Bill Decker ignited my interest in the JFK assassination. I spent a lot of time over the next dozen years studying the evidence before I had anything to say about it in public. I totally trusted Gary; if he said that that meeting happened, it did. Nevertheless, I studied a vast amount of JFK assassination literature and evidence, and I never saw one piece of credible evidence that falsified Gary's story, and evidence kept coming to light that further confirmed it. There is no way that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin of John Kennedy, and now that the Kennedy family, after waiting nearly 50 years, has also endorsed the idea that a conspiracy killed John (and almost certainly his brother Bobby), Gary's testimony should become far more prominent.

Around the same time as I was studying thermodynamics, I obtained a book that argued that lunar gravity is higher than thought, and that exotic technology was used so that the Apollo missions could land on the moon. I was impressed enough to try to find out where he was wrong, and did not finally show how his calculations were flawed, as far as them showing that the moon had higher lunar gravity than advertised, until about 1997. For six years, the author had me seriously considering his hypothesis, but that flawed calculation collapsed it. During those years, I also began to encounter works that argued that the moon landings themselves were faked, and I got kind of sucked into that mess when Brian said on national TV that they might have been faked. But as I vetted the evidence put forth by the faked landing proponents, none of the evidence withstood scrutiny. After I had satisfied myself that none of the faked moon landings evidence that I had seen was valid, I found positive evidence that fully convinced me that those Apollo missions landed on the moon. The man who directed me to that calculation that collapsed the high lunar gravity argument is also the most famous Velikovskian apostate, but that will be a subject for an upcoming post.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am going to make this one relatively short, before I go to bed. I have even seen "skeptics" say that medical science is not science at all, but political-economic activities that only faintly resemble the scientific process.

This can really be a tricky subject. I suppose that we can start with Greek medicine and its dictum of "First, do no harm." That is not what Western medicine does. Most of its treatments are invasive, violent, and increasingly compulsory, and truly harmless treatments have been outlawed. It is an Orwellian inversion of reality, and next to the energy racket is the greatest racket on Earth.

This history of how it became this way is a long, grim story, and I cover some of it in my medical racket essay. "Torture as treatment" has long characterized the male-based barbarities of Western medicine. One of the USA's Founding Fathers initiated an era of "heroic medicine," which featured bloodletting, mercury, surgeries, and other deadly treatments, and mercury was not only used as "medicine" in my lifetime, but it is even used in vaccines to this day. There is no persuasive evidence that vaccination, fluoridation, and other "preventives" are safe and effective, but they are increasingly mandatory "medicines."

The only legal cancer treatments attack the tumor, while the harmless treatments have all been outlawed, in The Land of the Free, and the paradigm is going global.

There are alternate paradigms of health and disease, and some have robust and persuasive data to support them, but they have been ruthlessly suppressed. The medical authorities active in the suppression promoted asbestos cigarette filters and suppressed the connection between smoking and lung cancer, for instance. It is so dark that it is hard to look at for long. Freedom of choice in Western medicine is a carefully cultivated illusion, and the masses shuffle along to their deaths at the hands of Western "medicine."

If the scientific method and Greek ethics were followed, there would an extremely high hurdle for adding an industrial waste to the water supply as "medicine," or injecting the body with disease, as a way to fight disease. But there not only is no hurdle at all, the hurdle to avoid such "treatments" is so high that it is almost impossible to overcome, and the government is now outlawing failing to submit to procedures that nobody even argues are life-saving, such as with the recent measles "epidemic."

It is a nightmare.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

and of course you also forgot about the "home of the brave"...

and what are ethics exactly? I have never seen them in practice...

anger is a hobby of mine and of course my finest friends have little to none of it...

since i am an evangelical...one must ask a question as to what is truth...

our pilot washed his hands of the matter....

and gave him to the crowd instead of Barabbas...

and so stuff like this comes up in a lot of sermons in evangelical churches....


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

I am going to be gone for most of the day, but Jesus was the greatest ethicist, and said that if we treat others as we would wish to be treated, that is ethical. Of course, he meant lovingly, and his "love the enemy," as I have often stated, is the most enlightened message ever given to humanity. You can just about throw away the rest of the Bible.

My next post will be on my dealings with the Velikovsky issue, and we will see the problems with literal interpretations of the Bible and other ancient texts.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

On to Velikovsky. I began studying the "skeptics" in the early 1990s. I found that the term "skeptic" in organized skepticism seemed to mean materialist and/or attack dog for the scientific and medical establishments. That kind of "skepticism" rarely, if ever, led to any scientific breakthroughs. In fact, "skepticism" of the root assumptions of science is where the big breakthroughs often came from, and organized skepticism often did the opposite as it defended the assumptions of mainstream science. Their arrogation of the term "skeptic" was a kind of Orwellism. Skepticism of the things that we think that we know is the most valuable skepticism that I know of.

In 1995, I stumbled onto Charles Ginenthal's book on Carl Sagan and Velikovsky. I had been aware of Sagan's "skepticism" as part of my "skeptical" studies. I did not begin to collaborate with Brian O'Leary until 1996, so I was really not too aware of his relationship with Sagan at the time, if at all.

Ginenthal's book dissected Sagan's attack on Velikovsky's work, and specifically on Sagan's "ten problems" with Velikovsky's hypothesis that he smugly delivered in an AAAS symposium in 1974. There were really two issues: one was how the scientific community treated Velikovsky's hypothesis, and the other was how the hypothesis fared under scientific scrutiny. For years, I watched the "affair" in action, and I corresponded with Ginenthal and his harshest critic, Leroy Ellenberger, who eventually helped me with my moon landings studies. The attacks on Velikovsky's followers were pretty vicious, with insulting titles on papers that debunked their work, such as "Minds in Ablation," and in the 1950s, the attacks on Velikovsky's work from the scientific establishment were sometimes scurrilous. Einstein was one of the few scientists who gave Velikovsky a gracious hearing. When Einstein died, Velikovsky's book was the only one open on his desk. Einstein was an ideal scientist in many ways. On the "affair," I concluded that the decorum that ideally attends new hypotheses was sadly missing from the milieu that Velikovsky operated in. There have been worse scandals, such as how Birkeland was received.

On the issue of whether Velikovsky was right or not, I reserved my judgment back in the 1990s and early 2000s, largely because I did not feel competent to venture an opinion. When I published my site in 2002, I openly expressed my desire to resume my math and science studies, partly so that I could assess Velikovsky's thesis, and I was particularly interested in the dating issue.

Sagan was kind of a bogus debunker and popularizer. His Cosmos work was filled with errors and lofty language, and when he debunked something, it could really be irritating to watch him at work. Brian was very angry with how Sagan misrepresented the data on the Face on Mars. Brian was a proponent of studying the Face better when the time came, but by the 1998 flyby, he had already disassociated himself from the "city" issue after he found data-cooking happening. Sagan appears right on the Face issue (although he belatedly called for more study of it in his last book), but as Chomsky said, deliberately lying and being right by accident is not the same thing as telling the truth. Brian was unhappy with Sagan's debunking work and would have never stooped to attacking Velikovsky as he did, but I never heard Brian praising Velikovsky, either.

Just as I finished my site, the war drums for invading Iraq began beating, and after our invasion, I resumed my career the month after I helped Brian found NEM. In late 2002, one of Bucky Fuller's pupils called me a comprehensivist and I did not know what he meant, so I read some of Fuller's work and got the point, and my work has been more consciously comprehensive ever since. Just before the USA invaded Iraq, I was introduced to the Peak Oilers and began studying their work.

As I previously stated, my math was rusty, so books that charged into calculus on page two were going to be difficult to digest, but those kinds of popularizer works that Einstein read so avidly in his youth were being abundantly published, and I began reading them. Also, I found that many scientific textbooks and papers did not descend into calculus on page two, either, and you can see many of them in the notes to my big essay. Many were by professional scientists who wrote for the general public, such as Nick Lane, Peter Ward, William Ruddiman, and Brian Fagan, although Lane was more of a science writer while Ward was a practicing scientist who wrote on the side. People such as Oliver Morton are the classic science journalists who largely write for the lay public. I began digesting their work, and little did I suspect it at the time, but I was really embarking on the resumption of my science studies, if not my math studies, and it led to my big essay. I crunched numbers for a living and designed information systems, so I really was engaging in the mental gymnastics required to do math, and I suppose that those skills helped me digest those scientific works. I also read college textbooks as part of the studies for my big essay, such as Richard Cowen's History of Life and Jonathan Lunine's Earth. I also read plenty of specialist literature, and I was pleasantly surprised to see professional scientists referring to those popularizer works in their own work. Those popularizer works were not just for laymen, but for scientists, too, as they crossed disciplinary boundaries.

I did not begin studying with the idea of writing something like my big essay until about 2007, after my monster of a midlife crisis ended, but as I look back at it, by early 2003, I was really studying for my big essay when I read Fuller's work. For ten years, my "spare" time was devoted to studying for writing my big essay.

Velikovsky was an amateur in many of the subjects that he covered in his catastrophic works, but that should not necessarily disqualify the aspirant. The father of plate tectonics was a meteorologist whose pattern recognition from studying the evidence trumped all of the world's geologists, who could not see the forest for the trees. The tree that presents the connections between the world's languages was made by a linguist who swam against the prevailing orthodoxy, and his generalist approach trumped the field. The taboo on studying mass extinctions was initiated by Darwin's uniformitarian beliefs, and the dogma was not overturned for more than a century, until a team led by a physicist operating out of his field of expertise shattered the taboo. One of history's greatest physicists wrote a book about life which inspired Crick and Watson to discover DNA's double helix. The cross-boundary bleeding and fertilization is where some of today's best scientific findings are increasingly hailing from.

When you visit the faculty pages and interviews of scientists such as Kirschvink, Ward, Canfield, and Thewissen, you usually see photographs of them either in the field or handling their objects of study. When reading Thewissen's or Ward's or Canfields works, they are very frank about the challenges of traveling the world to hunt for scientific evidence, usually in the "field season" in the summers between academic years at the university. Ward became crippled in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of his assistant when pirates stole their experimental equipment. That took the wind out of Ward's sails, and he stopped studying the nautilis after that event. But in reading their accounts, their field work, rigors and all, seems to be when they felt the most like scientists, getting their hands dirty in the real world.

Thewissen's book, which I will report on soon, is an excellent example of today's scientific process at work. He made major contributions in discovering and studying the animals that became whales, which lived nearly 50 million years ago. They lived on and near the shores between Asia and a rapidly approaching India, so the fossils were all in Pakistan and India, near the roof of the world, and Thewissen had many adventures in trying to collect fossils. When fieldwork is over, then it is time to study the carefully reconstructed fossils and subject them to various tests. Thewissen subjected his valuable whale teeth to oxygen isotope testing, to see whether they were freshwater or saltwater dwellers. As the equipment improved over the years, he no longer had to sacrifice teeth to the testing process, but he could barely even see where the new samples were removed. He studied with experts on swimming locomotion. Seals, otters, sea lions, cetaceans, and other swimming mammals have diverse ways of swimming and their anatomy reflects it. He used that knowledge to examine those early transitional whale fossils, to see what they were related to. He traveled to Japan, where the DNA of whales was tested against other animals, and it was determined that the hippo is the closest living relative to whales. That drawing upon the expertise of diverse fields is how much of the best science is performed these days, such as when reconstructing the trajectory of whales' transition to the oceans.

Einstein's interest in Velikovsky's work at his life's end was because Velikovsky's prediction that Jupiter would be found to emit radio waves was true. However, Velikovsky's reason for that prediction was not why Jupiter emits radio waves. Making a correct prediction but not knowing why is not a very successful scientific hypothesis. Einstein and Schroedinger were not happy with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory because although quantum equations made accurate predictions, it did not state what was really happening, and Einstein and Schroedinger wanted to know what was happening.

Einstein did not buy Velikovsky's scenario of Venus erupting from Jupiter and nearly hitting Earth, as well as Mars. I never did, and I have yet to find a professional astronomer who takes Velikovsky's planetary billiards scenario seriously. Venus is hot not because it is only several thousand years old, but because its atmosphere is nearly entirely carbon dioxide, as Earth's may have once been.

When I performed my JFK assassination studies, I did it with Gary Wean's testimony in mind. When I studied scientific theories and findings since 2003, it was not with Velikovsky in mind, but I was just trying to understand what mainstream science had to say about how the universe worked. I am well aware of the conflicts of interest and organized suppression that exists regarding free energy technology, for instance. I somehow survived it with my sanity intact. But the truth of the demise of the dinosaurs or the formation of the solar system does not seem to threaten any global rackets.

Today's prevailing theories do not have young planets bouncing around the solar system, and in fact when moon rocks were brought back, for instance, they were dated to nearly Earth age, consistent with the leading hypotheses for how the moon formed. I studied the dating sciences, and while they had the growing pains that all sciences have, its results sure seem robust today.

One key area that Velikovsky and his followers have written extensively on was the megafauna extinctions. That was an area very germane to my work, and I even "invented" a second Epochal Event in the human journey related to their rapid disappearance from Earth. Not only does virtually no scientist in the debate today invoke celestial catastrophic events (it is regarded as an invalid hypothesis today, even though it was recently proposed once again), but I have yet to see a professional scientist without any "skin in the game" study the evidence and not conclude that humans were the primary, if not sole, factor in the megafauna extinctions. IMO, there is a camp with a far stronger argument than the catastrophists, the climate change advocates, and I consider their arguments and evidence so weak as to be untenable, too. The catastrophic argument is far weaker, and was one of several areas in my studies in which I was not trying to see whether Velikovsky was right or wrong, but when I finished my studies and thought of Velikovsky, I did not see the validity in his arguments. Bolide impact hypotheses for explaining extinctions even became a fad in scientific circles, but those days are over, and the only extinction clearly connected with a bolide impact is being challenged as the sole cause.

Not only was the evidence to support Velikovsky's hypotheses weak, but his entire approach from the beginning was suspect. He began with Bible stories and constructed hypotheses to account for them. He is not the only person to do that, but professional scientists who have spent their careers investigating the archeological record in and around today's Israel cannot find much evidence that there was an Exodus or conquest of the Promised Land after wandering in the desert, so scientific hypothesis that try to explain events that very likely never happened, such as parting the Red Sea (does anybody really believe that?) is not exactly how scientists approach the issues.

Literalist interpretations of ancient texts is a shaky approach, but Velikovsky is far from alone. Zecharia Sitchin literally interpreted even older texts than Bible stories to spin a grand yarn about a planet on a 3,600-year orbit, with humanoid inhabitants who have profoundly influence the human journey. Why would anybody take such ancient texts literally? Read the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Sumerian King List, with kingly reigns lasting tens of thousands of years, to relinquish any idea that those ancient texts should be interpreted literally. In fact, some Bible stories are likely just retreaded Sumerian tales, such as the great food that Noah and his menagerie survived (as well as Gilgamesh).

It is not only Western ancient texts that have such literal interpretations, but Michael Cremo has literally interpreted Vedic texts, and argues that humanity has been around for tens of millions of years (he even presents a "footprint" of a shoe from the Triassic). Once again, there is not a professional scientist who takes him seriously, and during my studies of the human line, Cremo's interpretation that the Laetoli footprints may be those of modern humans are once again not supported by any scientists. Those footprints became key evidence for when the human line became bipedal, and I have never seen a scientist in the field thinking that they were made by modern humans. Reading Cremo's work is like reading various Ripley's Believe or Not clippings brought together in one volume. That is not how scientists do it.

There is also a "scholar" who argues that China circumnavigated the world in the 1400s, and people are constantly asking me about those treatments by Menzies, Cremo, Velikovsky, Sitchin, and the like, and even by those who have aspired to be in the choir. None of those theorists had the rigor or approach that professional scientists and scholars use, and there is a reason for those professional approaches. That kind of fringe stuff needs to be left at the door, is definitely not what my work is about, and speaks to the discernment, or lack thereof, by people who avidly digest such works but are not even familiar with the work of the professional scientists and scholars on those subjects. Lots of chaff on the fringes.

I may make another post, probably tomorrow, on this Velikovsky and literalist interpretation subject.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

most difficult material for me at least....

"Hi:

On to Velikovsky. I began studying the "skeptics" in the early 1990s. I found that the term "skeptic" in organized skepticism seemed to mean materialist and/or attack dog for the scientific and medical establishments. That kind of "skepticism" rarely, if ever, led to any scientific breakthroughs. In fact, "skepticism" of the root assumptions of science is where the big breakthroughs often came from, and organized skepticism often did the opposite as it defended the assumptions of mainstream science. Their arrogation of the term "skeptic" was a kind of Orwellism. Skepticism of the things that we think that we know is the most valuable skepticism that I know of. "


that is the bottom line for me ....

it comes down to the truth of the matter...

the American Evangelicals will surely follow...

its all bull**** you know....


thanx


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

The point of my previous Velikovsky post is very similar to my writings on scarcity-based ideologies, or how to spot psychopaths in action, or evaluating the "evidence" for faked moon landings, or assessing the evidence for the JFK assassination. People can piece together all sorts of stories of various levels of plausibility for events that they did not witness. In science, that is called a hypothesis. Just because somebody concocts a hypothesis does not make it true. For scientific hypotheses, the goal is to construct a hypothesis from all known evidence, and then adduce new evidence that can test that hypothesis. That is the ideal, and the new evidence may further validate the hypothesis, or it may falsify it (the best tests are generally those designed to falsify a hypothesis). If it convincingly falsifies it, it is time for a new hypothesis that incorporates the new data.

There are numerous limitations and hazards of that process. One is that for scientific hypotheses, there is a standard of evidence objectivity, which means that anybody with the proper tools, ability, and motivation can reproduce the evidence. That is not always easy to do, but if that cannot happen, then it really cannot become a scientific hypothesis. But not being a scientific hypothesis does not make the subject of study unreal. For instance, consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. It is all that any of us knows, but today's science is not well equipped to investigate non-physical phenomena. In fact, some would argue that "non-physical phenomena" is a contradiction in terms, because if it is non-physical, then it cannot be a phenomenon. Does your consciousness exist, even though it is non-physical in nature?

There are many questions that today's science is not equipped to answer. Science has its limits, and the greatest scientists knew it. The hack class of scientists tries to make science into something that it isn't. Materialism is a religion. But it is really not very hard to have experiences that falsify that religion known as materialism. I had my first of many at age 16. Brian had his first one five years later. Once you have experiences such as those, you know. Nobody can take away your knowledge with their theories.

But except for very few humans, none of us have visited the moon to see the landing sites for the Apollo missions. There are images allegedly from later lunar missions, and other nations will likely be sending craft to the moon that can reproduce the images (Japan already has, although the images are equivocal), and then those who argue for faked moon landings will need to invoke an international conspiracy to keep the hoax hypothesis alive. But for those who go deep on the evidence, they really do not need to see the new pictures. The evidence of lunar landings, from the unique composition of the moon rocks returned, to their dates (older than any "native" rock on Earth), to a vast amount of footage taken on the moon and in the command module orbiting the moon, is simply overwhelming. There is an insanely high barrier of evidence required to credibly make the case that the moon landings were faked, and the hoax theorists have not amassed it. They have cherry picked this and that (and what they cherry picked was invalid for supporting faked moon landings, by misinterpretation or even dishonesty; some evidence is a little more equivocal, but I have never seen strong evidence of faked moon landings), and ignored the huge body of evidence in support of genuine moon landings. Only lay audiences without the willingness or ability to sort through the evidence are duped by faked moon landings arguments. Brian did not do the work, but if he had, he would have come to the same conclusion that I did. And his relatively tame statements were blown all out of proportion by conspiracists and others, and he made a final statement before he died, which neither camp on the moon landings liked, but it was the truth of his position. I wish that it did not end up that way, too, but it did. Ignoring his statement or arguing against it with extremely strained logic, to try to put Brian into their camp, is what sophists do.

All human societies have mass beliefs that are demonstrably false. The scientific method is intended to help eliminate that phenomenon. More than that, however, the scientific method is intended to help discover how the universe really works. The best scientists knew that we barely know anything, and even science's tools and process have their limits. But there really should be little room for faith, especially the blind kind. I do not expect anybody to blindly accept anything that I write, which is why my story (and Dennis's) is heavily documented and referenced, for instance, and my essays, especially my large ones, are scholarly. I have gone pretty deeply into the physics and data behind Dennis's heat pump, and nearly 20 years after I first published that information, I am still waiting to have my first productive discussion of that technology. It is the same situation with Mr. Mentor's engine. Those are easy technologies to discuss, compared to Sparky Sweet's FE device, for instance.

In order for my choir idea to work, we all have to raise our games. Tall tales and pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-scientific works are not what the choir is going to be about. Only material that has been though the crucible of scrutiny is going to be admitted into subject matter that will be discussed. Again, hypotheses are born and die all the time, and that is OK, but the choir is not going to be about the many fringe subjects that never seem to go away, no matter how much evidence weighs against them. I have given some examples, and will now be more explicit.

Today, there are sites devoted to the idea that Earth is only 6,000 years old, as the Book of Genesis says, and those advocates continually present "evidence" for their contentions. They even present anomalies in the scientific evidence to support their ideas. I do not know of a professional scientist on Earth who thinks that Earth is 6,000 years old, and they regard Young Earthers like Flat Earthers. I have seen scientists dispute some of the dating sciences, but other than a quibble here and there, there is not that much to dispute. For instance, satellites can measure the speed that the tectonic plates are moving (about as fast as fingernails grow), and satellites (and other methods) have also been able to map the ocean floor. On the floor of the Northwest Pacific Ocean is a very obvious chain of mountains, which ends with the Hawaiian Islands, and the island furthest south (the Big Island) is really the only one that has an active volcano on it, on the south end of the island. Current geological theory has that mountain/island chain formed by a "hot spot" originating deep within Earth, and the evidence strongly supports the idea that the Pacific Plate has been moving over that hot spot for about 80 million years. Scientists have recovered samples from those older volcanoes that have eroded so much that they no longer poke out above the ocean's surface. Those samples have been subjected to radioactive dating methods (here is an example), and the dates agree to what is expected based on the rate of plate movement. That is a highly robust method that supports the radioactive dating methods. There are many other ways, and of far greater sophistication, but that one should be easily understandable by any layperson, or at least any layperson who is going to be a candidate for the choir. Evidence such as that blows any and all "Young Earth" ideas completely out of the water, and people who do not have the integrity or mental horsepower to understand that cannot be part of the choir.

That should be an easy one to understand, or why Earth is not flat. But for people whose world views are built on some fringe works that they once read, they are not basing their beliefs on anything solid, but some story that somebody sold them that caught their fancy. All dominant ideologies are that way, too, so I am not picking on the fringe crowd too much. As Chomsky once said, if we are going to learn, we need to do the work. Nobody is going to open the tops of our skulls and pour in knowledge, especially in today's world, where deception is the order of the day, as the social managers herd humanity on behalf of the elite. The solution is to stop being unthinkingly herded, but almost nobody ever achieves that level of sentience, or seems to even try.

One big purpose of my essay is to help my readers become scientifically literate. Some scientific literacy is essential for what I am doing. Otherwise, people disappear into the many rabbit holes that beckon, as they hear fancy stories that appeal to them, but they have not developed the discernment to validate it, even if they had the gumption to try (and almost nobody ever does, which is quite lazy).

Again, the ideal of science is to never get too attached to one's ideas, and all hypotheses, beliefs, and theories should be subject to revision as new evidence is adduced. My views have changed quite a bit during my journey. Even scientists have a very hard time achieving that ideal, so what I am asking is not easy for the lay audience to accomplish, but for those in the choir, it is essential.

Here are subjects that I do not plan to spend much, if any, time in my forum on:

• The Biblically-based ideas that Earth is flat or only 6,000 years old;
• Making literalist interpretations of ancient texts the basis for scientific hypotheses;
• The idea that Global Warming and Peak Oil are hoaxes, including abiogenic oil formation theory;
• The idea that the Apollo moon landings were faked;
• Whatever the latest FE inventor/promoter is up to, including Dennis Lee;
• The idea that ancient advanced civilizations erected the megaliths around the world, and that studying those megaliths will produce important ideas for helping bring FE to the world;
• The latest "insider" "revelation" from the black ops world;
• Many alternative reconstructions of history (Fomenko, Menzies) or of the archeological and geological record (Velikovsky, Sitchin, Cremo); there is a valid process for revisionism, but those writers did not follow it; revisionisms that I consider valid and important are those that deflate the dominant ideologies, and I cite plenty of that work on my site (1, 2, 3), performed by people whose work I came to respect after investigating it, and were usually professional scholars and scientists, some of world-class standing;
• Many other fringe topics that are generally some poorly-supported theory or reconstruction that has only been presented to lay audiences and has not been subjected to the crucible of examination and testing, especially by professionals in the subject matter (the more "novel" 9/11 or JFK assassination theories, for instance);
• The latest conspiracy theory gossip to make the rounds.

I am not saying that people should not investigate those areas for themselves and discuss them with others, but my forum will not be the place to do it. It can be a very valuable experience to dive into those areas and develop one's muscles of discernment and even be misled at times, to eventually navigate one's way through the mire. I have done that on more than one occasion, and the experience was valuable. Getting burned once can be an important learning experience.

But none of that means that I am Mr. Orthodox, either, not by a long shot. Last year, I made a post on what I think is most important and least important in my work, and what I have the most and least confidence in.

I recently produced the most ambitious essay of my lifetime, and I'll not write its like again. I have nearly 900 notes for it and more than a thousand topics are there to be discussed. That is the curriculum that I think needs to be studied in order to make my choir idea come to fruition. I have made many "Choir Q&A" posts, to try to get some worthy discussions going. There is plenty to discuss that I think is important. By no means are the discussions intended to be Wade the Oracle holding forth, but I am trying to initiate discussions that will help everybody learn more, reach higher levels of understanding, and the like. But when laypeople try to drag Fomenko, Menzies, Cremo, and the like into the discussion, to me, it reflects their lack of understanding. That may be because they have not done the work, or they are incapable of doing the work, or other problems. Whatever the case may be, the works of those writers are not topics of productive discussion for what I have in mind, but are meaningless and even counterproductive distractions.

I am not finished with these posts, and another may come today, on alternative biological and medical paradigms.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I finished Hans Thewissen's The Walking Whales, and I wrote a little on it earlier. Along with oxygen isotope testing, locomotion studies, and DNA testing, Thewissen's adventures took him to Japan to see a dolphin with hind "legs," but he refused to endorse the whale and dolphin slaughters by Japan, which limited his scientific access, and he had to play diplomat in India with a cantankerous and eccentric widow of a famous fossil collector, living in a dilapidated mansion filled with fossils that she would not let anybody study, which held about the world's only fossils of the early whales' closest cousins. Thewissen went to northern Alaska to examine embryos from whales that Native Americans had killed as part of their subsistence practices. Scientists like him travel the world to perform their jobs, sometimes risking their lives, and they continually deal with bureaucracies, petty politics, lack of funding, and the like. When I read his work or Peter Ward's, Donald Canfield's, or the various anthropologists and primate researchers (a close relative is a primate researcher) whose work I have read, I get a glimpse of what my life might have been like had I not been "guided" from becoming a scientist. On one hand, the "psychic income" could be immense, but there is nothing about what they do that seems easy. Adventure, yes, hardship, yes. I have a great deal of respect for their work and the sacrifices they made. I'll tweak my essay a little to add some of Thewissen's findings.

I would like to make an observation that I have made in ways before, but it has been particularly noticeable as I wrote the big essay. Since Galileo and Newton, science has been marred by its oppression and eventual battles with religious establishments. Back in the 1600s, strategic decisions to survive Church attacks made science too reliant on math, and I repeatedly saw how scientists dealing with evolution had to battle religious establishments, and it continues to this day. I think that it has something to do with the materialism of mainstream science, as it overreacted in its struggles against the religious establishments. I have repeatedly seen scientists couch their theories in a way in which it is obvious that they are expecting the rejoinders of creationists and other religious types. That really has distorted the scientific process, IMO.

The lack of transitional whale species had long been a point that creationists crowed over, and Thewissen spent part of his book discussing the creationist controversy with his discovery of those transitional whale fossils. In that "battle with the creationists" stance that scientists regularly take, I think that important directions are not taken because of those struggles. I have long stated that I saw the evolutionist/creationist debate as kind of senseless when I was a teenager, and I feel the same way today, and it has been kind of sad to see how science became kind of hamstrung as it fought off organized religion.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This will be a post on Western medicine. I made a brief post recently, and have an entire essay devoted to the issue. It is a vastly different issue than Velikovsky, Cremo, etc. Most alternative cancer practitioners, for instance, who were wiped out were either MDs or had doctorates in the biological and medical sciences. That situation bears little resemblance to the situation with those fringe theorists, but is very close to what I experienced in my energy adventures, and that is because we were all steamrolled by the rackets. The energy and medical rackets are the most lucrative ones on Earth, and are part of the global rackets. I actually worked at a medical lab that got steamrolled, which I joined when Dennis was still in jail, and not because it was alternative, but because it was not corporate. I have also written plenty about the other global cartels, which are the media, banking, military, intelligence, and organized religion. I had a close relative who worked for the spooks, and I followed the careers of the psychopaths that were sicced on us over the years. One retired to a hero's farewell a few years ago, after his lucrative career, one changed costumes a few times and now works as a hit man for the medical racket, and one sits in prison today. Contract agents are rather disposable assets, but it can pay well, for a while, and all it costs in the end is your soul.

While racketeering in Western medicine can be so blatant that it is hard to look at for long, what I found more fascinating was that Western medicine and the alternative treatments are largely about a difference in paradigms. One is masculine, violent, and lucrative, while the other is feminine, gentle, and cheap. The prevailing paradigm is not about prevention but intervention, and even when it feigns prevention it is still violent and intervening. The feminine paradigm is about prevention and trusting the body's processes, while the masculine paradigm is always riding to the rescue, guns blazing, just like in cowboy movies. In The Land of the Free, the booklet produced by scientists investigating the effects of processed food, which saved my father's life, was banned, but today the medical establishment has embraced the message of that booklet. There are charlatans in alternative medicine, and I exposed the lies of one of them.

It turns out that the masculine paradigm neatly dovetails with the racketeering aspect of Western medicine. Those blazing guns are not only used on the patients' bodies, but are also used on the gentle practitioners, to keep the racket intact. The inversion of reality could be surreal at times, such as medical authorities literally promoting cigarettes while simultaneously wiping out the cures for the very diseases whose causes they promoted. In that environment, a highly toxic industrial waste received a makeover and became medicine and has been compulsorily fed to Americans to this day. A number of industrial interests had an interest in turning that hazardous waste into "medicine," and it turns out that that waste also attacks the brain, and it is legitimate to wonder if adding that poison to the water supply is part of a mind control program.

For me, what was astounding about that situation was how the masses filed right along with the program, oblivious, being stampeded to their deaths. I watched people choose certain death over questioning the paradigm. The medical racket is a nightmare that is hard to look at for long, but what I found particularly enthralling was that back before the modern paradigm was set, findings at the subcellular level called into question the framework that microbiology uses, and hence a lot of Western medicine. The pioneer was a contemporary of Pasteur's. Pasteur, like those fringe theorists who write for the lay audience, achieved his fame by playing to the lay audience, too, and he appears to have plagiarized his contemporary. Pasteur seemed to have had such a poor understanding of what he plagiarized that he arguably marched Western medicine off in the wrong direction ever since. Generations after those fateful events, scientists invented microscopes that defy optical theory (what light is and how it acts are far from settled) and attain "impossible" optical resolutions, and those scientists independently confirmed the paradigm of Pasteur's contemporary, and here is where it really gets strange. The first scientist invented his microscope before the electron microscope was invented, so he not only achieved "impossible" optical resolutions, but he had the world's most powerful microscope in his day. Surviving micrographs prove that his microscope indeed attained its "impossible" resolutions. That scientist's work was wiped out by the very man who pioneered the practice of making health claims for cigarettes, and he was the dictator of American medicine for a generation. That gangster's star fell when he lost a libel case against one of his racketeering targets, and then he spearheaded an effort to promote asbestos cigarette filters. You can't make this stuff up.

The second scientist who developed an "impossible" microscope is still active in Canada as I write this, after previously being run out of France. Scientists from around the world have beaten a path to his door and came away impressed. Both of those scientists tried to make their microscopes easy to reproduce. Before the roof caved in my former partner's company in 1997 (and I nearly went to prison), I was working with a scientist to have one of those microscopes built for us (it would have cost several thousand dollars, which would be a pittance compared to electron microscopes). That scientist was also trying to establish a school where microscopists could learn to use those microscopes to see the new paradigm dancing before their eyes. So, where is the stampede of American scientists trying to reproduce those microscopes and their findings? The silence has been deafening. Twenty years ago, when a man began going through the FDA's protocols to get a harmless treatment approved that was based on that microscope in Canada, he was kangarooed into prison, which is the standard fate of anybody whose work threatens the racket.

I have had very bad experiences with Wikipedia over the years, and writing Brian O's Wikipedia biography was no fun (but it turned out OK in the end, as I can live with his biography as it stands today). In my big essay, I refer to Wikipedia often, but also warn the readers. I do not link to Wikipedia when I think that the article has been marred by bias, and in the areas of alternative medicine and free energy, Wikipedia is truly worse than worthless, and I can see the hand of the racketeers at work.

How hard is this to understand? Which would be more valuable, snapshots of death, or movies of life? Mainstream medicine once again has chosen death over life. It really can wreck one's mind and spirit to dwell on that insane darkness for very long, and my medical racket essay, like most of my writings, is best digested in small doses.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This post will wrap up this series on the fringes and distinguishing the wheat from the chaff. There is a mountain of chaff on the fringes, and I regularly see people dive in and disappear forever, as they became enthusiasts feasting on chaff and were unable or unwilling to distinguish the difference from wheat. A related problem is adhering to theories that long ago fell into the dustbin of scientific history, such as abiogenic petroleum theory or Hapgood's wandering poles theory. Even Einstein took Velikovsky and Hapgood seriously, but he would be the first to acknowledge today that their hypotheses were invalid, based on what scientists have learned since the 1950s. When fringe enthusiasts embrace those old, discarded bodies of work, they are wandering into delusion land. I can somewhat respect it if those fringe enthusiasts become immersed in modern theories and findings and then still think that there may be something to Hapgood's or Velikovsky's hypotheses, but I have yet to see one of them do that. And if they really reject plate tectonics in favor of Hapgood's idea, I have to wonder about their discernment. Generally, when I have seen enthusiasts embrace those old theories, they do no better than parrot those old hypotheses and have been unwilling or unable to update those understandings for what the past 60 years of scientific study have adduced. That is a cousin to still thinking that Earth is flat. I fully expect to update my big essay until I am too old to do it anymore or dead, and science is always on the move, with new hypotheses, new tools, new evidence, and there are more paradigm shifts ahead, even mind-boggling ones. Even NASA used Newton and not Einstein to go to the moon, but its scientists and engineers did not think that Newton's assumption of absolute time and absolute space was accurate. Newton's calculations were accurate enough to go to the moon, but that did not make them right.

I openly acknowledge the virtues and problems of orthodoxy, as well as those on the fringes. It is by no means easy to navigate, and people need keen discernment. I doubt that they need genius-level IQs to do it, but I could be wrong. I wrote my big essay with laypeople in mind, and the jury is still kind of out whether laypeople can digest that essay and learn to sing the abundance song, but I am optimistic. If the only people can do that need IQs of 120 or more, I can work with that too, but that was not my intent.

To me, most of navigating orthodoxy and the fringes is just common sense, being willing to do the work without getting attached to the bright and shiny ideas that come from anywhere, without kicking them to see if they wobble. Direct personal experience is always the best evidence, but barring that, the scientific method, if properly used, is designed to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Again the scientific method has its limitations, both in theory and practice, so blindly accepting anything, any process or any finding, is a quick way to becoming deluded and being manipulated by anybody with a clever argument. Dogma is always the enemy, in spirituality or science, and the giants of science realized that. The same goes for investigating the fringes. The ideal of "skepticism" is a good one, although theory and practice with organized skepticism are like night and day. Personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity, which I discovered the hard way, and is really at the root of these issues of investigating orthodoxy, the fringes, and the related controversies.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

Good for you man...

"Here are subjects that I do not plan to spend much, if any, time in my forum on:

The Biblically-based ideas that Earth is flat or only 6,000 years old;
Making literalist interpretations of ancient texts the basis for scientific hypotheses;
The idea that Global Warming and Peak Oil are hoaxes, including abiogenic oil formation theory;
The idea that the Apollo moon landings were faked;
Whatever the latest FE inventor/promoter is up to, including Dennis Lee;
The idea that ancient advanced civilizations erected the megaliths around the world, and that studying those megaliths will produce important ideas for helping bring FE to the world;
The latest "insider" "revelation" from the black ops world;
Many alternative reconstructions of history (Fomenko, Menzies) or of the archeological and geological record (Velikovsky, Sitchin, Cremo); there is a valid process for revisionism, but those writers did not follow it; revisionisms that I consider valid and important are those that deflate the dominant ideologies, and I cite plenty of that work on my site (1, 2, 3), performed by people whose work I came to respect after investigating it, and were usually professional scholars and scientists, some of world-class standing;
Many other fringe topics that are generally some poorly-supported theory or reconstruction that has only been presented to lay audiences and has not been subjected to the crucible of examination and testing, especially by professionals in the subject matter (the more "novel" 9/11 or JFK assassination theories, for instance);
The latest conspiracy theory gossip to make the rounds."


Trouble is that this is all over the internet and the conspiracy folks are right in that if they shut it off the truth will end but of course if they shut it off maybe we would talk for real one on one and have some kind of resistance not a fake one....as it were...

I can say for sure that Noam Chomsky who stated his opinion a few months after 9/11 has not changed his opinion as many others have been forced to do so...

to a guy that wrote a book called "manufacturing consent"..?

me would suspect he is still worth listening to....



In the alt world...

Just saying...


who ever you might be...

and of course you forgot about the flat earth society

nine

[Nine]

Wade,

Just a question from a man of the system...

and you are always welcome in Wisconsin Wade...

"To me, most of navigating orthodoxy and the fringes is just common sense, being willing to do the work without getting attached to the bright and shiny ideas that come from anywhere, without kicking them to see if they wobble. Direct personal experience is always the best evidence, but barring that, the scientific method, if properly used, is designed to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Again the scientific method has its limitations, both in theory and practice, so blindly accepting anything, any process or any finding, is a quick way to becoming deluded and being manipulated by anybody with a clever argument. Dogma is always the enemy, in spirituality or science, and the giants of science realized that. The same goes for investigating the fringes. The ideal of "skepticism" is a good one, although theory and practice with organized skepticism are like night and day. Personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity, which I discovered the hard way, and is really at the root of these issues of investigating orthodoxy, the fringes, and the related controversies. "

why is direct personal experience the best way my friend...and of course you seem to favor that course...

of course I have great doubts upon that matter...

yet a full examination of the full quote would take me months...


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have stated many times that the social circle approach to making FE happen will not work. I am writing from rueful experience, and those of my fellow travelers. Believe me, I know the temptation of wanting to tell one's social circle all about FE and abundance. I still do it, at least with people who are somewhat receptive, and the reactions are almost always a variation of my levels of FE awareness (below Level 12). For people who know me, and I mean well, as in I have known them for dozens of years and they have seen me in action and know that I never bluff, but get it done, they can accept the concept and even the reality of FE, but then they go off on tangents of why FE is undesirable, what the transition problems will be, and so on. Those are all Level 5 variations. Or they deny that FE will really be that transformative, that the psychopaths will still rule, that we will still have wars, and the rest. When I counter that nobody could imagine the end of slavery before machines made the institution obsolete, or that bonobos were able to end the rule of psychopathic male gangs, or that matrilineal human societies also ended the rule of psychopathic male gangs, or that all wars have always been due to scarcity, they cannot defend their ideas with anything the least bit rational, but parrot their Bibles, say that what we see is human "nature" that will never change, and the like. They are simply hooked on scarcity. Those are all just more instances of people being unable to even imagine the next epoch, just like with the previous epochs.

As I have also stated plenty of times, it does no good to judge them in their blindness, in their egocentric allegiance to the scarcity-based ideologies that feed and comfort them, and so on. More than 99% of humanity is going to be no help at all for making FE happen, and that is OK. It only takes a tiny fraction of humanity to muster a minimal amount of integrity and sentience to make FE happen. I seek extraordinary people. They will not extraordinary because they have superhuman abilities, but because they care and use the brain they were given for something other than trying to survive in a world of scarcity and fear. The bar really is not all that high, not for the magnitude of the task, but few are able or willing to even try. Again, it is just who humanity is these days. It can change, but it will not appreciably change with without an epochal change in the foundation of our economies, and only FE can do that.

I have recently encountered more newbies to the FE field, who are actually trying to do something. While I always respect trying to do something, every time I am approached, the aspirant is still stuck in the FE field's state of arrested development, and I hear all about their naïve and inexperienced approaches. It is like they either did not read or did not understand anything that I have written on the pitfalls. They might understand why patents or the proprietary technology approach will not work, but they quickly go diving into other pitfalls, thinking that they found the answer. I can see them heading straight for catastrophe, and they are like those 18-year-old men pining to prove their manhood on the battlefield. Been there, done that! I really do not want to watch.

It took more than 40 years of one hell of a journey for me to arrive at my current approach and create the "curriculum," but newbies think they know better.

My recent series of posts on the chaff and wheat is partly a reaction to being approached by people who aspire to be in the choir, but they try to drag their bags of chaff with them. I advocate an experiential, scholarly, and scientific approach to the problem of manifesting the biggest event in the human journey, which will also forestall the looming catastrophe that might take humanity with it.

I am going to give one more example of the egocentric, self-serving delusions that people harbor, which are counterproductive. It has to do with humanity's impact on the atmosphere and related climatic effects. I regularly see all sorts of denial, from a pretty wide spectrum of arguments, but they are all variations on refusing to take responsibility for our actions, which is the typical victim's perspective. We are not going to get over the hump by thinking like victims, but by thinking like creators, and creators create with love.

Science is ideally about seeking causes and effects. Feedback effects can also make effects into causes, and scientists also attempt to rank causes. There have been many successes with the scientific approach and, in many areas, scientists believe that they have pretty well established ultimate causes for many effects. For instance, all scientists agree that oxygenic photosynthesis is responsible for the oxygen in our atmosphere, which is in turn responsible for Earth's ozone layer, which is in turn responsible for absorbing nearly all ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, which protects complex life on land. Scientists are also virtually unanimous that that ozone layer and atmospheric oxygen prevented hydrogen from escaping to space, which would have meant losing the oceans, which would have been game over for life on Earth. Scientists are also unanimous that there would not be any complex life on land if life had not learned to respire using oxygen. The scientific method adduced those findings, with plenty of controversy along the way, but those subjects are no longer controversial among scientists.

How they got that way can be controversial. For instance, there is debate today on whether the oxygenation of the oceans was a cause or consequence of the rise of animals. There are plenty of those cause-or-effect questions in science today, and they usually are resolved, eventually, with better tools, better evidence, and new hypotheses. Of course, answering one question usually leads to five more. Some questions science cannot answer today, and may never be able to answer, and the greatest scientists knew it. But within its framework, science can and has answered many questions over the centuries, which had a great deal to do with the development of the industrial/technological world that we live in today.

In summary, scientists constantly quest for causes, investigate their effects, which can in themselves become causes, and scientists attempt to rank causes in importance. For instance, once the taboo lifted in the 1970s and 1980s, mass extinctions became a subject of study, and scientists are continually investigating and debating the causes, as well as ranking them. Something caused the mass extinctions. They did not just happen.

Similarly, Earth's climate has had wild swings over its history, but they had causes. The primary cause of Earth's climate is the Sun, but scientists believe, for very good reason, that the Sun's output has been extremely stable over the eons and has been slowly rising. The life cycle of a star like our Sun has been well established by astronomers. We can expect several billion more years of steady solar output that continually rises as the Sun eventually becomes a red giant. Scientists think that if the current trends continue, however, the reign of complex life on Earth will end in a billion years or less.

After the Sun, the composition of Earth's atmosphere is considered the next greatest determinant of Earth's climate. The key is gases that absorb radiation coming from Earth. They are all three-atom or larger molecules, and the only one of those of significance in Earth's atmosphere today is carbon dioxide. Methane may have been prominent eons ago, and warming events can boil off methane that has been captured and stored by various processes, which can create short-term effects. But scientists think that carbon dioxide has nearly always been the primary greenhouse gas (water really is, but it is ephemeral and feedback effects mute its effectiveness far more than carbon dioxide), and its atmospheric concentrations over the eons has been a subject of keen interest and study, particularly as humanity is having an unprecedented impact on the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels. The carbon cycle is well known, and humanity's impact from burning the hydrocarbons that have powered the industrial age are quite measurable and evident, and Earth has been warming remarkably as carbon dioxide levels have increased. Virtually all of Earth's ice is rapidly melting, and whenever a new scientific study is released, there is usually a surprise in that the ice is melting faster than any scientist suspected. Humanity's venting of carbon dioxide in this way is unprecedented in Earth's history, and climate scientists are terrified of the possible outcomes. Humanity is toying with turning Earth from icehouse to greenhouse conditions within the next century. The last time that Earth went from icehouse to greenhouse conditions, Earth had its greatest extinction event ever. Humanity is engaging in a huge chemistry and physics experiment with the only place that can host life as we know it, particularly complex life, for unknown light years in every direction. The global elite know that they are playing chicken with Earth and they have contingency plans, some of which are truly insane, so that they can ride out the storm. The rest of us will not be so fortunate.

When I hear people call Global Warming a hoax, or that Peak Oil is a hoax and that there is enough abiogenic oil to power humanity for forever, I have never found those people to really be informed, much less professionals, regarding those issues, but they either believe it because it is seductive (all three of those ideas justify business as usual), or they made a very cursory review of the evidence or do not have the mental wherewithal to make an evaluation. I have yet to see anybody holding their own with scientists who have studied the issues and are familiar with recent findings. Again, my forum will not really be the place to have those debates, but I can respect potential choir members who can defend, in detail, their arguments for why greenhouse gases do not matter or why there is enough oil to power humanity forever. I think that I will be waiting a long time for somebody to make credible defenses of those positions. Surfing the Internet for a few hours or days does not count. If potential choir members advocate those positions but cannot credibly defend them, they probably will not have what I am looking for. Again, I am willing to be convinced, but there will be a huge hurdle for those arguments to overcome. The body of evidence is vast in support of the positions that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations (irrefutable) increase Earth's surface temperature, that oil is formed from biological and geological processes, that all of Earth's easy oil has already been found, and that humanity is currently mining the dregs.

Once people can accept those scientific findings (which few scientists without conflicts of interest will deny), then the pattern recognition of the generalist can come into play and we can see that we are merely repeating a pattern for all energy resources that humanity has burned through, from megafauna to forests to soils. The pattern is very clear: humanity keeps plundering until the resource is exhausted and then finds another resource to plunder, although the human journey is full of population and civilization collapses when those energy resources were exhausted. We are just seeing the latest one, as industrial civilization is already in decline and heading for a collapse that will dwarf all the others. Humanity might not survive that collapse.

Not only am I trying to prevent that collapse, but I am also trying to help usher in the biggest event in the human journey, and Earth could become a heavenly place to live.

However, enough of us need to raise our games to have a chance of overcoming the organized suppression and humanity's inertia. If it is not me who gets that choir going, I am not sure that an approach much different from mine will work, at least for choiring. I am about what works, and I have had a lifetime of surviving and seeing what has not worked and is unlikely to.

Time for chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

While New England is still digging snow, on the other coast, we are having the earliest spring that I can remember, and this will be a drought year. Took the attached an hour or so ago, and it is looking out at Puget Sound from Discovery Park. No complaints.


Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Between chores, and here is what may be my last word on the Velikovsky issue. Twenty years after stumbling into the Velikovsky issue, I can respect, in a way, what Velikovsky was trying to do. I think that it was misguided to work backward from ancient texts to construct scientific hypotheses, but he let it rip. In the end, the entire wandering planets scenario does not pass muster in light of what scientists have discovered about the planets and solar system. Velikovsky also challenged basic notions of physics, such as gravity (he considered it an electromagnetic phenomenon), and some of his followers propose an "electric universe" model. From what I have seen, that model does not fare well in light of the evidence, and they have been accused of cherry-picking the data to support their views, and it seems to be the case. I regularly receive emails from Velikovskians that point to this or that scrap of evidence to support their views. It is really not how professional scientists approach such issues.

But here is the crazy part…

I know that free energy and antigravity (or electrogravity) technologies exist on Earth today, and the principles they operate under turn today's physics texts into doorstops. Velikovskians could be forgiven for barking up that tree, but their theories seem quite different from Sparky Sweet's, for instance, who built working free energy technology, which gives a lot of weight to his thinking. I have encountered numerous alternative physics models, and their primary upshot is often a new source of energy that can be tapped, which has been called the zero-point field and many other names.

The big problem here is that scientists and inventors are not free to pursue the technology and science, as history's greatest act of organized suppression attends free energy technology. It is conjoined with the UFO/ET cover-up. Let there be no doubt about it: the cover-up is real, as Brian O discovered to life-shortening effect.

Velikovsky and his followers could be considered part of the three-ring circus around this issue, and part of the free energy conundrum in their own way. So, I have some sympathy for them, but I never got the sense that the hoopla around Velikovsky had anything to do with the free energy/UFO cover-up. Again, there is a great deal of chaff on the fringes, and in the ideal world, hypotheses can be subjected to testing, to see if they are falsified or not. A great deal of evidence has falsified Velikovsky's hypothesis, but that does not mean that maybe, in some intuitive way, Velikovsky was partly barking at the right tree.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Just before I go to bed, I just saw this, which just emphasizes how little the USA is going to help what I am doing. Those results are not too surprising, unfortunately. Back in 2002, National Geographic performed a survey, and 30% of Americans between ages 18 and 24 could not identify the Pacific Ocean on a globe, 10% could not even pick out the USA, and 87% could not identify Iraq, which we were about to invade.

In that recent survey, forget about creationists and their challenges to evolution: less than half of Americans even know what evolution is. A quarter of Americans do not even know that Earth orbits the Sun. I have to admit that even I was surprised at that. I live in a nation of idiots, which is history's richest and most powerful nation. Shudder…

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have recently been swapping NASA anecdotes, and this is my last planned NASA anecdote for now, which is not about NASA so much as it is about the USA back then.

When my father worked in the Mission Control Room, it was probably the hottest place to work on Earth. In 1966, astronauts were rock stars, and working in the Mission Control room was a short step below them. Chris Kraft, Gene Kranz, and other Mission Control Room staff became legends in their own right, and my father worked for both of them.

One of my father's colleagues at Mission Control was from Arkansas, and on Monday morning he told my father about his previous weekend. He drove home to see his family. His father was a county sheriff, but a few Arkansas counties before home, he was pulled over by the local police. Even to this day, towns in East Texas prey on passing motorists, and when he was pulled over, it was one of those "fictional" traffic violations that those cops are legendary for. But when those small counties shake down passing motorists, it can be a lot more than just a ticket. My father's colleague had his car impounded. He told them that his father was the sheriff just a few counties over (not sure if he tried to play the NASA card, but it probably would not have mattered), but they did not care, and threatened him with jail time if he did not stop complaining. When he finally got his car out of impound, not only was he out hundreds of dollars, his car had been stripped of anything valuable. Here was an American rock star, treated like that on his way to visit his parents.

When he told my father about his weekend, he was beside himself, and probably wary of returning home again. That was The South of the Civil Rights Era. One friend was raised in Mississippi in the 1970s, and he told amazing stories about how blacks were still being treated a decade after Martin Luther King Junior's assassination (there were still colored bathrooms, and they were never cleaned, for instance).

Again, my father and Brian hated living in Houston, and events like that made it clearer, but little did I know that the California county where I was raised after my Houston days was even more corrupt than those counties in Texas and Arkansas. The USA really does not have the right stuff to help FE happen. Not only are we stupid, as my previous post showed, we are too dishonest, which was the primary lesson of my journey. I seek needles in haystacks, scattered across the world, and am using this tool called the Internet to help me find them.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I received a reply to last night's post in another forum, and here is my reply…

Sure, half is below the median, but where is the median? It looks like that in the USA, the median is below even understanding the rudiments of evolution, it is far below where we know nations are that we invade for no other reason than they are sitting on top of something that we covet, and at least the median understands that Earth orbits the Sun! That is not asking too much, I think. Again, our collective intelligence and integrity has a lot to do with where we are heading as a people and species.

Again, even the "smart" are blinkered by their indoctrination. Brian O did not begin openly wondering if humanity was a sentient species until after several of trying to get across the idea of free energy to his fellow scientists and academics. In this world, the "floor" intelligence is far above the ceiling in our world today. It is the world that I am trying to help humanity aim for, not this one. I'll take heart over head any day, and it will be up to people of extraordinary hearts, not extraordinary minds, to get humanity over the hump. But some of the seeming stupidity that I see in my fellow Americans sure seems intentional.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

I'm not sure why we stumble into these pitfalls all the time. There is very little need for dogma. As you say, scientists are unanimous in many areas of science - if the Earth can be assumed to have been left on its own, if there are no ETs, if there is no higher physics, if Velikovsky, Hannes Alfven, and a string of others are wrong, if gravity is the dominant force in the cosmos, if consciousness is just a freak by-product of life, and if there is no proof for God. These are and were the guiding assumptions of science. Some would argue that all those in the list have been dealt with. Fine, but what areas of science will have to be revised when the science of FE is finally rolled out?

That said, who argues that energy does not run the show here on earth in terms of evolution and even human development? Civilizations come and go as their resources deplete, as climate changes. There were times of peace and plenty and then wars and famine before the ultimate collapse. These are the systems at work, that operate on millennia and larger blocks of time. Those systems operate in even larger systems with million year cycles and longer. And those systems in turn run on time frames of billions of years. These are patterns that only a comprehensive thinker can discern. There are so many cross-disciplines involved, so much data. Most cannot explain how their cell phone works... (actually being able to comprehensively explain how a cell phone works is a good exercise because it involves so many fields of understanding, including systems theory itself!)... how could they grasp scientific standpoints that are (arguably to varying degrees) unanimously held versus still in flux? And does it matter?

Isn't the bottom line the potential of FE? It's pitfalls versus potential? And isn't the salient point the fact that we cannot imagine what a world of FE would even look like, just like our progenitors could not have anticipated the impact of the combustion engine, for example (there are now more cars made than there are humans) or how plastic would revolutionize the manufacturing industry?

And isn't the warning they are flirting with disaster to the mostly young, mostly male intrepid souls who wish to break down the castle walls and storm the court of popular opinion with the newest FE prototype the important message? Isn't it about the love consciousness that must prevail and the need for personal integrity?

Isn't this about the dire consequences of human intervention on the global environment, and the fast approaching point-of-no-return where there will be no time left to implement an effective remedy?

Couldn't we say the rest is chaff - to various degrees? (interesting, insightful even, but at best only pointing to the meat of the matter - FE and its implications)

Myself, I just can't stop thinking about it. There are so many avenues to consider, so many lines of thought. I find I get a little further every day but it is hard going. It is hard to predict the future trajectory very far with any accuracy - it is that hard to imagine. It isn't a world of FE that is hard to imagine because for that all you need is a fertile imagination. No. It is the transition to that world that is hard to see. How does FE get distributed and assimilated? What societal structures would vanish, which would endure? How would the average person differ in that world from today's? How would that change come about in real terms? Those are the hard questions.

How fast could it happen is another favorite question I like to contemplate.

Why aren't some of these issues discussed? Is that phase two or something?