Thursday, January 14, 2010
Think scientists are corrupt about climate change? Then why do
you accept their authoritarian assertions about everything else?
And what do you think is the price of assailing the ivory tower?
THE ANTECEDENT. I started this. Commenters pressed the issue. And Lloyd Pye has volunteered to respond directly here in the most candid, personal, and thoughtful terms anyone might hope for. I asked him to reply to commenters, then reversed my field and asked him for more: to tell us who he is and why. Outrageous. But he rose to the occasion. All I ask of all of you is that you read carefully and think about what he has to say before you respond. More bluntly, I ask you not to respond in haste and to try to refrain from pettiness and sharpshooting as you imagine what it's like to challenge the status quo. You're here because I do. And I'm here partly because people like Lloyd Pye do.
WHY I DO WHAT I DO, THE WAY I DO IT
Lloyd Pye © 2010
Michael Crichton once said, “In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past.”
Unfortunately, since long before those words were written science has been politicized to a point where it is no better than the religions it once replaced as the arbiters of “official” wisdom and knowledge. A brief history lesson is in order for those who don’t know how science came to be what it is today.
In the recorded history of all world cultures, religion dominated all thought. Virtually everyone believed what their religious leaders told them to believe because the rare individuals who dared to challenge them were soon dead or regretted not being dead. Then, in the mid-1400s, printing presses appeared. Within 200 years the infection of literacy became widespread. In 200 more years, by1800, it was widespread enough for any rebellious person to write and publish “heretical” thoughts about any aspects of life or “knowledge.”
These early heretics were the “scientists” of their day. Earth wasn’t flat. It wasn’t the center of the solar system. It was vastly ancient. Its landmasses shifted. We all know the gradual progression from profound ignorance to a certain degree of enlightenment. Slowly, methodically, heretical scientists began to jostle the catbird seat where religion was securely ensconced. But nothing could dislodge them until 1859, when Charles Darwin published his “Origin of Species.” That was the lever the heretics needed to pry religion out of its catbird seat so science could finally, deservedly, take its place.
In the 150 years since Darwin, science has become every bit as entrenched as religion once was, and every bit as belligerent and vindictive against any who dare to question their right to absolute correctness in all that they utter or pronounce. Now, however, the invention of the Internet confronts science with a serious challenge to their authority and autonomy, identical to what science inflicted on religion after the printing press. Science required several centuries to gradually disperse enough force of reason to dislodge religion. Religion had plenty of time to prepare for the end. Not so with science.
The Internet is so pervasive, so fast, and so useful, science will be out of its catbird seat in the lifetimes of many who witnessed the birth of the Internet in 1980. In only 30 years since then, science finds itself quaking in its boots. They have to frantically create instructional seminars to train “skeptics” to ruthlessly “defend the faith” against people like me who challenge them. They would surely execute us all, as religion used to do, if they could get away with it. But they can’t, so they have to deal with us as best they can, which is to ridicule, insult, dismiss, ignore….whatever works for however long it works. But their day of reckoning is coming, and they know it.
The brainwashing process that passes for education around the world is still controlled by science, and that will hold true well into the future. However, the Internet will diminish science’s impact to a shadow of itself in the next decade and down to nothing in the decade following. Students will still be taught garbage in school, and will have to learn to pick out reliable truths from among the rantings posted on the Internet. It will indeed be Michael Crichton’s world of “shifting fears and wild prejudices.” But amidst all the junk and nonsense will be pearls of wisdom and truths similar to those that emerged from the speculations of early scientists who knew for certain that religion was wrong but weren’t quite sure which new ideas were correct.
Out of all the clutter and confusion of early scientific work, certain ideas emerged that were taken to be truths. Galileo put the Sun at the center of a fixed and unchanging solar system in the early 1600s, an idea that needed time to stick. Newton’s gravity became accepted reality by 1700. Evolution was the capstone theory, making subsequent speculations by scientists seem tolerable or even reasonable. Thus, Einstein could successfully introduce the bizarre world of quantum physics. Science is now viewed by most people as all-powerful and all-knowing, capable of solving any conundrum if given enough time and tolerance as its practitioners move toward their answers.
The problem with all of those “truths” is that they are fundamentally flawed. Galileo.…wayyyy off base. Newton….hate to say it. Evolution….ridiculous, really, from the first glimmer of it. Even Darwin had serious doubts about it, but he could see no other plausible alternative. And Einstein skewed science onto a tangent they may need decades to backtrack from. All of it is wrong.
In 1950 Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that the solar system has not always been as it is now, that Mars and Venus were relatively recent additions to it. He “called his shot,” a la Joe Namath and others, when he predicted that the surface of Venus would be exceedingly hot, even after its bright albedo had convinced every mainstream scientist in the world that it was a frozen blob. Velikovsky’s “outrageous” prediction was proved true, as were others, yet none of it can rehabilitate him in the eyes of mainstream critics. Sixty years later he remains hated and reviled by cosmologists and other scientists, as Galileo was by the religionists of his era, despite more and more evidence coming in to indicate or prove that Immanuel Velikovsky was correct.
This is not “forbidden” knowledge in the sense it was when religion ruled the roost, but a terrified mainstream does suppress all volatile knowledge by heaping scorn on it, and then ignoring it, when they should be investigating it to the hilt. Velikovsky is particularly disturbing because to admit any error about such a fundamental aspect of knowledge would cast serious doubt on everything else they purport to know. Thus, they fight tooth and claw against anyone who suggests they could be wrong about anything to keep everyone from doubting where they absolutely must be correct, which is in the critical arena where religion still chooses to vigorously challenge them—creation.
Creation comes in two flavors: (1) the creation of everything; and (2) the creation of humans. We all know the diametric positions. Religion says “God did it all,” science insists “Nature did it all.” From both perspectives there is no middle ground in the dispute, but that viewpoint is wrong. The middle ground is where I do the majority of my research and work, which is readily available on YouTube and Google videos, and in many writings. No need to discuss that further. Let’s focus on Newton and his laws of gravity.
Of the many profoundly stupid ideas mainstream science tries to insist are real and true, perhaps the stupidest is the notion that gravity is the driving and binding force throughout the universe. Gravity is supposed to be what brought everything together in the first place, and what holds it all together in the magical “dance of the spheres” that occurs across a vastness so wide and deep that no words are really adequate to describe it. Yet gravity does not now have, nor has it ever possessed, the physical power to do that.
As a binding force of nature, gravity is vanishingly weak. No infinitesimal particles of matter drifting through the vacuum of space can aggregate into ever larger pieces, which is the story we’re expected to believe. That simply can never happen. Yet somehow, even though gravity can’t aggregate loose particulate matter into larger objects within reality as we know it, somehow in the distant past it could. So, why is this? Why won’t mainstream science consider that they might be wrong about gravity and look for another, more plausible answer? Because they don’t want to give up Newton and Einstein! They’ve built a sand castle of absurdity on a crumbling edifice that, when it finally collapses, will force them to scrap every textbook and start over. So who can blame them for doing all they can to avoid that day of reckoning?
Let’s consider some facts: in a particle of dust floating in the vacuum of space, gravity does not exist. To give it even an infinitesimal degree of attractive force requires an electrical charge of plasma, which permeates everything around us here on Earth and, as far as we can tell, is thoroughly ubiquitous throughout the universe. Well, then, what about charged plasma? Might it have a role in holding everything together? Yes, it might! In fact, charged plasma, rather than gravity, is the binding force in the universe.
Electrically charged plasma is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Let’s not bother with how that is determined, just take it as the fact it is. Let’s further understand that if charged plasma is put at the heart of the universe’s obvious attractive force, the math works. By itself, electricity is strong enough to get the job done. But science refuses to recognize this for the reason I mentioned above: no gravity means no Newton or Einstein, and a nightmare of embarrassment and recriminations will have to be overcome.
Given those options, it’s much easier to create massive “fudge factors” to hide their glaring errors from Michael Crichton’s “people who don’t know any better.” That means most of you reading this, whether you like to think of yourself in that way or not. Scientists don’t care how ignorant of the truth you are, as long as you don’t make them confess that all along they’ve been flagrantly lying about their knowledge base. Believe me, if I know the truth you can be sure they know it. They’re running an enormous scam on you at the level of Bernie Madoff or the Fed. The stakes are that toweringly high.
Dark matter, dark energy, black holes.…each has been created to follow through on this old saying: “If you can’t fool them with facts, blind them with bullshit.” Like good chocolate, “the darks” are the mathematical fudge factors mentioned above, all of them impervious to disproving because they are as invisible and unfathomable as the God of religion. “Please, just take our word that those things must be there.” Why? So the gravity math will make sense. With 99% of everything “missing,” gravity remains viable.
I can do this for pages and pages, example upon example, right up to and including Darwinian evolution, the Holy Grail of science and the one idea they will defend almost to the death because it remains so sacrosanct. Why? Because to concede one inch against evolution is to grant a mile of highly contested turf to their mortal enemies, the Creationists. Let me say right here that I’m not a Creationist, and I consider their arguments every bit as flawed and specious as the Darwinists. Both are flatly wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet for now the battle rages on, and those of us fighting it must stay fully engaged.
I do what I do, the way I do it, because I’m no different than scientists were when they saw and understood a clearer vision of truth than religionists had. Scientists then knew they were right and they proceeded on that basis. I and others like me do the same thing now. We know that we are right and nearly all of mainstream science’s baseline realities are wrong. That’s a contentious statement, but it’s true. We look back at the people living on Earth 300 years ago and we howl at their level of ignorance. With the speed at which we can access information today, I think it’s safe to say that people only 100 years from now will look back at what we believe and they’ll gasp with shock at the profound depth of our ignorance. That’s why I called my book about these matters Everything You Know Is Wrong. All of it really is wrong.
I’m not the only one who knows the depth of our ignorance. Science knows. That’s why they work so hard to suppress dissenting opinions. That’s why they have such a witheringly restrictive “peer review” process that stifles any step forward in any field that is more than a comfortable inch or so. No radical thoughts allowed, no big jumps forward, no originality need apply.
This is why a naysayer critic or skeptic must be on any television show that presents opinions that challenge the mainstream in any way. In 1993, NBC aired a brilliant documentary film called Mystery of the Sphinx. It presented overwhelming evidence that Egypt’s Sphinx has been weathered by heavy rainfall, which had not occurred there before 10,000 years earlier. That date blew a gaping hole in classic Egyptology, so thousands of mainstreamers inundated NBC with complaints for not having one of them on the show to counter the claims as the nonsense they insisted it had to be. “The Sphinx Rule” has been in place ever since. No anti-mainstream position can be aired without a critic or skeptic on to provide the “truth” to the viewing audience.
Such belligerent behavior makes clear how mortally afraid scientists are of the evidence piling up beneath their catbird seat, steadily reaching up to their precarious perch. Someday, any day, even this day, an alien from a UFO, or a bigfoot, or some other hominoid will climb up that mound with a stick in hand and, in front of all of us, it will shatter science’s catbird seat and send all of them tumbling down onto a painful bed of nails of their own making. They will have to pick themselves up, tend to their wounds, and try to walk away with as much dignity as their bruised egos will allow. It won’t be the end of their lives, but it will be the end of their lives as they know them.
They all understand that outcome, which makes them desperate to protect their precious status quos. This is why people like me are subjected to their persistent ridicule and abuse across the Internet, starting with the thoroughly corrupt Wikipedia and covering every other base they can find to cover. It’s a never-ending battle between them and us, just as it was between them and religion. They won against religion and they will lose against us, but what comes after they lose? I’m not sure, and I don’t believe anyone can be.
What I think is that they’ll do everything they can to take credit for every shred of the new knowledge, finding ways to insist that “one of our own thought of it first.” This is what they do. They learned from the mistakes religion made when they were overthrown. Religion would never stoop to even grudgingly accommodate the new realities science imposed on them. Therefore, I’m confident science will take what people like me cram down their unwilling throats and, with graceless aplomb, claim it for themselves.
Three things science will ultimately claim as their own are things that today they refuse to take seriously. Any of the three will topple the fragile edifice they have constructed to explain the world as we currently perceive it. (1) UFOs can’t exist. (2) Aliens in those UFOs can’t exist. (3) Hominoids such as yeti and bigfoot can’t exist. Why? Mostly because scientists say so. And why do they say that? Because the undeniable reality of any of those three would mean that neither science nor humanity is what it’s cracked up to be. Scientists would be exposed in all their buffoonery, and humanity would be seen as having no roots or reality in the flowchart of ancient life on Earth.
As it happens, I have the distinct honor and genuine pleasure of being up to my neck in the process of proving all three are as real as real gets. Scientists have no trouble dismissing ghosts, werewolves, vampires, fairies, trolls, etc., but the reality of UFOs, aliens, or hominoids will devastate them when they have to deal with the fallout from their decades of denial-based deceptions. And their loyal toadies of today, mainstream media, which willingly defers to their academic “credentials” because that is the easy and safe thing to do, will turn on their former masters like a pack of rabid dogs. Science will be shredded by endless recriminations like, “You’re supposed to be experts! Expert means knowledgeable! So why didn’t you tell us about this?”
Experts do, in fact, tend to be highly knowledgeable about one subject, but seldom more than one. They learn one tree from roots to tip-top limbs. They stand beside other experts who know their trees from roots to tip-top limbs. Standing together makes for an impressive group photo. However, split them apart and in terms of the forest they’re in, they don’t know poop. Their focus on their individual trees blinds them to the forest that surrounds them, and it certainly provides no view of any horizon. They know what they know and that’s pretty much it. However, their credentials and the automatic respect it grants frequently lulls them into thinking they are expert on more topics than the one in which they are credentialed. And worse than that, they invariably believe other experts who pontificate about the trees apart from their own.
If every expert always told the truth about his or her tree, it would be much more difficult to challenge them on a given point. But because each one is habitually dishonest in the ways they’ve been taught are necessary to make their tree fit into the mainstream forest, none really do tell the truth as they know it, they put out the truth as they understand it needs to be for them to remain members of the “expert” club. It’s an exclusive club, too, invariably rejecting independent thinkers at the graduate level, so they have no trouble making absurdities seem at least possible. This is why ordinary people live blissfully floating in a sea of deceptions spewing from mainstream science, and it’s also why so many “truths” we take for granted really are wrong.
Lest you think mine are sour grapes from being rejected by some graduate school in my college days, let me say that I had no inkling of how corrupt the system was when I was young. Had my mind been captured at that point I would have bought into “the system” as wholeheartedly as those who buy into it today. Get people young and they have literally no way to know the difference. I was almost 30 and well away from academics before I gained the first inklings of how corrupt their system was. And even then I couldn’t bring myself to completely reject it. My early beliefs were as typical as any mainstreamer reading these words. My revelations were slow and difficult, and my job is making similar revelations for others less slow and difficult.
So that’s what I do and why I do it the way I do it. I know science is, on the whole, as full of crap as the proverbial Christmas turkey. Very little of what they say, or pretend to know, is reliably true because so incredibly many of their pontifications are constructed around blatantly wrong information. My special area of interest is human origins, and I’ve collected, and continue to collect, wonderfully convincing evidence for the argument that humans did not evolve on Earth but were genetically created to live and work as slaves and servants of superior beings sojourning here for thousands of years.
To the unaware or to the uninitiated, I know how that must sound, but the evidence for it is astonishing if it can be approached with even a quasi-open mind. Millions of good people can’t do that, of course, because they are so thoroughly brainwashed against thinking that far “outside the box.” But for those who can face such an emotional challenge, the rewards are manifest. Nobody in the alternative community demands that anyone see the world as we do. That’s what religion and science inflict on others. All we want is an opportunity to have our opinions heard and our ideas evaluated, fairly and objectively, with no harping about our lack of “credentials” or “credibility.”
My most compelling urge is to help all of us come to know and accept who we actually are, rather than believing the ridiculous fairy tale concocted for gullible billions by modern science. That fantasy reduces us all to little more than cartoon characters in a Disney classic. Until we firmly establish who we actually are and how we’ve come to be here on Earth, we can never take our proper place in the larger scheme of life in the universe. We can never take our rightful seat at any Galactic Roundtable that might be out there, or take a seat in a bar like the one in “Star Wars.” Until we dare to acknowledge the vast array of life “out there,” it is doubtful such life will acknowledge us.
Acknowledge now or acknowledge later, eventually the Truth with a capital “T” will be established by someone who, like Albert Einstein in 1905 when he published his famous paper, will have neither credentials nor credibility because no one with either will dare to think what must be thought to reach toward capital “T” Truth. That Truth is definitely on our side, and History with a capital “H” will prove it, exactly as it proved the flat-Earthers were wrong. When the upheaval comes, we can be sure the Internet that Michael Crichton wrote about will play a dominant role. We can be equally certain that people like me, serious alternative researchers hard at work around the world today, will play significant roles. The catbird seat will pass to us.
At the proverbial “end of the day,” I and my serious alternative colleagues will have the pleasure and recognition of being in the vanguard of the “old timers” who drew a solid bead on the Truth back around 2000, when billions of humans were so abysmally ignorant about the actual realities of existence. For me, and I’m sure for most of my colleagues, that will be reward enough.
Now, have at it. But show some respect.
Thank you, Lloyd.
P.S. As I originally asked, he also rebutted the specific charges and objections expressed by individual commenters. I thought this essay was more to the point. But if you must have a fight, I'm sure it can be arranged.
Dirty Rotten Varmint thinks he wants to fight. uh, he doesn't. In fact, he doesn't want to know in this video which is the cub and which is the bear. I might be inclined to cut him a break because he's a longtime commenter... Lloyd might be inclined to cut him a break because he's trying to be polite...
All DRV needs to know is that there IS a bear. Actually. Lloyd and I are BOTH the bear.
Warning enough? Better be. On the other hand, GO for it...