Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Roswell: A House of Mirrors

We have all gotten lost in a carnival’s “house of mirrors” at one time or another in our lives. It is disorienting, but also a lot of fun-- for a while. Eventually, the fun wears down and we want OUT! The now famous Roswell Incident of 1947 is just such a “house of mirrors.” It has provided a lot of fun for a lot of folks for a fair amount of time. But the fun has finally worn down and a lot of us just want OUT! ROSWELL AND THE REICH The Nazi Connection (Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, IL, 2010) has been written by someone who seems to have found the fun of the Roswell Incident worn down and who is trying to show some of us the way OUT! The author of this work is the prolific and learned Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.

At the outset of his new book, Dr. Farrell doesn’t seem to deny that the Roswell Incident compels interest. But it almost seems that he wrote this book despite himself, to comply with the request of others. And he goes out of his way to inform the reader that he is not a “ufologist.” Dr. Farrell seems here to be anticipating criticism from some quarter that he is not qualified to write on Roswell because he is not a “ufologist.” I am not sure I even know exactly what a “ufologist” is. Perhaps it means people who are field investigators for civilian UFO research groups? Certainly Dr. Farrell is not that. But there are a lot of people who write about UFOs who are not field investigators. Some of these people are fully qualified to write about UFOS. I think it was the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek who said something like, “Ufologists don’t study UFOs; they study UFO reports.” It certainly is legitimate for Dr. Farrell to write about Roswell as a series of UFO reports. He offers an analysis of the reports and their attendant theories. His is a high quality of analysis. Dr. Farrell gets his facts straight, and meticulously references them. He knows what he’s talking about, when he’s talking about the known, established facts. I would even say that he is clearly an expert.

When we move beyond facts to the theories and interpretations, it is then when we enter that “house of mirrors.” In this topsy-turvy environment, the center does not hold-- or witnesses stories. Nothing seems to stick, add up, or, ultimately, make one damn bit of sense! It is very frustrating to any sincere person trying to get to the true nature and identity of the Roswell Incident.

Dr. Farrell’s own theory-- that the Nazi International crashed a saucer-- is a whole lot better than the “weather balloon theory,” and “the Mogul theory.” The Nazi International theory as Dr. Farrell elucidates it also turns out to be better than the standard “E.T.” theory that UFO researcher Stanton Friedman has promoted for years. But here is my problem: None of the theories-- and I mean none of them including Dr. Farrell’s theory-- completely and conclusively explain all of the information that is held in consensus as facts by all researchers. All of these theories to one extent or another is an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The only way to do this is to shave off the corners of the square peg-- that is, shave off some of the known facts so that the remaining shaved peg of facts can fit into the round theory hole. The merit of Dr. Farrell’s Nazi theory is that he shaves off the least amount from the square peg of facts, and then hammers that slightly shaved peg into the round hole of theory by hammering it in very hard-- that is, he provides a tremendous amount of documentation and references for those facts that he does retain. just doesn’t work. Not for me, at least, and I’m trying very hard to be objective about this Roswell thing. I don’t care what it was; I just want to know what it really was. You could say I just want...OUT! But I can’t get OUT until I know the way out. Yes, I know, I ask a lot.

Anyone interested in Dr. Farrell’s explanation for Roswell should read his book (that’s why he wrote it). But here I’ll try to explain why after reading Dr. Farrell’s book and pondering his theory, I just can’t accept it as the explanation for the Roswell Incident.

Curiously, in Dr. Farrell’s preface where he makes it clear that he is not a “ufologist,” he also clearly states that his theory about Roswell-- like so many others-- is “an argued and speculative case.” Yet at the end of his book he concludes with finality: “...we know now that the Roswell Incident was not a silly balloon. And we know that it was not extraterrestrial either.” Know? We don’t know for certain what the Roswell Incident was, extraterrestrial or otherwise; it is only an “argued and speculative case” as Dr. Farrell says at the beginning, not as he says at the end, contradicting himself. This shift in claims and premises, which Dr. Farrell sometimes falls prey to in his writings, mars the consistency of his argument and corrupts the integrity of his logic. Here, I detect an attempt at the end of his book to sell the reader on the Nazi explanation purely on the basis of asserting what “we know,” when, in fact, we know very little, even at the end of Dr. Farrell’s book, despite all his heavy documentation of certain kinds of facts.

The subject of the Roswell Incident is plagued with a lot of the same problems of analysis as other complex subjects involving a challenge to existing paradigms. Many researchers in their arguments on these subjects commit logical fallacies or are inconsistent with their own premises. Much of this specious reasoning is disingenuous; many researchers have hidden agendas and attempt to foist these upon the public by appealing to irrational modes of thinking. Arguments of false association or “guilt by association” are often employed as well as many other rhetorical tactics to play upon the will to believe or disbelieve. Many of the same ruses stage magicians use to lead their audience to false conclusions are used by writers to convince their readers that a conclusion has been reached via a rational course when in fact it has not. This kind of argumentation is “debunking,” the pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-rational argumentation often used by the proponents of our official, mainstream paradigm of Newtonian-Einsteinian scientific materialism-- the well-known “psy-cops.” In analyzing the argument made by someone writing about something like the Roswell Incident, we must stay alert to the use of these rhetorical tricks, whether they are used intentionally or inadvertently, and always we should make a clear distinction in our own thinking between what we know and what we merely believe.

There is a lot that I don’t think will ever be known about Roswell, at least in our lifetimes. All I ask is that we try to find a speculative explanation for Roswell that fits all of what we presently agree that we do know. One of the most problematic areas of the Roswell Incident is the claim of a number of people that nonhuman bodies were involved. If it could be established that nonhuman bodies-- living or dead-- were present, it would, by definition explain the Roswell Incident as an event involving nonhumans. Dr. Farrell’s admitted “tendentiousness” is against a nonhuman explanation, so obviously he is going to attempt to explain away any evidence of nonhumans. The evidence for a nonhuman presence in the Roswell Incident, such as it is, would probably not stand up in a court of law. However, that does not necessarily mean that it should be completely discounted for those of us who are trying to get at the truth.

Of all of the Roswell witnesses, I, personally, believe Frankie Rowe’s story. I have seen her tell her story on videotape. I have had some experience in amateur and professional acting, and I know how to read people. Frankie Rowe’s recounting of her story, if false, would have to be the work of a professional actress or a professional con-woman. She is neither. I believe she is telling the truth as she remembers it to the best of her ability. She appears to me to have been horribly traumatized by a monstrous and cowardly bully who violated her rights as a human being in the most fundamental way. I say Frankie Rowe deserves our respect and support-- and even admiration-- for her courage to come forward and tell a painful story that few will believe.

I find Kal Korff’s observation about the absence of Roswell Fire Department records for a “run outside of town during the month of July 1947” to be utterly absurd in the face of what we know was going on around Roswell in July 1947 in terms of restriction, control, and distortion of all forms of public information. What does he think the fire house log book should say? “Hey, we went to the flying saucer crash today and boy was it a whopper!” O.K., I’m not being fair! They would’ve BLACKED OUT “flying saucer.” Right? Come on! Of course if the Roswell Fire Department went to the site of where something highly classified crashed, there would be no log book entry about it of any kind! I disagree with Dr. Farrell’s assessment of Korff’s observation about only two fire trucks being available in Roswell as “perceptive.” I do not find this observation of Korff’s “perceptive” in the least. The Roswell Fire Department only had two trucks whenever they used one of them anywhere. When a truck is in use anywhere, it is in use-- it cannot be used elsewhere. Is that going to stop the fire department from using it? Of course not! Further, the place where the fire truck went, as I understand it, was not very far out of town. Could the Roswell fire department under extremely unusual circumstances respond to a request from the military to come and lend immediate assistance? Yes. Fire departments always lend inter-agency, state, and federal assistance in emergencies. That a Roswell fire truck was sent out of town at the request of the military is a reasonable possibility since the base fire trucks were further away than the city fire trucks from the area of concern. Having responded to the request of the military, would the fire department have been placed under secrecy orders that would extend to log books? Of course it would! Korff’s and Farrell’s line of argument is illogical. I see it as merely an attempt to discredit the testimony of Frankie Rowe. The comment that Frankie Rowe’s dental appointment cannot be documented is another attempt to discredit her. Decades-old medical records, especially for dental appointments, usually don’t survive. This fact alone should make the objective bystander question the motives of those who would demand that Frankie Rowe’s dental records be produced before they will believe her story.

For the same reasons I believe Frankie Rowe, I also believe the testimony of Sheriff Wilcox’s daughter who said that her father and mother had been threatened to silence by the military.

Frankie Rowe’s testimony is supported by Sheriff Wilcox’s daughter. It seems to me likely that something happened just a few miles north of Roswell in July 1947 involving fire, burned areas, metallic debris-- and bodies. This claim comes from both Frankie Rowe and Sheriff Wilcox’s daughter. Yes, this and the testimony of several other witnesses is hearsay evidence, but we are not in a court of law, we are engaged in forming a reasonable speculative opinion. As such, hearsay is admissible for the purposes of placing it in the context of known facts to determine if such hearsay is consistent with the established facts. Remember, just because hearsay is not admissible in a court of law does not mean that hearsay is never true. The philosophy behind not admitting hearsay in court is that it is much harder to substantiate than eyewitness testimony. But for our purposes with trying to understand Roswell, hearsay can’t be summarily dismissed necessarily. In the case of Frankie Rowe and Sheriff Wilcox’s daughter, it holds together internally and holds up externally with other known facts.

Relating this to Mac Brazel, a suggestive picture emerges of there being more than one “crash site,” one on Brazel’s ranch and at least a second one closer to Roswell where the fire and sheriff’s department went. I suspect that the whole Roswell Incident was very complex and involved “incidents” at several sites, perhaps information concerning which has never, even up to now, reached public dissemination. Brazel’s now-famous comment that the little men “weren’t green” may not be explainable in terms of him having to actually see the little men in question. It is possible that Brazel was himself only passing along hearsay, but hearsay gathered from a source Brazel considered authoritative. I can imagine a scenario where Brazel incarcerated at the Roswell air base was told that little men were involved in the crash. On the other hand, he may have been shown one of the bodies of the little men there at the base as a part of his debriefing and conditioning to remain silent about what he had actually found on his ranch.

Certainly, I think a lot of the Roswell witnesses exhibit the characteristics of people who have been manipulated-- initially to silence-- and then to lies or half-truths. Several of the discredited witnesses are obvious government plants as evinced by their relationship with Walter Haut, the original government Roswell disinformation agent. But can we say from this that we have “disproved” the presence of nonhumans at Roswell in 1947? Absolutely not! There is enough testimony that remains credible concerning bodies to at least suggest the possibility that these bodies might have been nonhuman.

It should be asked-- and it has not been asked so far by anyone apparently-- why did people like Jim Ragsdale, Frank Kaufman, Gerald Anderson, and Glenn Dennis lie? Were they just a bunch of old crack-pot geezers who wanted to pull a hoax? Did they have a history of telling tall tales before Roswell? Were they mentally ill? No? Then why did they lie? I have seen Glenn Dennis on videotape on several occasions. His behavior and speech patterns are those of a man who has been coached. Who was doing this coaching? The most obvious candidate to me is the U.S. Government that initially put out the flying saucer/weather balloon story, the “we have it and then we don’t have it” story as Walter Haut himself put it.

If our government feels the need to order certain individuals to tell false stories so that they can later be discredited, we must wonder why the government would want to do this. The most obvious reason I can think of is to discredit the real witnesses testifying to the presence of little men at the Roswell Incident of 1947-- guilt by association.

This is exactly what the line of argument with some Roswell researchers has become: because many witnesses have been discredited, all the remaining witnesses lack credibility; therefore everybody testifying about little men is probably liars. This is guilt by association.

Some of the witnesses have been “discredited” because they have changed their stories over time, such as Beverly Bean. But if you look at what Bean has said over time without associating her in your mind with any of the other Roswell witnesses, a case could be argued that she has changed her story, such as it is, simply because she has remembered more things as time has gone by. Initially, she may have remembered the first time her father told her his story was after reading The Daily Mail. Later, she may have remembered him mentioning something about Roswell at earlier times. She may not have remembered these earlier mentions at first because they were not connected in her memory to anything sensational in a newspaper; they were only her father’s brief comments. Human memory is highly susceptible to tuning things out that aren’t personally relevant. Bean may have completely forgotten her father’s earlier comments at the time he made them because they were just nonsense to her then. Later, the publicizing of the Roswell Incident may have caused her mind to re-categorize nonsensical forgotten memories as suddenly meaningful and therefore made these forgotten memories mentally accessible to her conscious mind once again. So just because Beverly Bean changed her story doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s lying. Just because she described a different kind of little body from what others have described doesn’t mean she’s lying. There may have been more than one type of little body present at the Roswell Incident-- or perhaps Bean’s father saw the body under conditions that made him somewhat misperceive some of the body’s characteristics. Differing colors of lighting can make the same skin tone perceptibly different in color. There could be a number of reasons for these kinds of discrepancies other than Bean telling lies. But if you are hypnotized to “guilt by association” with the other discredited Roswell witnesses, you may assume for these reasons that Bean is lying and believe that she has even been proven to be a liar. But no such proof has been made. She has only changed her story. She may or may not be a liar, we don’t know. But the now discredited testimony of many people tends to make us believe that we know. This would be the purpose of creating a group of false witness testimony: to obfuscate, confuse, and discredit the testimony of witnesses who are truthful-- to make the Roswell Incident a house of mirrors.

The only reason that so many people who otherwise are not known for lying would tell lies such as this would be precisely for this purpose: to suppress the truth of what happened at Roswell-- whatever it was that really happened. But because the government has expended so much effort in covering up what really happened, what really happened must’ve been perceived and continue to be perceived as an extreme threat to national security. And most of the unreliable testimony that appears to be government sourced has been about little bodies. What is it about little bodies that is a threat to national security?

Another comment of some Roswell researchers is that much of the testimony about the little bodies is second-hand and the original witnesses are dead. Yes, but what can we expect? 1947 was a long time ago, and of course most of the adult people that were living then are now dead. This doesn’t disprove all this second-hand testimony. There were hundreds of people who had stories about the “crash” according to these second-hand sources. We can’t simply write off all of these rumors simply because they can no longer be checked. We must weigh the significance of the rumors as a sociological fact.

That is to say, if some unusual objects with small bodies were actually found near Roswell in 1947, then we would rightfully expect rumors about these objects and bodies to filter through the town of Roswell. We would also rightfully expect that there would be many different versions to these rumors, because people naturally distort the facts because of inattention in listening, bad memory, and, yes, in lying. But all of this distortion of information would not change the fact of what really happened.

A rumor in which there are hundreds of people involved in a small area where they all know each other probably has some basis in fact; it would not generate spontaneously out of the social vacuum. Indeed, if these rumors had not existed in Roswell over the years, knowing what we do know from just the newspaper accounts-- that would be very strange. By correlating the contents of these rumors with not only the Roswell Incident but the larger field of UFO research, we can bring a meta-analysis to the rumors and look for tale-tell patterns elsewhere to determine whether a pattern encoded in the rumors suggests a basis in fact. There may be tale-tell information in the rumors that correlate with other facts elsewhere; this would argue that the rumor-mongers did not invent these claims, but were only reporting facts the significance of which they would not have understood at the time. So the Roswell researchers who summarily dismiss all of the many rumors in all their varied, even contradictory forms about a crash and bodies are mistaken in their approach. The many rumors are a sociological fact; they are real urban legends. The rumors did not form in a vacuum, and although varied in detail, they are generally agreed upon in subject. We can’t take the rumors as proof of anything, but we can’t completely dismiss them either. We must put the rumors into context with what we actually know, and then see if what we know correlates with what the rumors suggest.

Dr. Farrell does not completely reject outright all witness testimony about small bodies being present at the Roswell Incident, but he persistently argues that this testimony does not compel toward a nonhuman interpretation. However, Dr. Farrell misses the point here. The testimony does not have to compel, only suggest. From such suggestion a circumstantial case may be constructed from other contextual evidence to support that suggestion and thereby establish a plausible speculative scenario of events. And this is all that we can achieve with so little tangible evidence available: a plausible speculative scenario whatever that scenario might be. Dr. Farrell has not demonstrated that the nonhuman interpretation of the bodies is impossible or implausible, and although Dr. Farrell says that he does not discount the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation to earth, he clearly has a bias toward explaining away the presence of E.T. in every instance where its possibility arises and insinuates by this practice that, on balance, the possibility of E.T. is less of a viable explanation than a human one. His stated opinion that Nick Redfern’s Japanese progeria scenario has banished extraterrestrial bodies “forever from the landscape of the Roswell Incident” is an opinion that is unworthy of Dr. Farrell’s intelligence.

The idea of nonhumans on the earth in recent times is by no means “nutty.” Keeping my own personal experiences out of this, I refer to an official United States Government document written by an official of the United States Government in which the testimony of witnesses describe little men with big heads and small bodies engaged in activity in the deserts of the western United States. The document was written in 1870 by an agent of the Office of Indian Affairs. It described what the Paiute Indians of Nevada witnessed in the 1840s and 1850s. They saw little men with big heads and small bodies. Were these Japanese suffering from progeria? I don’t deny the possibility, but.... Give us all a break!

Why in the world would Nazi International scientists use Japanese with progeria in highly advanced field propulsion craft-- and in an experiment over the hostile--
the most-powerful-nation-in-the-world-- our United States of America? Where is the logic in this scenario? It not only fails, it falls into utter absurdity! If the Nazi International crashed a saucer near Roswell, it was not an experimental craft crewed by several Japanese with progeria. That idea is more “nutty” than the E.T. explanation, and far below the caliber of nearly all of the rest of Dr. Farrell’s speculations, not only on Roswell but on all other subjects he has written about. If Nazi International was using Japanese with progeria as human guinea pigs in test flights, they would have done this over their own secured airspace, and the test flights would have not involved sophisticated field propulsion craft capable of long-distance flight. Such an advanced craft would be so well-developed technically that the need to use any kind of test subjects, human or animal, would have long since passed. I also think it is unlikely that Nazi International would use deformed people to pilot a sophisticated field-propulsion craft long distances to any locale, especially the continental United States. It is also unlikely that Nazi International would have had an experimental station within U.S. borders, especially in the New Mexico area.

The whole idea that the Roswell little men were Japanese with progeria comes from an anonymous source located by Nick Redfern who claimed that the U.S. was using these Japanese in high altitude balloon experiments conducted by Project Paperclip Nazis.

As grizzly and disturbing as this scenario is, it does make sense in terms of something that could have possibly happened. But the testing of these same deformed Japanese in fully developed, transcontinental, transoceanic traveling field propulsion craft definitely does not make any sense whatsoever. This idea of Japanese with progeria explaining the claims of the existence of the Roswell little men is one of the instances where Dr. Farrell whittles away at the corners of his square peg of facts.

Could Nazi paperclip scientists have been involved with a highly classified United States Government experiment involving deformed Japanese with progeria? Yes, this could have been possible. It would have been an extreme black op, an unconstitutional and illegal use of human guinea pigs and would have been kept secret at any cost, including threatening children, and, if necessary, murdering anybody that got in the way. However, such a project would have been difficult to conceal from those in the military without “the need to know.” It is a highly problematical and improbable hypothetical, and can only be admitted as a remote possibility in need of corroborating evidence as much as any other claim would need. But there is no possibility that such human guinea pigs would be used to test fully developed field propulsion craft because such “expendable” test subjects (expendable from a sociopath viewpoint) are not needed in the test flights of sophisticated, developed craft. Using such expendable human guinea pigs makes sense in non-pressurized high-altitude balloons, because the test there is to see at what altitude the human guinea pig gets sick and dies. In our own human space programs chimpanzees were used in some of the early rockets. This was quickly discontinued when manned rocket flight was developed to a reasonably safe level. Craft composed of “memory metal” and flown a great distance over hostile air space would have certainly achieved a reasonably safe level of manned operation.

Not only are there problems with giving a logical explanation as to why Nazis would use progeria victims in advanced field propulsion craft, but there are problems in correlating the characteristics of progeria with the characteristics of the little men described at the 1947 Roswell Incident. There is a similarity between progeria characteristics and the characteristics of the purported Roswell little men, but the characteristics of both are not identical. In progeria, the sufferer has an enlarged, down-turned and pointed nose. The Roswell little men were always described as having almost no noses. This glaringly omits the Roswell little men from possibly being Japanese with progeria. Even Japanese progeria sufferers have this distinctive characteristic of enlarged noses and ears. One can only assert that the Roswell little men were Japanese progeria sufferers if one omits or ignores this very important fact. Here again is an example of Dr. Farrell whittling away the facts from his square peg of facts to make his remaining square peg of facts fit his round theory hole. Dr. Farrell’s correlation of progeria characteristics with the Roswell little men characteristics gives the superficial appearance of validity, until we scrutinize his argument carefully; upon scrutiny his argument falls apart. But if the Roswell little men did not specifically have progeria, couldn’t they have still been only deformed humans of some kind? Yes, but this is only an unfounded assertion; it does not even have an anonymous “witness” to make the assertion. We are left with a maybe-- maybe the Roswell little men were deformed humans-- but maybe-- they weren’t.

The claim of nonhuman presence at Roswell in 1947 has not been conclusively dismissed by Dr. Farrell or anyone else. Even though deformed human beings are a possible explanation for what witnesses described at Roswell, it is only a possible explanation. It does not exclude other possibilities. It is conclusive of nothing. Also, a plausible rationale would be needed to provide an explanation for the presence of deformed human beings at the 1947 Roswell debris site. So far, no such rationale has been supplied by Dr. Farrell or anyone else. The Japanese progeria scenario fails both the plausibility test and the test of actual fact. Nor is the deformed human being explanation more sensible or less “nutty” than a nonhuman explanation when the whole content of UFO-nonhuman research is cross referenced with the Roswell Incident.

Witness claims of seeing hairless little men with big heads at Roswell crash sites is a real problem for anyone who is trying to explain the Roswell debris as terrestrial artifacts. This is because to deny witnesses’ claims one must either discredit witness testimony in some fashion or explain the presence of the little men as deformed humans. It is much more effective and easy to discredit witness testimony if one wants to maintain a terrestrial explanation for the Roswell Incident. For if some witness testimony is valid on this account, the only recourse to maintaining a terrestrial explanation is to explain the little men as some kind of deformed humans. But this is much more difficult to do than just calling somebody a liar. If the little men were deformed humans, a plausible explanation must be presented for why deformed human beings would be present at the site of a crash of some kind of apparent vehicle. Some explanation can always be supplied, but a plausible explanation is what is needed to lay the matter to rest, and a plausible explanation for the presence of deformed humans is extremely hard to imagine. So far, no plausible explanation for the presence of deformed human beings at the 1947 Roswell Incident has been proposed, by Dr. Farrell or anyone else.

When we relate Roswell to the entire UFO field of investigation, one thing clearly emerges: Even if there was not one, single witness to come forward to tell about nonhuman presence at Roswell, given the fact that the debris was not exactly like anything made on earth at that time, the speculation that nonhumans may have also been present is not unreasonable. That so many people have claimed nonhumans were involved is an indication to me that, despite the unreliability of many individual testimonies, there may be some real basis for the claims of nonhuman “little men”-- there may have been some real fire somewhere in all that smoke. When people like Frankie Rowe and Sheriff Wilcox’s daughter testify, I listen, and think, and ponder, and relate everything I know to Roswell.

In his book Dr. Farrell barely touches upon the armada of flying saucers seen across the United States by thousands of people in the first week of July 1947. This is a major fact that he has whittled away from the corners of the square peg of facts. Anyone who wants to read about this historical fact can look at the front page of any newspaper in the U.S. for the first week of July 1947. The flying saucers were everywhere. Kenneth Arnold’s sighting was only one among thousands of others across the U.S. that were reported, indicating that there were many more people who sighted these saucers, but never reported them. Arnold’s sighting is highly suspect as part of the government disinformation program; his ties to the government are well known. He described the UFOs he saw moving like “saucers skipping over water.” But one does not skip saucers over water, but pebbles. This sounds like Arnold was spin-doctoring his sighting, trying to make it sound like it was similar to sightings of saucers seen elsewhere in the U.S. at that time.

The saucer sightings that occurred in Sacramento in July 1947 were made in the same area where I had close encounters with UFOs thirty years later. In the 1947 Sacramento saucer sightings, the saucers were seen to eject glittering metallic debris out into the sky. One of the witnesses went to where the debris fell to the ground and discovered that it was spoons-- and not just any spoons, but spoons with the words “U.S. NAVY” engraved upon their handles! Yes, this is more than weird, it’s goofy! But was this witness mistaken or lying? Well, like I said, this happened in the same area where I encountered UFOs years later, an area with interesting geomorphologic-gravitational properties-- what some paranormal researchers call a “window area” for strange phenomena. I’ll discuss this nonsensical, paranormal aspect of the 1947 saucer sightings more a bit later. The Roswell Incident may only have been part of a much larger “incident” that spanned the whole continental United States in July 1947. The concentration of saucer sightings was in New Mexico and Arizona, but these saucers were seen all over the U.S. and these sightings must be correlated with the Roswell Incident.

Were these saucers the property of Nazi International piloted by Japanese with progeria? Wow! Wouldn’t that be a movie! (Maybe I’ll make it!) Why didn’t all those saucers blow us away and take over? Today we would be ruled by Nazis and a few Japanese with progeria!

O.K.-- maybe I’m being unfair to Dr. Farrell, but I think he likes a little humor like a lot us. But my point is serious. The attempt to explain away the little men of Roswell with the Japanese progeria scenario fails. It is a superficially more sophisticated version of the crash-dummy explanation, but is actually a lot more “nutty.” The crash-dummy explanation, however untenable, is a lot more sensible than Nazi International using “Japanese with progeria.” Come on, people, let’s get a grip on reality-- if we can!

The mass sighting of flying saucers that occurred in July 1947 cannot easily be explained as the sighting of earth-based technology as Dr. Farrell would have us believe. It is possible that the United States or some foreign power had secretly built a fleet of flying saucers by 1947, but if such was the case, this would have to be fully explained as to motive and logistics-- militarily, financially, and in terms of construction and engineering. Why would a fleet of saucers have been built? This needs some elucidation. Against whom would this high-tech armada have been arrayed? Would the U.S. need to build a fleet of saucers to oppose the financially and militarily crippled Soviet Union or to fight a continuing Nazi International that however real could be no match for the resources of the U.S.? Yes, Nazi International’s technology was more advanced than that of the U.S., but its technology was, at war’s end, mainly at a proof-of-concept stage. Could the Nazi International have built such a fleet of saucers by 1947-- a scant two years later? From looking at Dr. Farrell’s own research of Nazi International, I would say that it is unlikely that such a surviving Nazi cabal would be able to build an armada of flying saucers by 1947. I think they could build a few prototype saucers, but an armada? It is not plausible. And why did that 1947 fleet to whomever it belonged make its appearance altogether in force for only one week and then not once again in all of the last 63 years? But equally, why would an alien fleet of flying saucers suddenly appear in July 1947-- and then never again in such numbers all at once? This, too, needs explaining. Dr. Farrell’s critique of the standard theory of E.T. reconnaissance is well taken, and I do agree with him on this. Advanced E.T.s would not need to do visible reconnaissance of the kind that the armada of saucers appeared to be doing in July 1947. Then what were all those saucers doing? I will give one possible explanation here a little later.

Now as to Dr. Farrell’s critique of the Roswell debris: He has written about the debris in some of his other books, so we know where he is going here in his argument, and we know he knows exotic Nazi technology as well as anyone writing publicly. Dr. Farrell is an expert on exotic Nazi technology, no question. But here’s my problem: Dr. Farrell is whittling around the corners of the square peg again! He has a fundamental argument that he has used many times to argue against an instance of technology being alien: it isn’t radical enough in performance characteristics; it’s something that could be made on earth or done by earthlings. It’s a good argument to a certain extent, but it is not a conclusive argument. For example, he has argued in a number of places that the observation of certain craft moving at high rates of speed (say 10,000 mph) is not evidence of extraterrestrial technology. But of course even E.T. will taxi now and then. That is, high speed capable of human attainment doesn’t prove E.T., but neither does it disprove. We have to look at the total context of any phenomenon to come to any reasonable conclusion about it.

When we come to the Roswell debris, we see, as Dr. Farrell points out quite well, that it resembles material and technology that the Nazis were developing in World War II. Yes, I see the resemblance. Yes, I see Dr. Farrell’s documentations and references. Yes, yes, there is evidence and argument, yes, yes, yes...BUT! Hold on!

The debris resembles and only resembles the Nazi technology; it is not identical. In fact, it seems just a little more advanced. The non-burning “balsa wood” seems to have no analog to Nazi material. The “hieroglyphics” in the debris were never said to be Japanese or Chinese by anyone, but to only resemble those characters. The witnesses who said all this were only trying to give some general idea of what the embossed markings looked like-- Egyptian hieroglyphs, Japanese pictograms, etc. not literally those languages. Dr. Farrell’s “plasma pinch patterns” are decorative, but explain nothing about the Roswell debris. Marcel’s descriptions of the markings on the I-beams are so generalized and approximate that they have no information value in conclusively determining their identity, including the possibility that they might have been a form of writing. As to E.T. not using I-beam shapes because of the possibility of radar returns, I don’t think E.T.s are too concerned about radar returns, as evinced by voluminous military reports of truly anomalous UFOs clearly propagating radar returns. I would think that E.T.s would be far beyond blocking out radar returns-- if they wanted to-- by resorting to the crude terrestrial technique of building craft with non-reflective geometries. E.T.s would use field cloaks that give the illusion of transparency. Our military is already moving in this direction of camouflage at present. But even these considerations may be irrelevant, for, as I will discuss later, the Roswell “debris” may not even have been debris from a functional spacecraft at all. The “debris” may have been something else. In this case, considerations about radar profiles become irrelevant.

While the Nazis were working on “memory metals” and a lot of other things, none of the characteristics of the Roswell “debris” could be exactly duplicated by the Nazi prototypes of World War II. It is a bit of a distance in terms of engineering to identify the principle of mechanical recall in metals in 1932 and engineer that recall to an extreme degree and at room temperature in 1947, only fifteen years later. Could such advances be made in fifteen years? Yes, but they would definitely be extreme advances. At the public level, the principle of mechanical recall was only engineered to a practical extent by the year 1962, and even then, this “Nitinol” could only return to its original shape under conditions of heat. The Roswell monofilament has no analog in World War II Nazi technology. The Nazi reference to “optical telephony” is highly suggestive of research into light-bearing flexible filaments, but it does not establish that such functioning monofilaments had been actually created as yet. Like the Roswell “memory metal,” the Roswell monofilament evinces an engineering that is a bit in advance of Nazi technology just barely two years previous. Either some significant discontinuities in technological development occurred in the work of Nazi International in two years, or the Roswell “debris” was manufactured by someone other than Nazis.

So-- what was going on here at Roswell in 1947? Well, I don’t think it was Japanese progeria sufferers piloting a Nazi saucer. (That purported fragment of a Nazi cross doesn’t convince me.) But was the “Roswell Incident” the crash of a spaceship piloted by extraterrestrial astronaut-scientists like Stanton Friedman speculates? I don’t think that’s so either.

First of all, I don’t think that it was a “first contact” scenario. Like my example from the 1870s shows, the big-headed little men have been around on our planet earth for a very long time. So why would they crash? It really doesn’t make sense. Even if they did, because of a factor of which we are unaware, a factor that would subvert their high powers, their societal system would rescue and remove them from the vicinity rapidly. I say “societal system” because it would be likely that they would be rescued by some automated device, or some psychic characteristic possessed by themselves or their craft. These are beings with advanced knowledge and powers. If the debris of their technology and their own bodies are discovered by humans, there can be only one plausible explanation: the debris and the bodies were planted. The non-humans wanted the humans to gain physical possession of them.

Then there is also the fact of where this supposed “accident” occurred: in the area of the most sensitive military installation in the world at that time, the base of operations for the 509th Atomic Bomb Group! Of all the places where an “accident” of any kind involving a foreign craft could occur, this area is far too coincidental.

Now, if one were to argue a foreign-- E.T. or Nazi-- craft was shot down by the U.S. military, this would make sense. But most researchers who claim that it was a foreign craft seem to agree that the crash of the object or objects was probably caused by a lightning strike. However, the testimony of the remaining witnesses suggests that there may have been several crash sites separated by miles. Now the lightning strike explanation becomes far less plausible. All of these craft were brought down by lightning? That’s hard for me to believe. But then all that’s left is that they were shot down. Who was doing the shooting? The U.S. military? But apparently they needed civilians to inform them of the crash. It doesn’t add up. The only thing left is that the foreign pilots were shooting at each other. Does it make sense that Nazi International pilots were fighting each other over U.S. air space? Not only does that not make sense, it’s downright goofy. Well, how about an E.T. war? The E.T.s were fighting over ownership of us, as in shades of Charles Fort. Maybe-- but why do it over the most sensitive human military installation on earth? Why not duke it out in outer space-- or on the back side of the moon, like good gentlemen E.T.s would do, so they wouldn’t stampede their own cattle (us)? No, E.T. war over New Mexico doesn’t make any sense either. Well, what about a U.S. military hoax-- a psychological operation-- to plant the idea in the minds of American citizens and the rest of the world that we are being invaded by E.T.s from outer space. Such a hoax could have been perpetrated in order to establish a long-range premise for a fake war with E.T.s such as Von Braun is alleged to have said that the government would eventually fake for the purpose of polarizing society into a one-world government. Certainly the U.S. military lied at Roswell in 1947, either with its initial flying saucer press release story or with its subsequent weather balloon story, and possibly with both stories. But if the Roswell Incident was entirely a government hoax, how do we explain that armada of flying saucers over the U.S. during the same week? More hoax? Then the U.S. certainly went to a lot of trouble and expense to stage that hoax and then not follow up on it for another 63 years in any substantive way. Maybe the Roswell Incident was a hoax, but it would have been an implausible, unlikely hoax. Yes, the U.S. military lied at Roswell in 1947, but was the Roswell Incident only lies? I doubt it. But then multiple lightning bolts coincidentally striking multiple Nazi or E.T. saucers over New Mexico coincidentally to an armada of saucers appearing over the U.S. is too much “coincidentally” for me to take. I definitely smell something fake, something phony; somebody with some smarts was trying to put something over on dumb us.

Here is where the square peg of facts doesn’t fit into the round hole of Stanton Friedman’s E.T. theory of an accidentally crashed saucer piloted by small bipedal nonhumans. This theory has always bothered me from the first time I learned of the Roswell Incident, because it didn’t make sense to me in relation to what I already knew about real E.T. behavior, incidents, and activity. The best UFO research of the twentieth century presents a picture of E.T. activity on earth that is far removed from a model characterizing E.T.s as human-like entities involved with human-like scientific research/development and political hegemony. Rather, the square peg of facts describing the behavior of real E.T.s is nonsensical when we try to fit it into the round hole of human behavior and goals. The real E.T.s that have been observed on earth exhibit nonhuman behavior patterns. Real E.T.s are not just biologically nonhuman, they are also behaviorally nonhuman, and probably metaphysically nonhuman. Real E.T.s are truly alien. This is why the authentic E.T. encounters with humans do not make sense to us when those encounters are examined in all their details, without shaving off the corners of their square peg of facts. Often, real E.T.s will do something that resembles a human activity. But when that E.T. behavior is closely examined it doesn’t quite make sense if it is to be explained in terms of similar appearing human behavior. Because of this, UFO debunkers often use this nonsensical behavior as evidence that the UFO witness is lying, mistaken, deluded or hallucinating. But after many years of amassing UFO information, the pattern emerges that the nonhumans associated with UFOs, flying saucers, etc., behave in radically nonhuman modes.

The real E.T.s that have been observed on earth in historical times belong categorically to that same general grouping to which other strange phenomena belong: the entity seen by thousands in Fatima, Portugal in 1917, the Mothman entity seen in West Virginia in the 1960s, and the many Men in Black entities reported in the twentieth century. The trace artifacts left behind by genuine UFOs exhibit nonsensical characteristics when an attempt is made to identify them as material associated with some kind of spacecraft (such as the “angel hair” phenomenon). All of these entities and artifacts have a superficial resemblance to us humans and our artifacts, but the entities are not human in their being or in their behavior, and the artifacts do not belong to the categories to which we attempt to assign them. However, this does not mean that they do not exist, unless one is committed to an extremely conventional model of reality; then one is obliged to shave off some of the corners from the square peg of facts.

UFO researchers in the last fifty years, to a great extent, have felt obliged to shave off some of the strangest of their facts from their square peg in order to get most of their facts to fit into a rather mundane round theory hole. These UFO researchers are really trying to fit UFO reality into the existing official paradigm. This can’t be done. UFO reality challenges and obliterates the official paradigm. UFO researchers like Stanton Friedman and Budd Hopkins focus on those facts that can be nested into our present understanding of reality. In their model, the E.T.s are just more advanced than we are quantitatively, but qualitatively they can be understood as analogs of human beings: they are more advanced versions of scientists and astronauts doing genetic experiments on us to develop hybrids for some socio-political purpose. When all of the facts of UFO research are scrutinized, however, this model breaks down. The E.T.s are involved in genetic manipulation, yes, and they very probably have made human-nonhuman hybrids. But this is nothing new. There is an ancient literature about nonhuman beings involved in human procreation and the kidnapping of children. The E.T.s do these things, but why they do these things and many others is beyond our ken. The behavior of real E.T.s, whether they are abducting us, mutilating our cattle, or creating crop circles, seems crazy-- from our perspective. But, in a cosmic sense of higher intelligence, this behavior might not be crazy at all, just misunderstood.

Now, this gets very strange. Ever own a cat? Notice how your cat will bring you a mouse that it has killed? It’s a trophy. The cat is proud and is trying to communicate to you. Sometimes the owner doesn’t understand and is revolted by the mouse. Here’s another example from fairy lore: Sometimes fairies were said to kidnap babies, but they would leave in the child’s place an effigy called a “stock,” an image of the child. The fairy didn’t do that to try to trick anyone; it knew that the person would see that the “stock” was not really the child. The fairy left the “stock” as a magical token, an amulet to protect itself from any bad influences that might come to it for taking the child. Like the owner who doesn’t understand his cat, the victim of a fairy kidnapping didn’t understand the fairy, and thought that the fairy was trying to effect a crude deception.

Now think about Roswell. This “incident” may have been a form of interspecies communication that has not been fully understood or, more likely, misunderstood. In this scenario, the nonhumans are not the “E.T.s” of conventional, human science-fiction; they’re not some analog of human scientists and astronauts in the mold of Star Trek like Stanton Friedman imagines-- they’re truly nonhuman-- like the cat and the fairy. The Roswell debris, I think, was a kind of “stock” as in fairy lore. It was an effigy of human technology, slightly more advanced in some instances, and, perhaps, in other instances, completely non-functional, or completely nonsensical as in the U.S. Navy spoons dropped by the saucer in Sacramento in 1947. Were those real U.S. Navy spoons dropped by a U.S. Government saucer? Or could they have really not even been spoons at all, much less U.S. Navy spoons, but something manufactured to only resemble U.S. Navy spoons and, in so resembling, achieve some kind of inscrutable psychological-esoteric effect upon the percipient? The artifacts dropped by such nonhumans would then be something quite different from what they would appear to be to us. In this view, the Roswell “debris” would not have been debris; nothing ever crashed, it was all just parts, possibly non-functional parts, put into place or dropped into place and carefully contrived according to criteria of high communication. The described artifacts of the Roswell Incident exhibit the high strangeness characteristics of real E.T. artifacts, the nonsensical qualities found in such things as cattle mutilations, crop circles, and human abductions.

The descriptions given to the Roswell artifacts characterize them as a jumbled mess of technology that is either the same as, or at most, slightly more advanced than earth technology. The artifacts exhibit an almost mocking, nonsensical quality, the quality of a hoaxing vandal who has access to the means of high-tech manufacturing. There is an appearance of a hoax here, a hoax representing crashes of spaceships with little men, but it is a sophisticated hoax, so sophisticated that the artifacts are at the very cutting edge technologically of what we human beings are capable of making-- the artifacts may even be a bit beyond human capability-- but they still do not represent extremely advanced technology, the crash of alien space ships.

Then what could junk like this be? This junk might be cosmic stage props.

The nonhumans would be engaging in cosmic theatre; they would be communicating with us, but, unlike the cat, they would not be our intellectual inferiors, but our superiors. Just as a parrot mimics human speech, but makes the speech sounds for reasons other than conveying concepts as we do, the nonhumans may engage in human-appearing activities that mean something quite different from what we mean when we engage in similar-appearing activities. The nonhumans may use our forms of behavior and our types of artifacts for qualitatively different purposes. They may “play” our own forms of culture back on us to communicate with us, but at a higher level of consciousness. They may turn the literal into the metaphoric-- the utilitarian-- into a symbolic gesture. What seems to be one thing to our plodding, literal minds, the nonhumans may be using as quite another to write the truths of the universe in a cosmic language of archetype. They might leave a technological stock including biological bodies-- possibly of several variant types. They would want us to find all this stuff, study it, experience it emotionally, and have it enter deeply into our being on a number of metaphysical levels that we may not even be aware of or be capable of understanding consciously. The information being communicated would be archetypal. The energy being transmitted to us by the contrived artifacts would be etheric or astral. It would work upon us metaphorically, symbolically, synchronistically. The information-energy would be holographic and seed-like. The nonhumans would be working on us, at their level, on their terms, for their own ends. Everything about how, when, and where the “debris” would be deposited would be part of the interspecies information being communicated. The very year of the Roswell Incident, 1947 encodes a “tetrahedral number,” to use Richard C. Hoagland’s phrase-- 19.47-- the latitude of a tetrahdron’s upper vertices that inscribe a sphere. The literal year number in our Gregorian calendar in which the Roswell Incident occurred could be part of a highly metaphorical, synchronistic, and archetypal communication, an insertion into our own consciousness of space-time through calendar record-keeping, an insertion at a metaphoric time-node of greatest stress, an initiatory overture to eventual, direct, overt public contact and meaningful communication between two species, a communication delivered by nonhumans to humans in the concrete media form of what appeared to be crashed flying saucers and nonhuman crews.

This is my view. But it is inconclusive as to evidence. I do not assert that we “know” that the “Roswell Incident” was the dropping of a “stock.” I only suggest...with a whisper...that this just might have been the case.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Reply To Joseph P. Farrell

Some time ago Dr. Joseph P. Farrell responded in a blog to some of the ideas in my book The Handprint of Atlas. More recently he has restated his response in an extensive footnote within his recent book Babylon’s Banksters. Here, for the benefit of the reading public, I continue the dialogue with Dr. Farrell.

As I stated in the first edition of The Handprint of Atlas (2006, revised 2010), when I first came upon Dr. Farrell’s The Giza Death Star a number of years ago, I was stunned because his ideas were so close to my own. Like Christopher Dunn, I had already recognized that the Great Pyramid possessed the characteristics of a coupled oscillator. This along with my own, original research into geomorphology and the work of Nikola Tesla led me to speculate that the Great Pyramid was a scalar wave generator. I had concluded this before I ever learned of Dunn’s or Farrell’s work.

I knew that a scalar wave generator the size of the Great Pyramid would have tremendous power, a power literally capable of splitting a planet apart or sending a sun into a supernova. So, immediately, I recognized that such a device would, by its very nature, intrinsically, be a weapon. And I was fully aware of the ancient texts, especially the Sumerian, that described an apocalyptic war of the gods fought with weapons of great power. So I had no argument with Dr. Farrell’s book-- as far as it went. And by that I mean that I agreed with the idea that the Great Pyramid had been built as a weapon, but I did not agree that it had been built exclusively as a weapon.

It was my view then, and even more so now, that the Great Pyramid was a multi-functional esoteric machine, i.e. that it was a technological device built by an extremely advanced civilization for the purpose of manipulating and processing reality in a number of ways. The civilization that built the Great Pyramid was highly integrated, and therefore did not operate on an exclusionary basis or a serial basis, but rather on an inclusive, integrated basis. By this I mean that it did a great multitude of things by packaging them altogether so that this multiplicity was integrated into a single, harmonious unity. It was a way of thinking that impacted the civilization’s way of acting-- and of building. Since war is a fundamental of this physical universe, this “eating” universe, war would be one of the operational modes integrated into the totality of the Great Pyramid’s functions. We can see this in nature. All life forms have a method of attack and defense. But that is not all that there is to any life form. Living entities do many other things, and these other things are integrated into their total being along with their ability to attack and defend. In this same way, the builders of the Great Pyramid made it an integrated entity. In a real sense, when it was operating in a fully functioning mode, it was almost like a living thing. When we consider the operator of the Great Pyramid as being integrated with it, then the Great Pyramid was like an extension of the operator or part of a larger organism that included the operator.

Exactly what the builders and users of the Great Pyramid were doing with it, I don’t think any of us fully understand at present (unless some secret society possesses some ancient knowledge about this). Today we can only make educated guesses and informed speculations, much as Christopher Dunn, Joseph Farrell and I have done, each in our own way. I think Mr. Dunn and Dr. Farrell have some extremely valuable insights to offer. For myself, I have enjoyed being educated by them. On the other hand, I have some thoughts of my own as well. They don’t contradict the ideas of these learned gentlemen, but they certainly add to them, I think. It is my hope here that I will be able to clear up some confusion that has arisen in regard to my ideas about the Great Pyramid as they relate to Dr. Farrell’s ideas. I feel this confusion is unfortunate, since I believe we are in fundamental agreement about the Great Pyramid.

In the text of the first edition of my book The Handprint of Atlas I stated that I did not believe that the Great Pyramid started out as a weapon. Dr. Farrell pointed out in his internet blog that anyone building a massive scalar device such as the Great Pyramid appears to be would be fully aware of its weapons capability, and therefore I was wrong to think that the Great Pyramid did not start out as a weapon, or was not built for the purpose of being used as a weapon.

When I stated in the first edition of The Handprint of Atlas that the Great Pyramid did not start out as a weapon, I meant to express the idea that it was not initially deployed as a weapon. In my view, when the Great Pyramid was deployed as a weapon, none of its physical plant was altered in any way, only the information entered into it-- its programming-- was changed, changed from one set of topologies to another. I did not mean to imply that I thought the builders were unaware of the Great Pyramid’s weapons capabilities. Quite the contrary, and as Dr. Farrell made clear in his blog, the builders of the Great Pyramid would have had to have known necessarily by the nature of the technology involved that the Great Pyramid could be deployed as a weapon, and, knowing this, the Great Pyramid would have had to have been built with the intention of being used as a weapon. While I agree with this line of argument as far as it goes, I draw a line at the inference that the Great Pyramid could therefore have been built to be only used as a weapon.

In order to illustrate the idea that the Great Pyramid could have had uses other than that of a weapon, I attempted in The Handprint of Atlas to identify some of the limitations of the Great Pyramid as a weapon. These limitations, which I’ll address in a moment, are not the only or best reasons why I think the Great Pyramid had other functions besides that of being a weapon. The Great Pyramid has a number of characteristics that relate it to ancient texts and modern science that point to non-weapon uses. I will not address those characteristics here, but I touch upon them in The Handprint of Atlas. I direct the reader to that book to learn more about my ideas regarding non-weapon uses of the Great Pyramid.

As to the limitations of the Great Pyramid as a weapon, I attempted to identify these to make the point that a device that was meant to be exclusively a weapon would have been designed in a radical mode of strategic predation. If the Great Pyramid had been exclusively a weapon, anything that would encumber that function in the least would have been eliminated. Also, other things or characteristics would have been added.

An example of this that I gave in The Handprint of Atlas was the idea that if the Great Pyramid had been designed to exclusively function as a weapon, it would have been built on a space platform and be capable of motion-- superluminal motion-- the Great Pyramid would have been a spaceship. In his blog and in his book Babylon’s Banksters Dr. Farrell met this idea of mine with the assertion that I did not understand scalar technology, and explained that
The Great Pyramid would have been capable of projecting superluminal waves and so would not need to be able to move or to “point and shoot.” Well, I never said that the Great Pyramid would need to be able to “point and shoot,” but I can understand how Dr. Farrell might conclude that I thought that. But I did (and do) think that it would be a strategic advantage for a scalar weapon to be able to move out of the way of oncoming superluminal destructive waves. Dr. Farrell’s argument about superluminal weapons capability assumes that the other side in the conflict does not possess weapons with equal superluminal velocity. In a technological balance of power where both sides possessed scalar beam weapons capable of exceeding the speed of light, the ability for a weapons installation to be able to move faster than the enemy’s destructive waves becomes important. A fixed-in-position scalar weapon could propagate a protective force-field shield, but any such shield would have its limits as to strength. Therefore, the tactic of moving instantaneously at a superluminal speed to avoid a destructive superluminal beam would be, militarily, a desirable strategic function. It was not my intent to argue that such a space platform actually existed in ancient times, but rather that the possibility of it must be kept in mind when thinking about the Great Pyramid as a weapon.

In Babylon’s Banksters Dr. Farrell claims that a space-based scalar beam weapon would not be cost-effective, that it would be cheaper and therefore more practical to build a scalar weapon on a planet. Dr. Farrell goes on to assert that such a scalar weapon would have to be built on a planet in order for it to generate sufficient energy through coupled oscillation of great mass. In his internet blog, Dr. Farrell wrote:

“...the best natural oscillators of these ‘scalar’ resonances are large masses such as planets and stars. To miss this point is to miss entirely the point of the physics involved. Thus, if one were to build mobile space platform for Heri’s version of such a weapon, one might accordingly have to so on an almost planetary scale. Not that it could not be done, of course, for the types of civilizations as he, and I, are positing might be capable of doing so, but the purpose of doing so is not cost effective....”

However, Dr. Farrell in his own book Babylon’s Banksters (pp. 112 and 113) contradicts himself on these points. Dr. Farrell writes:

“This already gives one an appreciation of the significance of Global Scaling Theory, for in a certain sense, Einstein’s theory is not engineerable, for if one wished to warp space-time within the constraints of General Relativity, a large mass as a star or planet would have to be present to do so. But the converse is true with Global Scaling Theory, for one would not need the presence of a large mass to warp space-time, since that warped structure itself is a longitudinal pressure wave in the medium. One could, by warping space-time, create a ‘virtual mass,’ or conversely, ‘an antigravity hill.’”

And this is exactly my argument in favor of the possibility of a space-based scalar weapon. One doesn’t need a planet-sized body with which to “grip the earth” because local space-- especially outer space-- is engineerable through torsion. However, if one is already on a planet-sized body, one may use it, as Tesla did. As far as such a space-based scalar weapon not being cost-effective, I think that this just simply is not true. The whole idea of “cost effectiveness” is premised upon the assumption of finite energy, i.e. since one has only x amount of energy, one must choose process y if one is to make the most “cost effective” use of the limited energy. In a system of over-unity energy there is no cost, only ever-expanding profit. Given all the unknown factors, we can’t accurately calculate the costs of such a space-based scalar weapon, but we can know a few important things. If such a weapon was built today using our present public oil-based action-reaction technology, it would be prohibitively expensive to build. But-- and a very BIG BUT-- if a space-based scalar weapon was built using the principle of torsion-- the spin and electro-pulse stressing of high-density materials-- and coupling this with electro-gravity over-unity energy generation-- then such a space-based scalar weapon could be built at virtually no cost. Over-unity technologies by their very nature turn closed-systems economies on their heads. The Great Pyramid itself evinces characteristics suggestive of the use of torsion and over-unity in its building and use, further suggesting that, despite its immensity and complexity, the Great Pyramid may very well have been a very inexpensive building project.

Dr. Farrell in his blog misconstrued the phrase “sledgehammer destruction” that I used in The Handprint of Atlas. I did not mean that the Great Pyramid’s actions were imprecise. On the contrary, I know the Great Pyramid had to project scalar beams with surgical precision for it to have functioned as a weapon at all. I was referring to the results produced by such a very precise beam: a sledgehammer type of destruction. Indeed, the asteroid belt, which very well may have once been a planet destroyed by a scalar weapon, was called by the ancients “the hammered-out bracelet.” In this passage in The Handprint of Atlas where I use the term “sledgehammer destruction” I was not arguing against Dr. Farrell’s weapons hypothesis, but only the idea that the Great Pyramid was exclusively a weapon. Here is an analogy: Does an opera singer train just to be able to break a glass by singing a note? Of course not. The opera singer trains to sing operas-- but a sung note can break a glass. Such breakage is precise in process but the result is the same as if one had applied a sledgehammer-- the result is a shattered glass. I was only arguing that the Great Pyramid was like the opera singer, capable of doing a lot more than destroying things.

It is not the case that I don’t understand scalar technology, rather it is Dr. Farrell who doesn’t understand what I’m saying. Hopefully this will clarify my thoughts-- for everyone.


I highly recommend Christopher Dunn’s new book to all who are interested in achieving a better understanding of our world’s ancient history. Lost Technologies of ANCIENT EGYPT Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs (Bear & Company, Rochester, Vermont, 2010) gives a thorough exposition of Dunn’s theory that the ancient Egyptians used a high technology to create their temples and colossal statuary. I say “theory” with some reluctance, for, in my view, Dunn has made a conclusive case for his idea, using diagrams, color plate photography, and state-of-the-art engineering analyses.

But the question remains: Why would the ancient Egyptians apply such a high degree of precision in their constructions when it was unnecessary by any architectural or esthetic criteria?

In regard to the Great Pyramid, Dunn has argued that extreme precision was employed by its builders because it was a machine, and that in order for it to function, the Great Pyramid had to be constructed with very fine tolerances of error. This is a good argument and has great logical force. But...why would statues-- especially very big statues seen from a distance-- have been made with such fine tolerances of error? The statues were not machines...or were they?

I think Schwaller de Lubicz had a firm understanding of all this, although, as far as I know, he didn’t write about it explicitly. Some of his comments in his Symbolist writings suggest literal magick. The Soviets called it psychotronics. Schwaller de Lubicz would have probably just called it alchemy.

Why did the ancient Egyptians execute such precision in the detail of sculptures that, overall, were on a colossal scale? I believe the ancient Egyptians made these sculptures to function as talismans, i.e. objects to capture, configure, and transduce astral energy. I believe that what we are observing at the Luxor Temple and at other similar ancient Egyptian sites is an application of a sophisticated topological knowledge involving set theory--
or simply put: the ancient Egyptians were using shape to control the deep powers of the astral realm-- the higher dimensions that parallel our perceived, physical reality.

It is conventionally assumed that the colossal scale of ancient Egyptian statuary was used by the Pharaohs as a kind of propaganda to impress their subjects and foreign adversaries with their physical power. No doubt propaganda or “advertising” was a part of why these sculptures were made so big, but it does not explain the precision with which they were made. Something more than propaganda was going on here in the old days of Egypt.

I believe the statues were made on a colossal scale literally to magnify their power. A direction of analysis for an avid investigator to pursue would be the proportional relationships between the colossal Egyptian statuary, the idealized human body, and-- say-- the diameter of the planet earth. I think if someone would make an analysis along these lines, some interesting results would be produced involving set theory as applied to infinite regressions and progressions-- a kind of engineering application, perhaps, of Harmut Müller’s Global Scaling Theory. Christopher Dunn has already gone in this direction implicitly in his analysis of the Ramses crowns, the shapes of which were developed from an infinite set of numbers generating a series of increasingly large circles.

Also in any such analysis, the orientation of the sculptural and architectural elements in relationship to the surrounding landscape should be considered. I believe these elements were very precisely oriented in accordance with surrounding geomorphological structures. It is well known that the Great Pyramid was precisely aligned with geographic North. This illustrates the idea that not only were the ancient Egyptian structures precisely configured in and of themselves, but they were oriented to their earthly and stellar surroundings with equal precision.

I believe the ancient Egyptian temples were created for the purpose of controlling astral energy, not only through the priestly rituals carried out within their walls, but in and of themselves as physical structures. The ancient Egyptian temples were esoteric machines.
Thus, what was being attempted by these ancient builders-- and I believe accomplished to a significant extent-- was not some ignorant superstition, but an extremely high science.

I am convinced that the source of this high science was Atlantis. Unlike Christopher Dunn, I consider the Great Pyramid to be a creation of the Atlantean civilization, built with extremely advanced knowledge of the multidimensional nature of the universe. By the time the Temple of Luxor was built, a great deal of this Atlantean knowledge was lost, but certainly not all of it. Today, we would recognize in the ancient Egyptian artifacts some of this remnant Atlantean knowledge as a sophisticated and precise engineering of physical materials. This is the part of the knowledge that Christopher Dunn has recognized.
But the other part of the knowledge-- the esoteric part--was the most important part of the corpus; it was the purpose motivating the physical construction of the colossal architecture and sculptures. The otherwise inexplicable precision of the colossal sculptures becomes explicable when it is realized that the purpose of the sculpture was esoteric.

This esoteric purpose of the ancient Egyptian colossal statuary points back to the Great Pyramid, explaining it as the ultimate expression of an esoteric agenda-- an esoteric machine par excellence. The ancient Egyptian temples were devolved from the high, multi-dimensional technology of the Great Pyramid. This devolution of knowledge continued until our Renaissance. In the last five hundred years, our civilization has begun to regain some of the old lost knowledge, but some of the Atlantean corpus was never lost.
It was nurtured within the secret societies and passed down to the present in an aurea catena. This is especially true in regard to the techniques of precisely orienting colossal statuary according to the surrounding environment. For example, the Statue of Liberty was precisely oriented with its geomorphology. The line running down the center of its face which cuts the head into two equal parts is oriented precisely at a 90º angle to a line of compression stress in the earth that passes through the site of the Statue’s base. This knowledge of orientation has never been lost, and is secretly used today for the same reasons that the ancient Egyptians used it: to control astral energy.

In Lost Technologies of ANCIENT EGYPT, Dunn discusses the “Unfinished Obelisk” which Reginald Engelbach discovered in 1921. It is an enormous 137 feet in length and weighs an estimated 1,168 tons. The obelisk cracked while it was being carved and was never extracted from its surrounding stone. Dunn reasons, quite logically (from a materialistic premise), that even though the obelisk cracked, there was still a great amount of stone remaining that could have been used for other purposes. Why was this stone abandoned completely-- and even buried? Dunn’s conclusion: “Why the obelisk was abandoned will probably always be a mystery.”

It is not a mystery to me, nor to anyone else who understands that the ancient Egyptians were esoteric engineers. The stone masons abandoned the obelisk because, in cracking, it had negated the intention for which it was being made; it was spoiled, ruined magically. None of the remaining stone was any good for magical, esoteric use, and this is what concerned these stonemasons: the creation of magical objects. According to magical criteria, the rest of the stone, no matter how much there was of it, was useless for any other application to which the builders could put it. Nor could the stone be used for any exoteric purpose; an ordinary object made out of this stone would be cursed, i.e. would possess topologies unharmonious with the rest of the universe. Those familiar with master alchemist Edward Leedskalnin will recall how he always said with great pride that he “never ruined a stone.” Read what Leedskalnin had to say about wearing hand-me-down clothing. It is all the same thing-- awareness and manipulation of astral energy.

Christopher Dunn’s analyses of the precision manufacture of ancient Egyptian statuary are very sound and impressive. To the honest and unbiased reader his line of argument will have great force. It establishes that the ancient Egyptians had manufacturing machines that could measure and cut stone better than what we can do today in the year 2010. Now I would only like Mr. Dunn to turn his attention to the esoteric side of this subject, because that is where things really get interesting.


This is just as much a welcome to me as it is to all of you who drop in, because this is really my first foray into a personal presence on the internet. I'll be posting articles, ruminations, thoughts and opinions on various topics of interest to me and -- hopefully -- you, as well.

Thanks for giving me a look!