Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

More evidence of Einstein Conspiracy

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy Rand Flem - Ath and Colin Wilson in their book The Atlantis Blueprint, mention Einstein s interest in Professor
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 31, 2000

       

      More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy

      Rand Flem - Ath and Colin Wilson in their book The Atlantis Blueprint, mention Einstein’s interest in Professor Hapgood’s theory of pole reversals, lost civilizations that mapped the world etc.

      Hapgood’s two famous books are: - Maps of the Ancient sea kings and The Path of the Pole, books that in part inspired Daniken with his ‘ancient astronaut’ beliefs, but were much more scholarly written.

      Believers in the orthodoxy being wrong are split between two camps- those that believe ancient knowledge came from ancient astronauts, and those that believe it comes from a lost human civilization. In order to try to gain some respectability from the orthodoxy, these two groups are encouraged to fight among themselves. For instance: if you want respectability with ancient knowledge then the orthodoxy might not be so loath to listen to you, if you denounce ideas like Atlantis and ancient astronauts as being nonsense, and try to get another scenario to fit the ancient wisdom hypothesis.

      The question is why, would such a split be created? Answer it’s all part of the conjuring trick to prevent any organized agreed alternative to the orthodoxy from being presented. Create dissent in the enemy’s camp, stop them from uniting, and you prevent them from attacking you. Then the orthodoxy wins by default.

      What if in the ancient past there was a civilization far more advanced than the 20th century’s. What does it matter if that civilization was human or alien?

      If such a human civilization existed, then it might have been capable of space travel and contact with aliens. If it was alien, then it might have been in contact with primitive humans coexisting at the same time.

      All scenarios for ancient knowledge eventually merge into one, depending upon how advanced you think that lost civilization was. What does it then matter, which type of civilization it was? - it would still have had a profound effect on us.

       

      Now Einstein was interested in these ideas, or ideas at least related to this.

      As well as Hapgood’s theories, I have read that Einstein was also interested in Velivosky and telepathy. In fact, Einstein was interested in all the areas that the orthodoxy likes to claim is the "lunatic fringe." Einstein was much more open minded than the orthodoxy.

      The book reports, that when Einstein tried to get official backing to finance researches into Hapgood’s theories, he failed - i.e. he was opposed.

      Einstein’s name was not sufficient to impress the orthodox science community to investigate an unusual theory.

      Does this not strike you as odd?

      When you check the biographies on Einstein you find that while Einstein was alive - although the public image of Einstein was that of a genius, the academic circles encouraged the new physics students to view Einstein as a ‘fool.’

      Then what do the orthodoxy do? They adopt Einstein as their hero, and make out that their science is based upon Einstein.

      If you check the history, you find that the orthodoxy rejected Einstein from 1920s onwards and put words into Einstein’s mouth, that he never said.

      Science students are usually discouraged from checking the real history of their subject, and are presented with myths. The greatest myth they are presented with is how Einstein fits in with the orthodoxy, because he does not. Einstein went his way, and the orthodoxy went their way.

      One of the mythological attempts made to make sense of science history comes from Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He talks some nonsense about scientists forming an emotional attachment to their theories, and refusing to consider alternatives. (All of what Kuhn is saying has been made up to try to find reasons why the science community engages in some changes of opinion in some subjects and refuses to do so in other areas.)

      Wilson + co cite this in their book and say:

      "This is why the great scientific revolutions - of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and quantum theory - encountered such furious resistance."

      It is unfortunate that ‘Einstein’ is placed next to the words ‘quantum theory’, it makes out that Einstein’s revolution to physics was the quantum theory. When in fact it was not the case. Einstein opposed the quantum theory that became the orthodoxy. The impression given by Wilson + Co is thus false. Many books give a similar false impression of history, making out that Einstein’s contribution to physics "encountered furious resistance" before it was accepted. When you check the real history, you find out that what really happened: Einstein was "furious" in his resistance to the revolution in physics, while the majority of the rest of the physics community readily accepted the revolution. Einstein stood virtually alone in condemning the new physics as being wrong. A far different scenario than many myth makers present for science students’ history lesson.

      If there was a revolution in physics coming from Einstein, the orthodoxy decided to not pursue it.

      And after not following Einstein’s revolution, the orthodoxy have the ‘cheek’ to make out that Einstein is their hero and the ‘source’ of the physics they are pursuing.

      With such a monumental twist in the facts (to believe whatever they like despite the evidence), the orthodoxy claim the ‘high ground’ of laying claim to undeserved authority (the ‘best of both worlds’) and have fun denouncing the ideas that Einstein was really interested in as part of the 'lunatic fringe.’

      Einstein conspiracy was the start of the 20th century’s attempt to cover up the UFO mystery and all its related topics.

      There was never any ‘real’ freedom in science to open discussion. It is just another conjuring trick played upon us. The orthodoxy wanted to believe certain things, and then performed the conjuring that enabled them to create that illusion.

      The science community has always held a set of religious beliefs (that it does not explicitly state) and refuses to accept ideas that contradict its core religion. If eventually an unorthodox theory can be adapted to fit in with that core belief, then it is eventually accepted, while the ‘bits’ of the theory that still contradict its religion is rejected.

      An example of this is Wegner’s theory of continental drift (talked about in Flem - Ath and Wilson’s book). Wegner was ridiculed by the orthodoxy for such an idea, but eventually the orthodoxy came around to accepting it. However, the orthodoxy modified it to fit with existing ideas as the theory of Plate Tectonics. The full consequences of Wegner’s theory with its connections to Hapgood’s theories of Pole reversal has still been rejected so far by the orthodoxy. i.e the orthodoxy does it best to keep things much the same as they always were, admitting only reluctantly any heresy when forced to, and then modifying the heresy so that it does not upset the orthodoxy’s core religion too much.

      Science has never escaped religious restraint. It is just that the religious restraint on science, is more subtly controlled than it used to be.

      Conjuring tricks like turning the heretic Einstein into a supporter of the orthodoxy, are now an easy feat to perform.

      According to a TV programme on Conjuring tricks- in the Middle Ages, conjurers had to convince the Inquisition that they were not using genuine magick when performing their tricks, else they got burnt at the stake as witches. This entailed the conjurers having to explain all their tricks to the Church, with the Church writing them all down.

      I wonder whether this vast wealth of conjuring knowledge has ever been used by an organized group of people?

      I wonder if the Church eventually realized there was a better way at keeping control other than using bonfires for heretics? The use of a bit of conjuring would be far more effective, subtler and a more humane way to deal with heretics surely? Maybe the Spanish Inquisition never went away. Maybe they just got cleverer, and so we failed to notice that they were still going around, trying to deal with evidence and heretics they did not like, by a much more improved method.

      If a genuine alien lands a ship, then do a bit of conjuring - flood the news with hoaxed copies, then reveal the hoaxes as being hoaxes. Then the genuine event gets lost within the hoaxed copies, and loses credibility due to ‘guilt by association.’

      Some one has demonstrated an incredible amount of conjuring skills within the UFO topic, or else there has been an amazing number of coincidences that conspire together to give the impression of such a conjurer.

      UFO investigator John Keel was very interested in this ‘conjuring trickery’ part of UFOLogy.

      UFO investigator Morris Jessup who tried to emphasis the importance of Einstein’s physics in connection with UFOs became embroiled in any interesting conjuring trick of a ship that disappeared - The Philadelphia Experiment.

      Bite the bullet - what we think is reality is simply a clever illusion.

      If aliens exist, then may be they would not want to traumise us too much?

      A lot of the general public are coming around to the idea that aliens might exist, and might visit us..

      The next consequences of such a scenario is - our orthodox science and religious beliefs are wrong.

      A sudden meeting with aliens, and a revelation of such a nature, would still traumise a great number of people. If the scenario is - ‘science and religion is wrong’, then it is far better for us to discover it for ourselves than be told by aliens, that we are "thickos".

      Have I mentioned the conjuring trick I can do with a balloon:- antigravity is easy.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.