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

UFOs and Body Snatching: part 3

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    Resurrection and UFOs: Jesuit Conspiracy part 3 Summary: The Jesuits have been trying to uphold the Dogma of the Catholic Church, and have engaged in activity
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 2001
      Resurrection and UFOs: Jesuit Conspiracy part 3



      Summary: The Jesuits have been trying to uphold the Dogma of the Catholic Church, and have engaged in activity to suppress discoveries and other beliefs when they threaten to undermine that Dogma. They have not always been successful in their activities, but they have maintained a defence of the central Christian belief, which is common to all Christian sects, that of the Resurrection of Christ. As part 4 will show that Resurrection was a UFO Close Encounter.

      First let us look at the influence of the belief in the Bodily Resurrection, has had on medical advancement in the 18th and 19th century - it led to Body snatching, and to the reasons why Burke and Hare were motivated to murder for profit.



      Body trading in the 18th and 19th century

      According to Brian Bailey in his book The Resurrection Men: a history of the trade in corpses, it was not just Burke and Hare that were motivated to murder for profit:

      On 5 Dec. 1831, before an hysterical mob estimated by one observer to be thirty thousand, two men were brought out to the scaffold in front of London's Newgate Gaol and hanged ...Their bodies were then handed over, as was the custom for dissection by surgeons...

      John Bishop and Thomas Williams had been convicted of murdering an Italian boy, Carlo Ferrari. Their motive was to earn a few guineas by selling the corpse to the anatomy school at King's College....

      Bishop and Williams brought close to home an evil which had been growing like a cancer in society for more than half a century without any firm decision being taken to excise it. Ten days after their execution, a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons to

      regulate schools of anatomy. It became law within a few months. It was not intended as legislation against murder... Its intention was to put an end to a crime for which murder had become a logical extension - the robbery of graves - or body snatching.

      Not that grave robbery was a new invention of the late Georgian criminal community.. some claim to be regarded as one of the oldest offences against humanity. The ancient Egyptians presented irresistible opportunities to thieves by burying their illustrious dead with rich treasures, protected only by the challenge to the criminal mind of finding them in labyrinthine burial chambers. And bodies, as well as gold and jewels, were stolen in the ancient world, for the extremities of the dead were used in black magic. Robert Graves and Joshua Podro suggested that the body of Jesus was guarded after its burial, not to prevent the disciples from taking him away, as Matthew stated, but to prevent grave - robbers from despoiling the body of its extremities. [ The Nazarene of the Gospel Restored (Cassell, 1953)]

      Thus there was no lack of precedent for anything the modern body snatchers were to do. But the revival of the exhumation as a profitable business in an ostensibly civilised state was a glaring condemnation of the social condition of Georgian Britain. The underworld was presented with motive, opportunity and method for an outrage which ought to have been an almost forgotten memory of barbarism. The motive was financial gain; the opportunity was presented by the state of medical knowledge and research; the method was made easy by the appalling condition of urban churchyards.

      Nevertheless, important advances in the knowledge of anatomy and physiology were constantly being made in the 17th century, and scientific medicine began to replace the cures of wise women, quacks and magicians........



      In the Middle Ages, anatomy was taught only as a theoretical subject. The word of the Greek anatomist Galen, who had been state physician to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, was law for thirteen centuries. The absence of practical demonstrations before the late 15th century was due to superstitious and religious taboos against opening up the human body, where spirits were believed to reside. Pope Boniface VIII forbade the dissection of human bodies in 1300 AD on the grounds that they were the images of God. Throughout Europe, the Church placed an interdict on the dissection of corpses, since the resurrection of the body, as opposed to the immortality of the soul, was one of its central dogmas.



      The intellectual dilemma lay in recognising the fact that if science was to advance the treatment of disease, the study of human anatomy must go on; whilst also respecting the almost universal Christian faith at that time in literal resurrection of the material body. There was no possible compromise. The doctors naturally gave priority to their research; the public to their religious convictions, reinforced by their justified indignation that it was the poor who were being victimised, as always.

      In 1636, the Professor of Medicine at Aberdeen, William Gordon, petitioned not only for the bodies of executed criminals, but also for those of the poor who died in hospitals and 'abortive bairns, foundlings; or those of no qualitie, who died of their diseases, and has few friends or acquaintance that can take exception.' One defender of the practice of dissection, Bernard de Mandeville, stated bluntly that, even if the relatives of victims felt defiled 'the dishonour would seldom reach beyond the scum of the People.'

      The doctors may have felt very uncomfortable about being forced into a business relationship with men from the lowest ranks of society, who were regarded by the public at large as positively evil and engaged in what has been called 'the foulest trade in human history'.

      They were genuinely on the horns of a dilemma. They had unquestionably made the government aware of the problems they had in training surgeons required by a rapidly expanding population, and the government had done nothing about it. The doctors had to choose between continuing to support the illicit trade in dead bodies, and cutting down their training courses to the bare minimum that could be maintained with the supply of executed criminals. They chose the former, and in the opinion of many, chose wrongly.

      They got away with their duplicity remarkably well for a long time. Communications were not what they are today. Individual outrages were regularly reported in the local press, of course, but it dawned only slowly on the British public as a whole that isolated incidents heard of in one place one week and another in the next were but the tip of an iceberg. Few people suspected in the first quarter of the 19th century that doctors and body snatchers were in league on a scale that was a disgrace to the nation.

      No doubt many of the doctors, as men of science, regarded the dead body merely as a clapped - out machine, and any religious attachment to it, as a sentimental delusion on the part of friends and relatives. This may have eased their consciences and reinforced their own convictions that they were acting in the best interests of the living. As long as the anatomists and resurrection men were able to continue their trading in relative secrecy, they had nothing to fear. But unfortunately for the doctors, all events seemed to conspire against them.

      Bailey thinks that the medical profession could have gone about things differently and got the law changed so that the medical profession could do their body dissections. I don't think that it was that easy the status quo had the ordinary public believing in antiquated religious ideas that conflicted with medical science need to progress, and the government was too afraid to address issues that upset the public.

      Anyway Bailey goes on to say:

      Science is not above the law, whatever visions it may have of long - term benefits to humanity. And if the scientist is engaged in something which the law of the land has not come to terms with, surely has a clear moral duty to consider the consequences of his actions for the living. The doctors failed to do this, because impatience for knowledge leads science into the error of believing it has no responsibility except to Truth, which as Schopenhauer said, 'can wait, for it has a long life before it.' The unpalatable fact is that the marvellous

      skills of our highly qualified surgeons today have been gained partly at the expense of widespread fear and distress among ordinary people, especially the poor, who felt themselves to be not the beneficiaries of medical science, but its helpless victims.

      And he lays the blame on politicians:

      In the final analysis, however, the fault for the whole shabby business lies squarely on the shoulders of successive governments.

      The intellectuals were aware that the ordinary public had beliefs that conflicted with what science progress needed, for instance:

      At the meeting of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society at which it was resolved to petition Parliament, William Rathbone said that a petition from such a body as theirs would be secure from 'the dangers to which an individual would be exposed who should venture to brave the prejudices of the more ignorant classes of society'; and that airing the morbid sentiment of reverence for the dead which in the present state of public feeling induces even the poor to an excessive expenditure on funerals...' [ Minutes of Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society meeting 4 Feb. 1825]



      Bailey notes that the ruling class should then have re-educated the ordinary public:

      This is a revealing statement. The view expressed was far from uncommon among the ruling classes. But if the common man's reverence for the dead was due to ignorance, the answer clearly lay in education. Why is it, then no effort was made by any government to persuade people of the error of their old- fashioned beliefs, which ought to be abandoned in their own interests as well as those of society as a whole?

      The old fashioned beliefs was the religion they were being taught mainly through Jesuits and the like, and this was contrary to the Gnostic type of religious beliefs that the Freemasons ruling elite had, but they viewed the common masses though believing in delusions being followers of the uninitiated Christian religion, and viewed themselves as superior to these common masses.



      Bailey then goes on to note that the public believing in outdated religious ideas served the purpose of the ruling class in making them easier to control:

      Partly because these beliefs were - and remain - among the tenets of a religion which it was in the government's interests to encourage and preserve, and which it had been propounded in the Murder Act by introducing compulsory dissection as an 'additional punishment' after execution, the idea being to deny murderers the possibility of resurrection on Judgement Day.



      One of the ways that this religious belief controlled the ordinary public was that it meant that they were afraid of having their dead body dissected, and this 'fear' served as a threat of punishment that kept them under control. For instance, there were cases like:

      .......the Smithfield butcher Vincent Davis, who stabbed his wife to death in 1725. When constables came to arrest him, he confessed immediately, saying: 'I have killed the best wife in the world, and I am certain of being hanged, but for God's sake, don't let me be anatomised.' His friends managed to protect him from the surgeons, and buried him at Clerkenwell.



      So, under this 'fear' it could get murderers to confess their crime, and accept execution for their crime, being contended with compensation that their dead body was not going to get dissected.

      There was also the commercial side of this belief:

      It might have been be pointed out to the poor and ignorant that their beliefs were being exploited by commercial undertakers, whose business it was to promote reverence for the dead and the desirability of 'respectable' funerals; and that in any case the dead body would rapidly disintegrate when buried, so that if material resurrection on Judgement Day could be effected from a pile of rotting bones, it was hardly to be prevented by dissection of the corpse.

      Overall Bailey concludes:

      The Christian faith tends towards maintaining a compliant society, so on the rare occasions when its principles are inconvenient to the government, politicians tend to ignore rather than challenge it. Politicians act according to expediency rather than morality. The abandonment of religious obedience would have been a far worse consequence for society's rulers than the loss of support for the government if it had legalised dissection much earlier. But rather than opt for the lesser of two evils, it chose to do nothing at all, hoping no doubt that the activities of the body snatchers and the anatomists would never provoke more than occasional local disturbances which the magistrates could deal with, without the need for government interference.

      Also the ruling class as rich did not believe that they had anything to fear from body snatching, believing:

      ...... It was a sordid and unseemly subject affecting the poor and ignorant rather than the rich, and they preferred to pass by on the other side.

      Finally the government acted to stop the need for body snatching, but Bailey notes that the law should have been made a very long time ago:

      Such a law would have prevented not only a great deal of mental agony among the country's poor, but also the deaths of many who had died violently and needlessly........ The fact is that these people were murdered because of inefficient government.

      But the ruling class were not concerned with such matters.

      The Church has the ordinary people believing in the Bodily Resurrection of Christ with the promise that Christ would give Bodily Resurrection to the Faithful. I don't see how ordinary people believed this in the 18th and 19th century. One tends to think that everyone else thinks the same way as oneself and would not be gullible to believe such nonsense. But who are we to judge, some people probably a great majority in those days believed such things, probably some people nowadays still believe such things. Hopefully more people are not so gullible to believe such things these days.

      The ruling elite especially those in the medical profession who did not believe in Bodily resurrection, were faced with a dilemma. They had the ordinary people being taught a belief system that mutilation of dead bodies was wrong, but (the medical side of) their elite required it. In a democracy, one cannot force on ordinary people something that they do not want and so matters were left to stand with the medical elite engaging in the activity in secret. If the public does not ant some activity to be engaged in, and the governing elite deem that it is necessary to do it, then someone in that elite takes it upon themselves to engage in that activity, while the rest of the ruling elite turns a blind eye.

      It makes one wonder how much of this sort of thing goes on today.

      Eventually in the case of body snatching, the scandal became so great that the public demanded action to be taken to stop it, and the government passed laws to allow the donation of cadavers to the academics to kill the reasons for the trade. In other words the public gets so upset that it demands laws that it might have greatly disapproved of if told by a government that they were necessary.

      A general pattern forms - the public is put into situations where it demands action which creates laws that it would disapprove of if it had not been put into upsetting situations.

      I wonder how much of that is still happening today.

      There is breakdown in society. People do not approve of being monitored like George Orwell's Big Brother 1984 book. But if social breakdown gets too much then the public might demand that laws be passed where they become under constant surveillance.

      Is that what democracy is about? - manipulating the public into crisis situations so that they would demand laws that they would not normally want?

      The next point to raise is the public demanded laws that were contrary to their religious beliefs, but that did not seem to trouble them. They just carried on following their religion, but now they had laws contrary to it. So two purposes were served the governing elite that did not believe the public's religion, but used the public's religion to control the public, was able to maintain the existence of that religion.

      The public never got to a situation of thinking to themselves 'maybe this religion I believe is utter nonsense' and rebelling against it, and then having the ruling elite lose the religious control over them in that area. So, the purposes are served - that when the public's religion contradicts the laws that the governing elite wants to pass, there is a way of tricking the public into still maintaining their religious beliefs and demanding the laws that they would disapprove of, and then all of this happens in the 'smoke screen' of pretending to appear to be democracy. But the ordinary public is not clever enough en mass to realise when they are being duped. For true democracy to work, it would require a majority of the public to work out when they are being manipulated. And we do not have such a public. Most people are easily manipulated by the advertising campaigns of political parties - where the same old promises are made before election and broken after election.

      The UFO phenomena operates under the same sort of politics as did the Body snatching phenomena.

      Now let us look at the origin of why there was a belief in Bodily Resurrection. It was the foundation that united the orthodox Christian movement leading to it becoming the main religion of the West, in part 4:-





      REFERENCE:

      The Resurrection Men: a history of the trade in corpses, Brian Bailey, Macdonald, UK 1991















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.