I'm old enough to remember where I was when JFK was shot. I was 5 or 6 years old and was visiting with my grandma. I remember how shocked she was, crying "oh my God!." It's one of those early memories which will never leave me.
But for years I took no interest in the details of that case until some time in the mid-80's I remember a TV special where they put Lee Harvey Oswald "on trial." They placed his picture in the defendant's chair, they had a real jury, real prosecutors and defense attorneys and a real judge. It was the first time I understood that there actually WAS some measure of doubt about his guilt. If I remember correctly, the trial took something like 3 days of daily multi-hour installments, complete with witnesses being called - the works. And I also remember how we all watched this and to our complete surprise we concluded, basing on the evidence presented, that Oswald would have to be found not guilty! In fact, I remember our discussions (and that was "many" people including family and friends and people you'd speak to on the streets, etc), and we all wondered if that trial would have an "official" impact and would history books have to be re-written. Oswald was clearly NOT guilty, we all thought! (I just found it online...! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvisjH1v304&feature=PlayList&p=1993B641DFC1CB06&index=0&playnext=1)
Imagine my (and almost everybody else's) infinite surprise when the jury returned the "guilty as charged" verdict. Did they listen to different evidence than what the TV audiences were shown? What? How was that possible? Didn't they see OBVIOUS evidence of conspiracy (i.e. more than 1 person)?
Since then, on and off, I took lively interest in understanding the circumstances of that tragic event, fancying myself something of an armchair detective, but battling conflicting feelings about this case. On the one hand the romantic in me "wanted" for Oswald to be proven innocent but on the other hand I found it very hard at that time to believe that all these extremely clever people who had all the evidence and studied everything in great detail would somehow get it wrong. (It NEVER occured to my naive mind that they might WANT to get it wrong...). I happen to be a very logical person. Since I studied physics at a university for a while (I dropped out eventually only to grace another in a series of universities with my presence, but that's another looong story, hehe), I had to have solid mathematical grounding and Logic was a separate subject taught to us - complete with laws, formulas and all that. This kind of formal approach to logic suited my personality really well. And when I'd let my mind dwell on a case like that of JFK, I could put my intuition as well as my more formal training to the test.
Try as I might, however, my faith in the official story was shaken. In fact, I remember almost desperately looking for data and reasons why I the official account WAS correct after all. It wasn't easy then, because those were the days before Internet, but I did do quite a lot of reading. At one point I gave up. I decided that I just couldn't find enough data which would convince me one way or the other and I agreed with the official story. In spite of contradictory evidence, I told myself that they "had to be right."
Recently, my interest in this case was re-ignited while doing some other unrelated research on the web. I stumbled on a video of an official account of that story and it was right next to an "alternative" version. I watched both and my old suspicions about the case were reignited with a vengeance. I've spent a number of weeks (I only have an hour or so per day, late at night to devote to stuff like that) studying all the available evidence and... I HAD TO agree with my original conclusions from way back in the 80's. But with a twist. Not only did they NOT get the right man, but more than likely they actively covered up any evidence to the contrary!
See what you think. Check out this very long video (9 parts, each with five 10-minute sub-parts), "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Among all the hundreds of documentaries on this subject this one struck me as one of the very best and most balanced. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QkKkXYtr4)
When you add to this the 2007 deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlpL7qZxPhA) which, incidentally, barely even made the news (while Brtiney Spears and other truly stupid news did!), things start looking ever more suspicious no matter how you slice this.
Now that I closed the lid on my JFK research I must confess to feeling really angry. I've lived a bit now and my understanding of the world of politics and human nature has matured somewhat over the years. It's not an easy case regardless of which side of the argument you fall on. But the way it's being treated in the media is scandalous - even to this very day. Young people - ALL people - owe it to themselves and our future generations to solve this mystery with and OBJECTIVE study.
I think I'm gonna write a song about this... How about you?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Is the Truth Always In The Middle?
I often wonder how close-minded some people are. Once they arrive at an opinion about something, it seems unassailable from that point on. I used to think that this type of arrogance only applies to unintelligent and ignorant people and that anyone who's even slightly enlightened will always be able to at least consider an opposing view. I was wrong.
Whenever I find some free time, I like to read and browse through resources on the web, exploring my favorite subjects. Some of those subjects are quite controversial. For example JFK or 9/11 or even Ancient History or New Physics. Since I acknowledge to myself that the amount of knowledge I have so far amassed in each of those areas can still be increased, I find it difficult to take a decisive stand on any issue I'm still researching. I may lean one way or the other, but for me the argument stays open until I reach a critical mass of arguments. And even then I leave my brain open for a new counter-argument. I was sold on the Big Bang Theory for years. But now I'm not so sure, all the new developments in physics considered.
Still, to my eternal amazement, many people don't think that way at all. Sometimes, this makes me feel angry, other times stupid. I feel angry when I think "can't they see?!", and I feel stupid when the people with whom I disagree are ones I otherwise respect and admire. They must know something I don't! But I want to know what it is. And yet, when I probe and ask questions, I encounter an even bigger puzzle. In a huge number of cases, those otherwise hugely intelligent people DON'T have very much knowledge on the subject of a given controversial topic, but they DO have an abundance of self-confidence and "just knowing" that I'm not only wrong, but that they don't even need to hear any alternative points of view to be certain that they're right.
Having seen this time and again throughout my life, I can't help but think that there's more to this than just ignorance or arrogance on their part. It's got to be some sort of a defense mechanism...
Many people in my family are medical doctors. My first cousin is an accomplished doctor and also a scholar. She's a professor at a large univeristy and when we grew up together as kids she was always very open and curious. I remember running into her many years ago after not seeing her for years, I started talking to her about some interesting things I was reading at the time regarding alternative cancer therapies. Even before I had a chance to tell her what specific type of therapy I found particularly interesting, she interrupted me with "that's bullshit!" I remember immediately thinking "what the hell did I say? Did I phrase my sentence in a way that made me sound like some wishy-washy ignoramus or what?" After replaying it in my head I concluded that my question was inoffensive and rather well-put. I simply asked "hey, did you hear about some of those very intriguing alternative cancer therapies...?" And that's when I was cut off with that BS quip. I remember trying to push the topic just a bit further. Even as she let me speak about the particular therapy I was interested in, I could sense that her whole being was constantly cutting me off, wishing that I'd just shut up. I wanted to know if she'd heard about vitamin B17 and the whole Laetrile therapy. By the time I finished explaining what specific topic was holding my attention, I heard her make another arbitrary pronouncement "It doesn't work, Paul. It's all just quackery." When I asked if she'd ever investigated it, she said she glanced at some literature about it and was quickly convinced that it was just rubbish. I then took out the big guns and started naming names. You gotta do this sometimes! I rattled off a whole list of medical doctors who endorsed this and I also cited G. Edward Griffin's extremely well-researched study of this subject ("The World Without Cancer"). She shrugged "You'll always find some people who think they know better. But they simply don't. It's nonsense. Take it from me!"
(See what you think.)
I've encountered this attitude many times since, among family and friends as well as on the public forum. Some people, once their mind is made up, simply WILL NOT accept any alternative views, even to the point of rude and arrogant pronouncements.
Hey all you who believe that the Illuminati control the Earth - you don't need a tiny ruling elite to enforce an unwritten agenda. All you need are masses of people who are "right"!
Another example. Just the other day I ran into an old friend of mine who happens to be a popular talk-show host. As such he interviews hundreds of famous people every year and gets to learn about all sorts of things from their perspective. Very cool. So, when we met, one of the first things he did was talk about some of his most recent guests. A few of them, he said at one point, were telling him about the nuisance that is the so-called "911 Truthers" movement. Utter conspiracy nuts and idiots. I listened to his quick summary of the key points that the "Truthers always get wrong" and I was bemused. While I'm still not quite decided about many details of what transpired that sad day in September 2001, I've done lots of research and quite careful study of all the available evidence and I'm convinced of one thing: the government is covering up "a lot" (for whatever reasons), and many of the popular explanations (including the ones my friend cited) are simply unconvincing (not to say outright "wrong"), and occasionally fly in the face of easily testable physical laws. Don't get me wrong. I don't buy into the whole "Bush did it" thing, but it doesn't take a very high intelligence to understand why the "Truthers" want a new investigation. I support anyone who just wants to know! The original investigation was clearly, almost offensively incomplete. No wonder they want another one! So I said to my friend "well, you know some of the things these Truthers bring up do merit at least a glance..." To this my friend cut me off and said "Don't tell me you buy into that bullshit, Paul! These idiots don't know what the hell they're talking about! Let's not even talk about it!" So we didn't talk about it. But once again I had time to reflect on the workings of the human mind.
9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
(See if you think these people are idiots)
It's one thing to research something thoroughly and then have a strong opinion on it - even one that aggressively defends itself and rejects the views of others. But it's a whole different thing to have done little to no research, have little to no facts, and yet speak and act as if you're the alpha and omega on the subject! Am I wrong?
The thing that fascinates me is when those dogmatic opponents of new and "alternative" views, be it in science or politics, medicine - whatever, when they're (often) eventually proven wrong they fall into two distinct groups. There are those who insist that they "never" disagreed with the given point of view. Instead, they were just healthy sceptics, not close-minded dogmaticists. And then there are those who go to their graves convinced they were right all along. The first flight of the Wright Brothers wasn't covered by their local newspaper because the editor didn't believe in flight. Right up to his death, years later, his paper still didn't give the Wright Brothers any coverage simply because heavier-than-air flight was impossible after all.
Now write a song about that...!
Whenever I find some free time, I like to read and browse through resources on the web, exploring my favorite subjects. Some of those subjects are quite controversial. For example JFK or 9/11 or even Ancient History or New Physics. Since I acknowledge to myself that the amount of knowledge I have so far amassed in each of those areas can still be increased, I find it difficult to take a decisive stand on any issue I'm still researching. I may lean one way or the other, but for me the argument stays open until I reach a critical mass of arguments. And even then I leave my brain open for a new counter-argument. I was sold on the Big Bang Theory for years. But now I'm not so sure, all the new developments in physics considered.
Still, to my eternal amazement, many people don't think that way at all. Sometimes, this makes me feel angry, other times stupid. I feel angry when I think "can't they see?!", and I feel stupid when the people with whom I disagree are ones I otherwise respect and admire. They must know something I don't! But I want to know what it is. And yet, when I probe and ask questions, I encounter an even bigger puzzle. In a huge number of cases, those otherwise hugely intelligent people DON'T have very much knowledge on the subject of a given controversial topic, but they DO have an abundance of self-confidence and "just knowing" that I'm not only wrong, but that they don't even need to hear any alternative points of view to be certain that they're right.
Having seen this time and again throughout my life, I can't help but think that there's more to this than just ignorance or arrogance on their part. It's got to be some sort of a defense mechanism...
Many people in my family are medical doctors. My first cousin is an accomplished doctor and also a scholar. She's a professor at a large univeristy and when we grew up together as kids she was always very open and curious. I remember running into her many years ago after not seeing her for years, I started talking to her about some interesting things I was reading at the time regarding alternative cancer therapies. Even before I had a chance to tell her what specific type of therapy I found particularly interesting, she interrupted me with "that's bullshit!" I remember immediately thinking "what the hell did I say? Did I phrase my sentence in a way that made me sound like some wishy-washy ignoramus or what?" After replaying it in my head I concluded that my question was inoffensive and rather well-put. I simply asked "hey, did you hear about some of those very intriguing alternative cancer therapies...?" And that's when I was cut off with that BS quip. I remember trying to push the topic just a bit further. Even as she let me speak about the particular therapy I was interested in, I could sense that her whole being was constantly cutting me off, wishing that I'd just shut up. I wanted to know if she'd heard about vitamin B17 and the whole Laetrile therapy. By the time I finished explaining what specific topic was holding my attention, I heard her make another arbitrary pronouncement "It doesn't work, Paul. It's all just quackery." When I asked if she'd ever investigated it, she said she glanced at some literature about it and was quickly convinced that it was just rubbish. I then took out the big guns and started naming names. You gotta do this sometimes! I rattled off a whole list of medical doctors who endorsed this and I also cited G. Edward Griffin's extremely well-researched study of this subject ("The World Without Cancer"). She shrugged "You'll always find some people who think they know better. But they simply don't. It's nonsense. Take it from me!"
(See what you think.)
I've encountered this attitude many times since, among family and friends as well as on the public forum. Some people, once their mind is made up, simply WILL NOT accept any alternative views, even to the point of rude and arrogant pronouncements.
Hey all you who believe that the Illuminati control the Earth - you don't need a tiny ruling elite to enforce an unwritten agenda. All you need are masses of people who are "right"!
Another example. Just the other day I ran into an old friend of mine who happens to be a popular talk-show host. As such he interviews hundreds of famous people every year and gets to learn about all sorts of things from their perspective. Very cool. So, when we met, one of the first things he did was talk about some of his most recent guests. A few of them, he said at one point, were telling him about the nuisance that is the so-called "911 Truthers" movement. Utter conspiracy nuts and idiots. I listened to his quick summary of the key points that the "Truthers always get wrong" and I was bemused. While I'm still not quite decided about many details of what transpired that sad day in September 2001, I've done lots of research and quite careful study of all the available evidence and I'm convinced of one thing: the government is covering up "a lot" (for whatever reasons), and many of the popular explanations (including the ones my friend cited) are simply unconvincing (not to say outright "wrong"), and occasionally fly in the face of easily testable physical laws. Don't get me wrong. I don't buy into the whole "Bush did it" thing, but it doesn't take a very high intelligence to understand why the "Truthers" want a new investigation. I support anyone who just wants to know! The original investigation was clearly, almost offensively incomplete. No wonder they want another one! So I said to my friend "well, you know some of the things these Truthers bring up do merit at least a glance..." To this my friend cut me off and said "Don't tell me you buy into that bullshit, Paul! These idiots don't know what the hell they're talking about! Let's not even talk about it!" So we didn't talk about it. But once again I had time to reflect on the workings of the human mind.
9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
(See if you think these people are idiots)
It's one thing to research something thoroughly and then have a strong opinion on it - even one that aggressively defends itself and rejects the views of others. But it's a whole different thing to have done little to no research, have little to no facts, and yet speak and act as if you're the alpha and omega on the subject! Am I wrong?
The thing that fascinates me is when those dogmatic opponents of new and "alternative" views, be it in science or politics, medicine - whatever, when they're (often) eventually proven wrong they fall into two distinct groups. There are those who insist that they "never" disagreed with the given point of view. Instead, they were just healthy sceptics, not close-minded dogmaticists. And then there are those who go to their graves convinced they were right all along. The first flight of the Wright Brothers wasn't covered by their local newspaper because the editor didn't believe in flight. Right up to his death, years later, his paper still didn't give the Wright Brothers any coverage simply because heavier-than-air flight was impossible after all.
Now write a song about that...!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Recommended JFK Viewing
Still on the subject of my last JFK post, I discovered a few really well made vids which I think most people will find quite fascinating regardless of which side of the debate they fall on.
Have a look at this short clip, "The President Who Told The Truth."
Have a look at this short clip, "The President Who Told The Truth."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
As Clear-cut As JFK
Are you among the 90% of Americans (and nearly 95% of non-Americans) who don't believe the US Government's lone gunman theory in the JFK murder case? Or perhaps you're among the 55% of Americans (nearly 70% worldwide) who belive that the US Government has actively covered up the evidence?
This either shows that the majority of the population is delusional, conspiratorial, illogical and just plain nuts... or it shows that there is a critical confidence crisis in the government (and the lingering JFK conspiracy is just the tip of the iceberg).
So what's gone wrong here? And if it's really such a majority who demand "justice", how come they're not just being ignored by the government-supported minority, but also attacked, insulted and (occasionally) punished?
Watch "JFK - Case For Conspiracy" here.
Perhaps we're looking at something other than a mere cover-up. Maybe it's a mind-set?
You might know this from your own experience. Sometimes, you just don't want to engage in a dialog with some people. If you're particularly knowledgeable on a certain subject and if you're being challenged by someone whose knowledge you don't respect, you might find yourself dismissing them even without hearing them out. It takes a patient and mature mind to engage in a dialog with someone whose opinions "offend" ours.
It might be your religion or your views on a particular science - or your views on the music market. Anything.
So, if this were the case in the above example, one might understand the official position a little better. Except for one minor problem. They are not "better" or "smarter" and there are no legal or ethical grounds for expecting that it should be so.
One can therefore easily agree that both views are "equal." Why then the a priori dismissal?
The Government's (and media's) position (dismissing, belittling and not listening to the alternative views of the majority) is clearly not justifiable, nor even logical - and probably also not even legal! And yet... if you publicly declare your disbelief in the official story, you WILL be declared a "conspiracy nut!" And the weirdest thing of all is that it's not just "them" who'll call you that. Many among the masses who otherwise (statistically) support you... will also start looking at you suspiciously!
It's a mind-set thing all right. Theirs: "we're right, because we are." Ours: slavish bowing to "power" and irrationally wanting to conform.
It's a case of the "expert" who can't stand dissent or even the slightest challenge to his authority. It's as if being wrong ain't human after all. We see this everywhere, at all times. Once you start representing the "established view" any challenge becomes intollerable to you. It's because you agreed that it is "established," solid and unassailable. And that's dogma. Dogma is by its very nature irrational, because it pretends to be a natural law, where it clearly isn't. Hence, the only way to defend it is by force and with blunt psuedo-intellectual tools. Thus, in totalitarian systems, the opposition is physically squashed while in "democratic" societies, the opposition is offended, laughed at, aggressively argued with and... blackballed.
Would we too become dogmatic and aggressively defensive if we believed in something so fervently? If we would, then blaming "them" for our own weaknesses will lead nowhere. But if we wouldn't - then the only way to fight them is by increasing our own and everyone else's awareness, until this new enlightened mind-set becomes so prevalent that the new generation of people who come to power will chose intellectual honesty over dogma.
Now write a song about that!
This either shows that the majority of the population is delusional, conspiratorial, illogical and just plain nuts... or it shows that there is a critical confidence crisis in the government (and the lingering JFK conspiracy is just the tip of the iceberg).
So what's gone wrong here? And if it's really such a majority who demand "justice", how come they're not just being ignored by the government-supported minority, but also attacked, insulted and (occasionally) punished?
Watch "JFK - Case For Conspiracy" here.
Perhaps we're looking at something other than a mere cover-up. Maybe it's a mind-set?
You might know this from your own experience. Sometimes, you just don't want to engage in a dialog with some people. If you're particularly knowledgeable on a certain subject and if you're being challenged by someone whose knowledge you don't respect, you might find yourself dismissing them even without hearing them out. It takes a patient and mature mind to engage in a dialog with someone whose opinions "offend" ours.
It might be your religion or your views on a particular science - or your views on the music market. Anything.
So, if this were the case in the above example, one might understand the official position a little better. Except for one minor problem. They are not "better" or "smarter" and there are no legal or ethical grounds for expecting that it should be so.
One can therefore easily agree that both views are "equal." Why then the a priori dismissal?
The Government's (and media's) position (dismissing, belittling and not listening to the alternative views of the majority) is clearly not justifiable, nor even logical - and probably also not even legal! And yet... if you publicly declare your disbelief in the official story, you WILL be declared a "conspiracy nut!" And the weirdest thing of all is that it's not just "them" who'll call you that. Many among the masses who otherwise (statistically) support you... will also start looking at you suspiciously!
It's a mind-set thing all right. Theirs: "we're right, because we are." Ours: slavish bowing to "power" and irrationally wanting to conform.
It's a case of the "expert" who can't stand dissent or even the slightest challenge to his authority. It's as if being wrong ain't human after all. We see this everywhere, at all times. Once you start representing the "established view" any challenge becomes intollerable to you. It's because you agreed that it is "established," solid and unassailable. And that's dogma. Dogma is by its very nature irrational, because it pretends to be a natural law, where it clearly isn't. Hence, the only way to defend it is by force and with blunt psuedo-intellectual tools. Thus, in totalitarian systems, the opposition is physically squashed while in "democratic" societies, the opposition is offended, laughed at, aggressively argued with and... blackballed.
- (In fact, a whole set of arguing techniques is being employed by virtually all who hold a dogmatic view of anything. It's a system of "arguing to win" no matter what. It's called "Eristic" and it's been disparaged by intellectuals and philosophers going as far back as Socrates or Plato. But no philosopher surpassed Arthur Schopenhauer in their analysis of Eristic. Have a look at this link and learn all you need to know about attacks ad hominem, exaggeration, homonymy and much much more. Fox News will make a whole lot more sense to you now!)
Would we too become dogmatic and aggressively defensive if we believed in something so fervently? If we would, then blaming "them" for our own weaknesses will lead nowhere. But if we wouldn't - then the only way to fight them is by increasing our own and everyone else's awareness, until this new enlightened mind-set becomes so prevalent that the new generation of people who come to power will chose intellectual honesty over dogma.
Now write a song about that!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
An Open Mind
Here's a cute little saying: "keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out."
Hilarious!
And so true.
But what exactly does this mean?
When you hear something new, if you're anything like me, you'll initially take it at face value, then activate your sense of critical thinking and ponder the subject for a while, trying to determine whether it's something you find credible or not. And if it tickles you enough, you might even do some extra research and reading in order to feel "sufficiently informed."
In a world where news is literally everywhere, you'll, more likely than not, be quite selective about what you spend your time on. The latest in agriculture? Hmm maybe I'll pass on that one today. Newest pictures from Mars? Hmm this sounds interesting, let's have a look. A controversial bill trying to make its way through Senate? Ehm. Depends on the day.
Now, what happens when the information you receive is "controversial"? What if the views are starkly polarized? Some say it means one thing, others say another. Which side do you fall on, if you happen to feel strongly about the subject? How do you go about figuring out where you stand?
Do you seek the truth? Or do you follow personal preferences? Where do you stop? How do you express your support (or opposition) to a given idea? How deeply does it affect you?
Let's take some examples just to get the ball rolling.
Face and ruins on Mars.
Trick of light and shadow as NASA tells us?
Or evidence of a lost civilization as people like Richard C. Hoagland so eloquently espouse?
The oldest civilization in the world.
Is it Egypt as archeologists would have us believe?
Or is it Sumer?
Or somewhere else entirely (say, the Black Sea area or even South America?)
Vaccinations
Are they 99% safe and good for you?
Or are they potentially deadly and you should resist them?
Evolution
Was Darwin right?
Or is our design intelligent in nature?
9/11
Was it 19 highjackers doing Osama's bidding?
Or was it an inside job?
Or something inbetween?
Free Energy
Is it even possible?
Or is it all myth and urban legend?
Are all these supposed inventors lying through their teeth?
Or is the government actively trying to stop them?
Goverment
Can you trust them?
Or are they all crooks?
Or just some of them...?
Global Warming
Is it happening because of us?
Or is it a Solar-system-wide phenomenon (or even a galactic one)?
Or is it actually Global Cooling?
Oh no, is it my SUV?
Federal Reserve
Are they responsible for the economic boom we've seen over the last 100 years?
Or are they really making money out of nothing in a giantic Ponzi scheme and are the cause of all recessions and inflation?
Politics
Are we heading for totalitarianism?
Or is the New World Order a way to a better future for everyone?
Anti-gravity
Is this the energy source and propulsion of tomorrow? And is it already available today (as some claim)?
Or is it contrary to the laws of physics and just another stupid urban myth?
So how do you explain the Coral Castle? Or the pyramids? Or Baalbek...?
JFK
Was he killed by the lone gunman (Lee Harvey Oswald) as the government insists?
Or was there a conspiracy? But whose? The government? The mafia? The Cubans? The French? The Russians?
Or is Oliver Stone simply nuts?
UFOs
Are they real?
Are they government secret ops?
Are they a collective delusion?
Crop Cricles
And what about those weird things? Are they all faked?
Or are some of them messages from the stars....?
2012
Is the end near?
Or is it just a Mayan holiday?
ESP and Remote Viewing
Is this even possible that we can all do this? Or perhaps just some of us?
Or is it all a lot of hooey and a cool way to keep naive people dreaming?
I could go on. And on and on...
(And something tells me I will - soon enough!)
There are SO MANY fascinating mysteries. Some sinister, some not. And the more you learn about them, the more complex the answers become. And the more still you learn and you suddenly discover how interlinked everything appears to be...
So... how DO you figure out which side of the fence you fall on?
Unless you're a professional investigator of any of these mysteries, chances are you're just an "informed layman" who simply wants to know the TRUTH - whatever it might be.
You may also have a preconceived idea of what's what, and you may simply be looking for any and all CONFIRMATION that what you think is true.
Or, perhaps, you have a method for figuring all this out? Maybe it's a scientific method, based on logic? Or maybe it's just the way something makes you feel?
And how do you deal with DOGMA? (On BOTH sides of the argument, to be absolutely sure)
If there's one thing I really HATE in life, it has GOT to be dogma. That unmovable pseudo-intellectual position which is anything but intellectual, and it's RIGHT - because IT IS RIGHT.
You want to see me MAD? Just be dogmatic with me, and I don't care what we're talking about.
I need REASON and UNDERSTANDING. And even 2+2 for me is only "under most circumstances" equal 4. I would only say 2+2 IS MOST DEFINITELY 4 under specific circumstances where such a statement makes perfect sense in its context. And this means, in such a case - just about everywhere. Except perhaps in quantum mechanics, hehe.
Okay. So let's start this INSPIRATIONAL blog with one of the topics I mentioned above. Which one...? Awww that's a tough one.
But okay. Let's start with the pyramids. I was into this when I was still a kid.
The Pyramids
The question of whether or not the Egyptians built them and how is, to me, secondary to a much more fundamental question: HOW?
When you know the "how" you can move on to everything else.
But since answering this seemingly simple question has proven such a tough task, I'll CAUTIOUSLY look at other questions, such as "who" and "when" and "why."
Ah, but here the mystery only deepens. There is no agreement on ANY of those questions, even among the professionals. And when you add the alternative people to this mix... you get one unholy mess.
So what's the starting point? It has to be Mainstream Egyptology. These guys are the experts. Surely, they have the best answers. This was, in fact, my view to start with - for a very long time. Until I took deeper interest and started seeing inconsistencies. And then I started reading the alternative peeps' books... and I don't need to tell you what happened next!
So what do the pros (generally) say?
Let's stop here and look at the alternativists' (typical) view.
Let's stop here.
I look at these two diverging views (actually many more, because both the mainstream and the alternative people have a multitude of sub-views, often starkly at odds with one another).
Still, I'm able to gather the following basic information:
The Great Pyramid alone consists of 2.3 million blocks of limestone, of which 90% are about 2.5 tons in weight (each), and there are many blocks which weigh 20 tons - and some which are somewhere in the area of 100 tons.
The blocks are cut and assembled extremely precisely, and the ratios of sides, perimeter, height, and other key features of the whole (especially the Great) pyramid are extremely precisely aligned with astronomical coordinates, and have an inner harmony which reveals a tremendous knowledge of mathematics, not to mention engineering.
There is very little solid proof that Khufu (Cheops) built the Great Pyramid (only something like 3 relatively shaky, not to say dubious artifacts with his name on it), but there's lots of evidence suggesting that Khufu was at best only a renovator, not the original builder.
OK. This seems to be pretty persuasive evidence for me that perhaps the mainstream guys should have another look. But then again, are the alternative guys perhaps just making all this up?
As I dig deeper and unearth facts from both sides of the argument, I also "listen in" on how they argue their positions. Sometimes you can learn a lot about a subject just by listening to its proponents - and opponents.
And it is at this point where I'm beginning to get upset. Remember what I said earlier? There's only one way to piss me off, and that's to get domatic with me.
I'm hearing these two general positions: the mainstream guys (almost always) seem CLOSED to alternative arguments, while the alternative guys, while sometimes quite possibly a little nutty, are certainly no less logical and compelling in their "proof" - but most certainly they're often much more SCIENTIFIC in their BASIC approach. And are only rarely dogmatic! Only interpretation of available facts seems to matter to them. Granted, it MIGHT be a false interpretation, by for me, it's a heck of a lot better start than "I'm right because I'm right."
And when you look at the egyptological dogma up close, you'll not fail to see just how shockingly flimsy some of it appears to be. Take the #1 "weightiest" argument for Khufu being the builder of the Gret Pyramid: a (poorly) hand-carved cartouche in one of the most inaccessible to areas of the Great Pyramid (otherwise 100% devoid of any inscriptions), which is not only HIDDEN, but also MISSPELLED and almost definitely a forgery. Even some mainstream Egyptologists now admit the possibility that this isn't really all that strong as far as evidence goes.
And yet... open a school-book or an encyclopedia. Turn on the History Channel or Discovery Channel. Or go to a museum. And you'll find out that the Great Pyramid's author is Khufu. Not "maybe" not "probably" not "most likely" but "absolutely certainly 100% only him and no one else." And if you say otherwise, you're LAUGHED AT, SCORNED and DOGMATICALLY shut-out from any discussion.
Huh?
Have they forgotten that the mainstream theories may be very compelling, but they are still JUST THAT: theories?
So WHY are they presented as FACTS? And why are alternative views dismissed out of hand?
Is this something about human psychology? Is this a way to "win an argument"? Simply claim you're right (because YOU ARE) and remind everybody that YOU are the expert (because you've been to a school which taught you dogmatic thinking to begin with), and now everybody else can go screw.
I won't even remind everyone that MANY of the major archeological discoveries were made by outsiders and amateurs IN SPITE of active (and often aggressive) discouragement by the mainstream experts.
So, the pyramid question is, for me, one of human psychology as much as anything else.
As for my opinion on the "how" and "when" and all that - I must say that the alternative camp have (so far) put up much stronger arguments than anything I've read from the egyptological experts. And it's been quite a lot!
I'm not ready to declare with an "absolute" degree of certaintly that the alternative people are right (i.e. "high technology" of either extra-terrestrial or terrestrial origin, including anti-gravity machines), but I'm just about 99% sure that it was NOT Khufu, and it was NOT 4.500 years ago, and it was NOT tombs.
I reserve that 1% for anyone who can RATIONALLY and UN-DOGMATICALLY convince me otherwise.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I thnk archeologists are great and they're right 90% of the time. Just NOT about the pyramids. Sorry. Give me logic please and some SOLID evidence. You ain't got it? Then give the alternative theories the SAME platform until you can!
Here are some video links for anyone who's interested, some arguing for one view, some for another (just to preserve at least SOME balance). Admittedly, most of these are "alternative" but that's simply because the mainstream views are EVERYWHERE ELSE - starting with all the encyclopedias.
Sphinx & Great Pyramids -True Ages Revealed
Great Pyramid Mystery Solved?
Connecting Pyramids from China to Egypt - Straight Line
1/2 Did Aliens Help Build The Pyramids?
The True History Of All Pyramids Part 1
EGYPTIANS could not build Pyramids
Now... can you write a song about THAT?
Hilarious!
And so true.
But what exactly does this mean?
When you hear something new, if you're anything like me, you'll initially take it at face value, then activate your sense of critical thinking and ponder the subject for a while, trying to determine whether it's something you find credible or not. And if it tickles you enough, you might even do some extra research and reading in order to feel "sufficiently informed."
In a world where news is literally everywhere, you'll, more likely than not, be quite selective about what you spend your time on. The latest in agriculture? Hmm maybe I'll pass on that one today. Newest pictures from Mars? Hmm this sounds interesting, let's have a look. A controversial bill trying to make its way through Senate? Ehm. Depends on the day.
Now, what happens when the information you receive is "controversial"? What if the views are starkly polarized? Some say it means one thing, others say another. Which side do you fall on, if you happen to feel strongly about the subject? How do you go about figuring out where you stand?
Do you seek the truth? Or do you follow personal preferences? Where do you stop? How do you express your support (or opposition) to a given idea? How deeply does it affect you?
Let's take some examples just to get the ball rolling.
Face and ruins on Mars.
Trick of light and shadow as NASA tells us?
Or evidence of a lost civilization as people like Richard C. Hoagland so eloquently espouse?
The oldest civilization in the world.
Is it Egypt as archeologists would have us believe?
Or is it Sumer?
Or somewhere else entirely (say, the Black Sea area or even South America?)
Vaccinations
Are they 99% safe and good for you?
Or are they potentially deadly and you should resist them?
Evolution
Was Darwin right?
Or is our design intelligent in nature?
9/11
Was it 19 highjackers doing Osama's bidding?
Or was it an inside job?
Or something inbetween?
Free Energy
Is it even possible?
Or is it all myth and urban legend?
Are all these supposed inventors lying through their teeth?
Or is the government actively trying to stop them?
Goverment
Can you trust them?
Or are they all crooks?
Or just some of them...?
Global Warming
Is it happening because of us?
Or is it a Solar-system-wide phenomenon (or even a galactic one)?
Or is it actually Global Cooling?
Oh no, is it my SUV?
Federal Reserve
Are they responsible for the economic boom we've seen over the last 100 years?
Or are they really making money out of nothing in a giantic Ponzi scheme and are the cause of all recessions and inflation?
Politics
Are we heading for totalitarianism?
Or is the New World Order a way to a better future for everyone?
Anti-gravity
Is this the energy source and propulsion of tomorrow? And is it already available today (as some claim)?
Or is it contrary to the laws of physics and just another stupid urban myth?
So how do you explain the Coral Castle? Or the pyramids? Or Baalbek...?
JFK
Was he killed by the lone gunman (Lee Harvey Oswald) as the government insists?
Or was there a conspiracy? But whose? The government? The mafia? The Cubans? The French? The Russians?
Or is Oliver Stone simply nuts?
UFOs
Are they real?
Are they government secret ops?
Are they a collective delusion?
Crop Cricles
And what about those weird things? Are they all faked?
Or are some of them messages from the stars....?
2012
Is the end near?
Or is it just a Mayan holiday?
ESP and Remote Viewing
Is this even possible that we can all do this? Or perhaps just some of us?
Or is it all a lot of hooey and a cool way to keep naive people dreaming?
I could go on. And on and on...
(And something tells me I will - soon enough!)
There are SO MANY fascinating mysteries. Some sinister, some not. And the more you learn about them, the more complex the answers become. And the more still you learn and you suddenly discover how interlinked everything appears to be...
So... how DO you figure out which side of the fence you fall on?
Unless you're a professional investigator of any of these mysteries, chances are you're just an "informed layman" who simply wants to know the TRUTH - whatever it might be.
You may also have a preconceived idea of what's what, and you may simply be looking for any and all CONFIRMATION that what you think is true.
Or, perhaps, you have a method for figuring all this out? Maybe it's a scientific method, based on logic? Or maybe it's just the way something makes you feel?
And how do you deal with DOGMA? (On BOTH sides of the argument, to be absolutely sure)
If there's one thing I really HATE in life, it has GOT to be dogma. That unmovable pseudo-intellectual position which is anything but intellectual, and it's RIGHT - because IT IS RIGHT.
You want to see me MAD? Just be dogmatic with me, and I don't care what we're talking about.
I need REASON and UNDERSTANDING. And even 2+2 for me is only "under most circumstances" equal 4. I would only say 2+2 IS MOST DEFINITELY 4 under specific circumstances where such a statement makes perfect sense in its context. And this means, in such a case - just about everywhere. Except perhaps in quantum mechanics, hehe.
Okay. So let's start this INSPIRATIONAL blog with one of the topics I mentioned above. Which one...? Awww that's a tough one.
But okay. Let's start with the pyramids. I was into this when I was still a kid.
The Pyramids
The question of whether or not the Egyptians built them and how is, to me, secondary to a much more fundamental question: HOW?
When you know the "how" you can move on to everything else.
But since answering this seemingly simple question has proven such a tough task, I'll CAUTIOUSLY look at other questions, such as "who" and "when" and "why."
Ah, but here the mystery only deepens. There is no agreement on ANY of those questions, even among the professionals. And when you add the alternative people to this mix... you get one unholy mess.
So what's the starting point? It has to be Mainstream Egyptology. These guys are the experts. Surely, they have the best answers. This was, in fact, my view to start with - for a very long time. Until I took deeper interest and started seeing inconsistencies. And then I started reading the alternative peeps' books... and I don't need to tell you what happened next!
So what do the pros (generally) say?
- The pyramids are tombs, with the Great Pyramid having been built by Khufu, the other two by Chepren and Menkaure.
- They were built over some 20 years with 100,000 laborers working 3 months in a year, using ramps and rolling stones on logs.
- They were built using primitive copper tools with primitive knowledge of sciences, although some astronomical knowledge is admittedly there.
Let's stop here and look at the alternativists' (typical) view.
- The pyramids are NOT tombs. They may be energy machines or temples or simply mystical "messages to posterity", astronomical markers, etc.
- They were built relatively quickly, probably using small human resources, but with hugely advanced technologies.
- They were not built by primitives with only basic knowledge of tools or astronomy, but by a civilization equal to (or greater) than our own, using technologies which we haven't even invented yet.
Let's stop here.
I look at these two diverging views (actually many more, because both the mainstream and the alternative people have a multitude of sub-views, often starkly at odds with one another).
Still, I'm able to gather the following basic information:
The Great Pyramid alone consists of 2.3 million blocks of limestone, of which 90% are about 2.5 tons in weight (each), and there are many blocks which weigh 20 tons - and some which are somewhere in the area of 100 tons.
The blocks are cut and assembled extremely precisely, and the ratios of sides, perimeter, height, and other key features of the whole (especially the Great) pyramid are extremely precisely aligned with astronomical coordinates, and have an inner harmony which reveals a tremendous knowledge of mathematics, not to mention engineering.
There is very little solid proof that Khufu (Cheops) built the Great Pyramid (only something like 3 relatively shaky, not to say dubious artifacts with his name on it), but there's lots of evidence suggesting that Khufu was at best only a renovator, not the original builder.
OK. This seems to be pretty persuasive evidence for me that perhaps the mainstream guys should have another look. But then again, are the alternative guys perhaps just making all this up?
As I dig deeper and unearth facts from both sides of the argument, I also "listen in" on how they argue their positions. Sometimes you can learn a lot about a subject just by listening to its proponents - and opponents.
And it is at this point where I'm beginning to get upset. Remember what I said earlier? There's only one way to piss me off, and that's to get domatic with me.
I'm hearing these two general positions: the mainstream guys (almost always) seem CLOSED to alternative arguments, while the alternative guys, while sometimes quite possibly a little nutty, are certainly no less logical and compelling in their "proof" - but most certainly they're often much more SCIENTIFIC in their BASIC approach. And are only rarely dogmatic! Only interpretation of available facts seems to matter to them. Granted, it MIGHT be a false interpretation, by for me, it's a heck of a lot better start than "I'm right because I'm right."
And when you look at the egyptological dogma up close, you'll not fail to see just how shockingly flimsy some of it appears to be. Take the #1 "weightiest" argument for Khufu being the builder of the Gret Pyramid: a (poorly) hand-carved cartouche in one of the most inaccessible to areas of the Great Pyramid (otherwise 100% devoid of any inscriptions), which is not only HIDDEN, but also MISSPELLED and almost definitely a forgery. Even some mainstream Egyptologists now admit the possibility that this isn't really all that strong as far as evidence goes.
And yet... open a school-book or an encyclopedia. Turn on the History Channel or Discovery Channel. Or go to a museum. And you'll find out that the Great Pyramid's author is Khufu. Not "maybe" not "probably" not "most likely" but "absolutely certainly 100% only him and no one else." And if you say otherwise, you're LAUGHED AT, SCORNED and DOGMATICALLY shut-out from any discussion.
Huh?
Have they forgotten that the mainstream theories may be very compelling, but they are still JUST THAT: theories?
So WHY are they presented as FACTS? And why are alternative views dismissed out of hand?
Is this something about human psychology? Is this a way to "win an argument"? Simply claim you're right (because YOU ARE) and remind everybody that YOU are the expert (because you've been to a school which taught you dogmatic thinking to begin with), and now everybody else can go screw.
I won't even remind everyone that MANY of the major archeological discoveries were made by outsiders and amateurs IN SPITE of active (and often aggressive) discouragement by the mainstream experts.
So, the pyramid question is, for me, one of human psychology as much as anything else.
As for my opinion on the "how" and "when" and all that - I must say that the alternative camp have (so far) put up much stronger arguments than anything I've read from the egyptological experts. And it's been quite a lot!
I'm not ready to declare with an "absolute" degree of certaintly that the alternative people are right (i.e. "high technology" of either extra-terrestrial or terrestrial origin, including anti-gravity machines), but I'm just about 99% sure that it was NOT Khufu, and it was NOT 4.500 years ago, and it was NOT tombs.
I reserve that 1% for anyone who can RATIONALLY and UN-DOGMATICALLY convince me otherwise.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I thnk archeologists are great and they're right 90% of the time. Just NOT about the pyramids. Sorry. Give me logic please and some SOLID evidence. You ain't got it? Then give the alternative theories the SAME platform until you can!
Here are some video links for anyone who's interested, some arguing for one view, some for another (just to preserve at least SOME balance). Admittedly, most of these are "alternative" but that's simply because the mainstream views are EVERYWHERE ELSE - starting with all the encyclopedias.
Sphinx & Great Pyramids -True Ages Revealed
Great Pyramid Mystery Solved?
Connecting Pyramids from China to Egypt - Straight Line
1/2 Did Aliens Help Build The Pyramids?
The True History Of All Pyramids Part 1
EGYPTIANS could not build Pyramids
Now... can you write a song about THAT?
What's The Big Idea?
It was Fame Games' Laura ("dj crier") who suggested that I write this blog.
I take active interest in all sorts of topics, from esoteric to mainstream. I read voraciously every night without exception and I also watch as many YouTube clips as I can manage to find time for, also typically late at night. This cuts down my typical sleep to around maybe 5 or 6 hours, but it's worth it for me. I mean, how can you sleep when there's so much to learn and ponder!
It's the "controversial" topics that intrigue me the most lately. The perceived injustices, manipulations, lies, spin... I mean what am I to make of all those "conspiracy theories"? Are they all NUTS? Or is everybody else mislead? Who's telling the truth? Who's lying through their teeth?
Or what about some of the latest discoveries in science or archeology or psychology or medicine... Should I worry about the Swine Flu or Global Warming (erm... Cooling... huh?) or 2012?
I'm extremely rational, for an artist. But I'm also "cursed" with the ability to see too many shades of grey in everything. Is that a good thing or bad? I often wish I could just see things as simply black or white. And this makes my knowledge quest that much more urgent. So much to learn - so little time...!
So, Laura thought that all of this just might be someone's inspiration for a new song. And I thought this was a pretty cool idea!
I know that when I write, half the battle is knowing WHAT the song is about. I've written LOADS of "empty" and pretty meaningless songs. Sure, with enough skill and craft you can make just about anything "work" but the songs which mean the most to me are those which I wrote with a message in mind. That may have been something personal or something more general, but as long as I meant it - it made the creative process so much more intense and infinitely more fun.
And you know what they say: the best songwriters in the world are the ones who are the most informed and have the broadest horizons. In my feeble effort to live up to this hype, I always look for inspiration in what goes around me.
Perhaps you do to.
And if you do, then I hope some of the topics I'll randomly touch on in here will spark your interest too, and maybe you'll write me what you think - or better still, write a song about it! And if you do... make sure you submit it to Fame Games!
I take active interest in all sorts of topics, from esoteric to mainstream. I read voraciously every night without exception and I also watch as many YouTube clips as I can manage to find time for, also typically late at night. This cuts down my typical sleep to around maybe 5 or 6 hours, but it's worth it for me. I mean, how can you sleep when there's so much to learn and ponder!
It's the "controversial" topics that intrigue me the most lately. The perceived injustices, manipulations, lies, spin... I mean what am I to make of all those "conspiracy theories"? Are they all NUTS? Or is everybody else mislead? Who's telling the truth? Who's lying through their teeth?
Or what about some of the latest discoveries in science or archeology or psychology or medicine... Should I worry about the Swine Flu or Global Warming (erm... Cooling... huh?) or 2012?
I'm extremely rational, for an artist. But I'm also "cursed" with the ability to see too many shades of grey in everything. Is that a good thing or bad? I often wish I could just see things as simply black or white. And this makes my knowledge quest that much more urgent. So much to learn - so little time...!
So, Laura thought that all of this just might be someone's inspiration for a new song. And I thought this was a pretty cool idea!
I know that when I write, half the battle is knowing WHAT the song is about. I've written LOADS of "empty" and pretty meaningless songs. Sure, with enough skill and craft you can make just about anything "work" but the songs which mean the most to me are those which I wrote with a message in mind. That may have been something personal or something more general, but as long as I meant it - it made the creative process so much more intense and infinitely more fun.
And you know what they say: the best songwriters in the world are the ones who are the most informed and have the broadest horizons. In my feeble effort to live up to this hype, I always look for inspiration in what goes around me.
Perhaps you do to.
And if you do, then I hope some of the topics I'll randomly touch on in here will spark your interest too, and maybe you'll write me what you think - or better still, write a song about it! And if you do... make sure you submit it to Fame Games!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
