Wade Frazier

Hi: With Ed Mitchell’s death, I probably need to address an issue that has been around for many years, which was Ed’s alleged falling out with Steven Greer after the 1997 Congressional hearings. The only place on the Internet that you will see that allegation, to my knowledge, is on the Rense site, but the article itself seems like disinformation at worst, or some badly botched account at best. To my knowledge, Ed never publicly disavowed his relationship with Greer nor did he ever recant his position on the issue, and that “exchange” with Scarlatti is bizarre. While Ed allegedly said that his beef was with being called a UFO witness, when he never really was (by The Washington Times, of all newspapers, which has been a notorious purveyor of disinformation) has nothing whatsoever to do with Sarfatti’s alleged harangue that UFOs are not real. That was not Ed’s position at all, and in this 1998 interview with Ed, with James Fox, here, his position was virtually identical with my understanding. Ed’s position was this: Humanity is almost certainly not alone in the universe, as far as intelligent life goes, and we have had ET visitations; The vast majority of visiting ETs, if not the entirety, not only have no hostile intent, but are trying to help humanity; The ET cover-up extends far past elected officials, who have almost no idea what is really happening; The people covering it up are very shadowy, and the tales of how they have kept the lid on it are spine-chilling; Some of the mind-boggling “captured” ET technology has been reverse-engineered well enough so that an elite few on Earth have use of it; Most “alien” abductions and other negative “ET” encounters were probably really encounters with humans masquerading as ETs; While Ed did not knowingly encounter the people perpetrating the cover-up, regarding their motives, Ed could not say for sure, but said: “…if it is normal human motivation, it has to do with power and control and greed and money and so forth.” Ed himself was never a UFO witness, and did not encounter UFOs or ETs during his astronaut days, including walking on the Moon, but he knows the truth of the ET situation, as do some other Moon-walking astronauts. Here is a compendium of information on Ed’s position. Today, I received the below email from Greer’s organization. “From Dr. Greer: “I invited him (Edgar Mitchell) to the original Project Starlight gathering of UFO military and government witnesses in 1995 at Asilomar , Monterrey CA. I remember him asking me, "My God Steve, do you know what you are taking on?" And I said yes, I'm afraid I do. And he replied, "Well, we have to just go forward, put one foot in front of the next, and never look back..." And so we have. “Later I brought him to the briefings for members of Congress, White House officials and others in 1997 in Washington DC. There he heard more top-secret testimony that UFOs were in fact real, and the secrecy was extreme. The day after, I invited him to join me at the Pentagon. “I had been asked to brief J2- the Director of Intelligence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Tom Wilson. From these and other meetings he learned that the compartments running ET and UFO projects were indeed Unacknowledged - rogue, illegal - lying even to this Admiral and the President. For it was made clear during this meeting that even the Admiral was pointedly blocked from accessing UFO - related operations. This was a turning point in Dr. Mitchell's understanding. “Subsequently, he courageously spoke out for the Disclosure of the truth. He stood with us until the end. “May he go into the worlds of light in peace and love and joy. Now the great space explorer who walked the moon will explore the infinite realms beyond space and time. “Steven M. Greer MD “Washington DC” So, what is up with Greer and Ed? I never heard Ed help Greer out after the 1990s, so Ed’s seeming withdrawal from Greer’s project, and his alleged complaints of Greer’s overreaching his data, have a ring of truth to them, but again, bear no resemblance to Sarfatti’s alleged harangue that ETs are not really visiting. I have a lot of respect for Ed and what he did, and followed his public ET/UFO work since the 1990s. I heard him on radio and TV shows being interviewed, as the interviewers tried to turn it into some kind of X-Files-type circus, and Ed was adamant about keeping it to what he could confidently say, and he purposely avoided the lurid speculation that the interviewers tried to lure him into. Ed was raised near Roswell and spoke with ranchers and other neighbors about what happened during the Roswell Incident. It was a very real event that seems to have marked the official beginning of the ET/UFO cover-up. Ed also made it very clear that one of the cover-up’s most common tactics is spinning a huge web of disinformation about it and sucking credulous people into that circus, to hopelessly muddy the waters. My approach is very much like Ed’s: unless I have had direct personal experience, or my close circle (family, close friends, Dennis, Brian, and only a handful or two more) has had, I don’t speak out and will be very conservative in what I will say. Ed did that partly because of his prudence as scientist, as a PhD from MIT. Greer came to the FE milieu through the ET issue, and I came to it through the trenches of trying to make FE happen. Many of us eventually came to the same vicinity of understanding, and probably the ultimate example of the ET/FE connection was Brian, who nearly died at the hands of the American military soon after hosting a UFO conference, when he was made the offer he could not refuse, just like so many FE inventors have. Greer became damaged goods as he went through the meat grinder after those Congressional hearings, and was never the same. He has my great sympathy, but I also doubt that he is fit for the task that he has taken on. Heck, I would not be qualified in the slightest for it. Dennis comes the closest that I know of, but he does not have a prayer with his approach, either. Indiana Jones cannot save the world by himself. I don’t know what data points that Greer may have stretched that may have made Ed uncomfortable, but I can vouch for the reality of FE, antigravity, and related technologies, and I can vouch for the organized suppression of any independent efforts to develop such technologies and, to me, that is about all that matters. The rest is noise. It is all about what we can do, not what the “bad guys” and others are up to. Enough of us wake up and stand up, and turning Earth into a heavenly place is going to be easy. Best, Wade

Hi: I just saw the news that Ed Mitchell died. This is a sad day, but Ed lived a very full life. I recently wrote about Ed (and just put up something on that thread earlier this morning). I never interacted with Ed, but would have liked to. He is riding the Big Rocket now. Best, Wade

Hi: The other day, I thought, “Gee, I should have put Brian’s statement there, too.” Sometimes, I am slow to get it. Without further ado, here it is: Dr. Brian O'Leary's "final word" about the moon landing hoax or non-hoax issue Often I'm confronted with my opinion about an issue which has polar-opposite constituencies. And now and then, that issue is couched in black-and-white terms which, as a scientist, I cannot be 100% sure of without further study. That regrettably happened regarding whether or not the Apollo lunar landings were hoaxed. When confronted with these questions in the media, and in a speculative frame of mind (in my later years, I'm a fairly free thinker and so am a truth-seeker outside any vested interests whenever I can be), many related questions came to me and caused me to think more deeply about the issue: Wouldn't NASA want to save face in one or more of the lunar landings and have a backup scenario such as this, unlikely as this could be? Could at least some of the astronauts merely have orbited the Moon and not landed because of technical challenges at times during the race to the Moon? The fact is, I don't know these things for sure, but my statements have been manipulated by both opposing sides of the issue to imply I'm taking their side. I'm not, although one would get the impression that I am. This flap is regrettable, because I have simply not sufficiently examined the scientific evidence on either side of the issue. So, in good conscience as a competent scientist, I cannot form an expert opinion without much more detailed research that could come out of an impartial investigation. I have chosen not to take the time to do the research needed to form an authoritative opinion. I'm sorry if the politicized nature of the debate seemed to have put me in the forefront of the debate, and for that I may have helped give both sides some ammunition to do so. My choice now is simply to carry on with my own work rather than address issues relating to past events. My choice is partially based on a desire to focus on what we need to do NOW about our pressing global problems such as war, torture, injustice, climate change, environmental pollution, dirty energy and water, deforestation, nonrenewable resource exploitation and unsustainable environmental, health and agricultural practices. In these respects, my public persona mismatches who I really am and what I truly represent. So, I'd like to be relieved of the responsibility for having a strong polarized position on an issue about which I know little and cannot contribute much to the greater responsibility we have as a civilization. With best wishes for a satisfactory resolution of the matter, Brian O'Leary Brian died a few months later, so it truly became his “final word” on the issue, and it would be nice if members of the Moon Landings Hoax debate respected it. Best, Wade

Hi: Before I get to Yull, I want to write a post on a subject that keeps rearing its head. I can’t recall off the top of my head which book that I read it in, as so many in my library cover the subject, but the statement was that high-energy societies are much better problem-solvers than low-energy societies. Why is that? The basics are these: An energy surplus allows humans to develop skills beyond serving subsistence needs (there are no hungry philosophers or scientists); An energy surplus can be used to create new materials; Energy harnessed by machines can do the work of many people, replacing muscle power. Those “skills” made professions possible, including scientists and inventors, without whom I would not be typing this post into my computer and posting it seconds later to a global audience. Last year, I gave a real world example of a 7.0 quake in Haiti, and compared it to a 6.8 quake in Seattle. If it had been a 7.0 quake in Seattle and a 6.8 quake in Haiti, the result would be the same: Haiti was devastated and still is, several years later, while the damage in Seattle was minimal, and the area recovered as soon as the quake ended. Why? Seattle is in history’s richest and most powerful nation, where the world’s richest man lives, and Haiti is one of the poorest (largely due to exploitation by the USA and other imperial nations), after it had history’s only successful slave revolt. In Seattle, buildings and infrastructure are made of stout building materials, such as high-quality concrete and steel, while Haiti’s shanty towns were made of flimsy materials that readily collapsed in the quake. Because of its inferior materials, Haiti’s devastation was great, while the damage was scarcely noticeable in Seattle. The “damage” in my home was one paperback book falling off of a bookshelf (I was vacationing in Hawaii at the time). Three years after the Haiti quake, only about half of the quake debris had even been removed. Why? Well, they don’t have big earthmovers and other equipment that is taken for granted in industrial nations. They simply do not have the energy for it. And Haiti is in a hot climate, with a huge energy subsidy from the environment, while Seattle is in a cold climate. In winter, I would not survive even one day naked in the local woods that I hike so happily through. In politics, there is a concept called power, which is the ability to get people to do the powerful’s bidding. The word power has Anglo-French roots from the medieval period, and it was not until the Scientific Revolution that accompanied the rise of machines that the physics definition of power was created, and the Watt is the typical unit of power in the West, named after the inventor of the modern stream engine. Power, in physics, is the ability to do work over a span of time. Machines do about 99.9% of all the real work performed in the USA, and the ratio is nearly the same in all industrialized nations. In just commuting to my office on a weekday morning, my car performs physical work that it would take my body about three months to produce. In a mere week of commuting to and from work, my car performed as much work as my body would in three years. And the energy that my car burns is only about a third of the energy used to build, maintain, and run our road system, so I really enjoyed the benefit of ten years of bodily energy in a week of commuting to my office. A year of commuting is worth 500 years of bodily energy, and that is just commuting to work! And people have a hard time understanding the connection between energy and economic activity. Incredible. People are “empowered” in industrial nations in ways that people in agrarian societies simply aren’t, as industrialized humans ride on the backs of several hundred effective humans in their daily lives. That is why the average American enjoys a lifestyle simply unimaginable to Earth’s richest human of three centuries ago, when the end of slavery was unimaginable. The Industrial Revolution’s demographic transition has everything to do with harnessing the new energy sources, particularly fossil fuels. Without that, the rest would not have happened. It was only after England was well on its way to industrializing that slavery was challenged for the first time on universal grounds. Until then, even the imagined Utopias of the Classic Greeks onward had slaves in them. Slavery made no economic sense in a hunter-gatherer society (slaughtering your neighbors, not enslaving them, was the standard practice), and its end was unimaginable in an agrarian society. It all rides on energy, but just this past week I was sent a link to a “visionary” site that advocated solving humanity’s immense problems, and the energy issue was prominent. What was their solution? We all go back to riding bikes! Good old muscle power! Those are the “solutions” proposed by the scientifically illiterate, who have no idea how our world really works. I see it all the time, from New Agers to “progressives.” To be fair to such scientifically illiterate “visionaries,” our ideological systems constantly ignore and downplay the energy issue, and economists might be the greatest offenders, with their nonsensical and egocentric ideas, in which money is everything. Their discipline is literally stuck in the 18th century, and it is probably no coincidence that the patron of today’s dominant economic ideology was history’s greatest energy mogul. With people actively brainwashed from understanding how our world really works, no wonder the “solutions” proposed by “visionaries” are so nonsensical. Again, I have seen this all the time. Even the so-called radicals think that the solution is to reshuffle the deck of scarcity more equitably, not pursue true abundance, which can only be based on energy abundance. Without energy abundance, none of the so-called abundance ideas that I see “visionaries” throw around are even possible. Studying how the world really works is what scientists do, and they understandably have no respect for economists. The money printing frenzy by the world’s central banks during the past several years is insane, and has only served to enrich the rich and create another bubble that is beginning to collapse, and was not difficult to foresee. But the “solutions” of reshuffling humanity’s scarce economic pie is no solution at all, but I constantly see such “solutions,” being put forth. If humanity gets the benefit of free energy and related technologies, all other problems will be triflingly easy to solve. Without free energy, none of them are. It really is that simple, but almost nobody can even imagine it, but it was like this before all Epochal Events. I seek the few who can. Another way to look at it is asking what problems of daily life that a billionaire finds unsurmountable. How about a homeless person? Free energy is like giving everybody a billion dollars. When everybody on Earth is a billionaire, what problems are we not going to be able to easily solve? Just as the average American lives a lifestyle today that the world’s richest human of three centuries ago could not imagine, the average human in the Fifth Epoch will make today’s richest human appear a pauper. Best, Wade

Hi: This subject of FE, psychics, and debunkers is a good one to do something that I have not really done before. I am going to tell the Yull Brown story, from start to finish. It is a great example of the problems of inventors, the Establishment, and the milieu that must be navigated for bringing exotic technologies to the public. I have told Yull anecdotes before, but this is going to be a holistic tale, from soup to nuts, from start to finish. This will take some time. There will be some new revelations. I am tired of protecting people who do not really deserve protection, and this series of posts will be more revealing than usual. The names generally won’t be hard to find for those with a little gumption, but as usual, the names really are not important; the events and dynamics, however, are. One day, I may be freed to be even more revealing, but that is probably down the road a ways. I’m not sure when I first heard of Yull, but in Brian O’s Miracle in the Void, which I read before Dennis began his barnstorming tours in 1996, Brian published some pictures of Yull, so I know that I heard of Yull before he teamed up with Dennis. When I was blown away by the crowd in early 1996, with even Amish in attendance, during Dennis’s first barnstorming tour of the USA, he was not yet involved with Yull. Dennis began promoting Yull during his second barnstorming tour, over the summer of 1996. I first read Christopher Bird’s work in 1990, with his book on Naessens. I heard of his work a decade earlier with his The Secret Life of Plants. Bird was planning to write a biography on Yull, but died in May 1996, before he could. Dennis’s Philadelphia show in September 1996 is still the largest free energy gathering in world history, and Yull was the guest of honor. Dennis wanted Mr. Professor and me to pick up Yull from the airport for the show, and I had to go three times to pick Yull up, as he was so paranoid (and, as it turned out, he had reason to be). But in the days before picking Yull up, I read a stack of articles that Bird had written on him, as I got prepared. Yull told me that Bird was a good man, and was sad to see him go. I still have my Yull material in a box in the attic, including videos, it was a lot more than just Bird’s articles, and it was also preparatory material for my speaking at DOE hearings in early 1997 on Brown’s Gas for neutralizing nuclear waste. In the summer of 1997, in the first studies for what became my site today, when I was studying the work of nuclear power cheerleaders, I spent more than a month studying the nuclear issue (and lost the essay draft that I had written). These are subjects near and dear to me, and I will tell the story of Dennis and Yull, as it has not yet been told, and we have to start with Yull. My tale about Yull comes from Yull himself, Bird’s writings, what Dennis told me back in 1996-1997, my many interactions with players in the milieu, and other information, with some being Internet-based. I do not plan to dig up that box and directly use it in this series of posts, and will operate from memory. I might slip up a little, but it won’t be far off, if at all. We will see how my self-discipline fares, and if I can refrain from digging up that box. Best, Wade

Hi: In McLuhan’s book, he tellingly exposed how the “skeptics” operate. I have called the “skeptics” anti-scientists, and it is not mere invective, but they act diametrically opposed to how the scientific method works, but pretend that they are being scientific. This is common in many areas of intellectual pursuit, as defending one’s in-group ideology often entails logical fallacies, outright lying, and even criminal behavior. Scientists or “skeptics” are far from alone. Historians commit similar crimes, as do economists, usually by lies of omission. Lies of commission can be discovered, which can mean the end of an academic’s career. As the late, great Howard Zinn made clear, much of the deception entails what historians choose to focus on and what they leave out or quickly gloss over. The George Washington myths are a good example, where outright fairy tales were concocted about him, while his greatest achievement/crime has been completely swept under the carpet by his biographers, who have produced hagiography, not history. The genocidist who my grade school was named after was sainted last year, and historians abetted the whitewash. So, the “skeptics” are in very good company, as they defend the Establishment that feeds them. A scientific approach entails developing hypotheses regarding all the known evidence regarding a phenomenon, and then finding more data, either via thorough searching (such as fossil hunting) or reproducible experiments, which can test the hypothesis, and can ideally falsify it. That is the scientific ideal. That is anything but what the “skeptics” and debunkers do. Perhaps most astonishingly, most of the debunkers are not even familiar with the evidence, and often openly don’t want to be. Nearly their entire approach is disparaging the phenomenon that they are debunking, claiming that it is not worthy of scientific investigation, coming up with wild guesses to dismiss the evidence, if they even acknowledge it. To the lay reader who may have heard too much about people such James Randi, Carl Sagan, and the august personages at CSICOP, what may be most surprising about McLuhan’s book is the vast evidence that has been amassed using a scientific approach since the 19th century on psychic phenomena. If people listen to the “skeptics” (and too many scientists have) they get the idea that there is no such evidence, or it does not withstand even cursory investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Denying that the evidence even exists is a standard “skeptical” trick, and the “skeptics” often make it clear that they are not even interested in looking at the evidence. Not only McLuhan noted it, but in Sheldrake’s book, he noted encounters with arch-materialist Richard Dawkins, such as Sheldrake’s being on TV shows with Dawkins. Sheldrake was prepared to discuss the evidence, including his own experimental findings, but Dawkins not only was completely unfamiliar with any of the evidence, but he made it clear that he was not interested. So, talking with Dawkins on the very issue that they were brought together to discuss was a complete waste of time, and Dawkins just spouted his atheistic beliefs. That is unscientific behavior, little different from Bible-banging, but people such as Dawkins get away with it, as the media gives him a free pass. Many times in his book, McLuhan noted that the debunkers would state that they demolished “paranormal” claims, but they really did not deal with the evidence at all, or did it in highly irrational ways. They simply made up hypothetical reasons for why the data was faulty. As McLuhan repeatedly demonstrated, the actual data betrayed their hypothetical musings. They just threw out their ideas, treated them as fact, and went on their merry way. It is a scandalous way for scientists to act, even kind of criminal, but that is standard “skeptical” behavior. Even worse, when the “skeptics” publish their nonsense, it becomes part of the “skeptical” canon, repeated ad infinitum by the “skeptical” community, as authoritative disproofs of “paranormal” claims. Such approaches leave rationality and the scientific process far behind, and the “skeptics” parade as the voice of science, reason, and careful investigation. Susan Blackmore is about the only “skeptic” who even pretends to take a scientific approach, and McLuhan repeatedly shows how Blackmore plays the “skeptical" games of not fairly treating the evidence, proposing hypothesis on the flimsiest evidence, and shows how her work is little more than empty theory. I have studied Blackmore’s work, and it is far from impressive. Quite simply, when they aren’t lying outright, the “skeptics” either ignore the evidence or engage in logical fallacies to misrepresent and dismiss it. Materialism is a philosophy based on unproven assumptions (which I falsified when I was a teenager) even a religion, but the “skeptics” act like it is scientifically proven. As Sheldrake asked in his book, is science a process or a collection of dogmatic materialistic beliefs? That the “skeptics” got Sheldrake’s relatively tame talk banned from TED is par for the skeptical course. They are inquisitors, not investigators, which makes the title of their house organ, Skeptical Inquirer, ludicrous. When they published Mr. Skeptic’s libelous article on Dennis, they proved to me what kind of rag Skeptical Inquirer is. That Mr. Skeptic knowingly purveyed lies of commission led me to suspect that he was likely an amateur, but Bill the BPA Hit Man constantly told lies of commission, using Hitler’s Big Lie strategy, as did Mr. Texas and Mr. Deputy, and other events led me to suspect that Mr. Skeptic was likely a professional, especially after he quietly folded his tents once Dennis was run out of the USA. But what was most amazing to me was not the lies that they told, but how easily they gulled people, people who should have known better. That “Mr. Skeptic” was a darling of the “skeptical” community, learning at Randi’s knee, shows how debunking the paranormal and FE are closely related, as they help keep the Establishment’s illusions intact, or they muddy the water so much that the casual observer does not know what to think. Little did I suspect in the early 1990s, when I began studying the “skeptics,” that I would have my very own “skeptical” stalker for a decade, spewing his disinformation, getting to do it repeatedly on national TV, etc. The “skeptics,” however, are only one facet of the situation, and in coming posts, I will cover others. Best, Wade

Hi: I do this periodically... What the heck am I doing, writing in forums, spending my life’s energy doing stuff like this? Am I crazy? Maybe. In summary, with my writings, I make the case that: FE is worth pursuing; It is highly perilous to pursue in today’s environment; I have enough experience in the field to understand the suicidal and futile approaches, and plan to avoid them; That an enlightenment approach has a chance, and that begins in the heart; But we also have to think about the issue in as comprehensive terms as possible, so we can rank causes, understand effects, and keep our eyes on the ball, and that takes some scientific literacy; By singing that song of practical abundance, it will attract enough people with the right stuff; Together, we can at minimum create an environment conducive for a successful effort; If it comes to it, we can mount our own technical effort to develop FE for public use; Then, the biggest event in the human journey will be here. That is it in a nutshell. There will be no anonymity, no sneaking up on anybody, and the people I seek need to relinquish their in-group ideologies, as they prevent true sentience from manifesting. My work is intended to assist that process. I don’t care what the global elites, ETs, spiritual “heavyweights,” and assorted players are doing. I know what we can do. We get our act together, and it can’t be stopped, not without just nuking Earth, and nobody wants to do that. Then it would be Game Over for everybody. It is far easier said than done, however, but I have experienced the power that each of us has to make a dent. A handful of us stood of up to the full might or our system’s evil, and lived to try another day. A few thousand people of high sentience and integrity, focusing on the goal? Wow. It has never come close to happening before on this planet, and what incredible potential it would have. I have budgeted the rest of my life’s “spare” time to this task, and we will see how it goes. Best, Wade

Hi: I am going to write a bit on FE, psychics, and the “skeptics” for a few posts, but first, a few odds and ends… Yesterday, I read about a new study that showed humans cooking the eggs of huge Australian birds as they drove them to extinction. This is another smoking gun. Many bones of extinct megafauna show butchering marks and other signs of human predatory behavior. This cooking evidence is another nail in the coffin of the climate change hypothesis and others for the megafauna extinctions. I have long written on the megafauna extinctions, and Australia’s was the first big one of a trend that swept Earth. I have no doubt that humanity was primarily, if not solely, responsible. There is still a cottage industry that claims other reasons for the megafauna’s demise, as they defend their in-group (and some may be filling the contrarian role, which can be a noble and valuable stance), but as evidence like this keeps stacking up, I expect that cottage industry to vanish, although some may become more strident on the way out, turning into Flat Earth types. Humans drove the big birds of New Zealand to extinction very quickly in the previous millennium, and it is no surprise at all that behaviorally modern humans would have done it to those Australian birds. The idea of primitive peoples living in harmony with nature is a myth. Humans never really have, not since they learned to control fire. I’ll finish this post with a brief note on how I see FE’s potential impact on humanity. FE would be like giving everybody on Earth a billion dollars. Just like the average American enjoys a lifestyle that would have been unimaginable to Earth’s richest human of three centuries ago, the average person in the Fifth Epoch will make Bill Gates seem a pauper. In Michael-ese, in world of scarcity and fear, people will tend to be locked into their “negative overleaves.” In a world of abundance, people are going to find it easier to access their “essence” (their souls, AKA “love”). This is really the nub of my work. Keep banging the drums of doom, keep being addicted to our survival mechanisms, keep being egocentrically focused and manifesting zero integrity, and it is going to be short ride to oblivion for global civilization and perhaps our species, while taking most of Earth’s ecosystems with us. Love or fear? Scarcity or abundance? This is the big test of humanity’s integrity and sentience, the biggest that an ensouled species ever has, but only a relative handful are needed to initiate the Epochal Event, just like with the previous ones. A mass movement won’t work, I am sorry to report, but it doesn’t have to. 5,000 who can keep their eye on the ball, and it will be easy. That group does not yet exist, but I am trying to help build it. Best, Wade

Hi: I will soon being plunking away at the next version of my big essay, and might put up some new pieces here before I publish it, probably in the spring. Right now, the pile beside my bed is normal. There are several fantasy books from several series, Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror, a history of children, Lane’s latest, the latest Z Magazine, and so on. It is dangerous to walk on my side of the bed, which is next to the wall, so my wife does not venture there. One day soon, I will do a sweep, put those books away, and start again. This has been a regular process since 1990. In the pile is also McLuhan’s book, and I want to write this morning on something that he observed among debunkers that I have also observed about free energy Level 3s. They openly express fear of what they debunk or are “skeptical” about. Level 3s are often also Level 5s. In his book, McLuhan deconstructed Alcock’s Parapsychology: Science or Magic, and exposed it as just another shabby debunking exercise parading as scientific critique. Near the end of his book, Alcock speculated on what a world in which people had psychic powers would look like, and it was a litany of horrors, of people having telekinetic wars, no privacy of one’s mind, in Orwell’s worst nightmare, and the like. McLuhan noted that such orgiastic fear and nightmare scenarios bear no resemblance to what people actually experience when they have psychic episodes. McLuhan noted that the openly expressed fear of psychic abilities was not uncommon among debunkers. When “investigators” express open fear of what they are debunking, how in the world can anybody take their findings seriously? But those kinds of debunkers are endlessly feted by the “skeptical” societies. As I have stated many times, love will be the foundation of making FE happen, and love is the root of all psychic abilities and the talents of spiritual masters. Those conjuring nightmare scenarios regarding psychic abilities or free energy are not being realistic in the slightest, but they are prominent among debunkers and “skeptics.” True skepticism is a virtue and a vital component of the scientific process, but debunkers and their cousins abuse the concept, turning it into a tool to avoid reality, not explore it. For instance, skepticism of one’s in-group conceits is one of the key aspects of awakening, and only the awakened are going to be any use for what I am attempting. Those with a death grip on their armchairs, daring the world to reveal itself to them, and being privately and sometimes openly afraid of it happening, are going to be stuck in their armchairs for a very long time. The rad left, for instance, not only avoids the idea of the Global Controllers; they openly express fear of their existence, and take the ideological stance that they can’t exist. At least they were honest enough to admit it. Best, Wade

Hi: This will be a short one, before I rush of to a busy week/month. In Wrangham’s Cooking Hypothesis, he stated that no human cultures ever subsisted off of raw food; they all cook at least some of their food. Cooking provides more calories than raw, by pre-digesting food, such as starch and protein. Fruit and other flower products are the only plant foods designed to be eaten. The rest are vital parts of plants (or animals), and they defend themselves from being eaten in various ways. Honey is designed to be eaten, too, as is milk, but humans were not the intended beneficiaries of non-human milk and honey. Wrangham began his career working for Jane Goodall studying chimps, and he ate chimp foods, as experiments. Even though fruit comprises the majority of the chimp diet, the fruits that they eat are a far cry from what humans eat. For one thing, they often had insect larvae in them. The chimps liked that, as it gave them protein, but few humans would. But the fruits were usually tough and rather harsh, and Wrangham’s mouth was usually traumatized after eating chimp fruits. Humans have domesticated most fruit trees, and hybridized and selected fruits so that they are usually quite different from those found in nature. The human diet should be largely fruit, too, but we strayed from it when our ancestors left the rainforests. I saw something recently that showed that the human diet was only about 10% fruit and vegetables, with the majority the seed and root crops that powered the domestication revolution, often highly processed. With FE, humanity’s diet will radically change to more of what humans evolved to eat. At least half of the human diet should be fruits and vegetables, and maybe as much as 75%. Cooked food will rarely be more than steamed or boiled, most human diseases will disappear, and the average human lifespan will be around a century, and people will live vibrant and healthy lives to the end. With domesticated fruits providing so many more digestible calories than what chimps eat, I wonder if some humans will be able to eat totally raw diets. I love eating cooked potatoes too much to ever go totally raw, but I could easily see a diet that was two-thirds fruit and vegetables. Even the medical authorities today have finally admitted that it is a healthier diet than what nearly all people eat. Best, Wade

Hi: Speaking of Uncle Ed, there is a new movie with Uncle Noam, which I had not even heard about. The movie Manufacturing Consent never even aired on network TV in the USA, to my knowledge, while it was the most successful documentary in Canadian history at the time. It looks like the new one is not going to be in wide release in the USA. Noam is 87, Ed is 90, and they are still going strong. Truly incredible. Best, Wade

Hi: Damn, Uncle Ed sent me his latest, but it will not be available on the Internet for a couple of months, about when Ed turns 91! Soon before Ed turned 90, I asked him how he was doing, and replied that everything was working pretty much normally, that getting old was hard ( ), but that he hoped to serve as inspiration to whippersnappers like me that we might have many good years ahead of us. I put on my calendar to discuss Ed’s latest when it is available to the Internet. For those familiar with Uncle Ed’s work, he is always brilliant in pointing out the West’s hypocrisy. That new article was classic Ed, and for the first time that I can recall in print, Ed pointed out how Amnesty International falls far short of what a human rights organization should aspire to be. Because he took them to task in that article, I will publicly reveal (I kind of did here and here) that Ed was one of those whom I commiserated with way back in the 1990s, when the USA attacked Yugoslavia, on the depressing sellout of Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch is literally a tool of the American Empire. Orwell would roll in his grave. Best, Wade

Hi: Today’s topic is my nightmare of a midlife crisis. We’ll see if I write anything more today. Best, Wade

Hi: I have been making posts over here on aging, wisdom, and why the greatest scientists were usually done by age 25 with making their greatest contributions. I wrote how by living healthily, we can slow down the aging process, but it is a one-way process that always ends in death. In Nick Lane’s latest book, he made the case that free radical production is the proximate cause of aging, but it happens differently from how the initial free radical theory posited, and I discussed it in that post. In the end, loading up our bodies with toxins, including alcohol, nicotine, enzyme poisons (most prescription drugs), junk food, fluorine (my dentist wrote a similar paper to my fluoride essay), various electromagnetic frequencies, and industrial pollutants, combined with sedentary lives in which we don’t reach aerobic levels of exertion, rapidly ages us. For being history’s richest and most powerful nation, the American diet is atrocious, and we are history’s fattest and most sedentary people. It is a scandal. Richard Wrangham’s Cooking Hypothesis is formidable and very likely accurate to a significant degree, IMO. Cooking gave the human line energetic advantages and most certainly was involved with evolutionary changes, and how much it contributed to our huge brains is one of the more fascinating recent scientific controversies. I’ll likely be following that issue with great interest for the rest of my life. Part of the reason for our atrocious health habits is that for all of our seeming wealth and power, we are still mired in scarcity and addicted to our survival mechanisms. Rackets dominate the world economy, and we are living anything but healthily, not only with our diets and lifestyles, but we are quickly making Earth uninhabitable. If humanity turned the corner and lived in absolute abundance for the first time (not the relative abundance of humanity’s brief golden ages), our diets and lifestyles would be vastly healthier than we see today, and the average human lifespan will likely be around a century, for starters. Even in that nightmare Roads world, those with enough “credits” got DNA makeovers that enabled them to live a long time, maybe even centuries, while those without credits were “given” a painless death when they became diseased or disabled. But in that heavenly Roads world, living in love and with lifestyles that we can barely fathom, they probably lived even longer than the “Rockefellers” of that hellish world, and every day was a happy one. Science performed under the rubric of scarcity is going to be suspect, for all of the virtues of its ideal. Corporate science, in which the bottom line trumps all, has given us many evil outcomes. Government-sponsored science has given us similar “products,” such as nuclear weapons. The province of Black Science and technology contains wonders and horrors. They shortened Brian’s life. Best, Wade

Hi: More on the subject of recent posts. Everybody gets in-group conditioning. It comes with being a social animal. My indoctrination was imperial. Imperial indoctrination is one of the more evil, as it justifies violence against and oppression of distant peoples who pose no harm, other than refusing to be compliant slaves. From Akkad onward, people have played the empire game when they could. Just as distant rulers could inflict awesome damage on their subjects and their environments, which Rome epitomized, the conquest, subjugation, and even genocide of distant peoples could be cheered on by the imperial class as long as the plunder rolled in. The USA has a corporate empire, and once a great while, imperial agents would speak up about the real game being played. Some were in on it from the beginning, such as middle managers, while those lower in the hierarchy only figured it out after many years. The CIA’s headquarters at Langley is full of zombies who figured it out enough so that they counted their days to retirement. Rare are the people who figured it out and spoke out, and they were always dealt with harshly. My CIA contract agent relative probably never really figured it out, but drank himself to death in his cognitive dissonance. The American masses, however, eagerly drink the Kool-Aid of their indoctrination and can be manipulated to cheer any war. There was some dissent back in the 1960s to our imperial murder of several million people, after the sitting president was murdered, likely because his imperial policy was not bellicose enough, but those days are long gone, and I can hardly find an American who knows or cares how many millions our great nation has murdered in the past generation, mostly children, and the imperial rhetoric was transparently stupid. You had to be an idiot to believe it. I can best speak to my indoctrination, and I almost became a willing imperial tool, like the rest of my peers, as I was fed the Kool-Aid from the cradle, forced to worship a flag, etc. Peoples of other lands have to deal with their own in-group indoctrination. I never found or heard of a group on Earth that successfully shed its scarcity-based conditioning. I seek to help build one, however, and that can seem like pure folly. But I see no other way to overcome the organized suppression and humanity’s inertia. I helped the best of the best try to enlist the masses, and what disasters those were. Bucky Fuller found that young adults were the best candidates for waking up beyond their in-group conditioning, as their minds and spirits had yet to ossify into their in-group ideologies, and they could pursue livingry instead of humanity’s “suicidal fixity” on weaponry. That is probably going to be my target audience, too. Older people are generally lost causes, fiercely clinging to their self-serving frameworks to the end. A similar phenomenon can be seen in physics, as the greatest minds were usually done with their greatest contributions by age 30. If enough of us can achieve sufficient heart-centered sentience, this kind of world can come into view. But all people have their particular flavor of in-group conditioning, and each must deal with his/her own. It is not an easy dance, no matter what the conditioning is. I think that an aspect of my work that helps me reach the lay audience is that I am not that smart. I am studying Nick Lane’s latest, rereading parts of it several times, rolling it around in my head, on the issue of energy and entropy, among other topics in his book. I plan to go fairly quiet soon as I update my big essay with the findings in Lane’s book and some others that I read this past year. In grappling with Lane’s work and its implications, I come up with ways of seeing it that aids my understanding, and I will use those in my writings, so that those high-minded and often complex ideas are more intelligible to the lay audience. Lane seems to assume that his readers took college chemistry, so his book is not exactly written for the lay audience. I plan to come up with some simple ways to view it, replete with diagrams, which helped me understand. Lane somewhat tries to reach the popular audience and has diagrams, too, which I plan to at least partly reproduce. Coming posts are going to deal more with science, health, and technology. Best, Wade

Hi: As an addendum to my previous post, when I think of how I arrived at my views today and my writings, it was anything but a straight path, and they came together like a mosaic. If you would have asked me what I was doing in the early 1990s, studying the media, the American history that I was not taught in school, and the rackets, I would not have said, “I am discovering the lies of my in-group indoctrination.” I began questioning my indoctrination and conditioning early on, but it took my wild ride with Dennis to really awaken me. I then spent years trying to understand why the world worked starkly differently from how I was taught that it did. As I look back, I was really seeing how my in-group ideologies were a crock, and they were generally the dominant ones. My mystical awakening exploded materialism and I really did not take on organized religion so much, as I was not really raised with it (it being a Third Epoch ideology), but I took on nationalism (including one of my great nation’s greatest myths), capitalism, scientism, materialism, my profession, my race and culture, my gender, and my “education.” Young artisans likely largely concocted the dominant ideologies, and I may have helped in earlier lifetimes, and I take a meat ax to them. So, I may be helping clean up my own mess. Not until reading Bucky and studying for my big essay was I able to articulate what I was doing. We have to shed our herd conditioning to become truly sentient, and I demonstrated the lies of my indoctrination. Others have to discover the lies behind theirs, and shed them, if they are brave enough to. Until we can do that, our awareness is trapped in egocentric conceits that are designed to control what we think, to ensure that we are obedient members of the herd. The heart is the key, always. Only those with a love of the truth are going to take that arduous journey to true sentience. The rest settle for the comforting lies of their in-groups. Only people who have taken that journey, or are on it, can help with what I am doing, and they are rare, oh so rare. Best, Wade

Hi: I unexpectedly have a little time this morning and want to discuss a subject that I saw in McLuhan’s book. After exposing the faulty logic, failure to fairly assess the evidence, and other deficiencies in the “investigations” of the “skeptics,” McLuhan stated something that I have seen towering Lefties such as Uncle Ed state: the “investigators” and pundits have been blinded by their allegiance to their self-serving belief systems (because that is how they eat) and are literally incapable of seeing beyond them. According to that view, when “skeptics” leave rational analysis far behind during their debunking exercises, they are not doing it with conscious dishonesty, but they simply are incapable of rational thought when their cherished beliefs are challenged, even when they portray themselves as the voice of reason and honest inquiry, maybe especially when they portray themselves that way. I agree that this likely explains most of those kinds of “investigations” and pundit exercises, but it does not explain all of them. It is similar to my observation that organized suppression is 10% conspiratorial and 90% structural. Very few doing the dirty work are really in on it, but they don’t care. They are there to get paid, and well, and really don’t care if they are helping destroy their planet. When IQs of 200 and scholarly and scientific training meet self-serving beliefs, the beliefs almost always prevail. Few can handle the cognitive dissonance for more than moments. That kind of behavior is what led Brian to speculate whether humanity was really a sentient species. IMO, that seeming lack of sentience is really a lack of personal integrity, which was my journey’s primary lesson. The belly wins over the head almost all the time, in a world of scarcity and fear, as nearly all people are only interested in defending their in-groups, even the “smartest” among them. That is why I say that people’s hearts have to be in the right place, first, and they have had to be awakened to the lies of their in-group conditioning before they are going to be candidates for what I have in mind. Otherwise, they simply drag around their baggage of scarcity and literally cannot comprehend abundance. While McLuhan’s and Ed’s views explain the vast majority of incomprehension, not only among the “skeptics,” but from intellectuals and all walks of life, when you get down to it, it does not mean that it is all just some delusional failure to deal with the reality of our world. Some are quite aware of what they are doing, and are being very consciously dishonest. That is how psychopaths (AKA dark pathers) play the game. Mr. Skeptic is a pathological xxxx, simply making it up as he goes, as is Mr. Texas and Bill the BPA Hit Man. They were all likely on Godzilla’s payroll, and Mr. Deputy was handsomely compensated for his evil deeds. What amazed me about their behavior was not just how easily they lied and played deceptive games, but how easily they duped people, people supposedly far wiser and worldlier than me. That was the big surprise of my journey, not that evil-minded people run the world. The psychopaths only run the world because in their almost non-existent personal integrity, the masses have abdicated their responsibility for the world they live in, playing the victim. The dark pathers have simply picked up abdicated responsibility lying on the ground, and are playing with the power that the masses have unwittingly given them. The nightmare future Earth that Roads visited is that principle taken to its logical conclusion. I was initially amazed at being handed that libel tract on Dennis, written by a big name in the FE field, as an example of great writing on the FE issue! My dismay increased with each instance of it, for the first several times, but as I began to understand what I was seeing, I was no longer as distraught. That Mr. Skeptic effortlessly gulled big names in the FE field with his affable skeptic charade (the classic psychopath MO) is one reason why I don’t want to have anything to do with the FE field today. Almost nobody in it has the right stuff, and when the latest FE hopeful announces that he is the Messiah and gathers a fervent following, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Such antics also epitomize the excesses of the New Age and conspiracist crowd. That lack of personal integrity and discernment is endemic in all walks of life on Earth these days. Again, finding people with the right stuff for the Epochal task that I have in mind is like looking for needles in haystacks, but I have this new tool called the Internet, with a global reach. I have devoted the rest of my life’s “spare” time to this task, so I like my chances of making some kind of dent. It is probably similar to what Bucky Fuller would be doing if he was still alive, and we’ll see how it goes. Best, Wade

Hi: I don’t often comment on the situation surrounding my friend’s underground technology show, which included FE and antigravity, but I did today. Best, Wade

Hi: My time is limited because of my day job, but I have been writing lately on the Star Wars, Star Trek, science fiction, and reality subjects. This is the tidiest thread on it, and below is from my latest post, appropriate to this thread. Best, Wade Science fiction has been working on imaginations for a long time. Jules Verne not only anticipated many developments in science and technology; he inspired them. Almost before computers were invented, science fiction stories warned of their power gone awry, especially combined with robotics. Battlestar Galactica is merely the latest iteration of that theme. Star Trek depicts a different trajectory, at least through TNG. Science fiction is also part of a broader umbrella called speculative fiction (“spec fiction”), as writers imagine what the future can be. From what I have seen, there have been far more dystopian than Utopian futures presented in spec fiction. They can throw in magic and other fantasy elements, and if people can stay grounded, such exercises can be very good work. Too often, spec fiction is used as an escape from our world, on a more-or-less permanent basis, and it is an understandable reaction. The movie Trekkies shows people who left the real world behind for Star Trek fantasies. The guy who got his ears surgically made into Vulcan ears took honors for most fervent Trekkie. Ranking up there is a woman who wears a Star Trek uniform in her daily life and prefers to be called “Commander,” if memory serves me. Such people should not get involved with FE efforts. At New Science and New Age conferences are many ungrounded people who would be a danger to themselves and those around them if they got involved with an effort like mine. While my work deals at length with the human potential and FE’s, I don’t consider it fantasy, nor do I consider Michael Roads’s visits to future Earths to be fantasy. I know accomplished psychonauts who have taken similar journeys, and they sometimes come back with earth-shaking inventions. Technology has played a central role in the human journey. In very real ways, our tools made us, from stone tools and fire onward. All Epochs of the human journey were founded on a few members of the human line achieving the technological prowess and social organization to tap a new energy source. There are no exceptions, and the next one will be no different. Technically, it has already been achieved, but humanity’s collective sentience and integrity deficits, combined with organized suppression, has kept FE and what can come with it in the realm of fantasy to many, and truly unimaginable to the vast majority, who react with denial and fear when even hearing about FE. Because humans are social animals, they almost never break out of their in-group conditioning, especially in our world of scarcity and fear, and almost every FE newcomer does exactly the opposite of what I seek: they proselytize to their social circles while playing the anonymity game in cyberspace. Both activities are unhelpful or counterproductive to what I am trying to do. The greatest dangers to FE activists come from themselves, their social circles, and their “allies,” not organized suppression. People who join my effort need not fear organized suppression, unless they try to fill their social and financial needs through an FE effort. Then they will become easy marks for the Global Controllers' minions, helping wreck any effort that they get involved with. The great social changes in the human journey were all a result of tapping that new energy source, not a cause. In that way, Marx was right. This is the way that almost all FE newcomers get it backwards. Many delusions of our in-group conditioning need to be shed before a person will become helpful for manifesting the biggest event in the human journey. While technology, especially energy technology, will be the foundation of the coming Epoch of abundance, what intrigued Brian and I the most were the social and cognitive changes. We can barely imagine them, but it was also that way for every Epochal Event. The best of Star Trek hints at what those changes might look like.

Hi: I hope that this is OK, but I need to put this on the record someplace besides my site, and get it in a scholarly forum. This forum qualifies (my main presence is elsewhere in this forum (1, 2)). I am Brian O’Leary’s biographer until some professional writes his biography, and if free energy makes its appearance anytime soon, I am sure that there will be more than one professional biography written about him. I am writing this because of the problems that I had with getting Brian’s words on the record regarding the Apollo Moon landings. I elicited what became his final statement on the issue because of the problems that I was having with his Wikipedia bio. Brian regretted his statements on the Moon landings until he died, as they were so blown out of proportion and eclipsed his life’s work in the public eye. Thankfully, Wikipedia’s editors eventually erased the entire Moon landings section, and I can live with Brian’s biography as it stands today. The Moon landings issue is trivial, compared to Brian’s life’s work. But I could not find one site, neither pro nor con on the Moon landings issue, which would host his final statement, so that it would “notable” enough so that Wikipedia’s “editors” would stop erasing my reference to Brian’s statement. This forum may not be “notable” enough either, but this seems like a good place to put it, and we will see what happens. I have made my involvement in the Moon landings controversy clear: I never saw any evidence that survived scrutiny that supported the idea that the Moon landings were faked. If Brian had done his homework, he would have come to the same conclusion that I did, and I will always be sad that I never got him over the hump on the issue. Both camps tried to claim him as “one of theirs,” and Brian resisted that categorization until the end. Brian had good reason for doubting the official story on space matters, and the primary reason was that he nearly died in an incident that shortened his life. As he began investigating the frontiers of science full time, after losing his job after refusing to work on Reagan’s Star Wars, free energy was one of many subjects that he dove into. The year after I met him, he mounted a UFO conference, and in its wake, high-ranking military officials “offered” to have Brian do classified UFO work. When Brian refused, he nearly died immediately afterward in an event that Brian considered a murder attempt, courtesy of the military. He was made an offer that he could not refuse. The event ruined his health and shortened his life. At that company that Brian lost his position at for refusing to work on Star Wars, he helped get Buzz Aldrin a job and shared an office with him, and Brian certainly asked Buzz what it was like on the Moon (who wouldn’t?). A decade later, Brian became prominently involved in Greer’s Disclosure Project, as Ed Mitchell did, and Brian almost certainly asked Ed what the Moon was like. Anybody who knows much about Buzz and Ed knows that they could give some odd replies to the “What was it like on the Moon?” query. I don’t know what other Moon-walking astronauts Brian might have asked about their experiences, but Buzz’s and Ed’s odd responses, combined with Brian’s brush with death, combined with many other bizarre experiences in the milieu (Brian was not surprised at all when I told him of one close friend’s underground exotic technology show), combined with all the fervor that the Moon landings hoax proponents stirred up, and Brian’s good-natured approachability, led to the situation in which he made some public statements about his “skepticism” about the Moon landings. His view was really quite tame. He never went to the Moon himself, so he could not 100% sure that they landed (who among us can? – I am about 99.99% sure), and that was really about the beginning and end of his involvement with the issue, but it got blown all out of proportion. Brian regretted what happened, and tried to set the record straight at his life’s end. I need to do what I can to establish his statement so that he does not become a posthumous football for people trying to score political points. Best, Wade

Hi: I am going to quote McLuhan again. His book is one of the sanest ones out there on the “paranormal.” He ends the book with his views on psi and the survival of consciousness upon physical death. Again, he has not had his mystical awakening yet, but is more like a layman who decided to snoop into the issues. “Here I part company with those who believe that psi can eventually be explained with a modified and expanded version of scientific materialism. I’m glad that some people do think this; psi is much easier to debate if it is not automatically seen to be destructive of current assumptions. And of course the principle of Occam’s razor positively requires that we start from this point. “Nor do I mean that there can never be scientific explanation of psi, and it will forever remain a mystery, belonging in the despised category of ‘miracles and magic.’ On the contrary, I believe that one day we will understand the principles behind it. I do however maintain that the science that explains it could not be science in its present form. If the majority of scientists were to acknowledge that it exists, this would be because the materialist paradigm had metamorphosed into something rather different, a process that psi helped bring about. And since scientific materialism underpins its structures, secular society in turn would have undergone a fundamental alteration in its philosophical outlook, and in the ideas about origins and development of life.” Brian O had the quality, for those who met him, to inspire instant trust. Mr. Professor was like that, and Dennis (which was why he is the world’s greatest salesman). That quality was their souls shining through, which is why they are so prominent in my work. In reading McLuhan’s work, I get a similar feeling, of implicitly trusting what the author has to say. Ralph McGehee was also that way. So were Uncles Howard, Noam, and Ed. They all lived up to my trust and then some. Anyway, if you ever want to digest about the most level-headed perusal of the paranormal literature and the “skeptical” reaction to such, I cannot recommend anything more highly than McLuhan’s effort. Time for bed. Best, Wade

Hi: My time will be limited until spring, but I have been have in a Star Wars discussion over here. Another “feeling older” moment, with Rickman’s death. Same age as Bowie. I had better get used to this. Not enough time for a good post this morning, but… In today’s world, about 4-to-5% of us are on the psychopath scale (AKA dark path), in this world, it might be 95%, and in this world, it is zero. If you lived in a chimp society, you would call it run by psychopaths. But when some isolated chimps had their food supply double, they became more peaceful than any human society ever has. When all the easy meat was gone and women began bringing in more calories than the men, it broke up the male gangs, and those were the most peaceful preindustrial cultures. I see people argue all the time that FE won’t have any transformative effects, that human “nature” is to be violent and psychopathic, that humans are somehow fatally flawed. Environmentalists are notorious for that stance, with their fear of FE. Science and history have invalidated those ideas. Star Wars is one of those shows that takes potentially transformative technologies and uses them as simply backdrops for cowboys and Indians stories. Star Trek is far more realistic, IMO, about what kinds of civilizations, and people, that the Fifth Epoch will produce. Time to run. Best, Wade

Hi: Oh boy, there are some days when I feel the years moving on me, and this morning, reading that David Bowie died, is one of those days. I am studying Nick Lane’s latest. His work is great, but is also dense with meaning, and it can get rather technical. When I update my essay to reflect his book and Ward/Kirschvink’s, it will be less technical, “dumbing it down” a level or so. People can go deep on his work, and it would be rewarding, but for my purposes, I do not need to get as technical as he does. I’ll give an example of some of the good stuff in his book. Lane has long written about the life expectancy of birds and bats, and how they live far longer than their earth-bound relatives, although birds have no cousins left, with the crocodile being their closest relative. Lane has long used the pigeon and rat analogy, as both have about the same body mass, have the same metabolism, but pigeons live ten times as long and produce only 10% as many free radicals. There is definitely a connection, and the research continues. Sexual selection explains why monkeys, apes, and humans are dimorphic, and also explains why male birds are colorful while females are not. Richard Francis’s Why Men Won’t Ask for Direction deals with avian sexual selection at length, and is a good read. The heart of Lane’s latest book is mitochondria, which are the energy generation centers of all animals. The role of mitochondria will get perhaps the biggest makeover in my big essay, when I tweak it in the coming months. One of the more fascinating “fun facts” in Lane’s book is a hypothesis on that colorful plumage, which is a form of display, which scientists think advertises reproductive fitness. For instance, the standards of beauty that humans have derive from signs of reproductive fitness. All men are most attracted to 25-year-old women, as they are at the ideal reproductive age. In Lane’s book, he discussed the tradeoffs between mitochondrial efficiency and reproduction. A flying bird has awesome aerobic demands, compared to landlubbing mammals, and its mitochondria have to be in tip-top shape. Mitochondrial efficiency is dependent on the genetic match of its nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, and poorly matched DNA will result in inefficient mitochondria, which is likely a key aspect of aging. There is still plenty of controversy on free radical production and aging, but for birds, highly efficient mitochondria are essential. It turns out that the pigments in bird plumage are mainly produced by the mitochondria, so that male that wins the plumage contest and gets to mate has successfully advertised his mitochondrial health. Fascinating. Best, Wade

Hi: Interesting dialogue today with somebody who used to work in NASA’s Mission Control. Best, Wade

Hi: This will be a slightly different spin on a familiar theme, spurred by this article that I recently read, in which the author wrote: “About a third of Americans think that there is no sound evidence for the existence of evolution or benefits of universal vaccination. Our leaders and wanna-be leaders say that evolution is a myth, vaccines cause autism, and a snowball constitutes proof that climate change isn’t a problem. It is tempting to blame such benightedness on lack of education…” Even though that author (a medical doctor) stated in that article that nearly all cancer “research” is bogus, that scientific literacy should be more about understanding the process of science rather than its facts, he explicitly stated, more than once, that questioning evolution and vaccination was like thinking that Earth was flat. When I studied the media, perhaps the most common statement from media analysts was that the greatest failure of the media was due to conflicts of interest, and it was pervasive, such as Nightline asking Henry Kissinger for his “diplomatic” views on China, while failing to disclose that he was heavily invested in China. The propaganda model presented in Manufacturing Consent primarily dealt with conflicts of interest in reporting. I find it amazing to see how blinded people can be to conflicts of interest, as if they were just off the turnip truck. I find that professionals can often be the blindest to them. That blindness often relates to their in-group allegiance, which is normal, but it is also related to the ideological aversion to the idea of conspiratorial activities, which even Michael Parenti commented on. There are no economic empires that I am aware of that are based on foisting a “belief” in evolution on the public. I have read plenty of challenges to evolution, and I did not find any of them to be persuasive, and they often came from critics grinding the ax of organized religion. I consider the idea of descent with modification, which was the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, to be one of the most battle-tested ideas in science. That is one of the most solid areas of science, and I know of no conflicts of interest that might have distorted the issue. Anybody can go out and dig up fossils. Nothing was ever dug up that I ever heard of that contradicted Darwin’s idea, and the rise of disciplines such as genetics and molecular biology have powerfully supported Darwin’s idea. But vaccination is a radically different issue. The medical racket is one of Earth’s greatest, and the roots of vaccination are very shaky, going back to the beginning and the first great vaccinator. The person whose work provided the theoretical foundation for vaccination had no biological training and was consumed with ambition to become rich and famous, and the evidence is not only strong that he plagiarized and stole on his way to the top, but that he fraudulently cooked his data on vaccination. The man was far from a saint. Yet, in microbiology classes today, students are taught a complete fairy tale on their first day of class about that giant of science. That is not even disputable. It is very much like the fairy tales (1, 2) and lies of omission (1, 2) regarding the USA’s greatest Founding Fathers. Today, huge biomedical empires are built on vaccination, and I have even seen dissident MDs describe vaccination as a “loss leader” for the medical racket, as vaccines don’t make vast sums of money by themselves (it is still in the billions of dollars each year), but they so compromise people’s immune and related systems that it sets up a long-term cash flow for the medical racket, treating the chronic diseases that vaccination sets in motion. The author of that article seems completely oblivious to all of that, equating questioning vaccination’s safety and effectiveness to questioning evolution. I recently wrote a series of posts on vaccination and won’t belabor the issue in this post, but conflicts of interests are the bane of knowledge and the scientific ideal. I have been writing about McLuhan’s book lately, and he devoted plenty of ink to Sheldrake’s work and went deep on an example of it, related to the “skeptics,” to show how “paranormal” research works and how the “skeptics” operate. He dealt with Sheldrake’s experiments on telepathy between dogs and their owners. A noted “skeptic” claimed to have reproduced one of Sheldrake’s experiments and invalidated his findings. To this day, “skeptics” cite that invalidation in their arsenal of “facts” to debunk the paranormal. The situation with that debunker’s experiment became so confusing to McLuhan that he went deep on the issue, closely examining the experiments and their data. The “skeptic” played so fast and loose in his experiment that McLuhan was dismayed. To wit: “I was initially impressed with the methodical way that Wiseman set the parameters for the experiment. But as I started to grasp what he was doing this feeling evaporated, and I experienced that growing incredulity that sceptics [the English spelling – Ed.] themselves complain about when critiquing the work of parapsychologists.” McLuhan summed up the Sheldrake/Wiseman issue with: “As is so often the case, a poorly thought out, misinformed, and opportunistic enterprise yields a result that becomes part of the critical literature and can be referred to as if it was the last word.” The house organ of organized skepticism stopped doing any original scientific work because of a scandal in its early days, when its members were caught cooking the data during a paranormal “investigation.” McLuhan wrote the following nugget regarding scientific practice, in response to Thomas Huxley’s statement that scientific practice needed to sit down before fact, “as a little child,” seeing the world’s wonders with fresh eyes. “We aren’t innocent children, alive to any new ideas and experiences that come our way; on the contrary, by the time we reach thirty most of us are primed to repel anything that does not fit with that bundle of facts, assumptions, preconceptions, prejudices and half-truths that we call a worldview. Scientists are certainly no exception to this, however eminent…A respect for objective truth, and a passion to identify it, however unpalatable, are vanishingly rare: most of us, most of the time, busily arrange the facts to suit our self-interest.” The scientific ideal is about forming testable hypotheses to explain the causative mechanisms behind a phenomenon, and that is a worthy ideal, as long at the limitations of such an enterprise are acknowledged and scientists refrain from trying to make science into the religion known as materialism (AKA “physicalism”), which the best scientists always try to avoid. I am prepared to admit that: Vaccination is safe and effective; The presently conceived germ theory of disease is the only valid paradigm; That the attack-the-tumor approach is the only effective way to treat cancer; That there is no evidence that we are being visited by ET civilizations; That the universe is really less than 14 billion years old and is expanding from the Big Bang; That the appearance of humans on the evolutionary scene had no ET help, if I ever saw all of the evidence for those issues credibly dealt with. But I have not, and here are some flies in the ointment. First, a few points on vaccination: The very conception of the germ theory of disease was formulated by a scientist with no biological training, whose first claim to fame in the biological sciences was undoubtedly a mythical and dubious rendering of the facts, and there is substantial evidence that that giant of science stole from and plagiarized his colleagues on his rise to the fame and fortune that he so craved; There is no credible evidence that vaccination ever vanquished a disease; all communicable diseases were on their way out, both in incidence and mortality, long before the vaccines were introduced, and the effect of vaccination on the mortality curves is not even discernable; the “champion” of vaccination’s success is smallpox, but the data paints a very different picture; There is no doubt that many people have had serious and even fatal reactions to vaccination, and the biomedical industry has performed a logical sleight-of-hand regarding vaccine safety; The so-called immune system response of vaccines has failed to demonstrate clinical immunity; The so-called childhood diseases in the West today seem to be key events in developing immune systems, and are almost never fatal, so trying to prevent them with vaccinations seems to set dynamics in motion that impairs a child’s immune system; In the 20th century, several scientists independently stumbled into reproducing the findings of Pasteur’s contemporary (which challenge the entire germ theory of disease), and most impressively, two scientists developed microscopes with “impossible” optical resolutions (1, 2) that clearly show those subcellular dynamics that call the germ theory into question; I have yet to see mainstream science even look through those microscopes. There are huge conflicts of interest in the field of vaccinations, but I have never seen them even considered by vaccination’s proponents, almost all of whom had conflicts of interest; the sordid conflicts of interest regarding fluoridation, the medical establishment’s promotion of cigarettes, and many other scandalous issues should make any thinking person at least question the conflicts of interest that abound around the vaccination issue. Until I see that contrary evidence dealt with in anything like an objective manner, I am going to have serious doubts about vaccination. The same man who was the avatar of cigarette promotion (whose greatest triumph was promoting an asbestos cigarette filter, believe it or not) waged a “war on quacks” as he wiped out all alternative cancer treatments, all of which abandoned the violent and lucrative attack-the-tumor paradigm, and one of his greatest “successes” was wiping out one of those scientists with an “impossible” microscope, after his attempts to buy into the company were rebuffed. All such treatments have been wiped out in the USA, in a style reminiscent of Al Capone. Orthodox cancer treatment appears to be one of Earth’s most lucrative rackets. Until I see those alternative treatments receive a fair hearing (and since they are all harmless, there is no sane reason to outlaw any of them; the situation looks just like what the founder of the American medical establishment warned against), I will have grave doubts about the attack-the-tumor paradigm of cancer treatment, not to mention the alleged worthlessness of treatments that abandon that paradigm. When an astronaut colleague hosted a UFO conference back in the early 1990s, the year after I met him, he was soon approached by the American military, to perform classified UFO research. Immediately after refusing their “offer,” he nearly died in an incident that shortened his life. I have gone to see UFOs fly overhead on several occasions, including 2015, and I was never disappointed. There is far more to the UFO/ET issue than is officially admitted, and more than a few of the exotic technologies that my close friend was shown, which included free energy and antigravity technologies, were almost certainly developed from reverse-engineering “captured” ET craft. After barely surviving what he thought was a murder attempt, my astronaut colleague (I became his biographer) became prominently involved in an effort to form a safe venue where UFO witnesses could testify, most of whom had “national security” restrictions that prevented them from testifying, and other legendary astronauts were involved (1, 2). I recently heard of an incident at the ISS, from a very credible source, in which a UFO “harassed” the astronauts within, for days, and such incidents are always covered up, with a highly sophisticated protocol. Only when such people can safely testify, and when the ET issue makes its way past the official secrecy and obfuscation, and ETs can hold Q&As with scientists in a public forum, and the evidence can be dispassionately examined, will I gain some satisfaction that the current orthodox theories of the universe’s creation, age, and dynamics (such as if it is really expanding as is stated by today’s orthodox position) are in any way valid. We have yet to leave our star system, and we think that we have it all figured out? That will also apply to the idea that the evolution of humanity was not somehow assisted by such ET visitors, both regarding the origin of life on Earth and the evolutionary journey that led to humanity. Until the lies, secrecy, coercion, and violence end, the prevailing theories rest on very dubious foundations. Until mainstream scientists can even acknowledge those limitations, they will be playing a small game. It is time to begin a very busy day, to begin a very busy week, when I will likely be fairly quiet on the posting front. Best, Wade