Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

“We really muffed the error margins.
I'm a "Free Energy" buff. I have a pet Conspiracy Theory that Tesla-type free energy technology has been suppressed, and will be slow-drip released over the next 10 years.

The Global Warming fraud was actually a way for mega-corporations to convert to electrical operation at tax-payer expense ahead of this release.

Monitor the "green energy" scene and you'll see that International Capital and their giant corporations are steadily converting operations to electricity, even though it is not currently economically viable. If anyone thinks mega-corps invest in unprofitable technologies for benevolent reasons, I have a tower in Paris to sell you.

Example:

Volkswagen Going BIG into Electric Cars

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/volkswagen-electric-car-factory-north-america/
 
Anyway, all this got me wondering if conspiracy theorising wasn't also an attempt to contain the boundary blurring nature of the paranormal by imposing a rational frame-work of bad actors and disinformation over the tricky and irrational aspects of the paranormal. So, instead of a confounding collapse of oppositions between reality and imagination, we get mental illness brought on by sinister government experiments. Instead of UFOs that straddle the divide between physical and non-physical, we get a series of government hoaxes. Instead of a history of PSI research that strongly indicate a false dichotomy between internal and external, we get a government attempt to create a one world religion. You dig?
yes... I dig... been thinking somewhat similarly. at the end of the day there's no way to resolve the deep wierdness of all this stuff... and any attempt to do so is a betrayal of all we think we know :)

BUT if there's any value at all to the consensus reality game (and there may be... or maybe not) then a conspiratorial mindset seems to be a fundamental requirement for playing.
 
I thought the first part of this link (about Darren Brown) was extremely interesting, and it seemed to require that the camera crew were simply part of the deception.

Then the discussion went on to Uri Geller, and his 'performances' even in laboratory situations. This seemed highly unfair - I mean presumably, given what is being said, Brown would not submit himself to laboratory conditions, but Geller was willing to do so. Under lab conditions, he would not have a crew of people helping him to deceive.

I am fairly suspicious about a lot of non-fiction television. For example, you see scenes in which someone receives a visitor, who knocks on the door and is let in (for whatever reason), but a moment's thought tells you that the scene must have been rehearsed, and so the reactions of both parties are obviously fake.

David
has anyone found any other (i.e. more legit) claims of fakery by Derren Brown. I couldn't find any... and since many of the subject are real/searchable people, I'm inclined to believe is mostly real... e.g.
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-ch...new-special-puts-him-in-the-spotlight-8359237
 
I think the real "conspiracy" is behind the Veil, and impossible to figure out for us due to the limitations of our 1) senses 2) intelligence 3) due to our limited vision (in time and space). I don't think any human being out there has ever known or knows for sure the actual TRUTH about what we all are doing here, so all CTs are ultimately red herrings. Sure, some of them may be true, what do I know, and I fully share the sentiments of those who feel we should strive to uncover the truth in order to protect the innocent - but exposing the perpetrators on the basis of incontrovertible evidence (if at all possible) still would not even begin to explain why evil things happen all the time and why there have always been evil, conniving people out there (with no qualms about, say, raping children etc).
- agreed. seems to me to be a balancing act. I go where I put my attention, so too much attention on titillating conspiracy theories might not be a good thing. but it's frustrating to interact with folks who've constructed a complete worldview/life-narrative on stuff that provably wrong.
 
And 'learned' folks think the debates over colloquial definitions from the time of the printing press and overwhelmingly the more control the power structure has over the narrative is 'equal' and 'open' somehow, today more than ever. Try this: enter into Wiki on a page where you have a truth about something, anything or anyone, just something you know to be true, but not included in the wiki. It will be purged within a week, minimum. Your truth, no matter how true it is, does not matter in the 'collective story' -- what matters is the official agreed-upon truth. Look at old photos of your family and try to tell the 'officials' that folks in rural Czechoslovakia in the 20s might have been 'poor' but they were clearly more healthy, and the sky more beautiful, and the cities more charming, and you will be called a liar in a dozen languages.
wow! wow!!
 
Good TED Talk by award-winning veteran CBS Journalist explaining how political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages to accomplish Social Engineering. (10 min)...


Sharyl Attkisson received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business of Congress”.

Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story.

Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.
 
as anyone found any other (i.e. more legit) claims of fakery by Derren Brown. I couldn't find any... and since many of the subject are real/searchable people, I'm inclined to believe is mostly real... e.g.
I am always amused when people who are described as "illusionists" are accused of fakery. I commend Penn & Teller's Fool Us" as an education on how some seemingly astonishing feats are known methods. I read an entertaining rant by a poor soul who accused Dynamo, Magician Impossible of 'faking' performances, without any sense that the guy is an actual illusionist, as well as somebody who may have developed actual skills that are not illusion.

There does seem to be a number of instances where a person has started off as an illusionist and then has advanced to developing 'real' skills. My sense is that a lot of 'performers' shift between 'tricks' and 'skills' quite naturally.

Arguments of audience collusion and camera trickery as 'explanations' for apparent marvels are weak and desperate - because that is what has to be the case - because 'magic' isn't real. However the idea that these people can develop a dedicated fan based built on very difficult to manage deception is naive at best.

I haven't seen Brown for ages, but I do know that Dynamo and Yif do appear to do stuff that is beyond the real of illusion. Short of confessing they possess real skills we are forced to rely on audience collusion, tricky camera work and faking footage in the production process. But there is a difference between a Hollywood crafted illusion and accusations of elaborate fakery that require the assent and silence of audiences and witnesses. And those boats of fancy doe not leak? In this age? Not a chance!
 
Thanks Michael, the first video was amazing - I haven't viewed the second yet.

I must admit I have often wondered if some stage magicians use real magic for their best tricks.

Alex - why not do a podcast with one of these guys, but I think it would have to be a face to face interview so that you could vouch for what was going on.

I quoted someone's comments about Darren Brown above, but I have no way of knowing if they were honest. That is the problem with this stuff - if you can see it directly and you can interact with it, and it works as advertised you feel pretty certain. If you are one removed, so you have to believe someone else, there is always an element of doubt. I think Alex wants to get at the truth, so I would (99%) trust him to be as sceptical and cautious as I would be.

David
 
"NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news."
"We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years."


https://www.investors.com/politics/...ange-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

"NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news.
...
From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
...
in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."
...
We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.
...
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?"​
 
Global warming advocates are trying to blame the deaths from California forest fires on global warming but actually the deaths are caused by environmentalists.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmentalism-blame-californias-wildfires/

"How Misguided Environmentalism Is To Blame For California’s Wildfires

The saddest part about these fires in California is that they are self inflicted. Californians should not allow such mismanagement to continue.
...
For decades, environmental protection schemes have usurped common sense. For example, most fire ecologists say that the surest way of preventing massive forest fires is to use prescribed burns.
...
According to a Reason Foundation study, another flaw in forest management is a systematic reduction in timber removal. This began in 1990 when the spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In response, the Forest Service placed restrictions on timber harvests. Additionally, President Bill Clinton introduced a rule that restricted the construction of new roads on 49 million acres of national forest. This limited the ability of the Forest Service from thinning trees. In 1993, 1,797,574 acres of wildlands burned, but in 2017 this number jumped to 10,026,086 acres.
...
When trees are too close together, they fight for resources. Many of the trees are weakened and become more susceptible to disease and insect infestation. These conditions turn entire forests into tinder boxes.
...
Air quality control laws also make it difficult for factories and private landowners to dispose of deadwood. The difficulty these regulations impose may prohibit private owners from effectively managing their land.
...
To prevent fires, both the California’s state government and the federal government need to deregulate logging and encourage the Forest Service to make a profit by selling timber. Until the environmental protests of the 1970s, the Forest Service was one of the only departments in the federal government making a profit. It is a myth that environmental concerns and business interests are always at odds. In the case of California’s forests, thinning the trees is in the interests of both parties.
...
Ironically, these ill-conceived environmental policies designed to ward off climate change have been the source of massive amounts of carbon dioxide pollution. A forest fire’s initial blaze releases 5.2. million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, according to Forest Service ecologist Leland Tarnay. This is equivalent to the amount of emissions from 1.1 million passenger cars in a year."​
 
global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius."
I would really like somebody who understand this stuff to explain to me how a figure like 0.56 degrees has any meaning in the real world. I get that its is a figure on an xl sheet, but I do not know how any fraction of a degree can be measured beyond statistical manipulation.

My weather app on my phone tells me it 14.9 degrees, but it feels like 11.5. Personally I can't tell the difference between 11 and 12 degrees, let alone discern a fraction. And I do know the weather station that generates these readings is 17 kms away, and the difference between that and a thermometer on my verandah can be 5 degrees or more. I understand that the data that site provides is stable and consistent, but is this always the case?

Are all the temperature measures that are fed into whatever data base is used to make the calculations the products of certified reliable sites? I have read that this may not be the case.
 
I would really like somebody who understand this stuff to explain to me how a figure like 0.56 degrees has any meaning in the real world. I get that its is a figure on an xl sheet, but I do not know how any fraction of a degree can be measured beyond statistical manipulation.

My weather app on my phone tells me it 14.9 degrees, but it feels like 11.5. Personally I can't tell the difference between 11 and 12 degrees, let alone discern a fraction. And I do know the weather station that generates these readings is 17 kms away, and the difference between that and a thermometer on my verandah can be 5 degrees or more. I understand that the data that site provides is stable and consistent, but is this always the case?

Are all the temperature measures that are fed into whatever data base is used to make the calculations the products of certified reliable sites? I have read that this may not be the case.
Usually when a statistically meaningful number is given by scientists they also provide a margin of error or confidence interval for example.056 +/- .02 could mean there is a 90% probability the true value is somewhere between .054 and .058. Often journalists omit the margin of error. Sometimes it is omitted deliberately to hide the uncertainty in a scientific result.

If you have a thermometer you can usually measure fractions of degrees. If it is a digital thermometer it will probably give you fractions in digital form. If it is a mercury (silver colored) or alcohol (red colored) glass thermometer you can estimate the fraction visually.

A fraction of a degree in temperature could make a different because over time many small changes could add up to several degrees which could cause changes in climate. Or since very hot weather can result in deaths, if the average temperature goes up a little bit because there are a few more very hot days, it could be important because the number of deaths increases.

Small measurements are important in science because life can only exist in a very narrow range of values of the physical characteristics of nature. Gravity, temperature, radiation, pressure, etc all of these factors could theoretically be much higher or lower than we experience on earth, but the range needed for life, particularly intelligent life, is very narrow.
 
Last edited:
Small measurements are important in science because life can only exist in a very narrow range of values of the physical characteristics of nature. Gravity, temperature, radiation, pressure, etc all of these factors could theoretically be much higher or lower than we experience on earth, but the range needed for life, particularly intelligent life, is very narrow.
Hi Jim. I kinda get this, but surely that narrow range isn't a case of critical measures such that a degree, or a fraction thereof, makes a vital difference. Of course I get that there are situations where one degree more hits fail line. But here's a point - when an official temperature measuring station records, say 40 degrees C the actual temperatures experienced by people might be as high as 50+ degrees C - depending on the location. In Australia official temperature measures are taken in a covered box with slatted sides. A person standing beside the box in full sun will experience a much higher temperature. So when we were told that Penrith had a temperature of 43 degrees C last summer all that meant was that it was 43 degrees C at the point of controlled and standardised measuring. In winter I record temperatures 5 or more degrees cooler than the official recorder for my district. I have had snow in my back garden while in the front all the snow melted days ago - and on days when the official temperature is around 4 degrees.

So I can deal with the fact that sensitive standardised measuring systems will record a temperature that can be used to make statistical records. What I don't understand is (a) whether there is a verifiable uniform global standard that assures all temperatures measures used to develop a global model have equal integrity, and (b) how, if the temperature inside the standard measuring station is not the same immediately outside it, how any specific measure can be claimed to be an actual, as opposed to a statistical, measure. I am not disputing that measures taken globally in a uniformly standard way can provide critical information about temperature variations, and may point to something we need to heed.

I have not the slightest doubt that our climate is changing. Summers are getting hotter, here, and winters are getting milder. I am just not comfortable that the measures provided are real - and that is mostly a function of ignorance about how the measures are taken. I am, consequently, just as uncomfortable with the 'propaganda' that goes with the measurement. Because of my professional background I have a justifiable skepticism when statistical data is interpreted - because the interpretations are frequently wrong and often skewed by ideological positions. I don't know enough about climate science to evaluate the data, but I know enough about human behaviour to be wary of accepting the dominant interpretation.

In short, I have no bloody idea whether the claims about 'climate change' are right, and I have no motive to lean one way or the other. I am not persuaded by the 'moral' argument, or the political and economic one. There is, so far as I can determine, no actual scientific argument - at least, if there is, it has managed to successfully elude me. There are arguments that are based on science, and they may be right. But the reality is that complex climate science has not been distilled into an 'idiot's guide' and the arguments are not essentially different from theological ones that finally demand faith and belief - and I have neither.
 
When they were discussing the story Streiber tells about children missing from the gas chamber count, Alex asked Jason what he thinks about the possibility of the Nazis using torture on children to try to access the spirit realm by inducing disassociation in the tortured child.

I have a story that I heard from a woman to whom this happened. I met her at a conference on Near Death Experience held by Dr. Eben Alexander. During the question and answer period, the woman asked Dr. Alexander if he believed in the existence of evil. I don't remember his answer, but I had a private conversation with this woman while waiting at the bus stop for a lunch break. I asked her why she asked that question.

The woman in now about 60 years old. She told me, that when she was five, her father would use her as bait to attract young boys in the park, who he would kidnap, take to his basement, and make her watch, as he raped and then murdered the boys. She said she witnessed this more than once, and on one occasion, she left her body, and left the house, and was greeted by a being of "golden light", who gave her comfort and reassurance. She says she is still in contact with this being.

She says her father was a university professor who was brought over from Germany after World War II. I don't know if he was a Nazi, but the fact that he was brought to America after the war might indicate so, something like Operation Paperclip, maybe.

I wonder now about the nature of the golden light being. At that time, the fall of 2016, I assumed the being was kind and loving and rescuing the little girl in distress. Now, I wonder if the being was hiding it true nature and appearance, and collaborating with the father!
 
When they were discussing the story Streiber tells about children missing from the gas chamber count, Alex asked Jason what he thinks about the possibility of the Nazis using torture on children to try to access the spirit realm by inducing disassociation in the tortured child.

I have a story that I heard from a woman to whom this happened. I met her at a conference on Near Death Experience held by Dr. Eben Alexander. During the question and answer period, the woman asked Dr. Alexander if he believed in the existence of evil. I don't remember his answer, but I had a private conversation with this woman while waiting at the bus stop for a lunch break. I asked her why she asked that question.

The woman in now about 60 years old. She told me, that when she was five, her father would use her as bait to attract young boys in the park, who he would kidnap, take to his basement, and make her watch, as he raped and then murdered the boys. She said she witnessed this more than once, and on one occasion, she left her body, and left the house, and was greeted by a being of "golden light", who gave her comfort and reassurance. She says she is still in contact with this being.

She says her father was a university professor who was brought over from Germany after World War II. I don't know if he was a Nazi, but the fact that he was brought to America after the war might indicate so, something like Operation Paperclip, maybe.

I wonder now about the nature of the golden light being. At that time, the fall of 2016, I assumed the being was kind and loving and rescuing the little girl in distress. Now, I wonder if the being was hiding it true nature and appearance, and collaborating with the father!
wow... I don't even know how to process this. thx for sharing.
 
Top