Mary Rodwell’s 3,000 Cases Suggest Ongoing Genetic Manipulation |423|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
Thanks for this Jim. The study stipulates as it thesis that
Cherbaka and Makukov are providing a statistical proof of the Amino Acid Codex - relating a theoretical ideographic signal basis with the nucleon count progression inside the assigned amino acid. They cite a 1 x 10^-30 likelihood of this occurring by accident. But they missed, the next step after the algebraic basis of the statistical proof, in that the signal is derivative from the second letter base of the codon.
I have reduced this complex argument into a depiction of the relationship below (without simplifying it into a Bridgman Reduction):
Cherbaka and Makukov's nucleon count is shown on the y-axis (putative 'molecule complexity'), and the codon base ideographical entity is shown on the x-axis. This is deductive in its level of inference. Very compelling. The only option left for the faking skeptic, is to simply issue a nulla infantis argument ("nuh-uh!") or ignore this from now on.
This is a methodical benchmark codex very much similar to the 4 Band Resistor Color Codex used in electronics. As David Bailey adeptly describes it, the codex is the result of an "engineered consumption of choices" inside an ideographical standard (64 codon logical slots). The codex has falsified the notion of any option besides the principles that
Another way to view this symmetry is via a radial graphic, although this does not tell the entire story.
Results
The overall structure of the signal is shown in Fig. 4, which might be used as guidance in further description. The signal is composed of arithmetical and ideographical patterns, where arithmetical units are represented by amino acid nucleons, whereas codon bases serve as ideographical entities. The pat-terns of the signal are displayed in distinct logical arrange-ments of the code, thereby increasing both the informational content of the signal and its statistical significance. Remarkably, all of the patterns bare the same general style reflected in Fig. 4 with identical symbols in each signal component (represented by boxes). Namely, distinct logical arrangements of the code and activation key produce exact equalities of nucleon sums, which furthermore display decimalism and are accompanied by Rumer’s and/or half-transformations. One of these arrangements furthermore leads to ideography and se-mantical symmetries. All elements of the code – 64 codons, 20 amino acids, Start and Stop syntactic signs – are involved in each arrangement.
Cherbaka and Makukov are providing a statistical proof of the Amino Acid Codex - relating a theoretical ideographic signal basis with the nucleon count progression inside the assigned amino acid. They cite a 1 x 10^-30 likelihood of this occurring by accident. But they missed, the next step after the algebraic basis of the statistical proof, in that the signal is derivative from the second letter base of the codon.
I have reduced this complex argument into a depiction of the relationship below (without simplifying it into a Bridgman Reduction):
Cherbaka and Makukov's nucleon count is shown on the y-axis (putative 'molecule complexity'), and the codon base ideographical entity is shown on the x-axis. This is deductive in its level of inference. Very compelling. The only option left for the faking skeptic, is to simply issue a nulla infantis argument ("nuh-uh!") or ignore this from now on.
This is a methodical benchmark codex very much similar to the 4 Band Resistor Color Codex used in electronics. As David Bailey adeptly describes it, the codex is the result of an "engineered consumption of choices" inside an ideographical standard (64 codon logical slots). The codex has falsified the notion of any option besides the principles that
1. The codex was methodical by Intent.
2. The codex mandated a XXX codon from its very inception, and could never have logically arisen from an XX codon basis (save for a temporary theoretical one as an aspect of the entire consumption protocol). The T and A assignments in particular are deliberate.
Both the relationship with nucleon count AND the overstep use of codon slots, are assigned logically, not chaotically. In Intelligence, this is called 'an ideographic signal'. It demonstrates Intent.
Another way to view this symmetry is via a radial graphic, although this does not tell the entire story.
Last edited:
The materialists have a fool proof argument (it will convince any fool), I call it the "We're lucky to be alive argument": Anything that is possible no matter how improbable can happen by chance. There is a corollary, I call it the "make your own luck syndrome": A large dose of cognitive bias can make any argument (no matter how improbable) convincing.
I did not steal your wallet. An odd reflection of light made it appear like I was standing in front of you holding your wallet and taking money out of it. Thereafter another refraction inside your cornea interacting with the room lighting immediately after that hallucination, made it appear like there was no longer any money in your wallet. The fraudulent use of your credit cards was simply a systems error on the part of the credit card company and a statistical coincidence. Plus, eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and I represent science.
This is Occam's Razor... the simplest explanation after all, is to always choose the 1 x 10^-30 possibility. Case Closed.
This is Occam's Razor... the simplest explanation after all, is to always choose the 1 x 10^-30 possibility. Case Closed.
Last edited:
The people who claim Francis Crick believed life did not arise on earth need to provide a definite source for that assertion. I looked and couldn't find one. They should probably modify their assertion to say that Crick once believed it was so unlikely that life arose naturally on earth that he conducted his own theoretical investigation into the possibility of directed panspermia and concluded there was no reason to believe in an earthly origin rather than an extraterrestrial origin of life.
In Life Itself by Francis Crick he says,
However if you look at Crick's argument he is saying it is unlikely that life evolved on earth but maybe there is something we don't know about that could explain it.
Science is not about "maybe there is something we don't know". When everything you know about science tells you something didn't happen, the rational scientific assessment is that the best interpretation of the evidence is that it didn't happen. Anyone is free to propose all the hypotheses they want but an untested hypotheses does not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. People, even scientists are not very rational, we prefer to believe what pleases us and invent mysteries to satisfy our psychological needs.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
In Life Itself by Francis Crick he says,
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against. Perhaps in the future we may know enough to make a considered guess, but at the present time we can only say that we cannot decide whether the origin of life on earth was an extremely unlikely event or almost a certainty—or any possibility in between these two extremes.
However if you look at Crick's argument he is saying it is unlikely that life evolved on earth but maybe there is something we don't know about that could explain it.
Science is not about "maybe there is something we don't know". When everything you know about science tells you something didn't happen, the rational scientific assessment is that the best interpretation of the evidence is that it didn't happen. Anyone is free to propose all the hypotheses they want but an untested hypotheses does not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. People, even scientists are not very rational, we prefer to believe what pleases us and invent mysteries to satisfy our psychological needs.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
Directed Panspermia
F. H. C. CRICK
Medical Research Council, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge, En,gland
AND
L. E. ORGEL
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, P.O. Box 1809, San Diego, California 92112
Received June 22, 1972; revised December 20, 1972
...
Thus the idea of Directed Panspermia cannot at the moment be rejected by any simple argument. It is radically different from the idea that life started here ab inito without infection from elsewhere. We have thus two sharply different theories of the origin of life on Earth. Can we choose between them?
At the moment it seems that the experimental evidence is too feeble to make this discrimination.
Last edited:
This I guess we could consider a fact, Jim. Meanwhile the Creator is holding fast onto a piece of the puzzle we are perpetually denied access to. Or could it be that we, in the flesh are incapable of absorbing it anyway so we could put it into it's vacancy and finally have figured it all out, "scientifically"?
Last edited:
Thanks' for this. Its probably to be expected. The issue isn't whether Mary has done a decent job of research, but how she has represented it. Using references is necessary to demonstrate wide reading in the field, but it is easy to patch together a framework of selective citations to craft an argument that is not consistent with the spirit of the cited sources - and which actually constitutes no more than an illusion of supporting texts.
After listening to Mary and catching some videos, my disquiet is the absence of a disciplined methodological approach, and the 'lapse' into seeming to take experiencers reports at face value, while denying interpretation. There is a superficial nod to being scientific, and an invocation of the right language, but the overall message does not deliver, for me, a sense of confidence.
I have sufficient familiarity with Mary's core themes, and surrounding areas of thought, to allow she is onto something. I am simply frustrated that I can't say that I 'believe' her at face value. Her work isn't sloppy - just disjointed [in my view].
After listening to Mary and catching some videos, my disquiet is the absence of a disciplined methodological approach, and the 'lapse' into seeming to take experiencers reports at face value, while denying interpretation. There is a superficial nod to being scientific, and an invocation of the right language, but the overall message does not deliver, for me, a sense of confidence.
I have sufficient familiarity with Mary's core themes, and surrounding areas of thought, to allow she is onto something. I am simply frustrated that I can't say that I 'believe' her at face value. Her work isn't sloppy - just disjointed [in my view].
What I recoil at is the tenet that the human species was altered by aliens at the outset. Mary gives multiple assertions, such as
"sideways insertion" of genes by ancient aliens., assertions that are simply different ways for presenting her claim. As Alex implied in a previous interview with Mary, her claim smacks of New Age ideology. There's strange data, for sure, but her interpretation of it s only that. Why not say Intelligent Design? Which is also in need of evidence.
Prior to Dec 21 2012 Mary was with Alfred Webre, and together they stated that on that exact date star kids would give the special code to awaken humanity. It did not happen.
I will never forget the joint interview with Gordon on the data of a massive nuclear explosion on Mars VERSUS how to interpret that. Gordon says, "what if the Mars population were pedophiles, and had to be wiped out?"
"sideways insertion" of genes by ancient aliens., assertions that are simply different ways for presenting her claim. As Alex implied in a previous interview with Mary, her claim smacks of New Age ideology. There's strange data, for sure, but her interpretation of it s only that. Why not say Intelligent Design? Which is also in need of evidence.
Prior to Dec 21 2012 Mary was with Alfred Webre, and together they stated that on that exact date star kids would give the special code to awaken humanity. It did not happen.
I will never forget the joint interview with Gordon on the data of a massive nuclear explosion on Mars VERSUS how to interpret that. Gordon says, "what if the Mars population were pedophiles, and had to be wiped out?"
Fair comment. I haven't. Not out of disinterest. Maybe the arguments are better made in books than in interview - this is true for some authors. But Mary is not some shy nerd happier with a keyboard than an audience. She is an experienced performer and interviewee.
My objection to Mary's delivery is not content, but that I don't think she has done her own work justice, because her methodological approach is muddled. I would not expect a book to show otherwise. You simply don't get that degree of disparity between an author's spoken and written words - unless the author is unusually ill-disposed toward effective public comment - may be neuro-atypical or have a mental illness for example.
Mary doesn't fit that picture for me.
My objection to Mary's delivery is not content, but that I don't think she has done her own work justice, because her methodological approach is muddled. I would not expect a book to show otherwise. You simply don't get that degree of disparity between an author's spoken and written words - unless the author is unusually ill-disposed toward effective public comment - may be neuro-atypical or have a mental illness for example.
Mary doesn't fit that picture for me.
This my point, David. Mary invokes 'science' because she thinks that adds credence to her arguments, but, because her approach is not really scientific. I heard Mary talk about science in a way I did not think reflected a genuine connection. I knew what she meant, I was not convinced that she did.
Some time ago I watched a dvd on Dynamo - Magician Impossible. In response to one of his performances a woman who ddi display evidence of significant social or cultural attainment commented that what she saw was "not scientific". Now you and I both know what she means, and we both know that she hasn't a clue.
There was a time when the language used to articulate human experience was religious, and now it is scientific. But its a cultural artefact only. I see Mary as being on the border. She says science and may imagine she thinks science, but what she says isn't science.
Again I have to stress that I do think Mary has a valid claim to make, but it is not scientific. While I do think ethnography is a valid science I do get the politics of what is or is not science. It would have been better had Mary done a bit more research and decided her work was scientific in the 'human sciences' sense. She didn't do that, and that's a pity because she can now be accused of not being scientific and of being intellectually sloppy.
Its a style thing, really, But it matters a great deal.
Some time ago I watched a dvd on Dynamo - Magician Impossible. In response to one of his performances a woman who ddi display evidence of significant social or cultural attainment commented that what she saw was "not scientific". Now you and I both know what she means, and we both know that she hasn't a clue.
There was a time when the language used to articulate human experience was religious, and now it is scientific. But its a cultural artefact only. I see Mary as being on the border. She says science and may imagine she thinks science, but what she says isn't science.
Again I have to stress that I do think Mary has a valid claim to make, but it is not scientific. While I do think ethnography is a valid science I do get the politics of what is or is not science. It would have been better had Mary done a bit more research and decided her work was scientific in the 'human sciences' sense. She didn't do that, and that's a pity because she can now be accused of not being scientific and of being intellectually sloppy.
Its a style thing, really, But it matters a great deal.
If I could say one thing to people who want to report psychic phenomena or claim that they can heal people, etc it would be to stay clear of science unless you genuinely think you know enough to know what you are talking about. If asked whether what they report makes scientific sense, they should say something like "I have no idea because I have no interest in science, but I can tell you what is possible."
I think that most of us realise that there are phenomena that don't seem to make sense according to conventional science, so it makes sense to listen to people who report phenomena of various kinds - including healing skills - but they don't improve their credibility one jot by trying to connect their experiences to science. I think if there is a connection, it clearly requires some extensive elaboration of conventional science.
I mean, I am not at all sure changes to DNA would be so very relevant. The most important part of us, is probably non-physical. By talking about DNA, you automatically tie the discussion to a set of conventional physical ideas that may not be so relevant.
David
I think that most of us realise that there are phenomena that don't seem to make sense according to conventional science, so it makes sense to listen to people who report phenomena of various kinds - including healing skills - but they don't improve their credibility one jot by trying to connect their experiences to science. I think if there is a connection, it clearly requires some extensive elaboration of conventional science.
I mean, I am not at all sure changes to DNA would be so very relevant. The most important part of us, is probably non-physical. By talking about DNA, you automatically tie the discussion to a set of conventional physical ideas that may not be so relevant.
David
Exactly! I grew up with a passion for science. I was placed 2nd in a science talent quest in year 10 and in year 11 I topped the state (Tasmania) in Geology. But my life experiences were overtaken by rampant psi stuff.
I have retained an interest in, affect and respect for, science, but it cannot define my experiences, and neither do I expect it to. I am sufficiently up to date with science to know that I know bugger all about the details. For me science is an engaging narrative about which I am fascinated, but about which I have no sufficient understanding to employ any scientific claims in support of my argument.
Because i don't hold science as the arbiter of the real I can make a claim about what I experience/d with no concern whether a person might contrive a 'scientific' objection to my claim. Its not real or valid. Go away!
I don't buy into the DNA discussions because, although I kinda follow the thread of the discussion, I don't know enough to participate. I am interested, but it really doesn't matter. I grew up with 'scientific' evidence that said what I experienced wasn't real. I am still here, not yet declared crazy. Science is not the arbiter of the real. It cannot measure what is not available to be measured and it may not declare what it cannot measure invalid.
At least that's the politics by which I live.
I have retained an interest in, affect and respect for, science, but it cannot define my experiences, and neither do I expect it to. I am sufficiently up to date with science to know that I know bugger all about the details. For me science is an engaging narrative about which I am fascinated, but about which I have no sufficient understanding to employ any scientific claims in support of my argument.
Because i don't hold science as the arbiter of the real I can make a claim about what I experience/d with no concern whether a person might contrive a 'scientific' objection to my claim. Its not real or valid. Go away!
I don't buy into the DNA discussions because, although I kinda follow the thread of the discussion, I don't know enough to participate. I am interested, but it really doesn't matter. I grew up with 'scientific' evidence that said what I experienced wasn't real. I am still here, not yet declared crazy. Science is not the arbiter of the real. It cannot measure what is not available to be measured and it may not declare what it cannot measure invalid.
At least that's the politics by which I live.
And why not both? The divine must express intent and intelligence in some hierarchical manner, so why not through ET. It is pretty obvious that we humans are not the fruits of the standard Darwinian theory - and that we are the product of physical and spiritual evolution. There is a focus on apparent 'hybridisation' of our bodies - but to what end if not to accommodate a greater expression of soul attributes. Physically we are less robust than our ancestors - so it might be that 'hybridisation' is about accommodation of other than physical attributes - though evolving toward being able to live in an environment badly polluted and saturated with 5G radiation might not be a bad idea.
I believe in panentheism, the Divine existing both transcendentialy and immanently throughout the world of form (this widely accepted theological paradigm is discussed in Rick Archer's recent interview with Gillian Ross). So yes, there may well have been Intelligent Design in evolution from the transcendental realm. This is a FAR CRY from ET. I believe they exist as well, on a spectrum of good versus evil. You are scaring me, Alex, in your distortion of Ithe concept of Intelligent Design.
agreed. One of the questions I keep returning to: does ET have a life review during its nde? in other words, are we looking at two different ladders leaning against two different walls. one being "spiritual enlightenment" for lack of a better term. The other wall being materialistic / get things done pursuits.
and I get that it's all one... Ocean of consciousness... so let's not even go there
and I get that it's all one... Ocean of consciousness... so let's not even go there