The Great Accomplishments of Hired Skeptics


iSpeech

If bloodlines had anything to do with intelligence and character, every genius and great leader would be a royal of one sort or another, and we know that is not true.

How a Paranormal Debunking Lobby Nearly Killed Alternative Energy Breakthrough 30 Years Ago

We could have avoided the oil wars.

Had James Randi not suppressed the early research into cold fusion, we could have avoided the oil wars.

Even Randi's last documentary is titled "An Honest Liar," which makes as much sense as it implies. It's a paradox that invites suspicion on an entire career and body of work. One can't help but wonder why would any real scientist subject himself to peer review by this man, a non-peer from a field not associated with science but a field, magic,  literally associated with conjuring, mind games, slight of hand and outright deception.

coldfusiondead
Lamenting the suppression of cold fusion research.

The fact is for the longest time scientists had no choice. He had a soap box, he was LOUD, and could use his organization to challenge ground breaking technologies on behalf of energy interests or anyone that was ready to chip into his skeptic factory. Cold  fusion? Killed, until very recently, about 30 years later because too many scientists were afraid to challenge a non-scientific but very powerful lobby of professional skeptics headed by Randi and his ilk. (See slide show.)

In reality, they were and remain little more than corporate shills and pay-to-play bullies that real scientists had to deal with before working with the media.

 

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

The projection of their own limitations onto advanced minds makes professional skeptics a particularly sad sight.

Randi is a magician, and a good one at that, but he's not a scientist. He is not a trained biologist, geneticist, or even lab assistant. He's never conducted lab work or submitted any work for scientific peer review. Another paranormal "debunker" he works with is a psychologist and magician by the name of Richard Wiseman. Other popular paranormal "debunkers" are Penn & Teller, magicians, and Penn's focus is militant atheism to disprove the notion of God, or all encompassing or non-local consciousness; and by extension spirit. Again, you see a curious pattern of "debunker" magicians and they are protecting a trade secret. It is so painfully obvious now you only need a tarot card and history book to prove it.

courtney-big-bang-theory-5-638
If these are the strongest supporting arguments for the Big Bang, this case is even sadder than expected. Compare this nonsense to the questions below...

 

Big Bang Theory Relies on Blind Faith, it's a Fiat Currency Created Out of Nothing

In Dr. Robert Lanza's book Biocentrism, he notes classic science's answer to basic and extremely important questions about the Big Bang theory are completely unanswered:

How did the Big Bang happen?

Unknown.

What was the Big Bang?

Unknown.

What, if anything, existed before the Big Bang?

Unknown.

What is the nature of dark energy, the dominant entity of the cosmos?

Unknown.

What is the nature of dark matter, the second  most prevalent entity?

Unknown.

How did life arise?

Unknown.

What is the nature of consciousness?

Unknown.

What is the fate of the universe; for example, will it keep expanding?

Seemingly, yes.

Why are the constants the way they are?

Unknown.

Why are there exactly four forces?

Unknown.

Is life further experienced after one's body dies?

Unknown.

Which book provides the best answers?

There is no single book.


 

640
Awesome: When A Little Girl Told Neil DeGrasse Tyson She Wanted To Live On Jupiter, He Completely Shut Her Down

This is a brief history of everything we don't know, to be accurate. No one can honestly say our most "brilliant" minds are not now reduced to basing an entire cosmological and consciousness model on blind faith, and this with no more factual evidence than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The existing Big Bang Theory postulates consciousness created itself by deliberately excluding it from the Theory of Everything, a Unified Field Theory, when it is the only law that could bind it together. We know for a fact that observing something, which requires consciousness, collapses a wave function into a particle, and particles become matter.

527946_336086956474003_1450894590_n
The Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP have done a pretty good job of hobbling Tesla's dream.

If you have a super-computer handy, and you want to know when time began, you need only  a few equations to realize that the answer is always that there is no time. It is a consistent answer but too many scientists still believe the answer is wrong. The same super computers they use to create chain reaction models and global warming predictions will always say there is no time because a second can be split into infinity. But actually, you don't need a computer at all to see what amounts to inexplicable propaganda, because this foolishness is constantly pounded into us. As you read this, you are already in the past. Light took time, about  0.15 of a second, to process in the brain into an image. Even riding at the point of light on a photon in "real time" that just reflected off the screen, time and space don't exist. It is a geometric point if observed, a potentiality if not.

This video opens with Neil de Grasse Tyson, perhaps one of the most refreshing studies in humility you will ever find, claiming an unassuming understanding of the "history of everything."  The video opens with a staggering contradiction. It asserts that universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and he even gives it a pretty specific birthday using some pretty complex calculations. However, were you riding on the furthest photon from that so-called "big bang" there is no time. So which is it: 13.7 billion years or no time? That is basic quantum physics. You cannot, under any circumstances, say the universe is almost 14 billion years old without a pre-existing observer to measure it at singularity. That's not even an abstract thought experiment, it's common sense. The answer was always there.

bang-bang-science-unicorn
The Big Bang can’t explain life or what came before singularity, which means it’s a useless theory floating in a fairy tale in the mind of a unicorn. These are grown men selling us this nonsense, and it needs to stop.

Such measurements may have also implications for the Big Bang. “How is it possible, when every law in nature is almost equal between particles and anti-particles, that matter was left from the Big Bang?” Constantinos Loizides. See CERN Symmetry Measurement Confirms Matter And Antimatter Are Mirrors Of Each Other, Aug. 19 2015

Every once in a while, however, physicists stumble across this paradox and offer this radical proposition: it doesn't make sense because it's bullshit.

The evidence has always pointed to the following:

Time is a construct of the mind to understand the universe and to fix one's place in another construct, space. Both are dependent on observation, on consciousness. As such, the Big Bang Theory is a fairy tale. It is not a new idea, that time and space do not exist, it is one science has been running away from for ages now. It has been assumed, quite falsely, that accepting this fact would mean a return to a religion-based science like the middle ages. Again, the likeliest reason we can't accept the new law of biocentrism is because some of our greatest minds have learned to tackle everything but a very common and primitive weakness we call the ego, and the fear of losing face. Cognitive dissonance  makes their deductive reasoning fall apart. It makes them get angry and go into denial because their world view has been fundamentally challenged. There is an old Indian saying that goes something like this: a man who admits his mistake bares his ignorance only once, but a man who defends his mistake bares his ignorance many times. He is thus  likelier to be remembered for that while his greater deeds are eclipsed in ignominy.

Occam's Razor: "Plurality is not to be posited without necessity." That means, basically, the lessassumptions the better, and if you have two competing theories the one with the least assumptions is usually correct.
Occam's Razor: "Plurality is not to be posited without necessity." That means, basically, the less assumptions the better, and if you have two competing theories the one with the least assumptions is usually correct. The Big Bang theory is an orgy of assumptions.

Even in that eternal and universal consciousness that absorbs the observations of all life forms in existence, one could imagine a computer metaphor. Rebel physicists are now comparing our lives to holograms and avatars in  a unified field, with biocentric models that can be validated, and string theory models that can't. Why would anyone choose the latter? For all we know we may be avatars in the mind of a universal consciousness, akin to individual processors assigned to solve a given problem by sparking the networks around us into problem solving and cooperation. In an unimaginably complex CPU with an infinity of processors working at quantum speeds on a universal level, one could imagine our daily lives represent individual, important calculations that help evolve that universal consciousness.

Sadly, the biggest names in science, particularly astrophysicists who took it upon themselves to explain the true nature and origin of consciousness, have put their eggs in this Big Bang basket and now they know our best computers have proven them wrong. It's all about ego now.

Hawking's Theory of Everything vs. a Self-Evident, Universal Law of Everything

The beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing.

Socrates

This great experiment in denying the soul to transfer that worship instinct to mere man, incidentally, killed over 100 million.

No offense to Stephen Hawking, but what the fuck are we supposed to do with a black hole and untestable, unprovable theories? When was the Big Bang proven and what preceded it, if indeed, he has a theory of everything? He's no Nikola Tesla, no Albert Einstein, no Linus Pauling, no Max Planck, no Isaac Newton, et al, all of whom have had a powerful and profound impact on our daily lives and had their most important theories tested and validated in the real world. They were also very modest men and they had an uncanny ability to dismiss flattery, question themselves, and reassess deeply held beliefs as new and better information came along. That made them great.

Hawking is a smart guy, to be sure, but not in the same class and he's frankly pretty arrogant. You have to be to claim philosophy is dead. That's like saying critical thinking is dead.

When it is a belief system that questions the worth and potential of man, it does beg a response because it is harmful, incorrect and revives the heart of eugenics when the genome project disproved it once and for all.

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking

Let him speak only for himself, as he clearly speaks for the elites hungry to "prove" there is no soul as it is an extremely powerful means of social engineering and dehumanization.

In one book Hawkins asserts that modern science has proven that consciousness is purely a product of biochemical electrical reactions within the brain and that it all ends at death. That may have been what they taught in 1960. Now, in an advanced biology college class today, if that was his argument a competent professor might say

"Why'd you get an F? The materialist belief that we have no soul actually has significant arguments against it that have to be addressed. Have you even read the latest medical journals by renowned neuroscientists regarding non-local consciousnesses experiments with findings that directly contradict your hypothesis? What about the decades of reincarnation research, such as that at the University of Virginia? That involved actual autopsy reports of children's recalled accounts of prior deaths with correlations between the latter's birthmarks and matching points of fatal injuries from past lives. You need to effectively explain all of that away, credibly, and not just ask me to take your word for it. You have to effectively counter all serious contrary scientific evidence and you pretended it did not exist. Essentially, you pompous asshole, I asked you who wrote the greatest masterpiece of all and you gave me the model of a typewriter and an instruction manual. Away with you, plebeian! I can't even give you credit for effort."

Let Hawking speak only for himself, as he clearly speaks for the elites hungry to "prove" there is no soul as it is an extremely powerful means of social engineering and dehumanization.

This is all about math and always was, since the same physics that Hawking champions also contradicts his Big Bang-based theory of everything. And even before him, it was always about a tacit effort to deny the humanity of man for psycho-political indoctrination. When you see great lies pouring out of the mouths of otherwise brilliant men, jarring ones, you know it is propaganda and the only thing you have left to ask is who would gain from it, and why? Many scientists today are very outspoken against anyone who supports the existence of a soul, and thereby God presumably, but it seems to lack sincerity when you consider that was a key atheist indoctrination taught in the Soviet Union and Mao's China. This great experiment in denying the soul to transfer that worship instinct to mere man, incidentally, killed over 100 million.

Two of the bloodiest leaders in modern world history led atheist societies: Chairman Mao Zedung and Josef Stalin. Mao’s “Giant Leap Forward” killed 45 million in four years.  Total? Up to 78 million deaths. Josef Stalin? 23 million deaths. Their genocides had nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with the dogmatic perception of science as a religion, wherein the killings were justified “scientifically” as being done for the greater good (population control, e.g.). That’s the same thing a religious fanatic would say: what they do is for the greater good, only they do it in the name of God. So what is the mind set?

Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s). Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world. In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced views against the group we don’t belong to.

Source

flying_spaghetti_monster_by_beautifullychaotic
"In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced views against the group we don’t belong to."

Richard Dawkins, for instance, bases his social identity upon his leadership and membership in the atheist community. The latter devote their lives to enhancing the image of the atheist, and disparaging the beliefs of the religious or merely spiritual. Often you will see them attack religious people on the grounds that all evil arises from religion. It breeds hate, it breeds fear, intolerance, ignorance, it’s argued, and no one is saying it can't because that is what fanaticism does. At the same time, militant atheists rely on appealing to hate, fear and intolerance of religious people to attract like minds. In other words, they criticize religion for doing exactly the same thing they are doing. Fanaticism, whether religious or atheist, is rooted in hate unless that is first addressed there can never be peace, there will always be war and genocide, and neither group is better than the other. What is "religious conversion" for one is "population control" for the other and they will always kill millions.

«- Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | View All | Next -»

Be the first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.