From Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, authors of The Stargate Conspiracy
Reference SC3330 (Reply to SC3214)
Apparently a reader of our site has recently invited the famous authors of some of my favorite reading material, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, (The Stargate Conspiracy, The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?), to review the material on these pages so as to offer an opinion on same for publication and wide dessemination on their message board (link above). Their comments will be italics, separated by bars, for easier discrimination.
Picknett and Prince: “In what way are the Cassiopaea channellings more accurate than those of the Ra Material and the Nine, or for that matter any similar channellings?
We’ve had a look at the linked site, and as far as we can see it suffers from all the usual drawbacks of channelling. Most of what the Cassiopaeans say is either incomprehensible or unverifiable – but on the rare occasions they make statements that can be checked, they are just plain wrong. Some examples picked at random from the site:
The survivors of Atlantis founded the Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan and Inca civilisations: There civilisations are separated by many thousands of years, so how can they have all have been founded by the survivors of the catastrophe that destroyed Atlantis? ”
Laura responds: Oh dear! I hope that Ms. Picknett and Mr. Prince write more accurately than they read. The Cassiopaeans have never said that the “survivors” founded the Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan and Inca Civilisations. What they said was:
Q: (L) Then did the main Atlanteans move to Egypt when Atlantis was destroyed?
A: Yes. And elsewhere.
Q: (L) Where else did the Atlanteans go?
A: Americas. Inca. Aztec. Maya. Hopi Tribe. Pima tribe.
Q: (L) Zecariah Sitchen proposes that the pyramid was built as a permanent marking system to navigate the solar system, could you comment on that idea?
A: That is incorrect. The pyramids were built as energy storage and transference facilities. They were built by the descendants of those known to you as the Atlanteans who are, of course, your ancestors in soul matters. They were not built to be markers for anything.
Q: (L) What was the origin of the Minoan civilization?
A: Atlantean descendants.
Q: If it was built in 8,000 BC, and the Pyramids were built 8,649 BC, which is 10,643 years ago, more or less, that means that they were built at almost the same time, or at least within 600 years of each other. If they were built at almost the same time, were they built by the same, or similar groups of people?
A: Atlantean descendants.
Laura: To assume that this means all at once, or that a “civilization was founded” simply because “survivors” found refuge in an area, only shows how shallowly the material was inspected. But, as we shall see, that seems to be the rule with Ms. Picknett and Mr. Prince.
Picknett and Prince: Stonehenge was built by Aryan Druids in 8000BC: Stonehenge is reliably dated, and in any case the construction evolved over several centuries from about 3000BC to 2500BC. The Druids were the priests of the Celts, and had nothing to do with the building of Stonehenge.
Laura: Note also in the above clip that the Cassiopaeans said that “Atlantean descendants were also responsible for the building of Stonehenge. Were Celts Atlantean descendants? Is anyone?
Actually, if there was a high antediuvian civilization that was destroyed at some point in “time,” it is very likely that we are ALL Atlantean descendants. And I wonder if either of the authors remembers being present at the event?
The fact is, after a great deal of research in an effort to discover if the above comment about the dating of Stonehenge could possibly – in any remote configuration – be correct, I came to the startling realization that the “dating of Stonehenge” is based on little more than assumption. Allow me to quote a somewhat tedious report on the re-dating of Stonehenge:
As part of the post-excavation process a major programme of radiocarbon dating was undertaken to provide a reliable set of dates for the Monument which archaeologists can be confident in using.
To carry out this work the English Heritage Scientific Dating Service gathered and co-ordinated a multi-disciplinary team of experts, consisting of the archaeological team from Wessex Archaeology, the high-precision radiocarbon dating laboratory of the Queen’s University of Belfast, and the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit.
In addition to this core team of archaeologists, chemists, paleoenvironmentalists, physicists, and statisticians, specialist input on the animal bone and antler was provided by the Faunal Remains Unit of the University of Southampton, on curatorial issues by the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, and on project management and the wider issues surrounding Stonehenge by the Central Archaeology Service of English Heritage.
This project has produced or identified 52 radiocarbon determinations which are considered reliable. These are from the Monument itself and associated activity.
Mesolithic activity in the car park.
Phase 1 – the construction of the main Ditch and Banks, the deposition of `structured deposits’ within them, the primary silting of the Ditch, and activity which took place on top of this silting.
Phase 2 – the secondary silting of the main Ditch, the wooden post settings within the Monument, and the Aubrey Holes.
Phase 3 – a burial cut into the top of the secondary fill of the main Ditch, the Sarsen and Bluestone settings, the Y and Z Holes, and the Avenue. We also investigated the chronological sequence of these elements of the Monument. Post-Monument use of the site.
In 1966 excavations in the Car Park to the north-west of the Monument revealed three substantial pits. The shadows of the substantial posts which these had contained were clearly visible. None of the pits produced any artefacts apart from a single piece of burnt bone and quantities of charcoal. This was identified as Pinus sp., and dated to the Mesolithic
In 1988 a similar pit was discovered further east, although this lacked clear evidence of a post-shadow since it had been recut. However charcoal discovered within this feature also proved to be Pinus sp. and dated to the Mesolithic.
The significance of these features is unclear, although at least some of the pits appear to have held substantial timber uprights (which may have been akin to totem poles). The span of the results over 300 – 1600 years indicates the longevity of the activity and analysis of the results suggests that it occurred between 8500-7650 cal BC and 7500-6700 cal BC (see probability distributions).
Sample: W243-11, context 9585, submitted by M Allen on 16 May 1994 Calibrated date range: 7700-7420 cal BC (95% confidence).
Sample: W243-14, context 9582, Calibrated date range: 7580-7090 cal BC (95% confidence)
Sample: W243-008, context 9585, Calibrated date range: 8090-7580 cal BC (95% confidence)
Sample: CHAR1, submitted by H Keeley in 1966, Calibrated date range: 8820-7730 cal BC (95% confidence)
Sample: CHAR2, submitted by H Keeley in 1966, Calibrated date range: 7480-6590 cal BC (95% confidence)
Archaeological comment on HAR-455 and HAR-456 (F Vatcher): in the excavator’s opinion the charcoal samples, although pertaining to the original posts, were of poor quality, being fine and mixed with other material. This may, perhaps, account for the unexpectedly early dates and the radiocarbon dating difference of approximately one millennium for postholes which had every indication of being contemporary with each other.
Comment on series (M Allen): all of these determinations fall into the eighth or late ninth-millennium BC. They cover a period of about one millennium and so it cannot be established whether these features, containing upright pine posts, were exactly contemporary and ever all stood together, but they are certainly Mesolithic and not related to the main Monument.
[Laura’s note: pay attention to this last comment because it is OPINION, not fact. And such “opinions” are repeated throughout this report.]
The main Ditch at Stonehenge was dug in a series of segments, at the base of which were deposited large numbers of antlers, many of which had been used as picks or rakes and showed heavy wear. Since these artefacts had no primary silt beneath them, they must have been deposited very soon after the Ditch was dug. It is considered that antlers would not have been kept for long before use, especially as over half (57%) came from slain deer (perhaps because a large number of antlers were needed quickly?). Consequently the digging of the Ditch can be dated to very soon after the last of the antlers was collected.
Nine reliable measurements are available from these antlers (results). They were gathered over a period of 20-160 years and, when analysed with the structured deposits at the base of the Ditch, provide an estimate of its date of construction of 3020-2910 cal BC (see probability distributions).
One measurement is considered unreliable (rejected result).
Four samples were analysed from animal bones deposited in, or close to, terminals in the Ditch (results). They were placed on the base below the primary silt and so must have been deposited very soon after the Ditch was dug.
However analysis of the results suggests that these objects were collected over a period of 50 and 850 years, between 3900-3050 cal BC and 3020-2910 cal BC. This suggests that the four bones are statistically significantly earlier than the date of the Ditch construction (3020-2910 cal BC), and so may have been curated for a substantial period of time before being placed in the Monument (see probability distributions).
A series of determinations have been obtained from the secondary fills of the Ditch in order to date their accumulation (results). The dated material was spread from the base to the upper portion of the fill. Unfortunately further archive material relating to the precise location of the samples came to light after submission, and so a number are regarded as unreliable on archaeological grounds (rejected results).
Although material was deliberately selected for size and freshness to minimise the possibility that samples were residual, we are not willing to make the assumption that such material has been excluded entirely, so the analysis does not apply the constraint that the samples from phase 2 must be later than the samples from phase 1. They must be earlier than the burial which was cut into the secondary fills however.
Analysis of the results suggests that the infilling of the Ditch took 400-730 years, although many of the items dated are likely to have been deposited well within the first century after construction. The fill accumulated between the digging of the Ditch (3020-2910 cal BC) and 2570-2450 cal BC (3% confidence) or 2500-2260 cal BC (92% confidence) (see probability distributions).
Unfortunately it has not been possible to date more precisely either the excavation of the Aubrey Holes or the insertion of the human cremations into them, as there was insufficient collagen in the only available samples (partially calcined skewer pins which accompanied some of the cremations).
The single determination (result) from charcoal associated with a cremation is too imprecise to be very informative, giving a calibrated date range of 3020-1520 cal BC (see probability distribution).
In 1978 an inhumation of an adult male was discovered cut into the secondary fills of the Ditch (Evans et al 1984). The date of this burial therefore provides a terminus ante quem for the silting up of the Ditch and the associated cremation cemetery. The burial was accompanied by three barbed-and-tanged arrowheads and a wristguard. Its fill contained three fragments of bluestone, so it can be assigned to phase 3.
Five radiocarbon determinations are available from the skeleton (results). Analysis of these results provides an estimate of 2400-2140 cal BC for the burial (see probability distribution). This is slightly earlier than the previous estimate of 2340-1930 cal BC, provided by the single determination processed in 1979.
Material for dating from these settings is very limited. Two measurements were obtained from the Sarsen Circle (photo and results), although since one of these is from material which must be residual (rejected results), the best estimate for the date of this setting (2850 – 2480 cal BC) relies on a single determination (see probability distributions). Stratigraphically this setting is later than the Q Holes and earlier than the Z Holes.
Here is the rejected result: Sample: S64.41, context 3547, submitted by M Allen on 11 March 1994; Material: animal bone, long bone fragment (D Serjeantson), Initial comment: from stonehole 27 of the Sarsen Circle, noted as from among the packing stones. Calibrated date range: 4360-3990 cal BC (95% confidence)
Archaeological comment (M Allen): this earlier Neolithic date was surprising because there is virtually no other evidence in the Stonehenge environs for activity at this time. The sample must have been residual in its context.
The Sarsen Trilithons (photo) appear to be stratigraphically earlier than the Bluestone Oval/Horseshoe and have produced three results. Analysis of these provide a best estimate for the date of construction of this setting of 2440-2100 cal BC (see probability distributions).
On the basis of the position of stonehole E in the entrance to the enclosure, it was initially considered that this may be part of the phase 1 Monument, however analysis of the two results from this feature produces an estimated date of construction of 2480-2200 cal BC, placing it firmly within phase 3 (see probability distributions).
Bluestones: Material for dating from these settings is very limited – there are no reliable determinations at all from the Q and R Holes (rejected results), which is unfortunate as these are stratigraphically the earliest stone settings.
Two samples were analysed from the Bluestone Circle and one from the Bluestone Horseshoe (photo). The only stratigraphic relationship between these settings and other dated parts of the Monument are that they must be contemporary or later than the Sarsen Trilithons, and the Circle must be earlier than the Q Holes.
Here are the rejected results: Sample: S64.49, context 3813, submitted by M Allen on 11 March 1994, Material: animal bone, immature pig humerus (D Serjeantson), Initial comment: from a Q Hole; noted as `in fill near top of fill’. These holes were backfilled after the bluestones were removed, and so the sample is associated with their backfilling. Although the specific Q Hole from which this sample came cannot be identified, Prof. Atkinson’s attribution should be trusted. Calibrated date range: 2460-2040 cal BC (95% confidence)
Archaeological comment (M Allen): if the stratigraphic information that the Q Holes must be earlier than the Sarsen Circle and the Bluestone Circle is included in the mathematical model of phase 3, then the model is statistically inconsistent at more than 95% confidence. Thus either this result is anomalous or the three dates from the Sarsen Circle and Bluestone Circle are all from residual material. Re-examination of the archive did not produce any further information relating to the context of this sample, and so we suggest that the dated item may in fact have come from a feature which was wrongly described as a Q Hole by Prof. Atkinson.
Analysis of the results provides best estimates for the date of construction of the Bluestone Circle of 2280-2030 cal BC, and of 2270-1930 cal BC for the construction of the Bluestone Horseshoe (see probability distributions). [Dating Stonehenge]
Now, what are we to make of this? We have results we don’t like, occasionally, and we reject them. And we have assumptions that the more primitive parts of the structure were the earliest, because, of course, these were howling savages doing all this.
The most widely-used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. At the same time, the most widely-used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. In this “circular dating” method, all ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved. Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens — not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination.
The problem with all radiometric “clocks” is that their accuracy critically depends on several starting assumptions which are largely unknowable. To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen’s existence. Second, one must be certain that there were no daughter isotopes in the beginning. Third, one must be certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed from the specimen. And fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric “dates” (to say nothing of “rejected” dates) found in the literature.
One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely-divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years “older” than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) have been “dated” by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years. It’s really no wonder that all of the laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age” of the strata from which the samples were taken — this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore.
Nevertheless, Picknett and Prince have stated that Stonehenge is “reliably dated to 3000 to 2500 B.C.” is clearly a lack of sufficient research.
It was also once, confidently assumed that the legends of Troy were merely myths.
Picknett and Prince: The [Cassiopaeans state that the] dominant gas in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn is ammonia: Both are 99 per cent hydrogen and helium. Jupiter has a tiny amount (a fraction of one per cent) of ammonia.
Laura: Again, I am perfectly astonished at such bold statements of fact. At one time, I had a very high opinion of the work of both of these individuals, having copies of their books well-thumbed on my shelves. However, with this kind of research, I am afraid that I will have to re-form my estimation. How much of their total body of work is composed of such assumptions?
P & P confidently state that the composition of both Saturn and Jupiter are “99 per cent hydrogen and helium.”
First of all, when astronomers speak about the composition of the entire planet, they say “It is believed that ….”, and then, sometimes they give the reasons why they believe so, and sometimes not. Second, composition of the entire planet is different from composition of the atmosphere. Third, composition of the upper regions of the atmosphere can be completely different than composition of the lower regions. Fourth, concerning “expert opinions” on the composition if planets, here is a selection. Spin the bottle and pick one:
Opinion 1 Jupiter, on the other hand, may well be fluid throughout, although it could have a small solid core (say up to 15 times the mass of Earth!) of heavier elements such as iron and silicon extending out to perhaps 15% of its radius.
Opinion 2 4% of the planet’s mass is in a rocky inner core.
Opinion 3. The core of a planet is its central, spherical portion. It can be divided in two regions: the inner region is made of a mixture of nickel, iron, and sulphur, while the external portion is made of silicates. The composition of Jupiter’s core resembles the composition of Earth as a whole.
Opinion 4: Jupiter has rapid rotation and a large metallic hydrogen core
Opinion 5: At the center of the planet may be a core of rocky material massing around 10 to 15 times that of Earth.
Opinion 6: It is believed that Jupiter has a small rocky core but is mostly a giant ball of liquid hydrogen and gases.
Opinion 7: According to a theory formulated in 1958, the interior of Jupiter includes a large core of metallic hydrogen.
Opinion 8: A strong concentration of mass is located in the center, or core; it is thought to be made up of rock and ice contain compounds of metals, oxygen, silicon, and heavy volatile elements.
Now that you have made a selection, you can write a book and declaim your “expert opinion” to be the only correct one.
But, returning to the issue of the atmosphere of Jupiter, the temporary “facts,” as they are presently understood, are:(emphases, ours)
From: SolarViews “Galileo Probe Suggests Planetary Science Reappraisal”
Preliminary analysis of early data returned by NASA’s historic Galileo probe mission into Jupiter’s atmosphere has provided a series of startling discoveries for project scientists. (…) The amount of helium measured was about one-half of what was expected.(…) The composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere offered some surprises, according to project scientists. It contains significantly lower-than-expected levels of helium, neon, and certain heavy elements, such as carbon, oxygen and sulfur.(…) During the probe’s high-speed, atmospheric-entry phase, deceleration measurements high in the atmosphere showed atmospheric density to be much greater than expected. (…)Some indication of a high-level ammonia ice cloud was detected by the net flux radiometer. Evidence for a thin cloud which might be the postulated ammonium hydrosulfide cloud was provided by the nephelometer experiment.
The light blue region to the upper left of the Great Red Spot is the first ammonia ice cloud positively identified on Jupiter. This unusual cloud is produced by powerful updrafts of ammonia-laden air from deep within Jupiter’s atmosphere.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
GALILEO SEES AMMONIA ICE CLOUD ON JUPITER
An unusually pure cloud of young, fresh ammonia ice has been found on Jupiter by NASA’s Galileo spacecraft, the first discrete cloud of ammonia ice ever seen, though the planet is known to contain ammonia gas. The spot, first discovered during Galileo’s first orbit of Jupiter, may be in the cross-current of opposing paths of uncommonly strong wind, which pulls up ammonia gas from below, forming a large cloud of ammonia ice. Scientists have named the spot the Turbulent Wake Anomaly because it lies downstream from Jupiter’s Great Red Spot, a 300-year old storm two times as large as Earth. (…) Planetary scientists have known that Jupiter contains lots of ammonia gas, because the gas absorbs certain wavelengths of light. Scientists would then expect that the low temperatures in Jupiter’s outer atmosphere would cause the ammonia gas to condense into ice. Until now, localized ammonia ice clouds have never been seen, despite the cold temperatures and the abundance of ammonia.
Closer examinations by Galileo’s spectrometer instrument in May 1999 and May 2000 revealed that the spot was a heavy concentration of ammonia ice particles.
The cloud, which may be as much as 15 kilometers (over 9 miles) thick, is the first concentrated cloud of ammonia ice seen on Jupiter. Baines said that the ammonia cloud is located in an especially turbulent area, in the northwest corner of the Great Red Spot. A current flows around the Great Red Spot from east to west. Behind it, the current eddies and whirls, just as a rock in a stream creates whirlpools and whitewater behind it. Another powerful current moving in the opposite direction of the Great Red Spot’s current may intensify the Turbulent Wake Anomaly. This constant tumultuous motion pulls up ammonia from below the cloud level, creating fresh, dense clouds of ammonia ice. (…) There is a whole host of materials seen in the upper atmosphere that cannot be explained”
Laura: In other words: scientists are finding new surprising data that are not in agreement with their expectations based on standard mass spectromter estimates. One of the recent surprises, as we could see above, consisted of discovery of a 15 kilometers thick cloud of ammonia ice. The future can easily bring more surprises in this respect.
Did the Cassiopaeans know this? Their first mention of the importance of ammonia on Jupiter was made on December 9, 1995.
Picknett and Prince: The [Cassiopaeans say that the] catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs happened 27 million years ago, but ‘magnetic aberrations’ have distorted carbon dating results to make it appear that it was 65 million years ago: The idea that magnetic aberrations (whatever they are) can affect the carbon dating process shows that the Cassiopaeans have no idea of the principles of carbon dating – and don’t know that the 65 million year date doesn’t come from this process anyway, but from geological dating techniques!
Laura: Having already dealt with part of the “dating process” above, I won’t say much more here. The problem with geological dating techniques is that, first of all, they are arbitrary and do not take into account the many anomalies in geological strata. There are very often layers of rock in places they ought not to be, and human teeth found embedded in coal, and anomalies too numerous to mention.
The process of mountain formation is described in uniformitarian terms as “very slow and gradual.” Nevertheless, it is clear that igneous rock, already hard, had to become fluid in order to penetrate sedimentary rock or cover it. Uniformitarian experts do not have logical theories for what initiated this process, but they do clearly assert that it must have happened long before man appeared on the earth. So when skulls of early man are found in late deposits, or skulls of modern man are found together with bones of extinct animals in early deposits, difficult problems are presented. It has even happened, during mining operations, that a modern human skull has been found in the middle of a mountain, under a thick cover of basalt or granite. Human remains and artifacts have been found under great deposits of till and gravel, sometimes as much as a hundred feet.
The fact is, there is an enormous amount of data which suggests a different explanation for the Order of the Universe. The Uniformitarian-Monotheistic-Linear Hypothesis just isn’t accomodating the observations, nor is it able to accurately predict. There is a vast amount of “controversial” evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution as it is extrapolated. (And we are not proposing to underwrite fundamentalist creationists here, either!)
Most of this evidence has been systematically suppressed, ignored, or rejected, even if it is shown to be qualitatively and quantitatively equal to the “evidence” that is accepted and used to underpin the currently accepted views on human origins, including those apparently espoused by P & P.
In talking about suppression of evidence, it is important to note that we are not suggesting a “conspiracy” of scientists, consciously designed to to dupe the public. What we are talking about is the Monotheistic-Linear Matrix Control System which “programs” all of us from birth to have certain biases and beliefs about what is or is not “real,” and what can or can not be possible. This amounts to an ongoing process of social manipulation that results in knowledge filtration that has been going on for a very long time – thousands of years, in fact. And ultimately, it is the origins and ultimate objective of this Control System that we seek to discover and understand. Our lives and our future may depend on it.
Relative to this situation is the remark of P & P which demonstrates their apparent lack of knowledge – or filtration of evidence – relating to radiometric dating processes, which leads to their cavalier dismissal of the concept of the possibility of space-time aberrations, or other changes in the fundamental structure of Nature, affecting not only the carbon dating processes, but the physical reality itself. P & P are also, apparently, not even aware of the many developments in the fields upon which they are so boldly pronouncing their opinions:
However, since Ark is a physicist, we do keep up with the developments:
August 15, 2001
Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing,
a Study Finds
By JAMES GLANZ and DENNIS OVERBYE
An international team of astrophysicists has discovered that the basic laws of nature as understood today may be changing slightly as the universe ages, a surprising finding that could rewrite physics textbooks and challenge fundamental assumptions about the workings of the cosmos. […]
If confirmed, the finding could mean that other constants regarded as immutable, like the speed of light, might also have changed over the history of the cosmos. […]
Scientists who have examined the paper have not been able to find any obvious flaws. But because the consequences for science would be so far-reaching and because the differences from the expected measurements are so subtle, many scientists are expressing skepticism that the discovery will stand the test of time, and say they will wait for independent evidence before deciding whether the finding is true.
On the other hand, the finding would fit with some theorists’ new views of the universe, particularly the prediction that previously unknown dimensions might exist in the fabric of space.
Even scientists on the project have been deliberately cautious in presenting their result. Describing the implications of what his team observed, Dr. Webb said, “It’s possible that there is a time evolution of the laws of physics.” […]
Dr. Steinhardt said most theorists would have expected those changes to have occurred in the first seconds of the universe’s life and be virtually unobservable by astronomers today. Still, he pointed out that several years ago, other astronomers unexpectedly found that the present universe is apparently filled with a mysterious kind of energy that counteracts gravity on large scales. Perhaps the two effects are somehow related, Dr. Steinhardt said. […]
But a few physicists, like Dr. Jacob D. Bekenstein of Hebrew University in Israel, noted that some theories have long been predicting a change in some of nature’s apparent constants. Dr. Bekenstein called the findings “potentially revolutionary” and said he was inclined to believe them.
[Go Here for the Full Article]
And we note that, among those predicting changes in some of nature’s apparent constants are the Cassiopaeans. Of course the quoted article talks only about possible slow variations of a constant of nature, which, even if confirmed, will not have an immediate consequences for dating techniques based on radioactive decay process. But it gives an idea about possible and necessary changes in our understanding of fundamental processes of nature. Careful study of scientific publications will reveal that there there are indications, both of experimental and of theoretical nature, that radioactive decay rates and other apparently random processes can be influenced by external agents.
Example 1 Brian Josephson, the Nobel-prize winning physicist from the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, is attempting to elucidate the physical mechanisms behind such phenomena. These include the possibility that organisms can learn to bias the statistics through having a better understanding of its patterns than non-living matter, or that some “critical fluctuation” is involved.
Example 2 Should the random number generators of both systems significantly deviate from chance expectation, this could indicate a psychokinetic influence of the subjects on the radioactive source.
Example 3 The randomness of the RNG (Random Number Generators) is usually provided by radioactive decay, electronic noise or pseudo-random number sequence seeded with true random sources; the RNG’s are frequently monitored to ensure true random output in these studies. (…) Given these findings, Radin and Nelson concluded that “it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that under certain circumstances, consciousness interacts with random physical systems” (p. 1512, ).
Example 4 Careful examination of the “Pit” in the Great Pyramid of Khufu on the Giza plateau reveals that this subterranean chamber is not unfinished or abandoned as has been suggested by many observers. The walls and ceiling are smooth, and the floor, which at a glance looks rough and unstructured, actually is carved into a very pronounced and certainly meaningful form. A survey of the historical literature shows that only a few scholars, primarily those interested in esoteric material, have regarded the underground room as important and potentially revealing. Based on this literature and on direct observation, a speculative interpretation is developed to suggest that the sculpted floor may be a symbolic map of the Egyptian world of 4500 years ago. A FieldREG (Random Event Generator) recording of the sort that is often correlated with anomalous effects of consciousness displays a significant response in this chamber…
Again, I am more disappointed in the work of two of my favorite authors rather than being offended. Nevertheless, to make such comments as they have, in a public forum, without even being aware (obviously) of the totality of the material they are criticizing, its source, its context, and the context of the matters being discussed on these pages (not to mention by whom they are being discussed), is reprehensible demagoguery of the most insidious sort.
We find, in this, the idea that these authors are free and independent thinkers, proponents of remarkable new ideas, and thorough research may have to be revised. We even begin to wonder if they are not part of the “damage control” arm of the very “Stargate Conspiracy” itself? (Even if unconsciously.)
Regarding the remarks of the Cassiopaeans about such possible space-time aberrations, I will include here a brief excerpt from our soon to be released book,The Noah Syndrome: The Search for the Ark and The Holy Grail, noting, (even at the risk of offending some readers, that the author of these remarks IS a “qualified expert” in the subject):
Ark: My master’s degree thesis in theoretical physics was about the Friedmann Cosmological Model – the beginning and the end of time. The Friedmann model originated in the search for cosmological, highly symmetric solutions of field equations of general relativity.
According to this model our universe is like a balloon that has been inflated by the original breath of the Creator, which expands by inertia, and ultimately will start to collapse back if left all to itself. The Friedmann model has a very high symmetry: it has no distinguished point, and no distinguished direction. General relativity provides us with differential equations whose solutions allow us to relate the rate of expansion to the time variable. In general relativity the universe is all that exists – there is no external hyperspace that “contains” the universe; it is not needed.
It is interesting in retrospect that my thesis was not about solving differential equations of general relativity; instead it was about how the Friedmann solution can be obtained by solving a completely different problem: a problem in which the balloon picture is taken seriously. I showed that if, instead of Einstein’s general relativity, we take good old Newton’s theory of mechanics and gravitation, and if we apply it to a 3-dimensional balloon in a 4-dimensional space – we can get the Friedmann solution; but this is not the only possibility. We get other interesting solutions as well. But, what is even more interesting is that it is only natural, in this framework, to consider different balloon 3-D universes floating in a 4D space. With such a model, it is conceivable that, once in a while, some of these balloon universes come close enough to each other that such “crossings” result in cataclysmic event.
We need to know
what this whole show
is all about
before it’s out.
More precisely, [radiometric dating techniques] are based on the assumption that nothing “really exceptional” happened in the meantime. What I mean by “really exceptional” is this: an event theoretically possible, but whose mechanism is not yet understood in terms of the established paradigms. To give an example: a crossing of two different universes. This is theoretically possible, taking into account modern physical theories, but it is too speculative to discuss its “probability” and possible consequences.
Could such an event change radioactive decay data? Could it change the values of some fundamental physical constants? Yes it could. Is it possible that similar events have happened in the past? Yes, it is possible. How possible it is? We do not know. We do not know, in fact, what would be an exact meaning of ‘crossing of two different universes…’ An interesting question. Perhaps I will ask one of my students to look into it.
Picknett and Prince: We could go on. Like all such material, it is an insult to our individual and collective intelligence. Who needs it?
Laura: We apologize deeply for having wasted your time. Thankfully, it gave us an opportunity to bring your concerns, mode of research, and questions regarding your own work to the attention of our readers so that it becomes apparent who is insultiing who’s intelligence. As you say: “who needs it?”
Thus, in closing, let me just say that our theoretical outlook here is as Thomas Edison once said: genius is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. What is important about a theory is not its source – the Cassiopaeans – but its ability to account for observations.
We have the Cassiopaeans for that 10 percent. For the rest, we do our homework.
It would be a much nicer world if everyone did.