Additional information, images, videos & links from LOR on June 15, 2024.
As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research, come to by following mainstream clues.
I will lay all my cards on the table and admit that this question has been brewing in the back of my head for years.
Furthermore, I will admit the question first arose due to their treatment of me.
Given the amazing nuggets I have discovered in their own fields, it always seemed to me they would embrace me as their greatest ally.
Instead, they have ignored me or attacked me.
I have been told they didn't attempt an alliance for many reasons, including my early refusal to bow properly to their founders like Talbott and Thornhill, my inability to agree with them on everything, and my promotion of theories outside their bounds, such as pi=4 and many others.
Trumping all that was the fact that I was finding bigger nuggets in their fields than they were, which is always hard to come to terms with, in a competitive world.
Seeing these reasons as possible, I dropped the question.
I like to work alone and don't really require allies, so the question wasn't worth losing sleep over.
However, I recently returned to the question, and here is why.
I was watching some videos on YouTube of Stephen Crothers, when I noticed a Thunderbolts video in the sidebar called “Michael Shermer meets the Electric Universe”.
David Talbot (born September 22, 1951) is an American journalist, author, activist and independent historian. Talbot is known for his books about the "hidden history" of U.S. power and the liberal movements to change America, as well as his public advocacy. He was also the founder and former editor-in-chief of the early web magazine Salon.
Talbott doesn't stray too far off the beam in the video, but the title alone is enough to make us ask the question in my title.
Why would the EU invite Michael Shermer to their 2015 conference and buddy up to him in sessions?
Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954) is an American science writer, historian of science, executive director of The Skeptics Society, and founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, a publication focused on investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The author of over a dozen books, Shermer is known for engaging in debates on pseudoscience and religion in which he emphasizes scientific skepticism.
Just study the photo above, and all the smiling faces.
If it doesn't make you a bit sick, you aren't fully awake.
Not only was Shermer invited to attend, but he was also paid to speak.
What could Shermer possibly have to say that any EU attendee would wish to hear?
As it turned out, nothing.
Not to beat around the bush, Shermer is scum.
He is an obvious Intelligence asset placed in these “skeptical societies” to blackwash the truth, spread disinfo, and protect his masters at the top of various fields.
His work at Scientific American and other places is so far from scientific it isn't even worth addressing.
He should be shunned by all honest people.
He proved that by doing his normal subcollegiate hatchet job on the Thunderbolts for Scientific American soon after the conference.
Since that could have been predicted, we have to ask who invited him and why?
From this alone, we can tell that either:
1) The EU has been infiltrated, and that the mole is someone near the top, having the power to invite Shermer
2) The EU has been controlled opposition from the beginning.
You might prefer:
1)
but after doing more research, I have bad news for you.
The answer is definitely
2)
Why?
Many reasons, but we will only have to look at only a few to decide the question.
As is known, EU has been connected to Immanuel Velikovsky since the beginning.
Immanuel Velikovsky at the 1974 American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference in San Francisco
580 KB
View full-sizeDownload
Immanuel Velikovsky (/ˌvɛliˈkɒfski/; Russian: Иммануи́л Велико́вский, IPA: [ɪmənʊˈil vʲɪlʲɪˈkofskʲɪj]; 10 June [O.S. 29 May] 1895 – 17 November 1979) was a Russian American psychoanalyst, writer, and catastrophist. He is the author of several books offering pseudohistorical interpretations of ancient history, including the U.S. bestseller Worlds in Collision published in 1950. Velikovsky's work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience and has been used as an example of the demarcation problem.
Velikovsky was still alive in the 1970s when Talbot and Thornhill started all this.
They actually spent time with him.
Although I have read Velikovsky and at one time took him semi-seriously, I have come to realize he has red flags all over him.
But none of these warning signs really lit up until I wrote my recent paper on Halton Arp.
Halton Christian "Chip" Arp (March 21, 1927 – December 28, 2013) was an American astronomer. He is remembered for his 1966 book Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which catalogued unusual looking galaxies and presented their images.
While living in Berlin, Velikovsky edited and published the Scripta Universitatis atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum, and he worked with Einstein, who wrote the volume on physics and mathematics.
Velikovsky then lived in Palestine for 15 years (up to 1939) working as a psychiatrist.
He was a second-generation student of Freud, studying directly under Freud's pupil Wilhelm Stekel in Vienna.
Although we are later told Velikovsky was persona non grata in academia, he nonetheless lived in Princeton from 1952, just off-campus.
Also curious is that this outsider who was supposedly shunned by the mainstream had his first book on these topics published by Macmillan, one of the top mainstream publishers.
He got very positive reviews in 1950 in Harper's and Reader's Digest!
As part of what now looks like a manufactured controversy, astronomer Harlow Shapley demanded Macmillan drop Velikovsky, but— strangely—the book was simply transferred to Doubleday, which was even larger than Macmillan.
By 1947, Doubleday was the largest imprint in the world, selling 30 million books a year.
Is this how outsiders are normally treated?
As a real outsider, I can tell you it is not.
He was invited to lecture to record crowds at universities across the US. Again, is that how it normally works?
No.
As usual, we are being sold a contradiction:
one moment Velikovsky is persona non grata in academia and the next he is lecturing to record crowds at the universities.
It can't be both ways, since academia IS the universities.
They are one and the same.
This continued into the 1970s, when the CBC in Canada aired a one-hour special on Velikovsky and the BBC created their own half-hour documentary.
For an alleged outsider and outcast, he seems to have gotten a lot of mainstream promotion, didn't he?
Ask yourself why Sagan would take the time to mention Velikovsky at all.
We can be sure that Sagan sent many new readers to Velikovsky to see what all the fuss was about.
In fact, that is how I got to Velikovsky.
I read Broca's Brain and The Dragons of Eden in high school (late 1970s) and got to Velikovsky that way.
So, it looks as if Velikovsky—like Graham Hancock now and Ignatius Donnelly back in the 1880s— was no threat to the establishment, since he was one of them.
All were and are promoted to serve up popular alternative theories that seem to question the establishment while doing them no real harm and threatening their hegemony in no real way.
These theories are long on colorful historical examples, but never get around to addressing any specific problems.
No one ever takes the time to slog through mainstream equations like I have, for instance, showing the specific errors and correcting them line by line.
Instead, we have airy proposals which—although sometimes containing interesting ideas—never go anywhere.
The proposals stay in the same state for decades, and no one in any century ever gets around to proving them or disproving them.
That by itself is very curious.
But you may ask, why would anyone need to “control the opposition”, and why would they do it by promoting Velikovsky?
For the same reason they create and promote any other opposition:
to prevent you from discovering any truth.
As we have seen in my papers on both sites, the truth was classified a long time ago as something too dangerous for normal people.
Therefore, they create a mainstream version of everything which is a believable fiction, and pound it into you from the crib.
But they know that some people will gag on this fiction, eventually seeing through it.
So, they have to create a second fiction for these people.
To do this, they test the wind, to see exactly what people aren't buying.
They then create a second story, and in the first chapters of that story they tell you what you already know:
the upper levels of the mainstream are composed of a bunch of liars and frauds, and textbook physics is little more than an embarrassing edifice of fudged math and bad theory.
Using real plasma physics as ballast, they then cobble together an electric universe replacement for the old tinkertoy gravity model, and you feel like you have made some progress.
But your progress is illusory, because the Thunderbolts were created to fail.
Not only are their theories shallow and extremely limited, but they are purposely created to self-destruct upon any serious reading.
Compared to me, these guys are one-trick ponies, who keep publishing the same ten sentences over and over.
In 40 years, they haven't solved a single actual problem.
Conversely, in less than half the time, I have solved hundreds of major problems in physics back to the time of Euclid.
While these bozos are wasting their time in conferences and chatrooms and YouTube videos, I am solving new problems, doing all the math and theory from the ground up.
If you don't like the way that sounds, tough.
That is the way it is, and you are going to have to get used to it.
Let's just go through a short list, as proof of that assertion.
According to his bio he has been promoting Velikovsky since 1974, which is 44 years ago.
How is that a paying job?
You will say I have a BA in Philosophy and Latin, so how can I point the finger?
Well, I'm not pointing at that, I am pointing at the fact we know so little of these guys.
I have an extensive bio posted, and everyone knows that I support myself as a portrait artist.
Besides, I have not been promoting a spook like Velikovsky for 44 years.
I am completely independent.
I have mentioned Velikovsky a couple of times in passing, but I certainly don't bow to him in any way.
I do think there is evidence Venus came into the system late, explaining her odd numbers, but not in historical times.
The orbits are pretty well settled now, which they wouldn't be after just a few thousand years.
But I don't even wish to get into all that, since my readers know I am not interested in those questions—which is why I almost never refer to them.
A thousand other questions seem more pressing to me, and those are the questions I have written about.
These larger questions about earlier times in the Solar System or Galaxy can't even begin to be answered until we debug all our basic physics and math equations.
For the same reasons I refuse to be diverted into the first moments of the universe or the interior of a Black Hole, I also refuse to be diverted into this popular catastrophism.
Yes, these questions are somewhat sexier, which is why people can be diverted into them, but they are far squishier.
We simply don't have the data or tools to answer them, for the most part.
Using the naïve single-field celestial mechanics we had when I entered the fray in 2000, there was no hope of answering any question about earlier states of anything.
The field was a mess, composed mostly of bluster and fudge.
But back to the Thunderbolts.
Who is this guy Gary Schwartz (see photo under title)?
He also looks like a spook.
He graduated from Harvard and was the director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center for 12 years and is now the director of LACH at University of Arizona.
He is most famous for his work on parapsychology, including contacting the dead.
Among his research projects are Quantum Holographic Consciousness and Otherworldly Spiritual Consciousness.
He tests mediums and has been involved with the TV programs Crossing Over and Medium.
He is not a skeptic and promotes this stuff.
You will say we should keep an open mind about this, and I agree.
However, I find it very suspicious to see him on the dais at EU.
To me, he looks like a transparent continuation of the old Theosophy projects, and the Harvard psych projects of Tim Leary and Ram Dass.
French Medal of Honor Recipient Alfred de Grazia helping celebrate World War II Victory Day in France
1.25 MB
View full-sizeDownload
Alfred de Grazia (December 29, 1919 – July 13, 2014), born in Chicago, Illinois, was a political scientist and author. He developed techniques of computer-based social network analysis in the 1950s, developed new ideas about personal digital archives in the 1970s, and defended the catastrophism thesis of Immanuel Velikovsky.
To me that implies he was Jewish, unless you want to argue he was a Muslim or a Hindu.
With a name like Shermer?
And are Talbott and Thornhill also Jewish?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Finding Psychological Operations involved here reminds me that—amazingly—Thunderbolts (EU in its current incarnation) happened to arrive on the scene at the same time I did.
They arose in 2005, at the very time I was first publishing on tides—giving them to charge instead of gravity—and the orbital ellipse—also including charge there.
Previously, I had published big papers on:
the calculus
orbital dynamics
Relativity
I had already made a name for myself at Walter Babin's site and had started my own website.
In 2010 I published my first book and in 2011 my second.
The Thunderbolts held their first conference the next year.
Coincidence?
Until now, I would have said so.
Now, I no longer believe in coincidences.
But even without that, the 2015 fiasco with Michael Shermer is all the proof you should ever need that the Thunderbolts were created to fail.
I knew as soon as I saw that video up on YouTube.
The Thunderbolts were set up to lose:
not to me but to the mainstream.
They are there to soak up dissatisfaction with legacy physics and to misdirect it into useless channels and responses.
They pull you into their alliances and then cut your feet out from under you.
After Scientific American thoroughly eviscerates you and everything you stand for, it is hoped you will give up and slouch back to the mainstream.
After the newspapers and magazines refuse to report on the proceedings of your 40th national conference in a row—since it hasn't achieved anything worth reporting—it is hoped you will slouch back to the comfort of academic physics, holding your balls in your hands.
Critics have claimed that my responses to the mainstream are too strong, turning off regular folks.
But these critics are also planted.
It isn't true.
Compared to what the mainstream deserves, even my responses are far too tepid.
And compared to me, the responses of the Thunderbolts look like cold oatmeal.
This is no accident.
That is what controlled opposition always looks like, since it was created specifically to stall the revolution.
I doubt they saw me personally, but they knew someone like me would come along eventually.
It has happened before and it will happen again, and they have schemes pre-manufactured to deal with it.
They have cadres of agents specifically trained to deal with outbreaks of real science or any other truth, and since my arrival on the scene all the horns have blown, and we have gone to DEFCON1.
All the psychological units worldwide have suited up, painted on camouflage, and been helicoptered in.
The Thunderbolts are just a small part of the worldwide response.
You may think I am joking, but just search on my name online and witness the number of ridiculous and pathetic psyops being run against me, from the Thunderbolts forums to Cluesforums to Ex Falso to RatWiki to Blindlight to Weisbecker and on and on and on.
Most people would wilt under all that, but I just laugh it off.
I see it as a sign of my success, which it is.
To see how the mainstream is losing, and to prove I am doing what the Thunderbolts are only pretending to do, I send you here, to remind you of what is really going on.
This is what the mainstream doesn't want you to know.
My science papers are not only outperforming anything the Thunderbolts have ever published, but they are also outperforming the mainstream university sites.
On many topics, they are outperforming the encyclopedia sites themselves.
Despite the fact that the numbers of many mainstream sites are padded using hidden links (see my outing of Facebook's fake numbers on my other site), on many topics my papers are outranking Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica or ranking just below them.
This is unprecedented and is so astonishing it should be frontpage news.
But don't expect to read about it anywhere but here, since you won't.
It looks like to me that Shermer's attacks on him were no accident.
Crothers is the only real thing at the EU conferences, and I think he is being blackwashed and surrounded by nonsense on purpose.
These people claiming to be his friends are really his enemies.
I should know, since I have found myself in similar situations, and have had to face the awful truth.
In his reply to Shermer, Crothers mentions that both Shermer and 't Hooft have used the same ad hom against him, accusing him of being “a self-taught” physicist (RatWiki also uses this slur against Crothers, calling him “a part-time amateur scientist”).
Since Crothers worked on his PhD in physics and has since done more real physics than all these people combined, this is provably false.
Crothers joked that Shermer and 't Hooft must have some sort of telepathy, using exactly the same false slur against him.
No, Stephen, it is actually deeper than that, and is no joke.
All these people are using the same shallow slurs because they are reading from the same scripts.
Also strange is that Shermer should use that slur against Crothers but not against Thornhill or Talbott—both of whom spent less time in academia than Crothers.
Crothers should separate himself from these EU people as soon and as thoroughly as possible, since they will just drag him down.
That is why they were created.
They would love to drag me down as well, but that PSYOP isn't working.
So far it has done nothing but backfire. * In the same time, I have published another 500 articles on my art/politics site, making around 1000 articles comprising some 20,000 pages of new research.
