Revelations of an Elite Family Insinder

[Tefal]

Just followed the link and saw its on one of those completely and utterly mad places which think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, it's surely just got to be a hobby for them, people who actually believe in this stuff can't exist

You see I have no problem with people believing one or two alternate theories/conspiracies if they have some sound logic. It's when people indiscriminately believes in every single one they come across that makes highly skeptical of them.

 

[TriedandTested]

he does base one of his theories on the myth that we only use 10% of our brains, so I dunno..

Again, he should be entitled to believe that with out being ripped in to.

Also, on another note, at least this thread got people thinking, questioning and learning. That's more than 99% of the threads in GD can manage.

 

[Strife212]

You see I have no problem with people believing one or two alternate theories/conspiracies if they have some sound logic. It's when people indiscriminately believes in every single one they come across that makes highly skeptical of them.

Exactly

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

He also believes in sentient reptiles on earth.

Such as the Queen. The guy who wrote the confesions must be a reptile as well

 

[NokkonWud]

I really enjoyed that, I certainly believe in areas spoken about in the post in regards to the way things are run, he's clearly a very educated person.

It certainly makes a change from the 'Spec Me' threads.

 

[Meloco]

I also enjoyed reading this topic. A lot of what he said in the answers I already had some sort of belief in, however, I feel like he was nothing other than a normal human just with a little more insight perhaps into the world around him. I would agree at what I thought was the point of his Q/A session. Knowledge is power, take a look at the world around you and don't always assume things, most of the time things have an "underground" meaning and possibly lead to something new. But, as revealed it was written by a "normal" man and in any sense a good insight into how too much knowledge can possibly send you a little bit over the edge. As far as I can tell at the moment, life is happening, live it as you want. The guy insinuated nothing much has changed as far as humans are concerned and it probably never will.

 

[manveruppd]

CBS tbh.

*n

Oh, didn't know he posted on that forum too!

In all seriousness, though I didn't read it all I enjoyed the part I got through despite the fact that I don't believe a word of it - it was like your typical conspiracy theory novel like Foucault's Pendulum or Illuminatus blended with Lovecraftian Chthulhu Mythos!

 

[Mr_White]

I actually took the time to read it all, and thank you for posting it.

Although largely vague and he made the fatal of error of basically saying "I know, but I don't want to tell you"

Funny that, there are never any answers.

However, there are "Answers", as he put them, that can't be disproven anymore than any religion, and certain "Answers" set a good example to lead your life by, he certainly paints a brighter and more meaningful picture of existence than religion does.

He's just a decent writer with certain elements that make no less sense than any other religion, more so in some cases.

However, I liked this part the most:

Do not join "secret societies", never, whatever the circumstances are.
Also no religions, including the new age, do not accept human gurus/prophets/priests/rabbis/imams/popes/fortunetellers/"mediums"/dalai lamas/politicians/authors/scientists/"celebrities"/parents/etc. as legitimate authority on Divine matters....on other matters it is your choice to accept or decline, however accept the consequence.
You only need yourself and the Divine, no intervention by others in bodies....again, no intervention by anybody

That's something I would like to life by, if there is a higher being, it's certainly not going to be one of the several created and regulated by humans.

An interesting and thought provoking read, it doesn't have to be real to do that.

A shame GD posters felt the need to troll it, many without reading it.

 

[Mr^B]

So you're saying "I am not a slave" then?

No, I'm not saying that, that's the point.

I think that I'm a slave to certain things, breathing, gravity, the wife. But I'm curious (given my statements) as to why I am a slave in the context of an elite ruling family, and if the word "slave" actually means anything constructive or meaningful in that context.

A slave who is free to go where he wants, do what he wants, for as long as he wants, isn't in fact a slave at all.

If a slave is defined as someone who is reliant on something outside of his control, then inherently, we are indeed ALL slaves, so none of us are slaves - it just becomes a ubiquitous background fact (like gravity) that eventually you forget is there.

On a different tack, if "slave" means "someone dependent on someone else for something", then this ruling elite are slaves to the people they allegedly make do all the work for their benefit.

Naah, I just don't buy it, sorry.

And as for the OPs long list of ramblings, if you didn't realise it you can pick up most of the opinions and thoughts by reading any book on theology and any book by Timothy Leary...it's not exactly new, and I don't think it's been very well done - if Ghandi or Jesus or Mohammed or any other prophet spoke like that we wouldn't know who they are. The GENIUS of those prophets is not only to introduce new ideas and concepts, they do so in a way that is non-confrontational, and they tend to use allegories which actually work, rather than ones that don't. The trouble with allegories is that you need some intelligence and creativity, coupled with good story-telling skills - something the guy quoted in the OP most certainly does NOT have.

...additionally I don't feel the value of a thread should be judged by its level of readership and reader contribution, after all is The Mail a better paper than The Times because more people read it and write letters to it?

 

[D.P.]

he does base one of his theories on the myth that we only use 10% of our brains, so I dunno..

I think the fact is that Magik uses only 10% of his brain, while the rest of us happily use 100%

 

[Surfer]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17879493



What a pathetic show tbh, I post something I thought was genuinely interesting over the typical junk on the forums and thats the kind of response you get, I suppose I should know better really how some on the forums can be so petty and small minded at times, oh and the cheek of someone to call me the troll for posting an alternate theory on something, certainly felt he and others were trolling with their comments, also nothing the mod listed was reasonable in the slightest, I suppose its easier to ridicule and stop discussion than give it a fair chance when it goes against current views, hmm that sounds familiar...

regardless of what you posted you have to remember orthodox science has its own little box and people are very adamant in keeping certain phenomena out of that little box (because it upsets their "box" worldview)

Unfortunately a lot of people use it as a crutch much like religion.

Science in a nutshell.. a little kid who doesnt know what the heck is going on...traps a butterfly in a bottle then experiments on it to see what happens. Lets trap reality in a bottle so we can "discover" everything about it. Blunt and crude but true.

Of course it isnt the whole story far from it. Needs to be a new method for how we accumulate knowledge. One which is more inclusive of esoteric phenomena...

 

[Outcast]

I enjoyed the read.

I've always thought "why do I need to go to Church when I already have a hotlink to "The Host with the Most". (It's called prayer).

I guess that makes me a "Whack-Job"

lol

 

[Duff-Man]

Science in a nutshell.. a little kid who doesnt know what the heck is going on...traps a butterfly in a bottle then experiments on it to see what happens. Lets trap reality in a bottle so we can "discover" everything about it. Blunt and crude but true.

To extend your analogy, the strength of science is that it recognises its own limitations (ie that it doesn't know 'what the hell is going on'), and that it is only an iterative improvement towards a greater understanding. Religion, on the other hand, claims to explain all through a single concept, which can never evlove or improve itself.

Besides, scientific reasoning has provided us with countless improvements through technology, medicine, finance etc etc. With its 'ever improving' ethos it will continue to do so. Religion has given us what, exactly?

Pragmatism > idealism.

 

[Radiation]

No you posted junk that was disproved quickly, and had been long long ago.

What you see as people being petty and small-minded is people seeing it for the nonsense it is. The reason the theory you posted about didn't convert lots of people is because it's a load of tripe.

As per usual they miss the point, i posted something interesting with some evidence that goes against current views and it gets the kind of reaction you would expect from the church in the dark ages, oh and look at the mob mentality showing on ocuk, big surprise there, i bet if the first few posts were reasonable many that followed would have been too but like a bunch of sheep we get almost everyone acting pathetic in some way afterwards, it's not just what i think, it is what it is!

I posted it hoping to get some decent discussion whether its liked or not, there is evidence there but it wasn't the earth growing theory I was most interested in because sure I can see how that’s far fetched even though its convincingly shown to work, I was more interested in some of the stuff brought up in the radio talk which no one bothered to respond to as they were having too much fun being petty and small minded.

One of the points was on how its been found by scientists that matter is created and instantly destroyed all the time in what appears to be empty space but as you probably know space is never quite empty of energy and stuff, quite amazing really.

Could this temporary matter be partly the cause of the missing dark matter and or the repulsive force of dark energy?

People are quick to ridicule and debase the person than discuss what he puts forward, hardly reasoned and at the end of the day it just shows the kind of individual behind the keyboard.

Why are you surprised?

Im more surprised it was closed unfairly.

I enjoyed reading it, Radiation. A good post. I think if something gets posted that requires a little thought a number people just dismiss it and trash the thread and it soon goes off topic.

The links about the Earth growing; I found that VERY interesting.

Thanks, good to know some may have taken it the right way, I only meant it to be an interesting thought provoking collection of evidence to consider, I just wish people would take pieces to discuss instead and get over their initial reaction to the whole thing, anyway i doubt most would have bothered to listen to the radio talk which contained all the good stuff.

 

[Arjun806]

tl;dr

 

[Duff-Man]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17879493



What a pathetic show tbh, I post something I thought was genuinely interesting over the typical junk on the forums and thats the kind of response you get, I suppose I should know better really how some on the forums can be so petty and small minded at times, oh and the cheek of someone to call me the troll for posting an alternate theory on something

You posted a theory which has no empirical evidence, and is in direct contradiction of scientific theories which have observable, quantifiable validations (eg general relativity). The physics behind such a claim were formulated *just to explain the phenomena he believes is true*.

I have to ask - what exactly did you expect? Rubbish in = rubbish out.

 

[Duff-Man]

One of the points was on how its been found by scientists that matter is created and instantly destroyed all the time in what appears to be empty space but as you probably know space is never quite empty of energy and stuff, quite amazing really.

People are quick to ridicule and debase the person than discuss what he puts forward, hardly reasoned and at the end of the day it just shows the kind of individual behind the keyboard.

Read my post where I explain in simple terms why particle-antiparticle pair formulation is not the same as matter creation. One is a process with zero net energy change, while the other process consumes massive, massive amounts of energy.

You cannot take a well defined and observable principle and apply it outside its definition. To do so is not even vaguely scientific - it's pure fantasy and nothing more.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

As per usual they miss the point, i posted something interesting with some evidence that goes against current views and it gets the kind of reaction you would expect from the church in the dark ages, oh and look at the mob mentality showing on ocuk, big surprise there, i bet if the first few posts were reasonable many that followed would have been too but like a bunch of sheep we get almost everyone acting pathetic in some way afterwards, it's not just what i think, it is what it is!

If you were after a decent discussion you should have posted it in SC instead, then people would have taken the time to give their reasoned objections about how the guy's theory has little evidence to back it, and in order to work as a theory requires a paradigmn shift in physics theory away from the current theory that has a vast wealth of evidence for it.

As it was you posted it in GD with little explanation, so I responded how the unofficial law of GD states I must; with a captioned picture of a spastic.

 

[Surfer]

To extend your analogy, the strength of science is that it recognises its own limitations

Yep - within the box its very very good. But it interprets data from outside the box with its own tools. In other words if an unexplained phenomena contradicted certain long-held scientific beliefs then what usually happens is that it is explained in a way which doesnt radically change those beliefs so as to preserve the entire status quo. What they could do is design new tools to observe/measure the unexplained phenomena which is more fitting and appropriate for that which is being studied. But it might mean chucking out their toolbox entirely.

Basically when observing something. Its not about restricting the phenomena to a laboratory controlled environment conditions. (not saying this hasnt yielded results because it obviously has) I'm just saying they need to develop another way of studying phenomena which brings us closer to the truth. You only get out of it what you put in. If by studying something in a certain way you miss out on important aspects of the truth of that phenomena then dont you think its important to find a way which preserves as much as possible of the phenomena in its natural state.

Besides, scientific reasoning has provided us with countless improvements through technology, medicine, finance etc etc. With its 'ever improving' ethos it will continue to do so. Religion has given us what, exactly?

Dont really have a lot of time for religion myself. Someone wants to believe in fairies fine let them muck about at the end of their garden. As long as it doesnt infringe upon anyone else.

There is no doubt that because of science technology has moved forward in leaps and bounds even from 50 years ago. But have they improved how we interact with each other? Sure we live longer but do we live better? (dont mean as living in better conditions)

What about the future? What improvements do you think we will see in the next 50 years? Do these improvements improve us as a species? Do they make as more socially responsible/accountable for each other? Do they solve world hunger? famine? Or is it an advancement which has a very large consumer price tag attached to it?

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Yep - within the box its very very good. But it interprets data from outside the box with its own tools. In other words if an unexplained phenomena contradicted certain long-held scientific beliefs then what usually happens is that it is explained in a way which doesnt radically change those beliefs so as to preserve the entire status quo. What they could do is design new tools to observe/measure the unexplained phenomena which is more fitting and appropriate for that which is being studied. But it might mean chucking out their toolbox entirely.

It's fairly standard for a given scientific theory to fail to acount for all data, which could be because the theory is incorrect, or not applicable to the data for some reason. It is really only when the anomalies become particularly troublesome and undermine a key aspect of the current normal theory that there's a pressing need to develop a new theory that incorporates the data better.

Thomas Kuhn gives a very good explanation in "The structure of Scientific Revolutions" - preview here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ig=ylYYsi2nQRGOcIfEywQ8L09AmLw&hl=en#PPA68,M1"]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ig=ylYYsi2nQRGOcIfEywQ8L09AmLw&hl=en#PPA68,M1

Basically when observing something. Its not about restricting the phenomena to a laboratory controlled environment conditions. (not saying this hasnt yielded results because it obviously has) I'm just saying they need to develop another way of studying phenomena which brings us closer to the truth. You only get out of it what you put in. If by studying something in a certain way you miss out on important aspects of the truth of that phenomena then dont you think its important to find a way which preserves as much as possible of the phenomena in its natural state.

Not quite sure what you're getting at regarding not studying phenomena in laboratory controlled conditions. Controlling the factors thought to be responsible is fundamental to scientific investigation because it allows you to delineate the effects of each variable, and so get closer to the 'truth' with a more accurate explanation of observed data.