Pandora's Noah's Ark Box

Part I – The Basic Problems

Varying Kinds Of UAV’s For Various Altitudes, Orbital And Space Traverse.

People’s body types - that is, human people’s bodies – are not all suitable or even capable of using the kinds of vehicles that are around right now, whether those vehicles are held in secret units inside US, Russian, and Japanese Military Forces, or whether they are from outside of this planet and being ‘manned’ and operated by extraterrestrial people, some of whom are human/alien hybrids.

Further, even those whose basic body type is potentially capable of entering and surviving especially the relative ‘low speed’ Earth atmosphere, are required to undergo extensive training to cope with the forces which will be in effect.

ET aliens are somatic humanoids - that is, their physiology is fundamentally the same as that of humans, except for adaptive variances due to extended phases of some of them being situated in low-gravity places, such as at Lagrangian points in space, rather than on planetary objects possessing some meaningful gravity. In these low-gravity space environments, the ET aliens there are mostly all females, with only some males there but whose outward appearance is slightly feminine; this is due to estrogen being increased to support 'the mass of mineral per volume of bone,' as well as low levels of Vitamin D.

Typically, those human-alien hybrids that have been 'replaced' back on Earth as young children or babies, exhibit a distinct tendency to 'test' the new obtaining gravity conditions by jumping or bouncing a lot and also to require deep pressure through tugging and pulling - this is an instinctive mechanism to take advantage of the better prospects for bone density development and growth.

But really this particular whole discussion here now, is aimed at giving some outlined description on one of the more benign voluntary means for those 'ordinary normal' adult human individuals who would not be able to survive the high speeds and massive G-forces in atmosphere-to-low-Earth-orbit vehicles - to enable a form of communication with ET's.

This process has been available to certain individuals emanating from the Russell Targ originated body of research, and also via the private Monroe Institute ‘Gateway’ program that adopted some of the original US Military-funded research on ET’s and adapted that to its own private research endeavours. Later on, a Russian scientist Thomas R. Prevenslik also independently pioneered certain related hypotheses in a public manner, however he effectively became highly reclusive and did not publish further. Well-known IBM and one-time US Military research grant recipient Luca Turin also has spoken on very closely related matters to do with AI and brain mechanisms to do with actual human consciousness, and all of these sources are recommended for interested people to read concerning the general area of science and current understandings involved.

Some Background You Do Need To Know.

Here is where the ‘tire meets to road,’ so to speak. Once any serious information stream gets into real and genuine matters dealing with real and practical accessing of otherwise highly speculative subjects such as encountering ET aliens and their technologies and communications systems, for instance, the whole area of ‘Cosmology’ comes into focus – and as a species and in the sense of a broad generic ‘human culture’ on this planet, we have a long history of philosophical discussion about the ‘Cosmological Argument.’

The so-called ‘Cosmological Argument’ in brief, is simply the idea that there is a God, who is the Creator of the Universe. This argument is generally-speaking attributed in the popular sense, first to Thomas Aquinas – who posited that ‘since (all) things were created, there had to have been a First Cause, a Creator (of them).’

However he misquoted from several significant but very difficult both to translate as well as to understand, Greek texts, one of which is Plato’s Timaeus, which does not say that ‘since all things were created...’ ...what the text clearly says is seemingly a tautology, namely, that ’of those things that were created, there was necessarily a Creator.′ And from thence it is more the character and personality of said putative ‘Creator’ that is adduced from things that are readily seen, rather than the presenting of logical argument or proofs for the existence of a Creator God. Secondly, the text goes on to explain how that main statement is meant to be understood: all things which form the standard sine curve of material existence (small to rising peak to fall-off, to change or termination), do so by means of orderly numbers, and that therefore, they were ‘made possible’ at all by the existence of such a thing as ‘orderly numbers;’ however, total Eternity itself – an absolute form of existential reality, not subject to sine curve processes and change – rested in unity.

Now these concepts, albeit complex, are radically different to the way the whole entire academic world has treated any concept that there is a Divinity, an ‘Intelligence’ that is somehow far superior to that of mortal human beings, as merely a matter of the ‘Cosmological Argument’ by so-called ‘First Cause’ reasoning, most particularly as they say it was presented by ancient Greek philosophers – which it was in fact not.

And why that is itself an important thing to realise (that this false antithesis has been going on for literally thousands of years), is because it has opened the door-way to the contrary position that there is no Divinity at all, and that there could be other rational explanations for material existence, such as, for example, the Big Bang theory and various other theories seeking to explain and comprehend energy entropy throughout the material Universe as we may observe such.

But as you can see, the initial proposition was itself a false one, and so its counter-argument is moot.

In all of the ancient texts such as those of which we have only fragments, like those of Parmenides or Pythagoras, but certainly in more complete forms in the works of Plato -, the actual proposition is that there exists Chaos, and nothing(ness) as well as number and orderly numbers, and a very complex philosophical idea about ‘Unity’ or that is to say the nature of a Perfect (Complete) holistic form of a very special kind of ‘Unity.’

Why This Is Also, Say, Politically Important Today.

Some of you will have heard of the academic identities – Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos.

Karl Popper’s recent engagement (as far as his ideas go) with present-day society, is that he is someone whose ideas informed many academic and global corporate institutions, and he is a key figure in the ideas of George Soros, according to Soros’ own statements.

Popper coined the now common phrase ‘pseudo-science’ and he established the widely-used notion that a scientific fact or hypothesis, was only one which could be subjected to ‘falsification’ and its ‘truth’ (or relative truth) rested on whether it was indeed able to be falsified, and in so doing, he erased many areas of inquiry, for instance, including the whole area of generally psychology, as authentically a ‘scientific one...’

Popper though, was a sophist and probably one of the most devastating and sinister ones that ever plied his trade in the world, because he cleverly shifted a particular crucial science goal-post by the use of Soritetic fallacy (IE the fallacy of Sorites). So much so in fact, has Popper’s opinions and clever mischief infected the entire academic world of modern philosophy, that if you ‘Google Search’ Sorites, you will mostly find that his name is related to only a paradox of Sorites, rather than the fallacy of Sorites.

Popper is the person most responsible for creating an environment in which the exercise to critique a known fact, and to do so by means of any surrounding ‘weight of perceived view,’ becomes allowable as a valid channel of academic study... ‘1 + 1 does not equal 2 in the event that,’ et cetera. These things are now taught at schools. But they are not fact, nor science, but only propaganda.

You think 'evidence' is the basis for science... Evidence is what you employ when you are charging someone, and critiquing.

This 'Karl Popper'-originated style of 'science' inquiry has become 'science' monoculture. There's several variations of the thing, but they are all manipulative instead of being actually objective. They're very clever at looking like an objective process; which they are not.

Nevertheless, they are masked as a kind of obviously valid form - in fact, the only valid form - of science inquiry, because Popper next introduced his most clever and sinister fallacy, but which has the semblance of authenticity about it, because the term and its application is indeed (in Millennial-speak) quite cool: he introduced the utilisation of ‘algorithms.’

The word ‘algorithm’ is named after the 8th to 9th century Arabic thinker ’al Khawarizmi. Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khawarizmi, who wrote a book in Arabic entitled ‘Balancing Off (by pressing the thumb down onto the scales).’

Algorithms are not mathematics but are part of mechanics and engineering – being ‘a statement that controls an outcome’ (the technical full definition of an algorithm); they are process filters, not formal mathematics as such.

You may use an algorithm to tamper with the mathematics of ‘1 + 1 = 2’ and derive another outcome.

Karl Popper on the one hand introduced the entire field of the ‘application of criticism’ to academia, and sweepingly introduced the fear that there was ‘pseudo science’ around, and then, rapidly was able then to decide or determine whose pursuits constituted ‘pseudo-science’ and whose, not.

But the reality is, what is not true is not a scientific fact. And that has forever been the case. And it is so now. There are no things which really are ‘pseudo-science’ because either they are a fact, or they are not facts at all; when they are not facts they are not science either. What Popper is doing is misleading people into selecting only certain lines or areas of inquiry, and steering everyone away from others due to innuendo (IE that something might be ‘pseudo-science’).

To call something pseudo-science is an exercise in innuendo. And to do it with any underhanded purpose is simply propaganda.

A thing is either a fact or it is not a fact.

Even when algorithmic filters are applied to something, all this does is qualify the original fact (or non-fact); they do not reveal science from ‘pseudo-science.’

Science comes from the establishing of fact consistent with logical connections, and rational conceptual principles - not franchise 'argument' over what constitutes 'evidence' and then worse, consent persuasion tactics to procure the prevailing of one 'argument' over any other.

Karl Popper’s machinations are dangerous.

Popper brought his full weight of academic power to bear onto the board of directors of Boeing, when he convinced them that they should abandon their own ways of keeping their proprietary industrial ‘corporate memory,’ in favour of his computerised algorithmic system and structure.

To this day, no one will be prepared to say that the reason Boeing planes fall out of the sky, is because Karl Popper was wrong...

However the evident fact is, that Boeing planes fall out of the sky; have fallen out of the sky, due, apparently, or superficially, to some issues and problems with computer algorithms.