Recently I was invited to write an article for a large alternative news stream. You will notice their permanent position at the base of my inverted link pyramid (power to the people) at the head of this board. It is sumbitted “as is” with only a few cosmetic changes. Mine is the original choice of title.
The term “science” has grown to be more than an area of study, seeking to hypothesize and theorize about our world. It has become more than a framework for exploration. In its purest form, it has no “limits” and could theoretically embrace non-material, metaphysical aspects of our existence. Yet, in our modern age, science has become corporatized and dogmatic- more worried about pursuing money than about pursuing what makes our universe “tick”.
More than this, many prominent scientists have taken Newtonian “[only] that which can be measured exists” materialism and become as narrow-minded and oppressive as organized religion became during the Middle Ages, the Crusades, and Inquisitions culminating in Salem during the so-called Witch Trials. For instance Maria von Monjou (arguably the inventor of the biological microscope) was drowned as a witch in 1552. To be sure, the powers behind these oppressive movements were serving their own interests, but they did so under the banner of “religion”. Could the same be said of today’s science, but maybe the intrigue runs deeper?
Just listen to bloggers in partisan debates over vaccines and mandatory vaccination and you will hear vaccine proponents calling for everything from jail time to wishes that their critics are cursed with sickness by redemption, themselves-all covered under the banner of “science”. Listen to talk show hosts who call those with alternative views all sorts of names because they do not take a scientist’s or a doctor’s view as gospel. The illusion is created by scientific laws that have somehow been construed to prove that vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. This is, of course, not true; there are very few scientific “laws” and even some of those “laws” might be proven invalid over time, due to (you’ve guessed it) persuasive scientific exploration.
Vested corporate interests have co-opted science and have brandished it like a weapon in order to intimidate alternative views that fly in the face of their profitability. These interests have bribed governmental bodies, politicians, news hosts and blog writers to try to reduce the impact of these alternative views. Probably no better example of this is summarised by the “nuclear safety” debate. Chernobyl and, most recently, Fukushima have sent shockwaves around human rights movements only to see the nuclear threat “reassessed” by corporate science interests. Then we have real flaws in carbon dating methods, not to mention the reliability of purely theoretical rock and gemstone age measurements. Without monitoring plutonium for 24,000 years, how can any scientists know (beyond doubt) that is the half life term, or if there are not anomalies determined by “other factors”?
Running vigorously against this tide of suppression and oppression, courageous and often (financially unsupported) alternative media individuals and outfits have sprung up to provide a forum for versatile, progressive sciences that recognise the dynamic complexity of existence. A revolution, particularly marked in the alternative medias, has made allegations of fake science and these are regularly seen in articles. The CDC (Centres for Disease Control) has notably become embroiled in a dual conspiracy; pollution- generated illnesses “classed as” viruses and rogue vaccines with toxic constituents offered as cure. These claims are not idle theories penned by desperate fringe journalists, but real concerns based on clinical tests, results and a mile-high paper trail.
Whereas in normal circumstances, no reasonable human beings could motivate themselves to believe in the possibility of a scandalous network of bogus scientists controlled by some arbitrary shadow power, science and its adepts generally-speaking are certainly not beyond scrutiny. Some years ago I listened to a lecture, hosted by the entertaining Canadian, Dr David Suzuki. 
He informed his attentive audience that, as an up and coming geneticist in the 1960’s, he believed his team was going to conquer the world. “All our cutting edge discoveries”, he mused, “are obsolete now”. Not one had survived thirty years. He went on to say, “All today’s discoveries will not survive either”. To which his audience burst into ecstatic laughter.
Herein rests the problem. Putting aside tried and tested ancient knowledge, immortal solutions, how can science be remotely credible if what was right up to today is wrong tomorrow? The most recent major discovery, that left egg on the faces of hardened institutions, was that the intelligence of a cell is not found in its nucleus. After the advent of the SARS virus, Dr Bruce Lipton’s illustrious career took off. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia a virus has no metabolism, does not reproduce or grow. Though they do not say it, these are the qualities that distinguish non-living from living. Therefore, I recommend that SARS is evidence of cell mutation freeing up nucleic DNA. A little-known Norwegian doctor produced revolutionary research data which appeared to affirm that cancers are symptoms of healthy cells reacting to dormant fungi that live in our bodies. Different catalysts acted as activation agents according to the theory.
It is hard to find an area of research and development in which science has been exclusively stable. Indeed I find no cases where data, results and conclusions have remained unaltered from conception, with the possible exception of some empirical tables. The principles of these tables rely, mostly, on a zero, “neutral” baseline with the potential for infinite measurement. Yet, in object reality, neither zero nor infinity exists outside “conceptuality”. The Holographic Principle is nothing new. Brilliant Gerard ’t Hooft lay the foundations for quantum string theory in the late 1960’s. Leonard Susskind famously ran with that ball. Most recently, 2011 if my memory serves me correctly, graduate scientists discovered the sub-particle phenomenon they call the Kondo effect. This, in part affirms “implausible ramblings” of those that announced a supposedly extra-terrestrial humanoid cult living in Spain until the 1950’s. Though the so-called Ummo’s have apparently been “debunked”, their interesting revelations still intrigue me. They talked of sub-particles having multiple pulse bodies that would interrupt relative reality. Conceptually, string theory highlights this strategy for existence, and though there is much work to be done, the Kondo effect goes some way to affirm it. 
Only in the last few days sources for Fabrizio Carbone have announced and presented the first photograph of light behaving as a particle and a wave, which goes some way to affirming the spectral nature of existence outlined in my new book, “The Beauty of Decoded Existence”.
I began this piece by discussing the plausibility of deliberate false science, and though, doubtlessly, commercial interests have had the rabid satisfaction of enabling work, based on the poorest conclusions, I have identified few malicious deceptions. The problem seems to be linked to the flexibility of our minds and reality in relation to our perception of it.
Another real issue affects humanity in general. Opinions can be harnessed by true or false belief systems. An innocuous statement, maybe, but for my research I have yet to find a single person that does not promote at least one false belief. Scientists are human in every respect and will falter given identical influences. “Smart deadlines” additionally prohibit thoroughness, but commercial calendars always work to a timetable meaning some discoveries and breakthroughs may not be made or brought to fruition because they do not fit within a time schedule.
The biggest fundamental problem for science is very easy to identify. Resolving anomalies are far from straightforward. Work done to analyse how we process the illusion, presented by shape-shifting cuttlefish, has exposed the gaping deficiency between our perception and reality. As scientists, like us, are guided by perception (peers and reviewers included), reality is very much taken for granted. For the most part, that which cannot be perceived [materially] does not exist. Spectral analysis has revealed startling limitations to mankind’s ability to appreciate the extent of many frequency ranges. Sounds that cannot be heard and light bandwidth that cannot be seen are calculated. But what of the frequency ranges that will remain entirely hidden from our stifled perception?
What kinds of things do we not see because the powerful microscope invented by Royal Raymond Rife, as well as its schematics, were confiscated by [presumed agents of] the U.S. Government? Fortunately not all of his work has been lost as some documents have, more recently, resurfaced. Reportedly, this technology would have allowed modern scientists to “see” organisms far smaller than that which is viewable under our best microscopes today. Modern science would likely also have had access to his decoding of one “power” of sound used to eliminate pathogens by emitting their own frequency back at them, had commercial interests not interfered with progress for humanity. What of other pioneers, like Hulda Clark, Alfred A. Tomatis, or Sharry Edwards [See “Breaking the Sound Barriers of Disease, BioAcoustic Biology as a Viable Component of Integrative Medical Diagnostics and Treatment” , 2013,], and even Nikola Tesla – who found different ways of using sound to address pathogenic or other illnesses? Sharry Edwards, herself, has mapped the body into a so-called “Math Matrix, giving frequencies to nearly every part of the body as well as the biochemical, toxins, etc. that may enter the bodies field(s) of energy”. [See “Breaking the Sound Barriers of Disease, BioAcoustic Biology as a Viable Component of Integrative Medical Diagnostics and Treatment” , 2013, pp. 1-2].
My short but intense book, The Beauty of Existence Decoded as an Introduction to my broader work Dimensions, Deceptions & Demons questions the validity of “materialist reductionism“. I conclusively demonstrate that we live in object reality and the supposed “first” and “second” dimensions are mathematically impossible as “stand alone” systems of existence. So confident am I, the one that will produce stand alone one or two dimensional reality for me can have anything I own (up to half my kingdom!). My book concludes that only at the quantum level are true dimensions unveiled. Reduced to its raw essence, everything comprises space and light. No wonder Albert Einstein was terrified by the microscope. That great mind knew conventional science was on shaky ground. The excerpt (slightly amended for the purposes of this article) I have selected from my book exposes the unresolved gap between the comprehensive Newtonian materialistic mechanics and quantum immaterial perceptions of reality. As such, conventional science investigates measures and expands a giant illusion which under the pressure of honest analysis bears out the notion that bigger is not always better, or truer.
“Before I broach the complex and convoluted subject of exo-political affairs of the Earth and the hybrid human races (plural), it is important to present an understanding of how and, to all intents and purposes, why we are here. Though few of us might appear to have direct relationships with that which is outside the Earth, we are all connected through a combination of history and divine planning – as representative of our multi-faceted symbiotic universal presence. Though our science culture determines time to be a consequence of motion, in fact the future has a function as the potential of being when it is defined as inseparable from its incongruous relationship to past and present. The use of the word “incongruous” may seem an odd choice, but harmony does not “just happen” and that is why, from the introspective (perspective), the journey from past through present to future is staccato at best. Conventional reality recognises the engine for the future is predetermined by what happened now and the historic development leading to the present [i.e. your future may change depending on decisions made in the present, not unlike a person riding the rapids may have a different future depending on which direction they go when presented with a “fork” in the river].
True prophecy latches onto the probability of predictable consequence. Without fundamentally understanding the nature of man, the reader may as well give up any quest into the exploration of extra-terrestrial operational enlightenment. Dimensions, densities, demons and earthly deceptions are intrinsically connected. For an even rudimentary understanding, we must start at the very beginning before, presumably, there was anything; when the “word was God”. The reader, while reading must also not lose sight of the fact that, on so many levels, we are not a single process or single thought, but the culmination of an extraordinary journey stretching back to the very start which is likely to have begun at the end. We are single minds of many parts and influences. Nevertheless, everything is as it was and will always be regardless of rudimentary changes as a consequence of this journey. From the macro, astral perspective, every single body is a cooperation of an infinite number of ideas, each jostling for position. The winners, in position, are the manifestation we call life.
Those that have studied gnostic philosophy meaningfully are blessed. Gnostic philosophy is surprisingly accurate (though writing styles are not ‘scientific’). More importantly, it moves away from traditional structures like atoms, molecules, organisms and so on. Instead it discusses creation in emotional terms. If anything, the building blocks were the finished products, as the components were irrelevant. How the designer and builder of horns or hooves did it, was unimportant as, to the experiencer, a horn is a horn and not an immense group of atoms inadvertently glued together. The important thing is horns and hooves were designed and did not accidentally materialise or miraculously evolve. So-called evolution merely catalogues changes. It records the symptoms and science creates its make-believe as a consequence. Improvement is a presumption; which is not to say some lateral changes were not better or upgrades (from the retrospective). In addition, positive change is not in any way evidence for evolution unless that improvement is systemic and continuous. The added value from molecular, cellular engineering built from atoms (according to abstract rules we call “quantum”) were, in a sense, an afterthought. It could be said that the structure of atoms allows God to breath throughout the cosmos. Certainly, at the lowest quantum level, science is gradually conforming to the notion of holographic existence.”
To learn more, please check out The Beauty of Existence Decoded. The book is available by PayPal donation.
ozziethinker 