Einstein declared by fiat that the aether did not exist and so it did not. Now, a century or so later and we are struggling to fit consciousness, psi results, morphic fields, how the EmDrive works in violation of Newton’s Second Law into an exclusively materialist paradigm.
Dr Farrell says that the last hundred years of public science has only been working with half of physics. What would have happened if the -always a placeholder- concept of the aether had been allowed to develop? Did that happen?
This brings us back to Catherine Austin Fitts’s concept of official reality…. a term I prefer to consensus reality because it certainly does not feel very consensual to me. And as I approach the end of Jan Morris’s Pax Britannica series it becomes abundantly clear just how old the strategy of constructing official reality by force really is.
A few of the videos from last year’s Secret Space Programme are already floating around on YouTube. I haven’t shared them because I actually paid for my access, watched much of the show live, and wasn’t sure if this would step on the organisers’ toes. As mentioned in the previous link, probably the presentation that stuck with me the most was that of Walter Bosley. And he’s shared his own presentation on his blog so I’m taking that as a go-ahead.
Leaving aside the question of whether his theory on the origin purpose of NYMSA is correct, his exploration of the wealthy Prussian bankers and industrialists making a play for South America -the exact same parts the Nazis escaped to- is very solid and speaks volumes about the goals and ambitions of the continental elite prior to the rise of Hitler (and after).
I bring this up because we are between podcasts -one recorded and one looming- that heavily explore these areas. In my discussion with Chris, he expressed his often-articulated view that he is healthily suspicious of just how high the technological capacity of any purported breakaway group, citing -quite reasonably- that much of what passes for science news now is complete fiction for instance.
Whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with the latter sentiment, I’m less aligned with the former. Here’s why.
- I don’t actually think the ‘high’ technology is all that ‘high’. If one side of the curtain is working with the ‘full’ physics and our side is working with half of it, then the concealed technology doesn’t need to be all that complex for it to be game-changing. Essentially we are talking about the counter-rotating, electrified drum that was the circumstantial Nazi Bell, for instance. More on that below.
- Very occasionally in my career, I’ve had a low seven figure budget and a handful of talented people to run. And we’ve achieved wonders. I need only scale that up to unlimited money, near-unlimited time and access to the smartest people of the last century. Throw in, as Catherine points out, the ability to kill with impunity and the scope of what I personally could achieve in those circumstances -and I’m far from the sharpest tool in the shed- boggles my own mind. The project managers out there are feeling me on that one, I’m sure. (Incidentally this is why, although I don’t currently believe this, if it turns out there are already human bases on the moon and Mars I will be 0% surprised. The evidence just isn’t there yet, however.)
- Since the end of World War II, the AngloAmericans haven’t faced a publicly-admitted threat that would warrant bringing the toys out into the open. When you introduce a new military technology that makes existing technology entirely redundant, you reset the investment clock to zero. This is exactly what happened to the British Royal Navy when it introduced the Dreadnought. Suddenly it found itself in a dreadnought-building race with Germany in the lead up to WWI because the rest of the fleet was now technologically irrelevant. Roll out one flying saucer and it becomes increasingly hard for military contractors to continue selling us bombs and planes. You also have to update all those war crime laws -which still mention mustard gas but not entrainment technology- when you’d much rather continue violating them. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What is demonstrably true, and where Chris and I certainly agreed, is that the immediate postwar period marked an inflexion point in (public) technological development. Whether that was from an extradimensional technology transfer or the manic ratcheting up of investment as a result of a perceived extradimensional/extraterrestrial threat is a question for another time. More important for this post is that the century or so prior to WWII was running on more or less the same technology, with the exception of flight (probably): electricity had been discovered and was being messed about with by basically anybody who cared to in Europe, in the Empire or in the Americas.
All of this is a build-up to Bosley’s presentation below. Basically, you need to get your head around the idea that Tesla, the Nazi Bell and Bosley’s examination of mid-19th century German-American aero clubs fall into the same technological ‘epoch’. We have a tendency to judge advancement based on consumer technology but there is not a lot of difference between a new iPad Air and a 90s laptop, right? The improvements are iterative rather than revolutionary. Same epoch.
This particular epoch came up with some pretty strange stuff.
And so we come to well-covered territory for ufology nerds. The airship flap of the 1890s. As you know, I am a card-carrying Magonian so the opening presentation from Chris Aubeck’s Madrid conference the other year -now making its second appearance on the blog- sings from my hymn sheet: these phenomena present themselves differently to us in different epochs according to what we can conceive and, compellingly, what we can imagine. I’ve cued it up for you.
And yet… and yet… in Bosley’s presentation, he points out that one of the sightings -actually a full blown landing- as described in the Dallas Morning News in 1897 includes two pilots who got out and spoke to the surrounding onlookers. They explained that the airship was the project of “some New York capitalists”. And then they gave their names. Tillman and Dolbear. One was a US Colonel and the other a Tufts physics professor. Both of whom existed and both are described in the presentation below.
The airship was not a dirigible.
I’ve been rolling the Tillman/Dolbear incident around in my mind since I first watched the conference live stream. I thought I had a bead on the airships: they were Magonian phenomena plus a whole boatload of hoaxes. (What was it about the late 19th century people that they thought hoaxes were the path to riches and glory? I complain about the internet often but I’m glad my weekend entertainment isn’t bearded ladies and giants made of cow bones.) To be clear, the Magonian perspective is key to fitting the airship flap into its proper historical context but there are any number of explanations/interpretations that allow both scenarios to be in play.
The Tillman/Dolbear incident has me thinking of how far back covert investment in speculative technology -the likes of Tesla, Townsend Brown, etc- actually goes. Returning, finally, to how ‘high’ this technology really is, I put it to you that whatever’s actually left on the government/public shelves are the early prototypes. The rest got hoovered up into Deep Private. Which is why -again gracing the blog for a second time- Mark McCandlish’s story has not just a ring of truth about it, but a reverberating gong. For some reason I find it so much more plausible that his friend saw battered old fifties technology at an eighties air show rather than whatever sleek, shoulder-padded, permed, chunky-phoned finery that decade had to offer.
Particularly where European powers are concerned, we have abundant evidence of multi-generational ‘plays’. 120 years is not all that long in the grand scheme of things. Granted, it’s day 1 in the exploration of 19th century ‘breakaway’ projects but it’s not exactly a violation of the kind of malarkey we knew they got up to and -crucially for the upcoming podcast- is the same time we start to see them build really odd belief systems about themselves and their origins.
I so very rarely share UFO videos on the blog because, really, what’s even the point at this stage? However, once you’ve seen the above videos, check this one out. If it’s not a hoax, it’s one of ours.
This is what 120 years of working with physics’s full palette will get you.