UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 2

Re: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins - Dickenson

From: Ray Dickenson <editor@perceptions.couk.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:29:59 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:02:52 -0500
Subject: Re: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins - Dickenson


>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>To: <- UFO - UpDates Subscribers -:>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:42:17 -0500

>Critics such as Fate, professional parapsychologists and
>moderate skeptics like former CSICOP cochairman Prof. Marcello
>Truzzi, sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, have
>questioned the Committee's commitment to objective, scientific
>investigation of paranormal claims and have accused some CSICOP
>spokesmen of misrepresenting issues and evidence. But such
>dissenting views were little noticed by media writers eager to
>headline sensational -- although frequently unsupported --
>debunking claims.


Hello List,

Congratulations for step into area where 'scientists' tend to be
irrational and where insults often thrown at _any_ impartial
inquirers.

"Science" is untrustworthy today - Why? Same reason all once-
dominant paradigms become untrustworthy: it's been hi-jacked by
those who would circumscribe thought and limit speculation.

Ancient paradigms - we now call them 'superstitions', 'cults',
'religions', etc. - were always taken over by privileged elites
and then used to preserve the infuence and power of the elites,
even to the point of contradicting the original paradigm.

So "religion" becomes the property of the greedy and the
murderous;

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/pauline.html

Now that's happening to "science"
Science should mean impartial (and unrestricted) questioning of
_all_ phenomena, to be answered by reproducible facts.

But scientific, impartial, non-abusive investigation is
effectively forbidden by the establishment.

Why?

Look around. Some would say that power elites are today
implementing anti-openness & anti-human policies in the name of
"science" just as the "Spanish Inquisition" did in the name of
religion.

With about the same justification - and _eventually_ the same
exposure and ignominy to follow exposure and ignominy.

A Warning

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1075260,00.html

Part of P.D. Smith's Review of "Hitler's Scientists: Science, War
and the Devil's Pact" by John Cornwell

[Begin Quote]

The behavior of Heisenberg and other fellow travellers in the
Hitler period is central to Cornwell's argument. He concludes
that Heisenberg was "morally and politically obtuse". Although
not a Nazi, he was part of the corrupting culture of
"irresponsible purity" that allowed scientists to further their
careers while claiming to be politically and ethically insulated
from the regime.

Whether it was Max Planck giving the Nazi salute, or Von Braun
using slave labour at Peenem=FCnde, many scientists were tempted
"to do a deal with the Devil in order to continue doing science".
Such Faustian bargains can happen today; in America, $75bn a year
is spent by government on research. Relying on one powerful
paymaster is "dangerous", says Cornwell.

To avoid the mistakes of Hitler's Germany, Cornwell argues we
need scientists "who possess a highly developed grasp of politics
and ethics, who are prepared to question, probe, expose and
criticise the trends of military-dominated science". A role model
for such a "good scientist" might be Joseph Rotblat, the only
scientist at Los Alamos who resigned when he found out that
Germany didn't have the bomb. Like Brecht's Galileo, Rotblat has
called for scientists to swear a Hippocratic oath to underline
their responsibility to humanity. For, as Rotblat rightly says,
"a scientist is a human being first, and a scientist second".

[End Quote]

Present situation of 'science in society

Today large areas of phenomena are declared "off-limits" by
science elite.

How? - Simple ploy of labeling an area as "ridiculous",  "non-
respectable" then declaring any dangerous inquiry (not wanted by
science-elite) to be in that area.

Two examples:-

1) early "Astrology"

"Perceptions" speculates that early 'gross-effect' forecasting
was not astrology but merely basic physics, not concerned with
occult influences ("the Stars").

That is, that Chinese and Sumerian non-personal "astrology" was
probably based on real science - see:

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/footnotes3.html#visitor

which, as we now realize, _can_ predict large effects such as
solar weather and seismic triggers from alignments of solar
system masses. See:

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/checkalign.html


http://www.perceptions.couk.com/astrology.html

Further speculates that these large effects might then be
extrapolated to affect people. The number of such gross
alignments (and therefore number of people-groups): the
"Zodiac", was traditionally probably determined purely by the
evidence and by limitations of early data-collection. I.e.
evidence permitted at least twelve groups (see 12 year cycle &
Chinese 'stations of Jupiter') while any greater accuracy (using
say twenty-four groups) was simply not available at that period.

2) wider "Paranormal"

In the well researched field of medicine we now have remarkable
"mind-over-matter" results which defy established prognoses.
Simply put - "belief" changes "perception" and maybe even
"circumstance" - see:

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/magic2.html#2

Wider inquiries reveal that other mind-over-matter or impossible
phenomena seem to occur on a daily basis - flatly defying the
so-called "laws" of physics ( actually those "laws" are mostly
guesses - "blind science" in Google).

Some other "impossible" phenomena at:

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ghosty.html#polt

Assessment of List correspondence:-

Most effort and time is spent arguing - from positions of
"belief" - two perennial disputes:-

1) that physical objects (or beings) were or were not seen
somewhere - neither side accepting 'proofs' of other side;

2) that non-physical objects (or beings) can or cannot exist -
neither side accepting (or even understanding) 'evidence' of
other side.

Reality

Contrary to received opinion there are _no_ laws of physics,
they're only guesses that are being proved wrong even as you
read this (see 'blind science' Google).

So we _should_ be devising candid, open-minded tests of
phenomena, not dismissing, concealing or bad-mouthing testimony
- as happens now.  


Thinking hurts.

best regards
Ray Dickenson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~