“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This statement was made by Lord Kelvin in 1900 and shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the current framework of understanding, forcing the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of the true nature of our reality. This serves as a great example of how things that are taken to be truth can suddenly change to fiction.
“Lord Kelvin’s statements bare with it the voice of paradigms past … We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a man-made heavier than air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge.
Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.” – Terje Toftenes
Known as the Hessdalen Interactive Observatory, scientists at the University of Ostfold, Hessdalen, Norway have captured and documented many strange anomalies that seem to plague the area. It’s the only official 24 hour UFO observatory in the world. Radar and cameras have tracked and filmed numerous unexplainable phenomenon, the fastest one recorded at 30,000 km per hour. (Faster than any known air-craft today.)
The example you see in the video below is known as the “Hessdalen phenomenon.” In September of 2007, a major survey was carried out by university scientists and students with a number of observation instruments. On the fourth night, the phenomenon decided to show up for them, up close.
The first UFO you see is not the one that showed up for the scientists and students working in the field, it comes shortly after that. The footage below is from a documentary called The Day Before Disclosure by Norwegian filmmaker Terje Toftenes.
watch the full documentary and learn more about it.
Readers may have noticed that I posted several youtube videos by David Seaman, who is a Donald Trump supporter who was one of the early investigators of the Comet Ping Pong /Pizzagate scandal that came out of the Wikileaks release of emails that featured the Podestas, Spirit Cooking, and so forth.
He’s an independent journalist, and a courageous and outspoken kind of guy. I don’t like nor dislike him, no reason to do either, I just posted his videos because he was conveying the information in a more coherent form than most.
But now he’s moved on a little, from the paedophile and child trafficking stuff, to his theories about the Illuminati, and what may or may not be down there in Antarctica, that seems to be attracting the interest of people like John Kerry.
Well, thing is, by Seaman’s twitter photo, he has his statement ‘I tell the truth. Always.’ Which sort of set me off thinking…
I mean, I tend to feel more comfortable with myself, in my daily existence, if I have a self-image as someone who is honest, honourable, decent, and so forth. So, ‘telling the truth’ sort of goes along with that. I’m not a person who habitually tells untruths, lies, just for the sake of it, or to avoid awkward embarrassment.
But to tell the truth, ALWAYS ? That’s something else. I mean, if some people came along who were intent on catching and killing people whom I loved, who were hidden somewhere, and demanded that I tell the truth, well, I would lie convincingly, and take whatever consequences happened to follow. I don’t think telling ‘the truth’ under ALL circumstances is at all an intelligent moral position to hold to.
You know, there’s diplomacy involved. If the woman says ‘Does my bum look fat in this ?’ and you tell her ‘Yes, dreadfully fat’, that is not being diplomatic or kind, you have to be able to conjure up some tact and tell her the answer that make her happy and glowing. Not the answer that makes her miserable and means that she’ll make you miserable too. Is that a white lie, a black lie, or a sort of blurry grey lie tinted with wisdom and generosity ?
More generally, what the heck is ‘truth’ ? It’s an abstraction, and fairly meaningless until applied to a particular case. And there’s different sorts, like proximate truth and ultimate truth. And in Buddhism, it’s acknowledged that there is the conventional common truth that serves the ordinary people, and then there is the ultimate truth, which is what the enlightened buddhas discern. And the point of buddhist teaching and doctrine is to move from the former to the latter.
Life would be so much easier if we knew the exact truth about so many puzzling questions. I’ve spent my whole life – or so it seems – trying to figure out what the heck is really going on. I’m more than twice Seaman’s age, so maybe I’m more practised in this pursuit.
In the earlier essay, I mentioned the pleasure I derive from the Flat Earth theorists. It gives me a buzz that a whole bunch of folk have the nerve to re-investigate the whole matter with energy, determination and rigour. I mean, whatever the result, I respect and admire the enterprise. But Seamen has dismissed the whole issue as bullshit, and thinks it’s a deliberate distraction to conceal the pedogate stuff. Well, that’s no good, is it. The Flat Earthers were around long before the Podesta leaks.
Trouble is, he just doesn’t get it. He states that you can prove the Earth is round, if you go high up in a plane and see the curve, or send a GoPro camera up with a balloon. That sort of thing. But if you watch the video here, there are far more problems that need to be addressed, before the Flat Earth folk would accept that conclusion.
I’m not going to get into all of that, but essentially, what Seaman is saying is ‘Trust your eyes’. But that’s not it, is it. You know, we have had four hundred years or so of science, now, and if we learned anything, it’s that you cannot ‘trust your eyes’, because there’s all kinds of stuff that is invisible, from very large distant things that need telescopes to see, to very small things, that need microscopes, and all kinds of stuff that require special instruments to detect, like infra red, ultra violet, radio waves, and so forth.
As I mention from time to time, I’m a perspectivist. That means that, for me, it is kind of absurd to insist that the Earth must be a binary choice of either flat or round.
If you don’t know what perspectivism is, I shall try to explain what I mean.
Take a thing like a house. I’m sitting inside this cottage now, as I write. I know it belongs to the class of items called houses. But that’s an abstraction. Abstractions exist in our mental domain, not out there in the (so called) reality. If I get up and go outside and then look back, I can see the house that I was previously sitting inside.
But is it the same house ? How can it be, if it now looks completely different ? ‘Same’ things should have the same appearance, if they are ‘the same’. And if I walk around outside this house, observing it, every step that I take, it changes. And if I was to fly up above, and get the bird’s eye view, or nowadays, a drone cam view, again it would look very different.
And if it was a nice day and I spent an hour drawing sketches of this cottage, the drawings would also be ‘this house’ but they’d look entirely different to say, a photograph, or an architect’s plan, or Google Earth satellite view of the same house.
So, my point is, there are very, very many ways to view what is – supposedly – the same thing. If someone else came here, and saw the house afresh for the first time, their impression will be different to my own, having been familiar with it all for decades.
All I am saying, or trying to illustrate, is that with this plethora of possible perspectives, how could anyone claim that any one viewpoint is ‘the truth’ about this thing called ‘my house’ ?
Any single choice would be far from adequate, if you really wanted to know, understand, comprehend, this house, in any degree of depth. And I believe that this principle applies to all things in all cases. It’s universally true.
Given all that, how could I ‘tell the truth’ about this house, in the sense that Seaman says that he always tells the truth ? It’s not such a simple matter, is it ? Even if I attempt to avoid any lies (like saying it has more rooms than actually exist) I still cannot convey to you more than a few fragmentary glimpses that might assist you to grasp what does exist, and thus let you build up some kind of mental model that has some kind of (problematic) relationship with the ‘real’ house.
What you see, will be your own. I mean, if, say, you were an experienced student of traditional British architecture, you’ll see a vernacular Welsh cottage. But, if say, you had no such training or interest, and you like cool apartments in ultra-modern city skyscrapers as dwelling places, then maybe you see a tumble down peasant hovel.
So I submit that this ‘truth’ thing is quite tricky. I have no idea if something amazing has been discovered in Antarctica, or not, or whether the Illuminati are going to try and use a sort of False Flag staged ‘discovery’, to try and distract us all from other issues. I think we are living in a sort of lunatic asylum, whether it be ultimately flat or round, and it is a struggle to know what to think and what to deduce and what to believe.
Bernie Sanders (for whom I have little respect) recently tweeted that there are no ‘alternative facts’, and muttered something about scientific facts. That was what people once wanted to believe. It’s simply ignorant and wrong. If there is such a thing as an isolated ‘fact’, then what matters, is what that fact MEANS. And to know what it means, you have to grasp it as nested within a context. And there’s almost always more than one context available.
You know, you need to be an idiot not to understand this, no ? If you claim that such and such was the case, as ‘a fact’, then it might be true or not, depending upon some other information, such as, was it daytime or night, and dark, because if the witness was unable to see and distinguish ‘the fact’, then obviously their ‘truth’ is suspect. This is why scientists and detectives try to collect as much information and data as possible, because the context matters, and defines what meanings facts have.
Here’s Ursula K. Le Guin, speaking from Northwest Portland :
A recent letter in The Oregonian compares a politician’s claim to tell “alternative facts” to the inventions of science fiction. The comparison won’t work. We fiction writers make up stuff. Some of it clearly impossible, some of it realistic, but none of it real – all invented, imagined — and we call it fiction because it isn’t fact. We may call some of it “alternative history” or “an alternate universe,” but make absolutely no pretense that our fictions are “alternative facts.”
Facts aren’t all that easy to come by. Honest scientists and journalists, among others, spend a lot of time trying to make sure of them. The test of a fact is that it simply is so – it has no “alternative.” The sun rises in the east. To pretend the sun can rise in the west is a fiction, to claim that it does so as fact (or “alternative fact”) is a lie.
A lie is a non-fact deliberately told as fact. Lies are told in order to reassure oneself, or to fool, or scare, or manipulate others. Santa Claus is a fiction. He’s harmless. Lies are seldom completely harmless, and often very dangerous. In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible.
I think that she is mistaken about Santa Claus. Santa Claus has a long history. How can something or someone with a long history be fiction ? Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas) derives from the palaeolithic shamans of the hunter gatherer and pastoralist reindeer herders, the people of the far north, and their beliefs.
Santa Claus has been embedded in culture for many centuries and generations, an influence upon countless millions, a shared motif and archetypal designator. That’s different to her own fiction which she spins anew from her own imaginings.
I suppose that a lot of this is semantics and how you define ‘exists’ or ‘fiction’ and so forth. I’m not inclined to join the majority of my own culture, when they divide up existence by such absurd classifications as posing ‘the natural’ against ‘the super-natural’. I think that is an absurd and false distinction that traces back to fallacies made centuries ago. I think that everything that a person experiences may as well be classified as ‘real’ and as ‘natural’ and that all that we know are these experiences that we have over the period between being born and dying.
You are, of course, at liberty to make up your own minds and come to your own conclusions regarding these kinds of philosophical conundrums. I’m just attempting to lay out my own conclusions, as best I can, amidst all the bewildering noise and confusion going on in this mental asylum we call ‘the world’.
Santa Claus is a concept, a mental notion, and as such not much different to many others, and they also have no tangible definite factual existence, but we use them all the time to try and make sense and communicate.
If you want to understand the nature of the thing that Santa Claus represents, then you need to dig and research and find the context. For example, the Deer Stones, where we see the reindeer that haul his sledge, and the source of the idea that he comes down through the smoke hole from the starry sky, bringing gifts.
Most scientists, materialists, rationalists, want their ‘facts’ to be secure and fixed, stuff they can measure. It was once the hope of the Logical Positivists that everything could be clarified and comprehended by this means. Unfortunately, that quest had to be abandoned, because it was thoroughly destroyed by its critics.
Imo, the easiest way to make sense of the differing ways that people have toward understanding ‘the world’, is to think of it as the left brain/right brain split. There are literal truths, Logos, and poetic truths, Mythos. They are of equal validity and importance to us, because we are human beings. Santa Claus is a poetic truth, and valuable as such, because the concept gives insight into what we are, and helps us to deal with it. Ursula Le Guin knows this of course, because she authors fables, myths, parallel realities, that throw light upon the conventional and mundane worlds that many of us are forced to occupy.
In the Republic, Plato argues that the philosopher should ascend to the idea of the Good, which is another way of referencing the idea of transcendent Being, by a series of connected images, without specifying what those images might be. These images, as imperfect representations of Being, are subject to change. Matters are complicated by the fact that the things which are imaged are also subject to change. Thus both subjective impression and objective reality are subject to change and uncertainty.
In his dialogues, Plato shows that most arguments about the nature of the ultimate reality fail – particularly in his dialogue most concerned with Being, the Sophist. Here the participants in the dialogue agree to accept that a communion between man and the divine must be granted to exist, even if it cannot be argued certainly to be the case. The necessity of this communion is vital to religion, otherwise it is not possible for man to connect with the divine, and therefore he would be powerless in the world in which he finds himself.
A key characteristic of ancient religion was that it entertained conjecture regarding knowledge of the gods. Plato refers to this in his discussion of the divided line in The Republic. We cannot know Being itself directly. We cannot know the lesser gods directly either, but we can understand some of the characteristics of these gods, though full knowledge is necessarily beyond our understanding. We can approach some limited understanding of Being via the images and descriptions of the lesser gods however, which is one reason why they were deemed to have some kind of reality.
This limited set of characteristics and properties emerges from thorough and precise discussion of the nature of ontology (Being), as the focus of human conjecture. This is quite clear in both Plato and also in what we know of the teachings of Pythagoras. The paradox of knowledge is the consequence of the idea that all knowledge is present in the divine, and that we only have knowledge because we have a soul. In other words, we can have knowledge as the result of the divine having a presence in us already.