Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
prometheuslocke

Mind Control. It's been here the whole time.

431 posts in this topic

What are you talking about? Honestly, the mention of tachyons was nothing more than a "what if" thrown at the end of a detailed explanation of the current process of entanglement. It could easily be replaced with a neutrino, which we already know can travel great distances and through matter.

Did you read the post that included the initial use of the term? Harping on a three word "hypothetical" sentence, which has nothing to do with the rest of the argument, pretty much means you are only looking for a loophole to get out of being wrong. Not to mention, you haven't really been responding at all to that thread.. what's the use in chiming in to talk about 1% of the whole? "Sad really."

The only way to respond to BS is to call it BS. Plain enough?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you answered your own question.

So if we assume that this technology is alien. And we assume it has been around since the days of the pyramids.... about 5000 years. What would be good examples of this technology being used? Because if you want to go the whole way into Conspiricy Land, everything and anything could be a result of such technology. The wheel, pottery, the alphabet, textiles, domestication of animals.... wars, plagues, migrations, murders, land exchanges, invasions, religions... just about anything could have been caused by such technology.

So, really it just does not matter. Even if we assume this technology exists, there is zero proof... because those who have it use it to keep it secret.... right? And if there is zero proof, then really, in logical terms... we have to assume it does not really exist.

What is more logical.... that this technology exists and has been actually kept secret by 100% of world leaders for over 5000 years, or that it simply does not exist??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we assume that this technology is alien. And we assume it has been around since the days of the pyramids.... about 5000 years. What would be good examples of this technology being used? Because if you want to go the whole way into Conspiricy Land, everything and anything could be a result of such technology. The wheel, pottery, the alphabet, textiles, domestication of animals.... wars, plagues, migrations, murders, land exchanges, invasions, religions... just about anything could have been caused by such technology.

So, really it just does not matter. Even if we assume this technology exists, there is zero proof... because those who have it use it to keep it secret.... right? And if there is zero proof, then really, in logical terms... we have to assume it does not really exist.

What is more logical.... that this technology exists and has been actually kept secret by 100% of world leaders for over 5000 years, or that it simply does not exist??

What if it hasn't been kept secret from world leaders? The Egyptians wrote about it. The Jews wrote about it. The Christians wrote about it.

I gave you plenty of links to examples throughout history, did you read them?

The only way to respond to BS is to call it BS. Plain enough?

cormac

congrats on 5555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it hasn't been kept secret from world leaders? The Egyptians wrote about it. The Jews wrote about it. The Christians wrote about it.

I gave you plenty of links to examples throughout history, did you read them?

congrats on 5555

Actually they didn't. That you want to interpret it that way is irrelevant to what they actually carved and elaborated on with hieroglyphics. Which means you have little to no real understanding of what they said.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they didn't. That you want to interpret it that way is irrelevant to what they actually carved and elaborated on with hieroglyphics. Which means you have little to no real understanding of what they said.

cormac

Do you hear yourself?

Here:

http://science.howst...e/exorcism3.htm

http://www.gnosis.or...m/hypostas.html

http://www.matrifocus.com/SAM08/spotlight.htm

http://eleusinianmysteries.org/TheRitual.html

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/ghost-riders-possession-and-exorcism-upper-egypt

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In actuality this is your personal interpretation of it—how you want to see it, in other words.

To prove your case, you will need to find where experts in Coptic, Greek, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew—the scripts in which these late texts were written—have studied the same texts and arrived at conclusions in agreement with you. You are reading ancient texts in modern English translations, and viewing them quite outside the framework of the religious traditions in which these texts were written, so your own personal interpretations cannot stand as evidence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice swerve. DieChecker was talking about technology and you switched over to ancient peoples supernatural beliefs. Another fringe tactic along the lines of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Looks like your throw-away mention of tachyons has instead become a throw-away claim of proof, which is what you claimed in the OP. Since you've already shown you will purposely misinterpret/misrepresent the Dendera inscriptions and translation then it can be reasonably assumed you will continue with doing the same with other such ancient items.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Voice in my head telling me what to do says Hi!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Voice in my head telling me what to do says Hi!!!!

Hi 'ancient astronaut'. Welcome to the jungle. :lol:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice swerve. DieChecker was talking about technology and you switched over to ancient peoples supernatural beliefs. Another fringe tactic along the lines of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Looks like your throw-away mention of tachyons has instead become a throw-away claim of proof, which is what you claimed in the OP. Since you've already shown you will purposely misinterpret/misrepresent the Dendera inscriptions and translation then it can be reasonably assumed you will continue with doing the same with other such ancient items.

cormac

Read better, there are two conversations going on. Actually, the conversation about the technology seems to have died, since the only responses I get are "you are wrong." I don't enjoy having discussions where i am the only one saying anything of substance.

The other one, which you seem to have missed, is about evidence of this technology being used throughout history. Feel free to take part in it if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In actuality this is your personal interpretation of it—how you want to see it, in other words.

To prove your case, you will need to find where experts in Coptic, Greek, Aramaic, and/or Hebrew—the scripts in which these late texts were written—have studied the same texts and arrived at conclusions in agreement with you. You are reading ancient texts in modern English translations, and viewing them quite outside the framework of the religious traditions in which these texts were written, so your own personal interpretations cannot stand as evidence.

I don't think the substance of the texts is really questioned. They are clearly talking about "spiritual possession." We might question whether or not they actually believed what they were writing, or whether or not they had evidence of it. I assume the original authors believed some of what they wrote.

I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read better, there are two conversations going on. Actually, the conversation about the technology seems to have died, since the only responses I get are "you are wrong." I don't enjoy having discussions where i am the only one saying anything of substance.

The other one, which you seem to have missed, is about evidence of this technology being used throughout history. Feel free to take part in it if you want.

Post #177 to which you replied in Post #178 so no, it hadn't died, and no the Egyptians didn't write about it as you claim. The only 'substance' you've had since #177 is swerving to the supernatural links you posted.

Since you haven't shown it's relevant to Ancient Egypt why should anyone think it's relevant to any other culture/civilization? As mentioned before, the Dendera light is not what it's being presented by any of the fringe as. Most proponents of same completely ignore or purposely misrepresent what it actually says and means with no real understanding of the culture involved. The same is true of other items misrepresented, such as the Abydos hieroglyphs fringies like to pretend are modern machines. Which is pretty much saying "I don't like what we know so I'll make something up". The only thing that's proof of is that someone has a vivid imagination.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post #177 to which you replied in Post #178 so no, it hadn't died, and no the Egyptians didn't write about it as you claim. The only 'substance' you've had since #177 is swerving to the supernatural links you posted.

Since you haven't shown it's relevant to Ancient Egypt why should anyone think it's relevant to any other culture/civilization? As mentioned before, the Dendera light is not what it's being presented by any of the fringe as. Most proponents of same completely ignore or purposely misrepresent what it actually says and means with no real understanding of the culture involved. The same is true of other items misrepresented, such as the Abydos hieroglyphs fringies like to pretend are modern machines. Which is pretty much saying "I don't like what we know so I'll make something up". The only thing that's proof of is that someone has a vivid imagination.

cormac

I don't think you've read anything I've written. I didn't claim they depicted machines at all, ever.

Maybe its a reading comprehension thing.

Since you seem to know everything, what do you think the meaning of the Dendera reliefs is?

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you've read anything I've written. I didn't claim they depicted machines at all, ever.

Maybe its a reading comprehension thing.

Since you seem to know everything, what do you think the meaning of the Dendera reliefs is?

Nope. I mentioned the Abydos "interpretations" because it's the same kind of meaningless drivel that you and others would like to apply, in one variation or another, to items such as the Dendera "light". It shows an utter lack of knowledge of the culture involved and a lazy persons attempt to apply anachronistic ideas to something they quite obviously DON'T understand.

It's a celebration of the sun's journey across the sky during the New Year and the gods' relationship to and protection of the pharaoh. It has nothing to do with mind control or ancient technology. These are anachronistic and quite simply wrong interpretations. Added to this, your "throw-away" about tachyons really wasn't a throw-away since you tried more than once to defend it as something more than what it was. Emma called it science fiction, you claimed it was a real, theoretical particle. It really just boils down to semantics since in neither case can it be said to exist. So in that regard she was correct. That you back-pedalled to including a mention of neutrino's afterward only shows that you refuse to take responsibility for your error. All of which, in total, suggests no reason to think your idea should be taken seriously.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I mentioned the Abydos "interpretations" because it's the same kind of meaningless drivel that you and others would like to apply, in one variation or another, to items such as the Dendera "light". It shows an utter lack of knowledge of the culture involved and a lazy persons attempt to apply anachronistic ideas to something they quite obviously DON'T understand.

It's a celebration of the sun's journey across the sky during the New Year and the gods' relationship to and protection of the pharaoh. It has nothing to do with mind control or ancient technology. These are anachronistic and quite simply wrong interpretations. Added to this, your "throw-away" about tachyons really wasn't a throw-away since you tried more than once to defend it as something more than what it was. Emma called it science fiction, you claimed it was a real, theoretical particle. It really just boils down to semantics since in neither case can it be said to exist. So in that regard she was correct. That you back-pedalled to including a mention of neutrino's afterward only shows that you refuse to take responsibility for your error. All of which, in total, suggests no reason to think your idea should be taken seriously.

cormac

So you would like to apply someone else's interpretation of something completely unrelated to me "because its the same kind of drivel." I see. Good argument.

Your interpretation of the reliefs isn't horrible. It's similar what I see. My idea is that the Egyptians, or at least the priests at Hathor knew more about how that was happening than we think, and were saving that 'hidden knowledge' for future priests. People discuss hidden information in many religious texts, it is not a stretch of the imagination to belief they would have hidden secret knowledge from the "lower classes."

I did not make an error. It is a theoretical particle, not science fiction, there's a big difference. She was wrong. The point was that the question could have been answered with any particle, and you and several others decided to attack my example of a possible future method of doing somethingbetter,rather than commenting on the idea in general, or the other specifics, which were not theoretical at all.

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a theoretical particle, not science fiction, there's a big difference. She was wrong. The point was that the question could have been answered with any particle, and you and several others decided to attack my example of a possible future method of doing somethingbetter,rather than commenting on the idea in general, or the other specifics, which were not theoretical at all.

The only place tachyons really exist is in sci fi. "Theoretical" doesn't mean there's a chance of something existing, only that they can describe some possible aspects of something. One of these aspects - that they move faster than light - pretty much rules them out of actually existing in real life.

And the fact that your idea will work with "any particle" shows how fuzzy it all is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would like to apply someone else's interpretation of something completely unrelated to me "because its the same kind of drivel." I see. Good argument.

Your interpretation of the reliefs isn't horrible. It's similar what I see. My idea is that the Egyptians, or at least the priests at Hathor knew more about how that was happening than we think, and were saving that 'hidden knowledge' for future priests. People discuss hidden information in many religious texts, it is not a stretch of the imagination to belief they would have hidden secret knowledge from the "lower classes."

I did not make an error. It is a theoretical particle, not science fiction, there's a big difference. She was wrong. The point was that the question could have been answered with any particle, and you and several others decided to attack my example of a possible future method of doing somethingbetter,rather than commenting on the idea in general, or the other specifics, which were not theoretical at all.

BS is BS, no matter how it's presented.

Ancient Egypt is not evidenced as having "hidden knowledge" nor the associated "mystery schools" so your argument doesn't apply there.

Which shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word "fiction", to whit:

1 a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically: an invented story

b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)

c: a work of fiction; especially: novel

2 a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>

b: a useful illusion or pretense

3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction

Which leaves science fiction as nothing more than utilizing said fiction is a scientific context. In short, it doesn't make it real.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done discussing this with you. I'll point you towards a similar discussion on a physics forum, you will see that in the scientific world, your arguments are completely backwards.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=465627

While you may believe you are qualified to make baseless statements about theoretical physics, you are not. Your argument, and your continued desire to harp on a single word is silly at this point. As you have pointed out, I've entertained it for too long already. Let's move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done discussing this with you. I'll point you towards a similar discussion on a physics forum, you will see that in the scientific world, your arguments are completely backwards.

http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=465627

While you may believe you are qualified to make baseless statements about theoretical physics, you are not. Your argument, and your continued desire to harp on a single word is silly at this point. As you have pointed out, I've entertained it for too long already. Let's move on.

Post #15 of your link pretty much puts your droning on about tachyons being more than what they are (i.e. theoretical) to rest IMO.

There are no observable quantities in physics that I am aware of that returns an imaginary value. All observables, even in Quantum Mechanics, are real. Wave-functions are NOT observables, and moreover the probability density is the absolute square of the wave-function, which is REAL. In fact, this is a postulate of Quantum Mechanics. That observables must be represented by Hermitian operators guarantees that the eigenvalues (measurements) are real.

Even the poster replying to that agrees with him. So still, you have a non-valid claim.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis presented by prometheuslocke suffers the same problems virtually all fringe hypothesis do.

The Author of the hypothesis:

  1. Uses misinterpretation (EX: the supposed Dendra light)
  2. Utilizes supposed influence by non-existent organizations (EX: The Illuminati)
  3. Ignores decades of research into areas such as Egyptian wall carvings, relying instead on personal views
  4. Presents the hypothesis as fact when there is no evidence to turn the hypothesis into a theory much less a fact
  5. Fails to use critical reasoning when putting together their hypothesis

To further explain #5, I looked and read through part of her website from a link she provided. On one page there was another link to a page that basically indicated that Orwell's 1984 had come to pass and mind control was being used by all the governments to keep a lid on advanced technology and keep us unaware of it.

Let us look at just one aspect of society, dictatorships, taking into account what prometheuslocke is inferring and apply some critical reasoning. If such technology did exist, a dictatorship, owing to it's very nature, would not be suppressing technology but would be going full steam to apply that technology to weaponry and use those weapons to eliminate anyone who opposed them. Further, dictatorships would apply mind control technology top there own people so there would never be a revolt or uprising.

Since we can see through history that dictatorships have not had an extreme technological advantage over their enemies and that dictatorships have been overthrown, critical reasoning tells us that neither the technology nor the mind control hypothesized by prometheuslocke exists.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you've read anything I've written. I didn't claim they depicted machines at all, ever.

Maybe its a reading comprehension thing.

Since you seem to know everything, what do you think the meaning of the Dendera reliefs is?

It's not a matter of what one "thinks," since the entire thing is explained right there on the walls in glyphs.

It is a well-known Horus myth, in this case it was depicted during the Ptolermaic period so it uses Horus' Greek name - Harsomptus. But the myth itself goes much further back into Egypt's past.

All explained here.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypothesis presented by prometheuslocke suffers the same problems virtually all fringe hypothesis do.

The Author of the hypothesis:

  1. Uses misinterpretation (EX: the supposed Dendra light)
  2. Utilizes supposed influence by non-existent organizations (EX: The Illuminati)
  3. Ignores decades of research into areas such as Egyptian wall carvings, relying instead on personal views
  4. Presents the hypothesis as fact when there is no evidence to turn the hypothesis into a theory much less a fact
  5. Fails to use critical reasoning when putting together their hypothesis

To further explain #5, I looked and read through part of her website from a link she provided. On one page there was another link to a page that basically indicated that Orwell's 1984 had come to pass and mind control was being used by all the governments to keep a lid on advanced technology and keep us unaware of it.

Let us look at just one aspect of society, dictatorships, taking into account what prometheuslocke is inferring and apply some critical reasoning. If such technology did exist, a dictatorship, owing to it's very nature, would not be suppressing technology but would be going full steam to apply that technology to weaponry and use those weapons to eliminate anyone who opposed them. Further, dictatorships would apply mind control technology top there own people so there would never be a revolt or uprising.

Since we can see through history that dictatorships have not had an extreme technological advantage over their enemies and that dictatorships have been overthrown, critical reasoning tells us that neither the technology nor the mind control hypothesized by prometheuslocke exists.

Great. First, my contention is that humanity has not had access to this technology until recent times, probably sometime between 1960 and 2000; if you listen to my theory, I think it was put into effect in 1984, and that is why Orwell chose that title. The common logic that he inverted his year of writing does not make sense, because it was changed three times, from 1980, to 1982, to 1984. I believe this was done.. for a reason.. to send a message to people that see that it has become a reality. Perhaps the technology was put in place over that four year period, for use by our government. It was heavily investigated not only in Nazi Germany, but in postwar Russia, UK, and the US. The mind control research programs that happened immediately after the war yielded an answer, that much should be obvious -- Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinkley...all show signs of being actual Manchurian Candidates.

Second, when you are discussing mind control technology, you certainly would not be telling the masses about it, and if you were an Orwellian dictator, you would be rolling it out and using it against the population as a whole. This is exactly what I contend is happening. Honestly, I'm trying to save your freedom here, and you are railing on me for no reason.

Let's look at the world around us. The United States is committing crimes internationally, starting wars to steal oil and drugs, supporting international organized crime both domestically and abroad. At the same time, they are destroying our civil liberties, those guaranteed by the constitution, from the 1st, 2nd, 4th ... all those amendments have been restricted to the point that they are virtually non-existent, or on the way there. There's a significant number of people that think things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook were false flag attacks. There's also a significant amount of evidence that the government was complicit, in at least a coverup on 9/11 -- the SEC investigation into trades against AA and UA in the days just prior to the attacks was not only shut down, but all evidence collected was shredded. They found out who knew, and it made them shut it down... hmm.. where did it get traced back to? The former director of the CIA heading up Deutsche Bank. After that... who knows. (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/23/re-deutsche-bank-alex-brown-and-911-insider-trading/)

What is happening about it? People post complaints on Facebook, and protest --- and then wind up getting arrested.

We live in a hidden dictatorship today, and nobody does anything about it.

Maybe they're scared... or maybe they're being mind controlled not to take action.

We've revolted before over less... taxes? I think it's not fear.

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. First, my contention is that humanity has not had access to this technology until recent times, probably sometime between 1960 and 2000; if you listen to my theory, I think it was put into effect in 1984, and that is why Orwell chose that title. The common logic that he inverted his year of writing does not make sense, because it was changed three times, from 1980, to 1982, to 1984. I believe this was done.. for a reason..

Of course you do. You don't stop to think that a writer plays around with ideas until one sits right. According to you, everything has to have a reason.

Perhaps the technology was put in place over that four year period, for use by our government. It was heavily investigated not only in Nazi Germany, but in postwar Russia, UK, and the US.

Solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. You don't need mind control for the events of the 20th century to have unfolded.

The mind control research programs that happened immediately after the war yielded an answer, that much should be obvious -- Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinkley...all show signs of being actual Manchurian Candidates.

You mean like the film. The fictional film.

And again, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It isn't enough that some people aren't mentally with-it as it were - they have to be controlled by the government. These things - assassinations - happen, it doesn't mean mind control exists.

Second, when you are discussing mind control technology, you certainly would not be telling the masses about it, and if you were an Orwellian dictator, you would be rolling it out and using it against the population as a whole. This is exactly what I contend is happening. Honestly, I'm trying to save your freedom here, and you are railing on me for no reason.

Nope, you're railed against because you're ideas make no sense and because you completely misuse science. Your posts follow the same pattern from conspiracy theorists we see here all the time, you just fill in the different blanks with different ideas.

Let's look at the world around us. The United States is committing crimes internationally, starting wars to steal oil and drugs, supporting international organized crime both domestically and abroad. At the same time, they are destroying our civil liberties, those guaranteed by the constitution, from the 1st, 2nd, 4th ... all those amendments have been restricted to the point that they are virtually non-existent, or on the way there. There's a significant number of people that think things like 9/11 and Sandy Hook were false flag attacks. There's also a significant amount of evidence that the government was complicit, in at least a coverup on 9/11 -- the SEC investigation into trades against AA and UA in the days just prior to the attacks was not only shut down, but all evidence collected was shredded. They found out who knew, and it made them shut it down... hmm.. where did it get traced back to? The former director of the CIA heading up Deutsche Bank. After that... who knows. (http://www.foreignpo...nsider-trading/)

What is happening about it? People post complaints on Facebook, and protest --- and then wind up getting arrested.

We live in a hidden dictatorship today, and nobody does anything about it.

Maybe they're scared... or maybe they're being mind controlled not to take action.

We've revolted before over less... taxes? I think it's not fear.

A non sequitur. You're taking random things that happen in the world, joining and dots and seeing whatever result you want to.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are links to scientific papers, they are probably beyond you, but if you read through them you might get the 'gist of it'.

This one of the most hilarious responses io have ever read.

The OP doesnt know swede, whos one of the most scientifically minded gents out here. scientific meaning he goes quite deep into it.

Pure ill informed statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one of the most hilarious responses io have ever read.

The OP doesnt know swede, whos one of the most scientifically minded gents out here. scientific meaning he goes quite deep into it.

Pure ill informed statement.

Very true, mind you if I recall correctly but Swede actually IS a scientist......

Also I would like to point out that the title of the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (which is the correct title and not "1984") has actually not been changed three times, from 1980, to 1982, to 1984. That's an unproven theory by Ben Pimlott, which you'll only find specifically in the introduction to the Penguin Books Modern Classics edition of "Nineteen Eighty-Four". Pimlott was a good historian but sometimes a bit controversial with his statements. This happens to be one of them, as far as I know it was never conclusively proven.

However, "The Last Man in Europe" was one of the original titles for the novel, but in a letter dated 22 October 1948 to his publisher Fredric Warburg, Orwell wrote about hesitating between the former and "Nineteen Eighty-Four".

So I can only surmise that the premise is already based on faulty information.

Edit : Typo king yaaaay

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.