[...]Philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell developed his "theory of logical types" in an attempt to help resolve the types of problems which can arise from self-referential paradox and circularity. According to Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) "the central thesis of (the theory of logical types) is that there is a discontinuity between a class and its members. The class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class, since the term used for the class is of a different level of abstraction - a different Logical Type - from the terms used for members".
[...]Anthropologist and communication theorist Gregory Bateson applied Russel's theory of logical types as a means to help explain and resolve a number of issues relating to behavior, learning and communication. Acording to Bateson, the notion of different logiacal types was essential to the understanding of play, higher level learning and pathological thinking patterns. Bateson believed that confusions of logical types were largely responsible for what we have been calling "limiting beliefs" and "thought viruses".
As an example, Bateson pointed out that "play" involved distinguishing between different logical types of behavior and messages. Bateson noted that when animals and humans engage in "play" they often display the same behaviors that are also associated with aggression, sexuality, and other more "serious" aspects of life (such as when animals "play fight", or children "play doctor"). Yet, somehow, animals and humans were able to recognize, for the most part, that the play behavior was a different type of class of betavior and "not the real thing". According to Bateson, distinguishing between classes of betavior also required different types of messages. Bateson referred to these messages as "meta messages" - messages about other messages - claiming that they too were of a different "logical type" than the content of a particular communication.
[...]Bateson pointed out that this ability to learn patterns or rules of a class of conditioning procedure was a different "logical type" of learning and did not function according to the same simple stimulus-response-reinforcement sequences used to learn specific isolated behaviors.
[...]According to the Neuro-Logical Levels model, [...]
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS determine the external opportunities or constraints a person has to react to. Answer to the questions "where" and "when".
BEHAVIOR is made up of the specific actions or reactions taken within the environment. Answers to the question "what".
CAPABILITIES guide and give direction to behavioral actions through a mental map, plan or strategy. Answers to the question "how".
BELIEFS and VALUES provide the reinforcement (motivation and permission) that supports or denies capabilities. Answers to the question "why".
IDENTITY factors determine overall purpose (mission) and shape beliefs and values through our sense of self. Answers to the question "who".
[Source: Robert Dilts - Sleight of mouth]
(In)Congruence
[...]Incongruence is usually experienced as an inner conflict with yourself. Often it seems like there are two sides of yourself. It's like there are two "yous." You have a part of you that wants to do something and a part that objects to it. It could be two behaviors, two beliefs, two belief systems, or even two aspects of your identity. Sometimes, when you're struggling with belief and identity conflicts, one "part" is not even aware of the other part. The result is confusion about yourself.
[...]Incongruity can result from imprint experiences, modeling significant others, conflicts in hierarchy of criteria, and life transitions and passages.
[...]When you are working with someone who has conflicting beliefs, you will often observe an asymmetry in body posture. It's not as subtle as skin color changes or other minimal physiological cues and is usually quite easy to see. You know you're dealing with two dissociated parts when the person is gesturing with the left hand as she discusses one aspect of the problem and the right hand for the conflicting aspect. It's interesting to note that often the right hand (which relates to the left brain, in most right handed people who have normally organized eye accessing cues) has intentions that deal with relationships and being worthwhile as a person in contexts that involve others. The left hand (which relates to right brain functions) tends to relate more to the individual being her own person and having a rich, full life. This kind of conflict might be defined as the difference between an "other-oriented" part and a "self-oriented" part. You might also find an "excitatory" and "inhibitory" conflict where you have one part that has great ideas and wants to move ahead while the other part wants you to hold back.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
[...]Incongruity can result from imprint experiences, modeling significant others, conflicts in hierarchy of criteria, and life transitions and passages.
[...]When you are working with someone who has conflicting beliefs, you will often observe an asymmetry in body posture. It's not as subtle as skin color changes or other minimal physiological cues and is usually quite easy to see. You know you're dealing with two dissociated parts when the person is gesturing with the left hand as she discusses one aspect of the problem and the right hand for the conflicting aspect. It's interesting to note that often the right hand (which relates to the left brain, in most right handed people who have normally organized eye accessing cues) has intentions that deal with relationships and being worthwhile as a person in contexts that involve others. The left hand (which relates to right brain functions) tends to relate more to the individual being her own person and having a rich, full life. This kind of conflict might be defined as the difference between an "other-oriented" part and a "self-oriented" part. You might also find an "excitatory" and "inhibitory" conflict where you have one part that has great ideas and wants to move ahead while the other part wants you to hold back.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
Imprints
An imprint is a significant event from the past in which you formed a belief, or a cluster of beliefs. Every form of healing, whether physical or psychological, that I know of gives credence to the fact that present behaviors are often created or shaped by past behaviors and past events. What's important to us as NLP practitioners about past experiences is not the content of what happened, but the impression or belief that the person built from the experience.
The notion of imprinting comes from Konrad Lorenz, who studied the behavior of ducklings when they hatched. He discovered that baby ducks would imprint a mother figure in the first day or so of life. They did that by sorting for movement, so that if something moved just after they hatched from their eggs, they followed it and it "became" their mother. Lorenz would move, and the ducks would follow. He found that if he reintroduced them to their real mother later, they would ignore her and continue to follow him. In the morning, when he got up, he would go outside and find the ducklings curled up around his boots, instead of in their own nest. He once reported that a ping pong ball rolled by one of the eggs when it hatched and the emerging duckling imprinted to the ping pong ball, making it the "mother." Later in life, the duck would shun others of its own species at mating time and try to mount various kinds of round things.
Konrad Lorenz and his colleagues believed that imprints were established at certain neurologically critical periods, and that once the critical period had passed whatever had been "imprinted" was permanent and not subject to change. Timothy Leary investigated the imprint phenomena in human beings. He contended that the human nervous system was more sophisticated than that of ducklings and other animals. He established that under the proper conditions, content that had been imprinted at earlier critical periods could be accessed and reprogrammed or re-imprinted. Leary also identified several significant developmental critical periods in human beings. Imprints established during these periods established core beliefs that shaped the personality and intelligence of the individual.
The primary critical periods involved the establishment of imprints determining beliefs about biological survival, emotional attachments and well-being, intellectual dexterity, social role, aesthetic appreciation, and "meta cognition," or the awareness of one's own thought processes. Thus, health problems might stem back to core beliefs and supporting behaviors established during the biological survival critical period, while phobias could have their roots in the emotional well-being period. Learning handicaps might derive from imprints formed during the critical period involving intellectual dexterity, and so on.
[...]Imprints can be significant "positive" experiences that lead to useful beliefs, or they can be traumatic, or problematic experiences that lead to limiting beliefs. Typically, but not always, they involve the unconscious role modeling of significant others. Compare the duck's behavior with human behavior using child abuse as a point of comparison. Research validates that often people who have been abused as children unconsciously get into relationships, as adults, that repeat their childhood experience. For example, often women who have been abused as children marry men who abuse them as adults. Males who were beaten as a child may abuse their own children. If they were beaten by their mothers, they may get into relationships where they are somehow the lesser person. Research shows that women who were beaten by their mothers are apt to be more violent with their own children than those who weren't. Imprints are one explanation of this phenomena. People abused as children can imprint that this is the typical behavior associated with fathers, mothers, husbands or wives. At the time the ducklings were hatching out of the eggs they didn't say, "Gee, that's a strange looking mother; I'd better check things out." Their brains were probably saying, "This is how mothers are,"--human beings do the same sorts of things.
[...]An imprint is not necessarily logical. It's something that's intuitive, and it typically happens at critical developmental periods. In childhood most of us don't have a real sense of self identity, so we pretend we're somebody else, and we often take on the role model--lock, stock and barrel. We can end up like the ducklings that weren't very discriminating about what they would accept as a mother. Who you are as an adult is, in many ways, an incorporation of the adult models you've grown up with. Your model of being an adult has the features of past significant others; features that have been stuck in early ways of believing and behaving that you made a part of yourself at an early age.These beliefs and behaviors emerge when you reach a certain age and are not a child anymore.
[...]The hardest part of changing any belief system is the fact that the imprint is likely to be out of conscious awareness. Your most significant behaviors are usually the ones that are most habitual. Those are the behaviors that you're least consciously aware of.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
The notion of imprinting comes from Konrad Lorenz, who studied the behavior of ducklings when they hatched. He discovered that baby ducks would imprint a mother figure in the first day or so of life. They did that by sorting for movement, so that if something moved just after they hatched from their eggs, they followed it and it "became" their mother. Lorenz would move, and the ducks would follow. He found that if he reintroduced them to their real mother later, they would ignore her and continue to follow him. In the morning, when he got up, he would go outside and find the ducklings curled up around his boots, instead of in their own nest. He once reported that a ping pong ball rolled by one of the eggs when it hatched and the emerging duckling imprinted to the ping pong ball, making it the "mother." Later in life, the duck would shun others of its own species at mating time and try to mount various kinds of round things.
Konrad Lorenz and his colleagues believed that imprints were established at certain neurologically critical periods, and that once the critical period had passed whatever had been "imprinted" was permanent and not subject to change. Timothy Leary investigated the imprint phenomena in human beings. He contended that the human nervous system was more sophisticated than that of ducklings and other animals. He established that under the proper conditions, content that had been imprinted at earlier critical periods could be accessed and reprogrammed or re-imprinted. Leary also identified several significant developmental critical periods in human beings. Imprints established during these periods established core beliefs that shaped the personality and intelligence of the individual.
The primary critical periods involved the establishment of imprints determining beliefs about biological survival, emotional attachments and well-being, intellectual dexterity, social role, aesthetic appreciation, and "meta cognition," or the awareness of one's own thought processes. Thus, health problems might stem back to core beliefs and supporting behaviors established during the biological survival critical period, while phobias could have their roots in the emotional well-being period. Learning handicaps might derive from imprints formed during the critical period involving intellectual dexterity, and so on.
[...]Imprints can be significant "positive" experiences that lead to useful beliefs, or they can be traumatic, or problematic experiences that lead to limiting beliefs. Typically, but not always, they involve the unconscious role modeling of significant others. Compare the duck's behavior with human behavior using child abuse as a point of comparison. Research validates that often people who have been abused as children unconsciously get into relationships, as adults, that repeat their childhood experience. For example, often women who have been abused as children marry men who abuse them as adults. Males who were beaten as a child may abuse their own children. If they were beaten by their mothers, they may get into relationships where they are somehow the lesser person. Research shows that women who were beaten by their mothers are apt to be more violent with their own children than those who weren't. Imprints are one explanation of this phenomena. People abused as children can imprint that this is the typical behavior associated with fathers, mothers, husbands or wives. At the time the ducklings were hatching out of the eggs they didn't say, "Gee, that's a strange looking mother; I'd better check things out." Their brains were probably saying, "This is how mothers are,"--human beings do the same sorts of things.
[...]An imprint is not necessarily logical. It's something that's intuitive, and it typically happens at critical developmental periods. In childhood most of us don't have a real sense of self identity, so we pretend we're somebody else, and we often take on the role model--lock, stock and barrel. We can end up like the ducklings that weren't very discriminating about what they would accept as a mother. Who you are as an adult is, in many ways, an incorporation of the adult models you've grown up with. Your model of being an adult has the features of past significant others; features that have been stuck in early ways of believing and behaving that you made a part of yourself at an early age.These beliefs and behaviors emerge when you reach a certain age and are not a child anymore.
[...]The hardest part of changing any belief system is the fact that the imprint is likely to be out of conscious awareness. Your most significant behaviors are usually the ones that are most habitual. Those are the behaviors that you're least consciously aware of.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
Gotterdammerung
[...]The end of the Second World War in Europe, at least as normally recounted, does not make sense, for in its standard form as learned in history books that history resembles nothing so much as a badly written finale to some melodramatic Wagnerian opera. [...]To appreciate how badly written a finale it truly is, it is best to begin at the logical place: in Berlin, far below ground, in the last weeks of the war. [...]Generaloberst Heinrici, commander of the vastly outnumbered Army Group Vistula that faces the massed armies of Marshal Zhukov poised less than sixty miles from Berlin, is pleading with his leader for more troops. The general is questioning the disposition of the forces he sees displayed on the battle map, for it is clear to him that some of Germany's finest and few remaining battle worthy formations are far south, facing Marshal Koniev's forces in Silesia. These forces were thus, incomprehensibly, poised to make a stiff defense of Breslau and Prague, not Berlin. The general pleads for Hitler to release some of these forces and transfer them north, but to no avail. "Prague," the Fuhrer responds stubbornly, almost mystically, "is the key to winning the war." Generaloberts Heinrici's hard-pressed troops must "do without."
One may also perhaps imagine Heinrici and the other assembled generals perhaps casting a doleful glance at Norway on the situation map, where thousands of German troops are still stationed, occupying a country that had long since ceased to be of any strategic or operational value to the defense of the Reich. Why indeed did Hitler maintain so many German troops in Norway up to the very end of the war? These paradoxical German troops deployments are the first mystery of the badly written finale of the war in Europe. Both Allied and German generals would ponder it after the war, and both would write it off to Hitler's insanity, a conclusion that would become part of the "Allied Legend" of the end of the war. This interpretation does make sense, for if one assumed that Hitler were having a rare seizure of sanity when he ordered these deployments, what possibly could he have been thinking? Prague? Norway? There were no standard or conventional military reasons for the deployments. In other words, the deployments themselves attest his complete lack of touch with military reality.
[...]But on the Allied side of the Allied Legend, things are equally peculiar. In March and April of 1945, US General George S. Patton's Third Army is literally racing across southern Bavaria, as fast as is operationally possible, making a beeline for:
(1) the huge Skoda munitions works at Pilsen, a complex all but blown off the map by Allied bombers;
(2) Prague; and
(3) A region of the Harz Mountains in Thuringia known to Germans as the Dreiecks or Three Corners," a region encompassed by the old medieval towns and villages of Arnstadt, Jonastal, Wechmar, and Ohrdruf.
One is informed by countless history books that this maneuver was thought to be necessary by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHEAF) because of reports that the Nazis were planning to make a last stand in the "Alpine National Redoubt", a network of fortified mountains stretching from the Alps to the Harz Mountains. The Third Army's movements, so the story goes, were designed to cut off the "escape route" of Nazis fleeing the carnage of Berlin. Maps are produced in old history books, accompanied in some cases by de-classified German plans some dating from the Weimar Republic! - for just such a redoubt. Case settled. However, there is a problem with that explanation. Allied aerial reconnaissance would likely have told Eisenhower and SHAEF that there were precious few fortified strong points in the "National Redoubt". Indeed, it would have told them that the "Redoubt" was no redoubt at all. General Patton and his divisional commanders would most certainly have been privy to at least some of this information. So why the extraordinary and almost reckless speed of his advance, an advance the post-war Allied Legend would have us believe was to cut off the escape route of Nazis fleeing Berlin, who it turns out weren't fleeing, to a redoubt that didn't exist? The mystery deepens.
Then, remarkably, in a strange twist of fate, General Patton himself, America's most celebrated general, dies suddenly, and, some would say, suspiciously, as a result of complications from injuries he sustained in a freak automobile accident soon after the end of the war and the beginning of the Allied military occupation.
[...]Matters are not helped by events on the other side of the world in the Pacific theater, for there American investigators would uncover similarly strange goings on after the war ended. There, after Nagasaki, the Emperor Hirohito, overriding his ministers who wanted to continue the war, decided that Japan would surrender unconditionally. But why would Hirohito's ministers urge continuance of the war in the face of overwhelming Allied conventional arms superiority, and, from their point of view, facing a potential rain of atomic bombs? After all, "two" bombs could just as easily have turned into twenty. One could, of course, attribute the ministers' objections to the Emperor's intentions to "proud samurai traditions" and the Japanese sense of "honor" and so on. And that would indeed be a plausible explanation. But another explanation is that Hirohito's cabinet ministers knew something. What his ministers probably knew was what American intelligence would soon discover: that the Japanese, "just prior to their surrender, had developed and successfully test fired an atomic bomb. The project had been housed in or near Konan(Japanese name for Hungnam), Korea, in the peninsula's North." It was exploded, so the story goes, one day after the American plutonium bomb, "Fat Man", exploded over Nagasaki, i.e., on August 10, 1945. The war, in other words, depending on Hirohito's decision, could have "gone nuclear". By that time, of course it would have done Japan no good to prolong it, with no viable means of delivery of an atomic weapon to any worthwhile strategic American targets. The Emperor stood his ministers down. These allegations constitute yet another difficulty for the Allied Legend, for where did Japan obtain the necessary uranium for its (alleged) A-bomb? And more importantly, the technology to enrich it ?
[...]Finally, a curious fact, one of those obvious things that one lends to overlook unless attention is drawn to it: the atomic bomb test that took place at the Trinity site in new Mexico was a test of America's implosion-plutonium bomb, a test needed to see if the concept would actually work. It did, and magnificently. But what is immensely significant - a fact missing from almost all mainstream literature on the subject since the end of the war - is that the uranium bomb with its apparatus of a cannon shooting the critical mass of uranium together, the bomb that was actually first used in war, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested. As German author Friedrich Georg notes, this tears a rather gaping hole in the Allied Legend:[...]Why was the uranium bomb of the USA, unlike the plutonium bomb, not tested prior to being hurled on Japan? Militarily this would appear to be extremely dangerous.... Did the Americans simply forget to test it, or did others already do it for them?
[...]So, what exactly did the German pilot Hans Zinsser see on that night of October, 1944, as he flew his Heinkel bomber over the twilight skies of northern Germany? Something that, had he known it, would require the previous badly written Wagnerian libretto to be almost completely revised. His affidavit is contained in a military intelligence report of August 19, 1945, roll number A1007, filmed in 1973 at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Zinsser's statement is found on the last page of the report:
47. A man named ZINSSER, a Flak rocket expert, mentioned what he noticed one day: In the beginning of Oct, 1944 I flew from Ludwigslust (south of Lubeck), about 12 to 15 km from an atomic bomb test station, when I noticed a strong, bright illumination of the whole atmosphere, lasting about 2 seconds.
48. The clearly visible pressure wave escaped the approaching and following cloud formed by the explosion. This wave had a diameter of about 1 km when it became visible and the color of the cloud changed frequently. It became dotted after a short period of darkness with all sorts of light spots, which were, in contrast to normal explosions, of a pale blue color.
49. After about 10 seconds the sharp outlines of the explosion cloud disappeared, then the cloud began to take on a lighter color against the sky covered with a gray overcast. The diameter of the still visible pressure wave was at least 9000 meters while remaining visible for at least 15 seconds.
50. Personal observations of the colors of the explosion cloud found an almost blue-violet shade. During this manifestation reddishcolored rims were to be seen, changing to a dirty-like shade in very rapid succession.
51. The combustion was lightly felt from my observation plane in the form of pulling and pushing.
52. About one hour later I started with an He 111 from the A/D at Ludwigslust and flew in an easterly direction. Shortly after the start I passed through the almost complete overcast (between 3000 and 4000 meter altitude). A cloud shaped like a mushroom with turbulent, billowing sections (at about 7000 meter altitude) stood, without any seeming connections, over the spot where the explosion took place. Strong electrical disturbances and the impossibility to continue radio communication as by lightning, turned up.
53. Because of the P-38s operating in the area Wittenberg-Mersburg I had to turn to the north but observed a better visibility at the bottom of the cloud where the explosion occured (sic). Note: It does not seem very clear to me why these experiments took place in such crowded areas.
In other words, a German pilot had observed the test of a weapon, having all the signatures of a nuclear bomb: electromagnetic pulse and resulting malfunction of his radio, mushroom cloud, continuing fire and combustion of nuclear material in the cloud and so on. And all this on territory clearly under German control, in October of 1944, fully eight months before the first American A-bomb test in New Mexico.
[...]In a nutshell: the Allied Legend about the German failure to obtain the atom bomb because they never had a functioning reactor is simply utter scientific nonsense, because a reactor is needed only it one wants to produce plutonium. It is an unneeded, and expensive, development, if one only wants to make a uranium A-bomb. Thus, there is sufficient reason, due to the science of bombmaking and the political and military realities of the war after America's entry, that the Germans took the decision to develop only a uranium bomb, since that afforded the best, most direct, and technologically least complicated route to acquisition of a bomb.
[Source: Joseph P. Farrell - Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend]
One may also perhaps imagine Heinrici and the other assembled generals perhaps casting a doleful glance at Norway on the situation map, where thousands of German troops are still stationed, occupying a country that had long since ceased to be of any strategic or operational value to the defense of the Reich. Why indeed did Hitler maintain so many German troops in Norway up to the very end of the war? These paradoxical German troops deployments are the first mystery of the badly written finale of the war in Europe. Both Allied and German generals would ponder it after the war, and both would write it off to Hitler's insanity, a conclusion that would become part of the "Allied Legend" of the end of the war. This interpretation does make sense, for if one assumed that Hitler were having a rare seizure of sanity when he ordered these deployments, what possibly could he have been thinking? Prague? Norway? There were no standard or conventional military reasons for the deployments. In other words, the deployments themselves attest his complete lack of touch with military reality.
[...]But on the Allied side of the Allied Legend, things are equally peculiar. In March and April of 1945, US General George S. Patton's Third Army is literally racing across southern Bavaria, as fast as is operationally possible, making a beeline for:
(1) the huge Skoda munitions works at Pilsen, a complex all but blown off the map by Allied bombers;
(2) Prague; and
(3) A region of the Harz Mountains in Thuringia known to Germans as the Dreiecks or Three Corners," a region encompassed by the old medieval towns and villages of Arnstadt, Jonastal, Wechmar, and Ohrdruf.
One is informed by countless history books that this maneuver was thought to be necessary by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHEAF) because of reports that the Nazis were planning to make a last stand in the "Alpine National Redoubt", a network of fortified mountains stretching from the Alps to the Harz Mountains. The Third Army's movements, so the story goes, were designed to cut off the "escape route" of Nazis fleeing the carnage of Berlin. Maps are produced in old history books, accompanied in some cases by de-classified German plans some dating from the Weimar Republic! - for just such a redoubt. Case settled. However, there is a problem with that explanation. Allied aerial reconnaissance would likely have told Eisenhower and SHAEF that there were precious few fortified strong points in the "National Redoubt". Indeed, it would have told them that the "Redoubt" was no redoubt at all. General Patton and his divisional commanders would most certainly have been privy to at least some of this information. So why the extraordinary and almost reckless speed of his advance, an advance the post-war Allied Legend would have us believe was to cut off the escape route of Nazis fleeing Berlin, who it turns out weren't fleeing, to a redoubt that didn't exist? The mystery deepens.
Then, remarkably, in a strange twist of fate, General Patton himself, America's most celebrated general, dies suddenly, and, some would say, suspiciously, as a result of complications from injuries he sustained in a freak automobile accident soon after the end of the war and the beginning of the Allied military occupation.
[...]Matters are not helped by events on the other side of the world in the Pacific theater, for there American investigators would uncover similarly strange goings on after the war ended. There, after Nagasaki, the Emperor Hirohito, overriding his ministers who wanted to continue the war, decided that Japan would surrender unconditionally. But why would Hirohito's ministers urge continuance of the war in the face of overwhelming Allied conventional arms superiority, and, from their point of view, facing a potential rain of atomic bombs? After all, "two" bombs could just as easily have turned into twenty. One could, of course, attribute the ministers' objections to the Emperor's intentions to "proud samurai traditions" and the Japanese sense of "honor" and so on. And that would indeed be a plausible explanation. But another explanation is that Hirohito's cabinet ministers knew something. What his ministers probably knew was what American intelligence would soon discover: that the Japanese, "just prior to their surrender, had developed and successfully test fired an atomic bomb. The project had been housed in or near Konan(Japanese name for Hungnam), Korea, in the peninsula's North." It was exploded, so the story goes, one day after the American plutonium bomb, "Fat Man", exploded over Nagasaki, i.e., on August 10, 1945. The war, in other words, depending on Hirohito's decision, could have "gone nuclear". By that time, of course it would have done Japan no good to prolong it, with no viable means of delivery of an atomic weapon to any worthwhile strategic American targets. The Emperor stood his ministers down. These allegations constitute yet another difficulty for the Allied Legend, for where did Japan obtain the necessary uranium for its (alleged) A-bomb? And more importantly, the technology to enrich it ?
[...]Finally, a curious fact, one of those obvious things that one lends to overlook unless attention is drawn to it: the atomic bomb test that took place at the Trinity site in new Mexico was a test of America's implosion-plutonium bomb, a test needed to see if the concept would actually work. It did, and magnificently. But what is immensely significant - a fact missing from almost all mainstream literature on the subject since the end of the war - is that the uranium bomb with its apparatus of a cannon shooting the critical mass of uranium together, the bomb that was actually first used in war, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested. As German author Friedrich Georg notes, this tears a rather gaping hole in the Allied Legend:[...]Why was the uranium bomb of the USA, unlike the plutonium bomb, not tested prior to being hurled on Japan? Militarily this would appear to be extremely dangerous.... Did the Americans simply forget to test it, or did others already do it for them?
[...]So, what exactly did the German pilot Hans Zinsser see on that night of October, 1944, as he flew his Heinkel bomber over the twilight skies of northern Germany? Something that, had he known it, would require the previous badly written Wagnerian libretto to be almost completely revised. His affidavit is contained in a military intelligence report of August 19, 1945, roll number A1007, filmed in 1973 at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Zinsser's statement is found on the last page of the report:
47. A man named ZINSSER, a Flak rocket expert, mentioned what he noticed one day: In the beginning of Oct, 1944 I flew from Ludwigslust (south of Lubeck), about 12 to 15 km from an atomic bomb test station, when I noticed a strong, bright illumination of the whole atmosphere, lasting about 2 seconds.
48. The clearly visible pressure wave escaped the approaching and following cloud formed by the explosion. This wave had a diameter of about 1 km when it became visible and the color of the cloud changed frequently. It became dotted after a short period of darkness with all sorts of light spots, which were, in contrast to normal explosions, of a pale blue color.
49. After about 10 seconds the sharp outlines of the explosion cloud disappeared, then the cloud began to take on a lighter color against the sky covered with a gray overcast. The diameter of the still visible pressure wave was at least 9000 meters while remaining visible for at least 15 seconds.
50. Personal observations of the colors of the explosion cloud found an almost blue-violet shade. During this manifestation reddishcolored rims were to be seen, changing to a dirty-like shade in very rapid succession.
51. The combustion was lightly felt from my observation plane in the form of pulling and pushing.
52. About one hour later I started with an He 111 from the A/D at Ludwigslust and flew in an easterly direction. Shortly after the start I passed through the almost complete overcast (between 3000 and 4000 meter altitude). A cloud shaped like a mushroom with turbulent, billowing sections (at about 7000 meter altitude) stood, without any seeming connections, over the spot where the explosion took place. Strong electrical disturbances and the impossibility to continue radio communication as by lightning, turned up.
53. Because of the P-38s operating in the area Wittenberg-Mersburg I had to turn to the north but observed a better visibility at the bottom of the cloud where the explosion occured (sic). Note: It does not seem very clear to me why these experiments took place in such crowded areas.
In other words, a German pilot had observed the test of a weapon, having all the signatures of a nuclear bomb: electromagnetic pulse and resulting malfunction of his radio, mushroom cloud, continuing fire and combustion of nuclear material in the cloud and so on. And all this on territory clearly under German control, in October of 1944, fully eight months before the first American A-bomb test in New Mexico.
[...]In a nutshell: the Allied Legend about the German failure to obtain the atom bomb because they never had a functioning reactor is simply utter scientific nonsense, because a reactor is needed only it one wants to produce plutonium. It is an unneeded, and expensive, development, if one only wants to make a uranium A-bomb. Thus, there is sufficient reason, due to the science of bombmaking and the political and military realities of the war after America's entry, that the Germans took the decision to develop only a uranium bomb, since that afforded the best, most direct, and technologically least complicated route to acquisition of a bomb.
[Source: Joseph P. Farrell - Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend]
Silent weapons for quiet wars
[...]In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the low-class elements of society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be housebroken, trained, and assigned a yoke and long-term social duties from a very early age, before they have an opportunity to question the propriety of the matter. In order to achieve such conformity, the lower-class family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of government-operated day-care centers for the occupationally orphaned children. The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so that the moat of ignorance isolating the inferior class from the superior class is and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap, even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to maintain some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling upper class.
[...]From the time a person leaves its mother's womb, its every effort is directed towards building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs, various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable activity; to provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth and maturity - i.e., survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite. However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go about the solution of problems.
The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.
Most people want to be able to subdue and/or kill other human beings which disturb their daily lives, but they do not want to have to cope with the moral and religious issues which such an overt act on their part might raise. Therefore, they assign the dirty work to others (including their own children) so as to keep the blood off their hands. They rave about the humane treatment of animals and then sit down to a delicious hamburger from a whitewashed slaughterhouse down the street and out of sight. But even more hypocritical, they pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called politicians, and then complain about corruption in government.
Again, most people want to be free to do the things (to explore, etc.) but they are afraid to fail. The fear of failure is manifested in irresponsibility, and especially in delegating those personal responsibilities to others where success is uncertain or carries possible or created liabilities (law) which the person is not prepared to accept. They want authority (root word - "author"), but they will not accept responsibility or liability. So they hire politicians to face reality for them.
[...]From the time a person leaves its mother's womb, its every effort is directed towards building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs, various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable activity; to provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth and maturity - i.e., survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite. However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go about the solution of problems.
The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.
Most people want to be able to subdue and/or kill other human beings which disturb their daily lives, but they do not want to have to cope with the moral and religious issues which such an overt act on their part might raise. Therefore, they assign the dirty work to others (including their own children) so as to keep the blood off their hands. They rave about the humane treatment of animals and then sit down to a delicious hamburger from a whitewashed slaughterhouse down the street and out of sight. But even more hypocritical, they pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called politicians, and then complain about corruption in government.
Again, most people want to be free to do the things (to explore, etc.) but they are afraid to fail. The fear of failure is manifested in irresponsibility, and especially in delegating those personal responsibilities to others where success is uncertain or carries possible or created liabilities (law) which the person is not prepared to accept. They want authority (root word - "author"), but they will not accept responsibility or liability. So they hire politicians to face reality for them.
Biological Transmutations
[...]A simple proof requiring no chemical analysis is the increase in weight of mineral salts in a germinating seed which is supplied with nothing but distilled water. Take two identical batches of seed, germinate one group on filter paper kept moist with distilled water. After three or four weeks, incinerate both batches. There will be a higher mineral ash content in the germinated seeds. (The difference between the two varies greatly with the species, but the increase is always at least 4 to 5%).
A mare advanced study than the above has shown that more of the heavier elements are produced by transmutation with the oxygen and hydrogen of the water; for example, magnesium has decreased, calcium has increased. Part of the magnesium has disappeared because it has become calcium. The nucleus of the magnesium atom (24 nucleons) has joined up with an oxygen nucleus (16 nucleons) to give a compound nucleus of 24+16=40 nucleons, and 40 nucleons constitute the calcium nucleus. It should also be noted that there are 12 protons in magnesium (this number characterises the element: if there are not 12 protons, it is not magnesium). There are 8 protons in an oxygen nucleus, so we have 8+12=20 protons in the compound nucleus, and 20 protons are characteristic of calcium. (40 nucleons are not an individual characteristic, argon also has 40.) There are calcium isotopes with more than 40 nucleons, but they always have 20 protons: only the number of neutron changes.
[Source: C. L. Kervran - Biological Transmutations]
Big Bang as Genesis
[...]Just as the Ptolemaic cosmology was yoked to the theology of medieval Catholicism, so the Big Bang is today entangled with religious and theological ideas. It is used to support those concepts, and religion in turn is marshaled in defense of modern cosmology. Once again, as four hundred years ago, some theologians attempt to define which scientific concepts are permissible and which are not. The new scientific revolution, like the Copernican revolution, is not an attack on religion as a whole, but on the entanglement of science and religion--the idea that religious authority can dictate or reject scientific doctrines, or that the evidence of science can be used to bolster religious authority.
[...]So we should not be surprised that today cosmology remains entangled with religion. From theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator. In February of 1989, for example, the front-page article of the New York Times Book Review argued that scientists and novelists were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang. A character in John Updike's 1987 novel Roger's Version is cited as typical of the trend. The character, a computer hacker, says, "The physicists are getting things down to the ultimate details and the last thing they ever expected to be happening is happening. God is showing through, facts are facts . . . God the Creator, maker of heaven and earth. He made it, we now can see, with such incredible precision that a Swiss watch is just a bunch of little rocks by comparison."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow echoes the same theme in his widely noted God and the Astronomers: the Big Bang of the astronomers is simply the scientific version of Genesis, a universe created in an instant, therefore the work of a creator. These ideas are repeated in a dozen or more popular books on cosmology and fundamental physics.
Such thinking is not limited to physicists and novelists, who could perhaps be dismissed as amateur theologians. Ever since 1951, when Pope Pius XII asserted that the still-new Big Bang supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, Catholic theologians have used it in this way. The pope wrote in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In fact, it seems that presentday science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' [Let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. . . . Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!"
To be sure, these views are by no means unanimous within the Catholic Church. The present pope, John Paul II, is far more cautious in mixing science and religion. In his own address on the subject, he repeatedly apologized on behalf of the Church for the persecution of Galileo and reaffirmed the autonomy of religion and science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981 he paraphrased Galileo, saying that the Bible "does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." It is therefore not up to religion, he argues, to judge one or another cosmological theory. Yet in the same address, John Paul II favorably quotes from Pius XII's earlier speech and contends that the question of the beginning of the universe is not one that can be solved by science alone--to do so requires "above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation."
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
[...]So we should not be surprised that today cosmology remains entangled with religion. From theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator. In February of 1989, for example, the front-page article of the New York Times Book Review argued that scientists and novelists were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang. A character in John Updike's 1987 novel Roger's Version is cited as typical of the trend. The character, a computer hacker, says, "The physicists are getting things down to the ultimate details and the last thing they ever expected to be happening is happening. God is showing through, facts are facts . . . God the Creator, maker of heaven and earth. He made it, we now can see, with such incredible precision that a Swiss watch is just a bunch of little rocks by comparison."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow echoes the same theme in his widely noted God and the Astronomers: the Big Bang of the astronomers is simply the scientific version of Genesis, a universe created in an instant, therefore the work of a creator. These ideas are repeated in a dozen or more popular books on cosmology and fundamental physics.
Such thinking is not limited to physicists and novelists, who could perhaps be dismissed as amateur theologians. Ever since 1951, when Pope Pius XII asserted that the still-new Big Bang supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, Catholic theologians have used it in this way. The pope wrote in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In fact, it seems that presentday science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' [Let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. . . . Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!"
To be sure, these views are by no means unanimous within the Catholic Church. The present pope, John Paul II, is far more cautious in mixing science and religion. In his own address on the subject, he repeatedly apologized on behalf of the Church for the persecution of Galileo and reaffirmed the autonomy of religion and science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981 he paraphrased Galileo, saying that the Bible "does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." It is therefore not up to religion, he argues, to judge one or another cosmological theory. Yet in the same address, John Paul II favorably quotes from Pius XII's earlier speech and contends that the question of the beginning of the universe is not one that can be solved by science alone--to do so requires "above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation."
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
