Wednesday, August 10, 2011

There is No Beauty without some Strangeness of Proportion/ Part 14/ Section 15


By Brian George

15
Titans cursed by a calendar still battle under Tartaros

“The fairest universe is but a heap of rubbish piled up at random”—Heraclitus, Fragment 24.

When accused of fudging the results of an August 14th, 1995 test, Nancy Talbot wrote, “No reputable scientist would challenge already published works without having carried out research replicating the research they are challenging. And they would only challenge previously published results by anyone if their OWN work produced what they felt were DIFFERENT results.”

Colin Andrews wrote, “In two important cases, as Nancy Talbot is aware, while working myself with Rockefeller funding, I filmed her own crop circle plant samplers making a crop circle, sending samples from it and then viewing Levengood’s findings back to them. These were very important, and I think the reason for so much doubt. Mr. Levengood concluded that the plants from this circle were among the best examples of the real phenomenon and showed the highest crop circle making energy.”

And in response to Talbot’s criticism, Andrews argued, “It does not always necessitate replication of a finding to prove the scientist is heading down the wrong road; it takes evidence that his interpretations are wrong, and does not require replication of results.”

Three ways—at a minimum—come to mind as to how one could interpret the odd behavior of BLT. These are as follows:

1) Deliberate fraud, for the purpose of career advancement or the promotion of a metaphysical agenda.

2) Wishful thinking—i.e. “research bias”—due to excess fascination with and/or possession by the force-field of the subject.

3) Deliberate scrambling of the evidence in order to sow the seeds of doubt—the use of research as a tool of “disinformation,” because the goals of the researcher are not quite what they seem.

An interview that Talbot did with Henrik Palmgren—on “Red Ice Creations Radio,” August 17th, 2010—may shed some light on this last possibility, with its tangle of implications.

In it, Talbot scoffed at the idea that we should attempt to understand or learn to speak the language of the crop circles, when we are not sure that 100% of them are genuine. To paraphrase: "Why should we bother to understand them if the information is just something that another human being has put there?"


But if a circle is in complex digital or geometric code, why can't we figure out, first, what is being said, and then figure out who or what is saying this later on? Especially when this information has to do with astronomical conjunctions, the movement of comets—or in the case of “Comet Holmes” its explosion—eclipses, sun spots, solar storms and flares, or other one-of-a-kind events whose dates and details no “human” circle-maker would have any way of predicting. If we come across an unknown manuscript, do we have to be 100% certain of the author before we are allowed to read one sentence from the text?

If one may pause to take note of a passing twinge of paranoia—much of BLTs has been carried out with funds from Lawrence Rockefeller. And who knows what he might be up to?

Three ways—at a minimum—come to mind as to how one could interpret the electromagnetic results. These are as follows:


1) There may be a “spill-over effect” into the surrounding field from the energy of the actual crop circle.

2) The energies that make possible the projection of a crop circle onto a field may be present as part of a larger geomagnetic vortex, and are not located specifically within the circumference of the circle.

3) Again, the energies that are said to characterize a real crop circle might be latent within a particular geomagnetic area, but do not manifest until a circle is inscribed upon the field—whether pressed by humans, using ropes and boards, or projected by some inter-dimensional cabal.

Such contradictory interpretations have to do with the “over-determined” nature of the Sign.

Andrews also posted a long series of photographs that supposedly document the points that he is making. These reminded me of a photograph in the “World Weekly News,” circa 1974, in which three scientists were staring at a bean, with their calipers and other “scientific” instruments in hand. The headline read, “Top Scientists Prove ET Bean Compatible with Earth’s Soil.” Let us take a look at the 1995 photographs:


Here is farm foreman Geoff Smith standing in front of a tractor.

Here is Colin Andrews holding a microphone in front of Geoff Smith, with a wheat field in the background.

Here is a picture of the “Daily Mail National Newspaper” from August 3rd, 1995, the same day that one “blind test” was carried out.

Here is James Withers of the BLT plant sampling team carrying a rope and stomping board into the wheat field, watched closely by Geoff Smith.

Here is a sketch in a spiral notebook by a member of the BLT plant sampling team.

Here is James Withers about to make the small crop circle from which plants will then be sent to William Levengood for analysis.

Here is the BLT team removing samples from a “normal plant lodging” area—caused by heavy rain that has washed in from a highway—about 30 feet to the right of the crop circle that they made.

Here are Shelley Keal and Yvonne Withers putting plant samples into plastic bags.

The BLT research protocols may, in fact, have been fatally flowed, but, even if we grant that “Seeing Is Believing,” is there anything that Andrews shows us that would indicate that this is so?

Even here, with these clear-cut photographs, what at first seems to be simple becomes more complex as we look at it. It is common knowledge that the most effective lies should stay as close to the truth as possible. It is certainly true that all of the actions in the photographs have taken place, and that they have no doubt taken place on August 14th, 1995. Colin Andrews then informs us as to how we should interpret them. Objectively, however, it is not at all clear what any of these images might mean.

No, we must extract from each the meanings that are meant for us. As we must figure out what each Sign is instructing us to do.

“Top Scientists Prove ET Bean Compatible with Earth’s Soil.”The photograph, of course, proves nothing of this sort, nor do the photographs of the BLT plant sampler team and the farm foreman prove anything other than that people have been standing next to tractors, speaking into microphones, drawing in spiral notebooks, and putting plants into plastic bags.

“The god whose oracle is at Delphi neither explicates nor conceals, but rather shows by a sign,” said Heraclitus. It is always possible that there may be no more than one meaning to each sign, but, if so, that one meaning is vast, and there is no way to encompass it from our single-point perspective.

No comments:

Post a Comment