Injections. Immunology

Raeto West   20 Aug 2023

Injections:   I believe there has been long-term concern over introducing foreign substances into the body; dating back to Galen, Aesculapius, Egyptians, Babylonians...
      Considering every living thing as the end-point so far of its own birth, and of its parents, and grandparents, we can see, with mammals, the each grew from two fused cells, growing larger and larger, at each point protected and enclosed while it grew, so that every part of it grew from within itself, in a closed environment, almost like a laboratory. This must have happened with mammals ever since they existed. So each adult on earth ballooned out from within its mother in an incredibly long series of events. Understanding this gives some feeling for the reasons people ought to be wary of intrusions into them.
      I suspect that food (and its expulsion) may lead people to underestimate the tenacity of life's processes in enclosing organisms and keeping them intact and whole. The alimentary canal is long and winding and edged with remarkable organs, keeping food in its digestive stages firmly separated from the rest of the body. If the separation is less strong, there is more danger. In a phrase, everybody carries around internally-stored stuff, not part of themselves. This sort of separation is part of life. The lungs and the diaphragm, and the blood-brain barrier, are two other important examples.
      I'm inclined to think that the familiarisation with syringes, hypodermics which go under the skin, is a deliberate policy to blunt the awareness of possible risks. When I first heard of 'needle sharing', and the idea that people with no medical knowledge injected themselves, I wondered if it was part of a policy to get rid of such people. Injecting with air can be fatal; so can getting the pH wrong.
      Please bear this possibility in mind! Obviously the body has its defences—insects can get to blood, but not that easily. Some types of small worm can chew their way through bodies, but they ar usually under control.

Jokes about Lawyers

Assembled by Richard Ennals & Rae West 1998

Joke from Punch, 1920s. LAWYER: "Well, to defend you I shall want money. Have you any?" CLIENT: "Oh, yus—plenty." LAWYER: "Splendid. Now, what do they accuse you of stealing?" CLIENT: "Oh—money."

 
"Wrong must not win by technicalities" - Aeschylus (c 460 BC)

"If you do not have the basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Cicero

"In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, Obscures the show of evil?" - Merchant of Venice

"The law of England is the greatest grievance of the nation, very expensive and dilatory" - Bishop Gilbert Burnet (1723)

"Let the laws be clear, uniform, and precise; to interpret laws is almost always to corrupt them" - Voltaire

"God works wonders now and then: Behold! a lawyer, an honest man!" - Benjamin Franklin

"If there were no bad people there would be no good lawyers" - Charles Dickens

"The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race" - Oliver Wendell Holmes

"The law courts of England are open to all men, like the doors of the Ritz Hotel" - Lord Justice Darling (1920)

"Her husband is a lawyer; and an honest man" - "Bigamist!" - Punch (1920s)

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so" - Gandhi

---

Click below for more lawyer jokes websites.
Update, 2013: Of seven sites with jokes about lawyers, only one survives at

    1995 homepage with series of jokes and an ad

---

Email me
Top of this page
big-lies.org

©Rae West 1998-05-22 Revd 1998-10-27, 1999-09-30

top of page

Leys (or 'Ley Lines') and Alfred Watkins as a Pioneer Notes on what might be a serious discovery, a reshaping of perceptions of the remote past. This is a combination of three book reviews (from elsewhere on this site; also on Amazon): two of books by Alfred Watkins, The Old Straight Track (1925) and The Ley Hunter's Manual (1927). And a biography of Watkins by Ron Shoesmith. I've added very detailed notes following the reviews which I hope are clear and accurate. The Old Straight Track was a pioneering book, presenting a rational theory of prehistoric landscape awareness and mobility. But the book has been, and still is, misrepresented by both supporters and opponents. The Old Straight Track Fascinating if over-detailed book (Watkins' 'The Ley Hunter's Manual' is I think better). Poor Watkins is misrepresented by both friends and enemies—the latter mostly professional archaeologists. Trying to summarise: Watkins realised (he was among other things a commercial traveller around Herefordshire, and was well aware of the problems of finding one's way round, and the importance of landmarks) that prehistoric man had a problem of transport. To take one example: salt. There are local deposits of this in Britain; but projecting time backwards, how could the stuff be moved around? There were no motorways, or even roads; no tarmac; no motor traffic; no bikes; no maps; not even weedkiller to keep paths clear... obvious points which many people seem unable to grasp. Watkins' theory was simply that straight tracks were laid out by line-of-sight and marked by whatever method was feasible—dug-out notches on the skyline (early man could do earthmoving on quite a scale), upright stones arranged in pairs to point the way, perhaps church steeples (assuming site continuity), large stones by the pathside—of types not found locally, to remove doubt. Watkins thought some large flat stones marked with cup and ball marks might be in effect maps of local 'hill forts'. He thought Silbury Hill was built specifically as a landmark. Trees were another possibility, though obviously they would be visible now, if at all, only by traces. Another of Watkins's examples was water: springs of clean water were presumably a useful asset (and some contained health assisting minerals, though obviously we're in eras predating chemical knowledge). Paths to them might be marked out. And much more in this vein, including signalling by means of beacon fires. His SUPPORTERS have often taken a description by Watkins of a sudden insight into this possibility ('wires.. across the countryside') in an electrical sense, adding a whole assemblage of material on sacred sites, lights, currents, electric charges and shocks, and what have you. And of course there was a temptation to rule lines on the then-new Ordnance Survey maps. They also renamed as 'ley lines' what Watkins christened 'leys'. His OPPONENTS generally laid into the detail—place-names for example obviously are a high-risk source of evidence. So are buildings—many 19th century churches are built in mock-old styles, many manor houses aren't reliable indicators of archaeological precedents, etc. I think there was also a class element here: archaeologists like, or liked, to look at palaces, villas, military structures, cathedrals, massive megaliths, impressive graves, treasure hoards, and generally high status things. Watkins tried to redirect attention to humble practical tracks and paths. The Ley Hunter's Manual Brilliant book, amplifying Watkins' 1921 discovery. Full of speculative details. Watkins' view of the remote past is: Man in hunting phase: salt, flint only to be obtained from afar. He'd ascend a hill, seek farthest peak 'in the direction he wanted to go.' Two staves were the first surveyors instruments: cairns, stones etc. were markers. [Later note: the then-rather-new detailed ordnance survey maps of Britain allowed hypotheses to be checked, up to a point, without an enormous amount of field work trying to rediscover lost tracks. I suspect Watkins may have travelled on horseback, which may have made travelling away from roads easier for him. Pp 81 and 83 mention two leys, specifically decribed as short or 'Little'; the latter is eleven miles long. Conversely, the effort and difficulty involved must have put off many archaeologists from investigating. Note that a lot of his suggestions are still omitted by people who wish to stress mystery, the unsolved problems, etc. There isn't always hostility between official archaeologists and ley line enthusiasts: Chippindale of Cambridge and Devereaux for example were on good terms.] Ron Shoesmith's biography Alfred Watkins: A Herefordshire Man provides a verbal portrait along these lines:- Watkins is under-rated, mainly because he devised a new idea which academics hated, though they weren't very successful in opposing him. At least one book was written purely as an attempt at refutation. Watkins invented the idea of 'leys', *not* 'ley lines'. The idea was that lines of sight were important; in times before maps, roads, and big towns, not to mention sat navs and signposts. He invented the engaging idea that trading routes had to go long distances, and of course it was important not to get lost en route—not an easy trick when paper and ink, tarmac, road rollers, stone moving equipment, and weedkillers barely existed. Stone markers in lines, the 'gwlch'—a scooped-away path visible on the horizon—beacons, burial and other mounds—including Silbury Hill—and generally things exploiting the straight line aspect of light were in his view arranged and designed as early straight-line tracks. I suspect much of this was thought up by Watkins as he travelled around Wales selling and promoting some of his business ideas. (He was—inter alia—an early photographer, processing his own glass plates with their silver halide emulsions, and who patented his own exposure meter. His books are illustrated with his own black and white photographs of stone monuments, church spires as possible alignment markers, paths with suggestive directional features, stones with cup and ball marks, and similar details). He appears as a man in a respectable suit, middle-aged, solemn and serious, surveying the world through spectacles. He founded a club and his ideas led to enthusiasts with maps and rulers trying to find networks of lines in a probably unrealistic fashion. I would guess more attention will be devoted to him in time—not many people can invent a new way to picture the world. I think he may have influenced Belloc, who also wrote on trackways, though mainly to do with pilgrims' routes. I suspect Tolkien had some knowledge of his books, too; 'the road goes ever ever on'. I suspect also that Trevelyan of the Youth Hostels Association and other walkers and ramblers might have liked the idea of healthy outdoor exercise with unprofessional research into the past. Watkins extended his ideas abroad, even including stupas in India as perhaps markers, and ideas from National Socialist Germany, and even the lines at Nazco. This biography however, though affectionate, is a bit short. It isn't very detailed, but so far as I know is the only one available as a mass-market book. Shoesmith was (perhaps is?) Hereford City Archaeologist; his book was first published in 1990. Very Much More Detailed Notes on Alfred Watkins and Leys. [1] Historical Overview. The population migrations, or cultural changes, in British prehistory are believed to include 'ancient Britons' and Celts, in whatever sequence, then Romans, then Angles/Saxons/Jutes, then Normans. Each had their own languages and beliefs, and must have left some traces, but of course these are difficult to disentangle. We're looking at times when calendars were imprecise, but we can be all but certain that the days, seasons, years, animals, plants and climate resembled today's, apart from known importations. There may be linguistic clues, and Watkins was familiar with Welsh, which is related to such languages as Cornish (more or less extinct), and Breton. There may be clues in ancient writings, if these ever existed, and if they survived; and there may be tales, stories, myths which possibly encapsulate genuine events. Physical survivals from the past may include place-names, re-used sites of building, re-used paths, re-used mounds and earthworks and monuments; additionally professional archaeologists uncover evidence, often not easy to interpret. We also have potential DNA discoveries, air investigations, ground-penetrating radar, international comparisons, mostly since Watkins' time. Obviously there are endless complications. Archaeological remains may be difficult to interpret. Place-names might simply be reworked in a convenient form: 'Avon' means river in Welsh ('Arfon'), we call what sounds like 'Paree' Paris, and presumably place-names which sound Germanic might have been recognisable to earlier linguistic groups. Short names in particular can cause confusion between languages—they may resemble words of totally different meaning, or may resemble opposite meanings. Watkins has a set of examples around the words coel, coel, gole: Welsh 'coel' from gole may mean light, splendour, and coal may therefore have been named after its flame. 'Black' in Anglo-Saxon meant pale, or shining; in Slav languages black means blessed, or light giving. So black man, dodman, cole man, weyman are all possibly etymological track makers. Watkins discusses the confusions around 'black as coal' and 'perefectly balc' at some length. Another problem is trying to interpret site continuity: it may or may not be real: high points, spires, mounds, buildings may have originally had a line-of-sight significance, or may not. There are plenty of possible points of landscape significance. Let's see which ones Watkins noticed. [2] Thirty chapter headings in The Old Straight Track in sequence, grouped by myself to try to clarify Watkins' intentions:- MOUNDS/ ALIGNMENT OF MOUNDS/ LEYS IN RADNOR VALE - Intro on high viewpoints MARK STONES - Idea of big stones as once-recognised markers THE SIGHTED TRACK/ WATER SIGHT POINTS/ SIGHT NOTCHES - Idea of linked viewpoints on low-lying tracks INITIAL POINTS/ MARK TREES/ CAMPS - More on objects along trackways LEY-MEN/ SIGHTING STAFF/ TRADERS' TRACKS - How lines may have been surveyed and set up SUN ALIGNMENT/ BEACONS/ CHURCHES ON MARK-POINTS/ ORIENTATION - Light as an aid to finding the way CASTLES ON MARK-SITES/ ASSEMBLIES AT MARK-POINTS - Includes stone circles as likely meeting-places ROMAN ERA/ PLACE-NAMES/ FOLK-LORE/ HERMES AND HERMIT/ IN OTHER LANDS/ BIBLE RECORD - Traditions of leys perhaps included in old literature CONFIRMATION/ OBSCURITIES AND OBJECTIONS/ CHRONOLOGY/ ALPHA AND OMEGA - Watkins' overview of his idea AN OUTLINE - Summary [3] Some Examples of Watkins' Use of Multiple Sources and Types of Evidence MOUNDS/ ALIGNMENT OF MOUNDS/ LEYS IN RADNOR VALE - Intro on high viewpoints     On mounds, Watkins considers that Silbury Hill (in what's now Wiltshire, near stonehenge and Avebury) was a landmark: it 'could not have been seen over an adjacent bank if it had been lower' (p. 24). He considered that mounds were positioned, not on top, but to be visible from the valley; i.e. built in a position tangential to the line of sight from the valley. He claimed mounds in valleys often had a ditch around, a halo of light, to make them stand out. Mounds could be locations for 'folk moots', local government, law courts in the open air, executions, amusements, fairs, markets. Watkins lists Hill place names, not found near hills, but in alignment with them (p 64)     A 'barrow' may be etymologically related to earth-moving equipment. Watkins gives Skep, Hod, Kiver, Kipper, Barrow as equivalents. Note that 'borough' and 'barrow' may have the same root. MARK STONES - Idea of big stones as once-recognised markers     Mark-stones: Size varies from a couple of feet to 22 feet high (p. 26). The size must have been heavy enough to discourage casual theft or shifting. Watkins cites folk memory of giants dropping such stones.     Stones marked with cup-hollows may be maps showing lines and 'hillforts'. Dr Graves, Bishop of Limerick, believed this. THE SIGHTED TRACK/ WATER SIGHT POINTS/ SIGHT NOTCHES - Idea of linked viewpoints on low-lying tracks     Water-sighting discussed on page 31. Watkins mentions lake dwellers, living in settlements on stilts in lakes, something found at the time by archaeologists (they appear in H G Wells's Outline of History). A period of history that's 'almost untouched'. Watkins is keen on water sighting features, and uses evidence which is hard to assess, such as a small pond being called a 'flash', and fords (p. 37), and real or supposed stone causeways through prehistoric ponds.     Sky notches: ;as a rule show from one side only' (p 26). Place-names noted by Watkins include bwlch, gap, crack, nick, and scar. INITIAL POINTS/ MARK TREES/ CAMPS - More on objects along trackways     Initial Points (p 34). Trees (p 35): the Scots pine, the only native pine, may have been used as a marker, and this may survive in place names e.g. Gospel Oak, Cold Elm. Obviously, Watkins was aware that evidence from trees must be hard to find.     Watkins renames what are usually called 'hillforts' (or 'castles' as in Maiden Castle) as Camps. He says (page 37) that camps were 'made in the later days of the old track ... [there is] no evidence they were built for any other purpose than a peaceful enclosure for peoples or herds...' They may, says Watkins, include an older sighting mound, or have straight edges aligned with leys. Thus Watkins on the general appearance of leys. How were they surveyed and made? LEY-MEN/ SIGHTING STAFF/ TRADERS' TRACKS - How lines may have been surveyed and set up Watkins considers track directions would be surveyed using upright rods, to prolong straight lines out of sight of their landmarks. As supporting evidence he notes the Wilmington Long Man (see photo), and a similar man with staves at Lake Onega, Russia. (This latter may not have survived the mass murders by Jews; I have yet to see an image of it).     Watkins mentions a reference in Dickens, to a snail, nicknamed the 'dodman'; considering a snail's two 'horns' resemble two staffs used by his surveyors. The Welsh word dodi means to place, set, or plant; it may be related to dodge, doddering, north of England dod, and place names with dod. Be this as it may, Watkins gives a list of specific tracks, related to specific activities. These may (or may not - I don't know) predate horses in Britain. Here they are.... SPECIAL TRACKS: - Just some notes from Watkins. I'm not aware that Watkins used geological maps (Britain was a pioneer in the production of these) though they would seem relevant when considering the distribution of flint, clay pots, salt and no doubt other things.       Salt p61: Salt producing towns or areas end in wych./ Variation from -wick, to wyke, wych, week, not from Latin vicus, village./ Another, perhaps earlier, is white, whit, or wit. Whiteways, Whitman etc [Whitsun? - RW]/ Roads are called saltways or salters way as in Salford, Saltridge, Saltbox       Flint chips p 62: chip, chap, cheap, chop, eg trading towns like Chipping Norton, trading streets like Cheapside/ Chapman trader/ Chepstow, Chipstead from trader/ Also knap, knapper/ 'Barrows often trading places .. quantities of flint flakes scattered through the earth of the mound'       Pottery p63: 'Red wares' [on red tracks], Crock, crocker, and Kiln       Trading p64: Huck, huckster, peddler/ Iron names, whetstone/ Mark = sighting point and gave name to market, held at such places       Law tracks p66: Birlaw Court, folkmoot, gemot, hundred-moot, hustings-court, shire-moot, thing, tin, and ting [e.g. Tynwald Hill, I.o.M], Witenagemot./ Scotland: law hills or laws, and law-day / Law-day corrupted into Lady. Hence Lady Oak, Lady Mead, Lady Barrow, Lady Harbour, Lady Pool/ Laugh Lady Oak from Laughman = deputy judge at law-courts/ Lady or law names may mean lawyers passed through on the track       Fairs, Amusements: St Giles Great fair/ village fetes, Whit-week dancing, Braun horse fair (p 64). Watkins quotes from Pilgrim's Progress '... a track through a business and pleasure fair, a thing of ancient standing'. SUN ALIGNMENT/ BEACONS/ CHURCHES ON MARK-POINTS/ ORIENTATION - Light as an aid to finding the way     It's worth noting that the conception of stonehenge as a calendar or astronomically-related feature, attributed to Norman Lockyer, an astronomer, was ridiculed for years by archaeologists.     Seasons (p 68): note the importance of the Summer solstice, the winter solstice, and the two equinoxes, and 'half-quarter days' in May & August, and Feb and Nov 'because there was no calendar, and information was needed for farming purposes'.     There were beacons fired throughout Europe on St John's day (Midsummer), and Beltane day (early May) with a few remaining place names as a mute record     Orientation of churches (as the name suggests, they face east) and mounds and leys. There's some suggestive evidence related: Watkins's examples include: Sunrising, Midwinter and other small places once near Truro; Welsh phrase 'sunset goes down behind his camps'; May Day at Oxford, when choristers sing on Magdalen Tower; gold or gole possibly meaning sunrise, splendour; sun in Cornish is howl, in Welsh haul, perhaps related to the stone monument 'the hurlers'.     Beacons (pp 19 & 75): Beacon = beckon in Anglo-Saxon. Leye = flame or fire. Shenley=bright ley, Shirley = clear shining ley. Glade is clearing from glaed, bright. Beacon, Bacon means on the track. Watkins think 'tan' means 'fire'; so that, for example, St Ann's Hill is a Christianised version of Tan Hill, a hill with a beacon on top. Watkins says Brent is 'position of the fire station'     Watkins suggests Lucifer, the bringer of light, seems to have been confused with the devil, or a magician, or man of power, as well as the planet Venus.     Watkins states (p 42) that the Roman policy on 'pagan' sites was to re-use them. Roman altars were dedicated to local gods; later, under Christianity, churches were built on old sites, aligned with tracks or in lines. Lincoln Cathedral (it occurs to me, RW) is in a very prominent raised site). Foundation stones were a mark stone. Steeplechase suggests the church was a marker; iron fire holders in church towers exist and suggest the same. CASTLES ON MARK-SITES/ ASSEMBLIES AT MARK-POINTS - Includes stone circles as likely meeting-places.     Watkins suggests some folk attitudes are related to leys: Castles have an old meaning as earthworks (p 52); the later meaning as 'Norman motte and bailey' is 'woefully in error - it is certain that the Normans built their keeps on pre-existing .. sighting mounds.'     Crosses by the wayside, and in churchyards, sometimes with a view hole, were often near mark stones (p 53)     Crossroads: usually had a mark-stone, and were always treated with reverence, e.g. for burying suicides, or witches potions, or setting down coffins for prayer. Significant names include Iron Cross, White Cross, Baron's Cross, Crow's Ash... ROMAN ERA/ PLACE-NAMES/ FOLK-LORE/ HERMES AND HERMIT/ IN OTHER LANDS/ BIBLE RECORD - Traditions of leys perhaps included in old literature     Note that topography has to be taken into account. Ancient Egypt navigated mostly by the Nile, and perhaps had little need for leys; if they'd had some well-defined track, perhaps leys would be generally accepted. CONFIRMATION/ OBSCURITIES AND OBJECTIONS/ CHRONOLOGY/ ALPHA AND OMEGA - Watkins' overview of his idea     Watkins found many possible Biblical references and mistranslations or misunderstandings: 'narrow straight path' as something desirable. 'Those who rebel against the light, they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof'. 'I will lead them in paths they have not known; I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight' and many other passages.     Light as a guide: Bunyan has a 'shining light' as a guide, leading through a pond. An Egyptian inscription about Ra and Nut sounds like 'Lead Kindly Light' [My note - RW]. Burns' poem about the narrow path, the wider libertine's path, and - a metaphor for hi-jacking of ley lnes by mystics? - the erratic and twiddly faery path AN OUTLINE - Summary     He says, perhaps fortified by then-new aerial observations, (p 57), that there are tracks still visible or underground in mountain and moorland: there are ghosts of tracks when crops ripen, dandelions come out, there are exceptionally dry summers, or they are uncovered by earthmoving or trench cutting. 'Zigzags in modern roads always significant, as indicative of old straight track crossing at the point' (p 90).     It seems to follow that regions with abundant vegetation—jungle, dense woodlands, wet tropical areas—Could not have had such a system, since tracks could not be laid out, and even if they were, would quickly grow out; and stones and other markers would be difficult to move. Academic Fight Back: Williamson & Bellamy's book Ley Lines in Question (1983) Ten chapters, posing as a serious investigation. Glyn Daniel, a sort of official Pelican book and BBC-style archaeologist, read their MS. It's amusing to note their maliciously derogatory tone throughout this book: '... traipsing around ... to photograph stones. ... often told he was 'derided' and 'ridiculed'.. more true to say that the discovery [sic] was ignored by the archaeological hierarchy.. Contemporary academics doubted that prehistoric savages had either the desire or the ability to establish a unified and elaborate network across the entire country... On 7th April 1935 the grand master of ley studies finally gave up the ghost...' Williamson & Bellamy conflate Watkins' ideas with (for example) those of Devereux & Thompson, Janet and Colin Bord, and John Michell. What's also irritating is that they have no idea that Watkins' folk or fairy tales, e.g. of giants dropping stones, are partly explanatory tales, not, presumably, to be taken literally. Any more than Normans emerging from their castles were regarded as genuine giants. Possibly this is a similar error to assuming "Thomas Wolsey built Hampton Court" meant Wolsey was a superman. At any rate, the reader has to tolerate e.g. 'not all believers in leys think ancient Britons could levitate' and comments on stones revolving or dancing. There's detail on 'zodiacs' as far as I know all post-dating Watkins' death. The comment on a 'unified network' is the same style of misrepresentation. I'm not so sure about 'dowsing' which Watkins would no doubt have heard of, and may, or may not, have believed in, but which in any case is of no relevance to trackways. I'll just bullet-point some failings of this book:-   • The authors don't appreciate the point about a spire as being a thing visible from some distance; potentially therefore the site of a long-term landmark. Instead there are folk tales about churches moving overnight and so on   • 'Foundation stone' is not in the index, or anywhere in the text, despite Watkins on the symbolism   • The words notch, gap, scar, and even skyline are not in the index; yet, if leys existed, man-made cuttings would be one of the few surviving pieces of direct evidence as opposed to indirect inference   • The authors don't appreciate that evidence of a long trackway, if one existed, no doubt overlain by relatively new buildings and other features, may almost entirely have vanished; geological and historical change would need to be considered. It isn't just a trivial matter of going out for a look; as here: 'A ley-line can easily be found and confirmed in a week-end'   • Watkins tried to generalise overseas: he mentioned claims of similar tracks in Indian North America, India, Biblical countries, Uganda and elsewhere. None of these is indexed   • Watkins' claim that Silbury Hill was deliberately arranged so its top is visible from surrounding areas is not brought up at all by Williamson and Bellamy; they make an irrelevant point about the Jewish fraud of 'orgone energy', 'discovered by the scientist Wilhelm Reich'. They also make an alarming mistake about the structure of Silbury Hill, claiming it had an internal chamber   • 'Hillforts': Watkins claims that, originally, their sites (or some of them) were arranged to be serially visible to travellers below, so that as one disappears another suddenly becomes visible. He considered hill forts to be a late development. Williamson and Bellamy made no attempt to verify or check this claim. It may be worth quoting them at some length to see the irrelevance of their attitude to Watkins, and their naive cocksureness: (p 68) 'There is nothing particularly mysterious about hill forts; excavation unequivocally shows that they were built for purposes of defence, and the current claim that they were unoccupied is false. Watkins used twelve Herefordshire hill forts in his leys, and of these four have been extensively excavated, and two have been subjected to small-scale probing. It seems reasonable to accept the results of these .. as representative of others in the area. One, Croft Amburey, is a hill fort on the first ley that Alfred Watkins ever discovered. .. the interior contained rows of rectangular huts, implying a dense population of as many as 70 people per acre. Two, Credden Hill Camp, the ramparts of which Watkins found to be determined by three leys, was excavated in 1963. It was permanently occupied from about 390 BC until AD 75 approximately, with a population at any one time of about 4000. Three, Midsummer Hill and Sutton Walls were clearly permanently occupied villages. The former may have had a population of up to 2000. For Dinedor and Akenbury, though not extensively excavated, both revealed evidence of permanent occupation such as storage pits, domestic refuse and internal buildings. .. These results from 'Antiquity' and some of them are privately published.. The vast majority of excavated hill forts have shown Iron Age occupation to have been the first on the site, and of the excavated Herefordshire hill forts mentioned above none produced evidence of earlier activity. The same is true of all the hill forts in our sample of leys. ...'   • On the word 'ley'; Williamson and Bellamy seem unaware that Watkins christened them with that name, and was perfectly aware that it may not be what people called them at the time. But whatever the name was, the things may have existed anyway, and in Watkins' view they did   • Statistical arguments related to points and straight lines. This sort of material seems to have considerable longevity; one of Britain's junk newspapers, the Guardian, has occasional articles on the numbers of buildings in Britain and the numbers on straight lines. This of course completely misunderstands the whole point about laying out paths which can be reliably followed   • Light as a device to attract attention: this was an important part of Watkins' work, and the idea of man-made moats to reflect light, as an obviously artificial feature, is credible, given the earthworking abilities of ancient peoples. The town of Beaconsfield and others, and the possible use of light and reflecting circles of water, 'beorhs' and 'haloes' and so on, is simply ignored completely; it's just not mentioned anywhere, except as 'beacons are not as popular as they used to be.'   • Watkins' surveying idea, with the 'dodman' as his word for such persons, is mentioned just three times in this book. There is no consideration, pro or con, of how such a surveying technique would operate in practice.   • Plenty more. However it's clear the authors wanted to side with what they call 'educated professionals' and had no serious interest in investigating Watkins' hypothesis. Alfred Watkins: Proof of Ancient Track Alinement [sic] (1931) It has to be said that Alfred Watkins was not his own best advocate. This 1931 piece consists largely of extracts from 'The Ley-Hunter's Manual' of a few years earlier, but is mostly mathematical: he attempts to prove there's a very remote possibility of points being in a line but he seems to have got a bit overwhelmed with maps - '51 churches, practically all ancient, on an Andover map' and with a ruler rather than actually going out to see. He draws little crosses on a paper to estimate probabilities with random dots. A very empirical thing, not impressive. A better approach would be to use contour maps with some sort of tangents constructed from possible sighting points, something possible with computers but not very practical at the time. Here's Watkins' own statement on Proof: 'The proof is chiefly to be found in the fact of certain classes of what are now called ancient monuments aligning with each other, and in fragments of present-day roads or paths being occasionally found on such track-lines. In some cases, however, the alignments have no indications of having been made for track purposes. ... The deduction of an organised system of straight tracks in prehistoric Britain is denied by many critics who put it down to imagination and accidental coincidence and infer [sic] that the theory was formulated first and the facts then selected to fit it. The inference is not correct in my case, for it was not until a large number of alignment facts had been observed that any theory or outline for further investigation was formed as a deduction. ..' Email me Top of this page big-lies.org ©RW 2013-10-04 Book review of Watkins first uploaded 2010-10-07; Shoesmith review 2009-02-19. Williamson & Bellamy review uploaded here 2013-10-06. Other material mostly written before 1997.

top of page

[Top of Page]

     

Life After Death

Just a note on confusions of ideas.

Many people believe, or say they believe, in life after death. True or not, undecidable or not, this is a perfectly good idea, something the process of thinking and talking has generated. But does it follow that a person has to belong to a religion, a Church, a cult, a group of some sort?

Some of the story of religions must have gone something like this (apologies for the non-American dialogue):

• Sales Agent:   Ah. Hello. Mr Simple, isn't it?
• Dupe:   Yes, that's me!
• Sales Agent:   Nice weather, eh?
• Dupe:   Well, yes, it's very good. But to be honest I'm feeling a bit sad.
• Sales Agent:   Oh, well, that's a shame
• Dupe:   I was thinking that my family, all of us, will die some time! I don't often worry, but it suddenly hit me. All of us, just wiped out
• Sales Agent:   Everyone thinks like that sometimes. Don't worry. I've seen you happy and smiling!
• Dupe:   Yes, I know. But even so it worried me.
• Sales Agent:   As it happens, I was thinking about that myself. And, do you know, I thought of a new idea. It might cheer you up!
• Dupe:   Well, I could do with that. A new idea? What is it?
• Sales Agent:   It's something secret I thought of. Really interesting.
• Dupe:   Well, tell me
• Sales Agent:   You've probably seen death - an animal, a bird. Something you've eaten.
• Dupe:   Yes. Often enough. And a few corpses.
• Sales Agent:   They die, then decay, then turn to a skeleton, then...
• Dupe:   ... It seems so final, such an end.
• Sales Agent:   It does. Now, my new idea. This may seem unlikely; but after all perhaps they live on, maybe in another form
• Dupe:   But surely that's impossible!
• Sales Agent:   Who knows? After all, neither of us existed before we were born, did we. But everything in the world was still there, even if we couldn't see it. So, after death, why shouldn't there be some change, that we perhaps can't even imagine? So I've come to think we live on after what we call 'death'
• Dupe:   Ah. I think you may be making me happier!
• Sales Agent:   Yes. Let's decide to follow my idea, and believe in life after death!
• Dupe:   That's a happy idea! All of us living after death!
• Sales Agent:   Nice idea, do you think?
• Dupe:   Why yes, I'm happier already. You've changed my life, in fact!
• Sales Agent:   I'm so pleased
• Dupe:   Good. Well now, I'm very grateful. Thanks! I feel terrific! However, I have a few things to do. Good day to you. Thanks
• Sales Agent:   Ahh before you go, it seems only fair that I should get a small reward
• Dupe:   Mmm I have to go, but what are you suggesting?
• Sales Agent:   I have in mind something like payment for my work, a stipend...
• Dupe:   Hmm

Remember: You may believe in life after death, if you choose. BUT it doesn't follow that you need to join a club, party, group, church, congregation. It's your own belief, and you may have been told all your life that these various groups should be paid. However, it's a non sequitur. It's not necessary. Would you pay for your other beliefs, ideas, views?

 

RW Jan 7 2019

top of page

 

[Top of Page]

	'Lunar Wave' A New Artefact of Video Cameras What are 'Lunar Waves'?     [1] The screen shot (right) shows a frame from a Youtube video, by crrow77, which allegedly shows a 'lunar wave' travelling down the moon. The phenomenon isn't very obvious in a still picture; I select this one because the red arrow marks the horizontal position of the 'lunar wave' at one instant.     [2] The 'lunar wave' is clearer in videos in motion: a more-or-less horizontal wave, like a single water ripple, appears to move down the image.     [3] Typically there is a high magnification; the image may be zoomed in 50x, with the camera presumably on a secure tripod, so that the image doesn't move.     [4] Refraction caused by air currents is common is such conditions: this is not what's under discussion here.     [5] The moon appears to move through the sky, mainly because the earth rotates; in one hour it will move through roughly 1/24 of the entire sky, or 15°. That is, 1/4° per minute, or 1/240° per second.     [6] Video cameras typically save 25 or 30 entire frames per second. One frame therefore allows about 1/7000° of lunar motion. Depending on the number of pixels and the magnification, the entire lunar image will shift 1 pixel in its direction of motion in some calculable time.     [7] Because the sun, moon and earth are in the same plane, the moon's motion will appear to be perpendicular to the sun's shadow on the moon.     [8] The pixels appear to be scanned one by one; very fast, but not simultaneous. Some pixels will happen to be on the point of changing to their neighboring pixel; and clumps of these pixels will be in lines. Above the line will show an image 1/25th or 1/30th of a second before or behind the image below the line, depending on the way the image scans.     [9] I conclude the 'lunar wave' is an artefact of the way video cameras work. (As are 'rods' - see below). This is testable. Using the same camera in the same way, but turned through an angle, for example upright, at a right angle rather than the natural horizontal position, is predicted to give a wave at whatever angle the camera is tilted.     To check it's not lunar, what's needed is high magnification of an object which is almost static, but not quite; a shadow thrown by the sun on a striped fabric should do the trick. Again, a wave should be visible as the pixels scan horizontally in the camera.
	Moon as Back Projection? Related idea based on the wrong idea of the moon as being subject to linear waves. Rob Skiba (right) has a competent piece on Youtube debunking NASA's images of the earth from space: his arguments include the absurdly small number of such images, the use of a round dark window (see picture, from FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY EXPOSED) to convincingly simulate a planetary outline, the obviously cut-and-pasted repeats of bits of clouds, and an image of the earth, rotating, in which the clouds remain completely static—even though the rotation time exceeds one day! However, he goes on to speculate about the moon being a back projection in the sky of a flat earth, and uses the digital refresh argument (above) as a possible confirmation. Which, of course, it isn't. His site is a Biblical site: the devil, or Satan, being a patient person, and the Bible being regarded as a scientific compendium. Oh, well. At least he's not an obvious fraud, like NASA. 'Flat Earth' Promotion - Why? Skiba's non-American name, and this odd nonsensical idea, seem to be a small part of a push for a flat earth. I can't decide why: poking fun at stupid whites? Part of the de-education function of anti-white activity? Time-wasting activities to help destroy whites in the Bible belt USA? Is there Jewish money in it? Maybe someone has a good idea, out there, what if anything is behind this? Here's my article; apologies for it being in another file:- Flat Earth Promotion; Why? [ Top of page ] HTML and Image capture and comment on 'lunar waves' - Rae West/ Uploaded 1st Dec 2014. Rob Skiba and 'flat earth' promotion - upload 15 July 2105. Airplane window image 14 Nov 2015.

top of page

Case Against the Monarchy Souvenir from Mayday 2000. © Movement Against The Monarchy (I believe four people were arrested on the day. How much of this was pre-arranged with the authorities, I have no idea). Top big-lies Home Page NOTE Dec 28 2019: Some excellent revisionist work, notably by Miles W Mathis, has been done on monarchs as puppets, the slow changes with time, and Jewish infiltration. In 2000 I had little idea of the importance of Jews as harmful agents. Nor did any of the authors I consulted, in my burrowings into printed matter on royalty. Maybe in future? RW 2019/12/28 Criticism, or for that matter plain description, of the monarchy is absent from the academic world. This is Tom Nairn (a Scot) in his book The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy (1988): Middle-brow ... reflection functions to preserve the national totem-system; the sense of proportion thus expressed is then refracted upwards to the high-brow or academic sphere as simple avoidance—an integrated intellectual elite's chosen form of allegiance. Hence the remarkable result: the British Monarchy, one of the sociological wonders of the contemporary world, Europe's greatest living fossil, the enchanted glass of an early modernity which has otherwise vanished from the globe, has received next to no attention from British social theory. .. such attention as it has got consists mainly in acts of worship rather than examination. Nairn, with the contorted writing-style induced by academic sociology, naively seems to assume this is unique; but what has 'British social theory' to say on public school education, or world empires and arms, or the Church of England, or law, or the military etc?         Nairn's book gives little evidence as to how much power (or money) the monarchy actually has—not of course easy to estimate; nor does he situate it historically. He describes in a piecemeal way things like gawping uncritical public, royal speech habits, clothing and travel habits. In Britain, to avoid the dangers of thoughtful comparisons in this area, little is published about the Japanese monarchy and its myths. (The Japanese had a coronation, broadcast for the first time on television, at about the same time as the much-trumpeted coronation of Elizabeth in Britain in the 1950s, no doubt accompanied by similar absurdities and nationalistic mythologies. I can't remember a single commentator pointing this out.) Or how the Italians got rid of their monarchy (they voted them out after the Second World War), or how the Swedes and others tamed theirs. There's little on the Thai monarchy, South African black monarchies, or the various more or less manufactured Arab monarchies. Nairn quotes an amusing remark by Laurie Taylor, a sort of pop journalist sociologist, to the effect that criminals regard the Monarchy as supreme rip-off artists. 'It's marvellous the way they kid people. Honestly, it's incredible. I watched the Duke of Edinburgh the other night talking about the Royal Yacht. It's an ocean-going liner..' Nairn also quotes from Dreams about Her Majesty the Queen, and other members of the Royal Family by Brian Masters (1972). 'Up to one third of the country' has dreamt about the Queen, usually [female dreamers] coming for a cup of tea and becoming miraculously ordinary or 'hopeless with money' or [male dreamers] having to be saved heroically from snarling assassins.         A novel by Emma Tennant, Hotel de Dream (1976): 'Miss Briggs dreamed she was at the Royal Garden Party. As always the Queen was quick to notice her in the crowd and, pushing past through the officious and over-protective equerries, made her way through the throng of eagerly waiting subjects to reach Miss Briggs's side..' She is the Queen's 'adviser from the common people', secretly helping her to restore a sense of meaning to life..' A little-known fact is the non-nativeness of the Royals; in other words, they weren't even British. (Somewhere I've seen a brief note on this subject, which seemed authoritative, but I can't relocate it). Thus the various Anglo-Saxon monarchies (and occasional Danes) were headed by invaders. The Norman conquest was from France (the Normans being something like Vikings). The Plantagenets derived largely from Anjou. The Tudors were Welsh, James was Scottish, (but originating in France) and Germans predominated later—in the Houses of Brunswick and Hanover, for example, with Albert a prominent example, responsible for introducing Christmas Trees and German bands.         Edgar Wilson in The Myth of the British Monarchy (Journeyman Books, 1989) wrote: As to the Britishness of the Monarchy, that is a black joke. Geoffrey Bocca has interestingly pointed out that the present Queen is the first British sovereign to have British blood in her veins; and that through her Scottish mother. [G Bocca, The Uneasy Heads: A Report on European Monarchy. Note that this is 1959.] The dynastic name 'Windsor' was chosen only in 1917 at the height of the First World War by the Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, .. to deflect anti-German feeling. When the Kaiser heard that his cousins had changed the family name, he commanded a performance of 'The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha'. Prince Philip .. abandoned his traditional name of Schleswig-Holstein Sönderberg-Glücksberg for similar reasons of pubic relations expediency in 1947, and assumed the name Mountbatten, which is just an anglicisation of Battenberg.. ever since the Revolution Settlement of 1689, the British Monarchy has been the instrument of the plutocratic establishment of Britain, .. deployed to legitimise an unjust and inequitable social structure. For this purpose it has always been more convenient to have mediocre and tamed foreign princelings, 'Hanoverian Mercenaries', on the British throne. That is the real tradition.. Republicanism in Britain reached some sort of high point in about 1870, with Bagehot's The English Constitution (1867), including remarks on the Prince of Wales as 'an unemployed youth', W. M. Thackeray's The Four Georges (1869), and Charles Bradlaugh's booklet An Impeachment of the House of Brunswick (various dates given: 1871, or 1874). Dilke battled Gladstone in Parliament. Frederic Harrison (later a professor of jurisprudence and international law) wrote an article in Fortnightly Review (all reference to which is omitted from the Oxford Companion to English Literature).         There's an idea that one of the most important British traditions is radicalism, but it is suppressed: '.. a set of values based on the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy.. [but] the very fact that an alternative tradition has been in existence for many centuries is simply not known to many people' (Benn, intro. to Writings on the Wall (1984).   Caption: 'Throughout his married life, Prince Philip has made secret trips to visit his German relations on their Estates. Here he is photographed with his brother-in-law, Berthold, after a wild boar hunt at Zwingenberg in 1959.'         [From Unity Hall's book Philip, the Man Behind The Monarchy (1987) Michael O'Mara Books Ltd, London © News Group Newspapers] Despite his name, Philip's relatives were royalty in Greece; after the Second World War they just survived a plebiscite and were permitted to return. (After the First World War, when Turkey sided with Germany, Prince Andrew of Greece, widely regarded as a pro-German traitor, was condemned to death, but was saved by British intervention.) Philip's occupation during the Second World War (I believe) was supervising painting of ships of the far east fleet. Cannadine Edgar Wilson's book makes considerable efforts to deal with journalistic ideas about the monarchy. One such idea is that the monarchy is good for British business and tourism. His chapter can't be included in full, but typical passages include:- Edgar Wilson, Spain Edgar Wilson wrote: Not even strict legitimacy has been maintained.. In proposing The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.. Charles Bradlaugh was able to appeal to the fact that, out of 33 monarchs in the succession from William the Conqueror to Victoria, only 13 had succeeded by straightforward hereditary right. Students of Constitutional Law at Oxford used to be entertained by Maitland's demonstration that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha had no legal title to the throne of England. Only by changing the rules could it be legitimated. [Heuston, 1964, Essays in Constitutional Law.] One monarchist, Charles Petrie, recognises that the present dynasty, 'the Hanoverians, were usurpers.. depending on a minority whose fortunes were linked to theirs, for both in 1715 and 1745 the English people had shown .. that it was not prepared to lift a finger to keep them on the throne.'         On the subject of legitimacy, an interesting possibility involves Queen Victoria—and her numerous descendants—and the rather absurdly-named genetic disease haemophilia ('love of blood'). Geneticists use Royalty to research into human genetics, because there are centuries of relatively detailed records. In about 1995 it was suggested, possibly not for the first time, that Queen Victoria could not have been the child of her 'father', who did not carry the gene, but was a substitute, her ambitious 'parents' pretending to have produced her, as a child was needed quickly to get priority. These modern journalists actually found a descendant of the duke who would otherwise have become the monarch. I think I'm right in saying this story was the province of the low budget newspapers. Kingsley Martin The Magic of Monarchy (1937), largely dealing with Mrs Simpson... Edward VIII ideas and The Crown and the Establishment (Penguin Special, 1962) Lead in water and Bryce-Smith Queen and commonwealth meeting One sometimes meets pro-monarchists who are aristocrats; their support for monarchy seems a little dishonest, like the support given by hangers-on, property managers, lawyers, and other beneficiaries. Presumably the idea is that one big absurdity shelters and prevents people noticing many lesser ones. I've seen what I take to be this psychology in Nikolai Tolstoy (who has a pro-monarchy website.....) and in Burford, the Oxfordian. Willie Hamilton, son of a coalminer from Durham, north-east England, and one of four children, autobiography in 1992 Blood on the Walls was anti-monarchical all his life.         My Queen and I (1975) was, he claimed, a best-seller: but 'some well-known booksellers in London and the provinces refused to stock it. My brother tried to buy it in Newcastle, but was told by the bookseller that he had no intention of selling it. .. that shop was still selling Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf.' A passage in his autobiography looks at the Queen's assets: From time to time 'guesstimates' have been made of the Queen's private wealth. The latest have quoted astronomical figures up to £6,000 million. In 1971 the Queen's official spokesman told our Select Committee that the estimate of £50 million then being made was 'wildly exaggerated'. He must have been told to use these words by the Queen herself. Pressed to be more specific, he refused to go any further. That Committee was probably the most powerful ever set up in Parliament. The Chairman was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The membership consisted of a former Prime Minister, Ministers and ex-Ministers, Privy Counsellors [sic] and senior MPs. The Crown refused to supply that Committee which information which it felt it had the right to have.         Parliament meekly accepted that rebuff. Unless and until some Government and some Parliament has the courage and guts to deal with the financing of the monarchy based on principles of openness, fairness, and honesty, the present unsatisfactory situation will get worse. .. The royal wealth, and the financing..., remain among the most tightly guarded secrets in the world...         The mythology surrounding the Crown Estate is one of the more obvious examples. .. we are asked to believe that virtually the whole of central London is the property of the Queen. We are further asked to believe that the profits made are 'voluntarily' surrendered by her in exchange for the Civil List, and because the profits of the Crown Estate are greater than the publicised cost of the monarchy, then we are actually making a profit out of our long-suffering royals. The Establishment has brainwashed us into accepting this bunkum. Top of this page big-lies.org 2000-May-8th

top of page

Norman Hossack's redesigned motorbike suspension; a Warning to Inventors © Rae West 2013 I heard about Norman Hossack, through a remote car industry connection, and spoke to him, about fifteen years ago. He was and no doubt still is an inventor. One of his projects was a redesign of motorbikes; his idea was to make the chassis flexible, and introduce spring suspension horizontally, for example under the saddle. This would remove the need for the elaborate and expensive technology of front forks and springs, and remove the plunging effect caused by this crude suspension. The resulting bike would be lighter, nimbler, safer, and far more fuel efficient. Instead of a hefty machine which could only be lifted with difficulty we'd have light, cheaper, and less dangerous motorbikes, far more useful to average consumers around the world, and far more fuel-saving. (It doesn't seem to me very different from many mountain bikes now, pivoting at the pedal point and with horizontal springing, so the front and back wheels are not linked by a rigid frame). This would also be 'third-world' and difficult terrain friendly; I'm faintly reminded of carts in India which look as though they'd wobbling to the point of falling apart but in fact are designed that way. Norman produced prototypes and asked German Standards (DIN - notoriously stringent) to test them, which they did. I'm told he was awarded a certificate that his design was completely safe and satisfactory. As far as I know, nothing useful to him ever resulted; when we spoke, he was exasperated, annoyed, and distraught. And he was keen to warn other inventors to be careful. He had numerous stories to reinforce his point, such as the inventor who lived in his car (with wife and child), the 'Prince of Wales Award' for inventors which he regarded as phoney, and a Japanese company that photographs their executives returning inventors' submissions unopened. Here's his website Hossack Design (opens in a new window). And here's a bike of, or based on, his design. His other designs included a two-stroke engine with a one-piece, pivoting, piston. Top of this page big-lies.org ©Rae West 5 May 2013. Bit added 16 Oct 2013.   Every possible right reserved.     E-mail.

Top of this page big-lies.org

Muesli—the Horrifying Truth !! © Rae West 2000 You will be sold packages of oats, grains, dried fruit, powdered milk, nuts—and sugar—as ‘muesli’. BUT the horrific fact is: this is not muesli!!     No!! Muesli was invented (or popularised) by a Swiss, Dr Bircher-Benner. Hence the correct name, Bircher-muesli. His recipe for a health-giving breakfast was grated or chopped fruit, topped with a small amount of grain or nuts. The stuff in packages is an impostor!     The reason it's come to be called ‘muesli’ is simply the technical difficulty of packaging squashy fruit. Not only that; the pronunciation of the word is usually wrong. It should rhyme with “fiercely”. ©Rae West 11 May 2000.   Every possible right reserved.     E-mail.

top of page

Top of this page big-lies.org

'Orbs': More Misinterpreted Artefacts of Photo Equipment © Rae West 2015 Two types of 'Orb': [1] Effects of intense light source, usually the sun, reflecting inside the camera lens. (See picture). Many people I suppose don't know that camera lenses are complicated, including internal lenses; some of plastic, some, for moving pictures, with image stabilisation. It would seem obvious enough from the way the image moves that they are connected with the sun's position. The shape may be affected by the iris, the device which varies the amount of light allowed through. Some video editors have this effect as something that can be added to your video. [2] Out of focus light source (not illustrated), where for example automatic focussing hasn't time to work, or is viewing though a window or some atmospheric condition which prevents focussing. Sun or Moon Nearer than Clouds? Another misconception The sun is of course enormously bright; bright enough to shine through thin clouds. Some people see this, and think the sun is closer than clouds. Despite the fact that thick cloud always hides the sun. There seems to be a cottage industry of junk Youtubes on this issue; maybe it's training for propagandists. I recently noticed a similar example, with a full moon. Sigh....

top of page

Orient Express

Rae West 15 Jan 2017, 18 Feb 2022

People musing over the immense disaster of the Second World War, and the intricate spun olefin barriers to understanding extruded by Jews, might like a look at the fairly short span of time for which railways provided a luxurious mode of fast travel, with possibilities for moving people and valuables. Metternich travelled in a coach-and-four, or perhaps six; then steam transport was invented. Its fixity makes it more easily studied than sea, motor, or air travel.

The far point, Istanbul/Constantinople, had significance for the British Empire, German Empire, and Jews.
      Baron Maurice de Hirsch (I don't know if the title was honorary) was one of the emblematic figures of the nineteenth century, described as a 'Jewish philanthropist'. Today Hirsch is less well known than the Rothschilds yet to his contemporaries he was the embodiment of the gilded age of Jewish philanthropy. (As they say).
      Hirsch's vast fortune derived from his role in creating the first rail line linking Western Europe with the Ottoman Empire, what came to be known as the Orient Express. (Note: it's very typical of accounts of Jews that numbers are never given for 'vast fortunes'). Socializing with the likes of the Austrian crown prince Rudolph and "Bertie," future King Edward VII, Hirsch rose to the pinnacle of European aristocratic society, but also found himself the frequent target of vicious antisemitism. (This means many aristocrats loathed the phonies).
      Responding to the crisis wrought by the mass departure of Jews from the Russian Empire at the turn of the century, Hirsch established the Jewish Colonization Association, with the goal of creating a refuge for the Jews in Argentina. (This probably means he was part of the movement to shift Jews west). When Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, advertised his plan to create a Jewish state (not without inspiration from Hirsch), he still wondered whether to do so in Palestine or in Argentina—and left the question open.
[Taken from Matthias B. Lehmann, of the "Teller Family Chair in Jewish History" in California. Teller probably the fraudulent physicist].

However, Disraeli died in 1881 before this line operated; and the Crimean War was over some time before. But their significance must have been noted. The Jewish link was Jewish presence both in Russia and in Turkey (and Arabia later, when oil was discovered).

Orient-Express (1883-1914) (red on the map) must have been important in the preparations for the First World War; Jews from Europe could be carried to Versailles to plan their Europe-wrecking schemes. It was (I think) a French engineering project; London was linked in at some point, but there was inevitably a channel-crossing interruption.

1919-1939 added the route through Simplon in Switzerland, and swept south of Germany and what was Austria-Hungary.

Another route, 1930-1939 (blue on the map) went to Zurich in Switzerland, terminating in Athens. No doubt the Swiss connection was related to the new Bank for International Settlements.

The two other lines, purple and yellow on the map, look to me like holiday/ vacation/ tourist routes.

There are many trains notorious in these wars: for example, a 'sealed train' from Germany carrying Jews to Moscow. Trains for Trotsky, planning mass killings. And the trans-Siberian express. There must have been trains to Rome, Kiev, Madrid. And even trains in the USA, moving Jews planning the Fed swindle.

top of page

Orion's Belt: Was this in fact Orion's Penis?

An addendum to Robert Bauval's Theory on Orion, Sirius, and the Great Pyramid
© Rae West 1998, 1999

Click for Top of this page   |   Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site

---

Summary: This short article makes a case for what's now called Orion's belt in fact having been perceived by the ancient Egyptians (or at least the priestly ones) as a penis. As I'll show, this fits very well with the theories originating with Robert Bauval as to the function of the Great Pyramid, the so-called pyramid of Cheops.

---

This (< image, left) is the way Orion is generally represented (illustration from the program Skyglobe.) In this full, more fanciful, version, Orion brandishes a club and holds up a skin or shield. Sirius is below and left of Orion.

Robert Bauval was the first known person to suggest that the groundplan of the three Giza pyramids and their relation to the Nile and some other pyramids imitated Orion's belt, the Milky Way, and some other stars in Orion.

Bauval and Hancock maintain (I think; my information's from a lecture) that in 2450 BC, a month before the spring equinox, the sun rose (in the east) after Leo had risen between the paws of the sphinx. And, in the southern sky, Orion was simultaneously positioned with its belt at exactly 45 degrees to the horizon. These and other alignments are explained by Bauval and Hancock as being involved in a ceremony involving the dead Pharaoh, whose essence or soul (in Egyptian) was, they say, believed to be expelled through one of the four shafts from the Great Pyramid, to become permanently resident as a star. The 'opening of the mouth' ceremony was part of this.

This illustration shows Orion (Sah, apparently, to the Egyptians) as it would appear in 2450 BC - though I have to confess my Skyglobe gives it an impossible afternoon time.

The Egyptians' perception of this part of the sky was different from ours; Duat was Orion plus Sirius, and other stars, considered as a mobile unit; Sirius was called Sopdet, a goddess, later Graecised/Romanised to Sothis.

---

The 'opening of the mouth' (image right) (with a tool shaped like the constellation we call the great bear) allowed air to inspire the corpse; or simulate feeding; or at any rate do something related to life. The dead Pharaoh is believed to have had an artificial phallus attached, as the expulsion mechanism.

The phallic motif seems to have been strongly present in Egypt (though of course largely censored by the Victorians and more modern archaeologists). Min, or Amun-Min, one of the manifestations of the ram god, is the outstanding example.

---

With their fantastic mixture of analogies and coincidence, and projections of nature into cosmology, one would imagine the priests could not believe the 45 degree elevation of the three stars could be insignificant. Just as some stars vanished for nine months before 'rebirth', or the sun seemed to be feeble at dawn and evening and strong in 'middle age', or meteors sometimes left the mysterious substance iron, or the moon might look like the sun seen through the belly of the goddess Nut, I'd suggest the configuration here is what the Egyptians had in mind.

After all, what's so fascinating about a belt? Why build an elaborate shaft from the King's chamber to look at a belt?

This shows the painted interior of a sandstone shrine or chapel at Deir el-Bahari/Der el-Bahri, dedicated by Tuthmosis III to the cow goddess Hathor. The king makes an offering to Amun (or Amun-Ra - accounts vary!). I'd draw your attention to the triangular skirt or kilt of the king; this shape was fashionable for a long while and is frequently shown being worn (e.g. by Tutankhamun). Is it possible this is a reflection of Orion's shape? Perhaps the triangular shoulder arrangement represents Orion too. One might also speculate about the nature of the offering depicted here.

Incredibly durable image (left): this shows ‘King Den smiting an Asiatic’, dated by the British Museum at about 3000 BC. Virtually identical images occur in Ptolemaic times, e.g. at Edfu, dated about 70 BC. Possibly based on the Orion (and Hercules) image. However, the ancient Egyptians seem to have recorded no accurate star diagrams; if so, it's impossible to be certain how they interpreted the star patterns they saw. ‘Cerne Abbas giant’; (image right) could this be Orion? Current Archaeology (#156) has Rodney Castleden investigating the figure. On its date, he says there is no documentary reference before the 17th century. On its shape, Castleden found no evidence of a dog, or a horned god, perhaps therefore ruling out Celtic origins. (He also found evidence for a shorter penis, topped by a navel). However, there is evidence suggesting a face or head once existed below the outstretched arm (which may have had a fist, not an open hand). Castleden adds: ‘Comparable images can be found in the Iron Age, in a belt extending.. from Britain to Romania.’ So if it is a relatively recent folly, there are nevertheless similar authentic images elsewhere.

---

Some information here is taken from a talk by Bauval and Hancock at Waterstone's Bookshop, Canterbury, 29 May 1996. Also from several books jointly-authored by Bauval. There's a TV programme on the subject, introduced not inappropriately by Emma Freud, first shown in 1994, with Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert, of The Orion Mystery. I should make it clear that 'Duat' meant something like the Underworld in Egyptian; Bauval and Hancock say the same word applies to a section of the sky. I'm pleased that Bauval & Gilbert and others did their astronomical work; but I ought to add that, of course, I have reservations about it.
      NB: the supposed superimposition of the three stars of the belt with the apexes of the pyramids looks slightly unconvincing, with the stars shown overexposed, suggesting the fit mightn't be as good as is implied. If somebody checks this, could he/she also see whether the original version of the phrase ‘Orion's belt’ has an ambiguity or possible other meaning? Thanks. Incidentally this piece is meant entirely seriously.

---

E-Mails

Wayne Hay [July 98] e-mailed: 'Rae West asks if the belt might be a penis....well it probably is....because one of the functions of the Pharaoh on special holy days was to enter the Temple and ritually masturbate....this was treated recently by an archaeological presentation on educational television....and since generation was through the essence of the god, all creation was supposed to have sprung from the god in this way....refer to masturbation as a sacred art in Egyptian religious hierarchy...' [His dots-RW]
      Yes, I was delicately hinting at this. I think you may mean a BBC 'Timewatch', titled 'Karnak, a Hidden History', with voiceover by Andrew Sachs, better known as Manuel of 'Fawlty Towers'. The huge set of buildings at Karnak may have had such a ceremony in its inner 'sanctum', a masturbation ceremony supposedly related to the daily copulation of the sun with his mother the moon, plus an annual boat ride by the Pharaoh to sister smaller temple at Luxor. But the ceremony very secret, and these things were never written down. The evidence appeared to be a woman, the wife of god, translated also as 'the hand of god', suggesting a masturbation link; someone (Osiris?? - I forget) 'making love to his fist'. The images found (none in Karnak) naturally were subject to censorship by the Victorians.

---

Stephen R Wilk of Saugus, MA, April/May 1999: '.. Orion's Belt being a penis. I must congratulate you on this discovery, which I believe to be correct. ... [my dots-RW] I originally believed that the "sword" of Orion represented his penis, but your explanation of the belt being the penis is a far better explanation (even though proposed for the case of Egyptian Osiris), and fits in very nicely with my interpretations of the astronomical significance of the myth of Orion. I can provide further detials if you are interested.'
      I haven't received further details, but Stephen Wilk's interest is ancient Greek mythology and variable stars, suggested by a 1979 piece by a Prof. Lettvin of MIT: 'This is a connection I think most people have overlooked. I have a book forthcoming on the topic. "Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon" is coming out in December of 1999 from Oxford University Press, and deals with connections between the constellations of Perseus, Andromeda, Cepheus, Cassiopeia, Pegasus, and Cetus with the myth of Medusa and Perseus.'
      Wilk's idea is that 'the variability of Algol was known in pre-classical Greece, and that knowledge of the period is reflected in the myth of Perseus. Moreover, knowledge of the variability of Algol, Mira, delta Cephei, and gamma Cassiopoeia accounts for all their parent constellations being associated in the same myth as antagonists of Perseus.' His book is not yet published, but the sample he sent me includes the suggestion that the immortality of two of the three gorgons corresponds with the two bright days of Algol, the third, eclipsed, day [of its 70 hour period] being represented by Medusa. The Perseid meteor shower 'appears to originate from the arm of the constellation of Perseus. It is very easy to see in the display Perseus hurling the eye of the Graeae into Lake Tritonis.' Wilk has many interesting related ideas: 'the most peculiar image associated with the myth—the birth of Chrysaor and Pegasus from the neck of Medusa.. [can be explained by] the constellations of Perseus (with Medusa's head) and Pegasus. If we interpret Hesiod's words to mean that Pegasus and Chrysaor sprang from the stump of the neck attached to the head, rather than from the stump attached to the body, then the scene is pictured in that grouping of stars.'

      Comments: I have a few miscellaneous suggestions which may or may not be original—I'm not sure:

Greeks, Constellations, and Human Genetics—Mnemonics?

    [1] It strikes me one of the purposes of myths may have been as a mnemonic in memorising star patterns. Personally I think—you may disagree—many of the constellations have such vague outlines that they could be redrawn arbitrarily (especially the long sinuous ones). There are exceptions, like Cassiopeia and I suppose the bears. However, in a period when reading the stars was an important navigational device, it would make sense to pass on the interpretation in the form of stories, rather than just listing the patterns and flatly stating which is which. Also of course it's more memorable to give them striking and anthropomorphic names. So myths may have had a serious teaching purpose, which nobody took literally.
    [2] On the same subject, I wondered whether you've looked into cross-cultural attitudes to the stars? Possibly there are completely different collections of stars used e.g. in Mongolia. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. mariners at one time emphasised different stars from land-based people. However, I admit this is very difficult to study!
    [3] As I understand it, although nobody seems to word it like this, the Egyptians used stars as a sort of clock—Sirius rising being so to speak a large example; on a daily basis other stars were used to time what we'd call 4 hours, or 6, or whatever. So they may have had a different idea of what a constellation is—i.e. a string of bright stars stretched out like a long necklace with just a few things on it, different from our localised clump of stars.
      '.. if you look into the astronomies of other cultures you usually find the constellations are very different. One of the headaches of this sort of study is finding the constellations of other cultures set down anywhere. .. In most cases we don't really know what the constellation looked like. Even for the case of Egyptian constellations, for which we have many depictions, the identification of actual star patterns with constellation names is still tentative..
    In some cases the constellations suggest a form, so we can see why the ancient people gave it the name they did, or the attributes they did. One particularly clear case is that of Taurus. The "V" shape defined by the Hyades pretty clearly suggests the horns of a bull. Another case is Scorpio, where the J + T shape of the stars suggests a scorpion's coiled stinger. .. Curiously, one case of interest to us both shows that our expectations are not always fulfilled. The constellation of Orion seems clearly defined, with the large rectangle of stars, marked by the three stars of the belt/penis. Yet most cultures do not consider the four stars of the rectangle part of the constellation at all! The three "belt' stars are seen as an arrow, or as cooking fires, or some such figure, and Betelgeuse, Rigel, Bellatrix are not even considered. This, by the way, is one reason I find Bauval's pyramid thesis convincing -- considering the belt apart from the other stars as a constellation is the way most of the world sees the constellation.'
    24th April 2000: Stephen Wilks has set up a website www.medusamystery.com (this may no longer exist).

Greek Mythology as a Guide to Human Genetics?

Just as mythological stories could have been a guide to the stars—fixing them in the mind, and for example providing markers for such things as the signs of the zodiac—quite an intellectual achievement! A scribbled note of mine, originating from consideration of the Greek Goddess Ate, indicates Tantalos fathered Pelops, who fathered Atreus and Thyrsites, with Agamemnon a later twig of the family tree. For some reason, possibly the difficulty of typesetting family trees, these structures seem relatively hard to find in older references: Lempriere says Ate, the goddess of all evil, and daughter of Jupiter. ... raised such jealousy and sedition in heaven among the gods, that Jupiter ... banished her forever from heaven.... Brewer says much the same. Greekmythology.com says with the opulence of cheap text: Ate was the goddess of mischief and ruin in Greek mythology, daughter of Eris, goddess of strife, or in some accounts, daughter of Zeus. She had numerous siblings, including Horcus, Ponos, Algea, the Hysminai, the Makhai, the Phonoi, the Androktasiai, the Neikea, the Pseudologoi, the Amphilogiai, Dysnomia, Limos, and Lethe. They were all personifications of wrong doings or negative [sic] situations, such as pain, fights, murder, lies and forgetfulness. ... They remind me of some family trees—perhaps a symbolist version of the Jukes family?
      Is it possible that mythical family trees might contain helpful mnemonic indications of genetic tendencies? Just a thought.

---

Disclaimer: I noticed, in Feb 1999, that 'Orion' is occasionally used as an acronym for a slogan 'Our Race is Our Nation', an obviously inaccurate claim (except perhaps for the Chinese?) At any rate, no racial significance was or is intended by this article - RW [writing in 2000]

---

Top of this page
Click for Top of this page
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site

---

HTML Rae West. First uploaded 98-04-08 revised 98-04-30, 2000-05-25. Cerne added 96-06-15. Emails 99-09-24. Wilks link 2000-04-24. Re-uploaded as standalone file (reformatted) 2016-07-30

top of page

Photographic Memory, Eidetic Imagery

There used to be a fairly widespread myth of photographic memory, which was presented a possible capacity of the brain, giving in effect a photo in the 'mind's eye'. Obviously this idea must post-date photography. But is it possible? It seems obvious that it can't happen, because the brain evolved to take in light, and make sense of it. It has not evolved to reconstruct full visual fields for inspection.

I think belief in 'photographic memory' may be taken from the observation that incidents can have some effect on the brain. I'm thinking of a Derren Brown staged 'incident', at a railway station, showing a woman recovering after a short while a memory of a man's cap badge, flag on his shirt, and a name tag. These things all need the brain to recognise and process, perhaps like a computer subroutine; written language for example has to go through a complicated process of letter and word identification.

The eyes and brain of course do a scarcely credible job of presenting a dynamic, full-colour, three-dimensional interpretation of objects, and their positions, and such things as weight, colour, texture, cost, manufacture, invention history, motion ... Eidetic imagery seems impossible. Perhaps it was unimaginable before photography. But perhaps the collage of superimposed changing perceptions includes parts which can be selected and describes as though eidetic.

RW 2 June 2018     Top

Why You Should Avoid the Phrase 'Political Correctness'. Please. by Rae West © 1998 Summary: Anyone sensitive to the use of language must be irritated by the adoption, which is still going on, of 'political correctness' and 'politically correct' by third-rate journalists ... ... having difficulty finding a subject. Other rather sad Americanisms include 'feisty', which seems to have hit the UK after being prominent in the US in about the 1950s. And the strange 'noddy shot' US mannerism, useful for TV, of accompanying banal assertions with head nodding, useful for TV. And the anomalous rising intonation at the end of a statement. One is reminded of Richard Dawkins' word 'meme', itself a meme, a mental object infecting the brains of the unwary. In 'Year 501', Noam Chomsky says the phrase 'politically correct' was coined as far back as 1991. This was to forestall critical comments on the 1992 Columbus celebrations; i.e. in simple language, to take the piss out of people taking the piss out of Columbus. ‘Its extent is truly something to behold, .. stream of best-sellers with anecdotes, many concocted, about alleged horrors in the universities, .. gushed forth suddenly, as if on command; .. one six-month period found over a mention per day in the Los Angeles Times.’ A computer search reveals:‘.. Extraordinary deceit has been required to conceal the fact that it has been primarily the US, secondarily Britain, that have vetoed Security Council resolutions and generally undermined the UN for over 20 years... The hysteria about "political correctness" is an interesting domestic analogue; to the totalitarian mentality, even the slightest loss of control is an unimaginable catastrophe, and evokes the most impressive frenzy. ...’ ‘.. this [Univ of Virginia] is after all Thomas Jefferson's university, and he had some thoughts on that topic too. His thought, .. was that the university should guarantee the men of virtue, those who were going to govern the country, only have correct thoughts. They have to be indoctrinated in political correctness. It would be extremely dangerous to allow them to hear heretical doctrines. In fact part of the reason for founding the University of Virginia was so that bright young people in the South who were going to be the governing class not be infected by heretical doctrines they might hear in places like, say, Harvard. ..’ [Note: I know this isn't very well written. After all, who wants to waste time on this tripe? Where's the beef? ...]  [Note added January 2013: 'Political correctness' appears to have been a translation of an expression used after Jews took over Russia. Each Red Army unit had an attached person, no doubt Jewish, to make sure the military units did what Jews approved, and report back]. Top big-lies.org Rae West First uploaded 98-01-21 Revn 98-06-21

top of page


Top
big-lies.org

Rae West First uploaded 07-01-07

Potatoes, bred for yield and taste, and treated against pests. But they are still tough. Eaten raw, they are almost indigestible. But cooking breaks down the cell structure...

How to cook potatoes

As my picture implies, raw potatoes and root crops evolved to be fairly secure against insect pests and fungi, if their growing conditions allow this.

Cooking has various effects, but here I'm concerned with digestibility. Their cells are tough and firm. But cooking above 100° will convert water into water vapour. The volume change used to be given handily as 1,728 to 1—1 cubic inch into 1 cubic foot. Maybe it's rounded differently with the metric system—and the temperature affects the volume of vapour. However, the point is that the cells are disrupted and their nutrition made available for eating.

So, if you cook potatoes below 100 and a bit, they will still be hard. Boil them, steam them, fry them, bake them, microwave them, or even use the sun and a magnifying device. And make sure the temperature is high enough in the middle of the potatoes—it helps if pieces are about the same size.

[Top of Page]

Trying to Solve the Arabic or Egyptian Puzzle Ring © Raeto West 1998 FOUR-PART PUZZLE RING.   Click here for 8-part ring (below) Top interesting, if perhaps trivial, things Contents of entire big-lies site This drawing shows how the sub-rings of a four-part ring are arranged. Note that the two outermost sub-rings form the two blobs on each edge of the centre of the ring. Note also that they don't overlap; if you imagine the two shaded sub-rings vanish, the V and inverted-V sub-rings don't interlock (and in fact are held together by the inner sub-rings). Now, looking at the inner pair of sub-rings, note that these, although overlapping in an X arrangement, are also in fact independent - and are held together by the other sub-pair. These drawings show the two pairs of sub-rings as though separated; note that neither pair interlocks with its partner. The trick is to fit the pair shown below with their X in front of the pair shown above, and with its rings sandwiched between those of the ring on top, which are shown opened out as though to allow this. You should be able to identify the top pair easily; usually there's more wear on the outside, which helps reassure you you've got the pair right. You have to judge which way up the other two sub-rings have to go to fit into the gaps made by the top pair. Because they're interlocked, all this is a bit tricky. However, the arrangement above is NOT what's wanted; the correct method, or anyway my method, is to match two pairs of sub-rings in the way they actually link, i.e. an outer ring with its neighbour, and, located opposite, the other outer ring with its neighbour. The two pairs should be arranged so they're in the same plane, i.e. in principle all that's needed is to twist one pair around and all four parts will nestle together. .. And in fact this is what you do! Clearly, though, since the ring pretty well holds together, it's essential to open up the two outer rings, then juggle the other pair into place, and close the outermost ones neatly on the other two. (This stage isn't illustrated - it's no fun if it's too easy, is it?) And voilà! Congratulations on solving your ring. Don't forget to tie the rings together rather tightly. EIGHT-PART PUZZLE RING This drawing shows roughly how the sub-rings of an eight-part ring are arranged - I haven't attempted to show the overlaps accurately. As you can see, it's something of a cheat: in effect, it's the same as the four-part ring, except that the outer rings are each split into three, which, with two cross-over rings, make a total of eight. In this arrangement, the two rings with the X arrangement are special: holding up any sub-ring will show up the clump of six sub-rings. It's easy to identify the two groups of three (numbered 1,2,3 and 6,7,8 in the diagram) by checking their shaped parts. This picture shows the two pairs of three rings and the pair which cross in front, on a couple of fingers; you may find it easiest to use tape to fix the sets of three together. The next stage (not shown, mainly because it's difficult to scan in) is to interleave the two sets of three rings; they have to be arranged with their shaped regions facing each other, then interleaved one at a time; this is fairly easy since the sub-rings have depressions marked on them. If you can do this, you'll have... ... a ring which looks almost solved, with six pairs fitted together, but with a gap between, and two sub-rings hanging loosely, which are an obvious fit; as with the four-part ring above, the trick is to get these two sub-rings across the front of the arrangement, with their flat parts touching and sandwiched between the outer stacks of sub-rings. If you haven't yet done this, you might tape together the pair of three sub-rings. Unfortunately, it's difficult to describe the next stage. Clearly it must be possible to insert the two spare rings into the six - since, when the ring was taken apart, the reverse process happened. All I suggest is that you try to work out how one ring must be positioned so that it simultaneously has its narrow end where it should be, and the wavy end correctly orientated. There are several ways of doing this and (unless the sub-rings were marked in some way) I don't think you can know in advance the correct way. (If the parts are the wrong way round, the complete ring is unlikely to fit properly, and will look slightly wrong). Open the interlaced sets of rings and try to insert the sub-ring; jiggle it, and if it fits snugly, grip the four rings together and work the final ring into position. (It's possible - I've done it!) And voilà! Congratulations, again, on solving your ring. And don't forget to tie the rings together... Note: I haven't been able to find the official name of these rings, which seem to have peaked in popularity in the 1970s, nor whether these rings are ‘Arabic’ in any genuine sense; the four-part type illustrated I'm told is mostly made in India, of unhallmarked silver, i.e. presumably silver plus low melting-point metal or (much more likely) the cheap alloy which is used to imitate silver. The eight-part type is obtainable from jewellers in the UK and is a standard stock item under the name of 'puzzle ring', along with an equivalent slender four- and six-part style, the six parts being made by splitting each X sub-ring into two.       Checking at a number of jewellers revealed there seem to be no three-part rings, though I thought I'd seen one, and I think it must be possible to make one.       I've never seen a topological treatment of these in any maths text. Top of this page www.big-lies.org HTML Rae West First uploaded 98-04-08 Revision with 8-part ring 1998-09-15.

top of page

Three Razor Blade Myths

© Rae West 1998

These examples suggest that anything hard to measure - in this case, the sharpness of a razor blade - can have popular myths invented around it.     What happened in the 1980s and 1990s? One thing I found is ‘AIDS tainted razor blades’ - RW

SHARPENING THROUGH RESTING (UK 1950s)Charles Hill was the ‘Radio Doctor’ known for his portentous voice, and such remarks as “Kissing is a mutual exchange of salivary bacteria.” He later became Secretary of the BMA, the British Medical Association. His valuable advice dispensed on the BBC included a suggestion on preserving razor blades: he said if you rest razor blades over the weekend they'll recover by Monday.

SHARPENING THROUGH REPACKAGING (US 1960)Vance Packard's book The Waste Makers (1960) included a bit of market research on razor blades: if used blades were carefully cleaned and repackaged in the paper envelopes, their users judged them to be new.

SHARPENING THROUGH PYRAMID POWER (SOUTH AFRICA 1973)Lyall Watson's 1973 book ‘Supernature’ has something on the Cheops Pyramid as a Razor Blade Sharpener. (Page 98). I think he must have helped popularise this, rather than invent it. I met someone who actually said that if you put a razor blade under a pyramid, it sharpens!

---

Top of this page
big-lies.org

HTML Rae West First uploaded 1998-04-26 Revised 1998-08-03 and 2013-01-18.

'Reverse Speech': The Brain as Pattern Recognition Software Just a brief note on 'reverse speech', which, like rods, is an artefact of technology, in this case audio recording. Digital recording is the updated version, better and easier than tape recordings. Before the invention of sound recordings, it was impossible to play sounds backwards. Note that moving images have a similar possibility: no doubt Eadweard Muybridge experimented with his successive images in reverse order. Experimenters (or people just having fun) might try the free Audacity program, which will record voices, and has an option to reverse the audio traces. That is, it replaces the recording with the same waveform back to front, and they can be played in the usual way; so far as I know it doesn't play them from the end to the beginning. Spoken English is split into phonemes, though of course these vary with context, speaker, and running together of words and phrases. Experimenters could try pure vowels, diphthongs, and consonants, playing them backwards to see what they find. Any that resemble other phonemes could be noted; with luck you may find a single sound which resembles another sound backwards; or syllables which resembles other syllables, backwards; or words which are roughly the reverse of each other. The lips, airways, throat, tongue and head shape collectively determine how sounds are formed; it seems likely (I haven't checked) that some generating methods are likely to be more reversible than others; for example labial and breathy sounds, though perhaps not stops and fricatives. Considering palindromes (e.g. 'Madam, I'm Adam' and 'Raw & snug was I, e'er I saw guns & war') may suggest useful abbreviations and short-cuts—such as some aural equivalent of '&' to get around the difficult of reversing 'and'. This might be a useful exercise for people who've been told about hidden reversed messages, either deliberately inserted or unconscious. It is of course perfectly possible to include reversed messages (and they can be stretched, compressed, etc easily enough with modern software). Maybe these brief notes will help perplexed people understand the physics.     Top of this page     big-lies website     Rae West - Uploaded 2013-04-21 (after listening to a breathless Valley Girl type claiming Paul-MacCartney-is-Faul). 2018-04-29 I noted with concern that Andrew Carrington Hitchcock seems to have faith in this; unless he's simply filling online radio time.

top of page

'Rods': Artefacts of Moving Picture Technology Just a brief note on 'rods', promoted in the late 1990s as 'paranormal' objects, generally out-of-focus lines with a regular pattern, found on video images. Every observational device produces artefacts: coloured diffraction with lenses, Newton's rings with thin films, an eyelash seen in an eyepiece, stretched-out (or compressed) moving objects with cameras that have focal-plane shutters, and the appearance of double lines in a single membrane with electron microscopy are examples in ascending order of likelihood of a mistake. Insect wings come in several designs; 100 to 600 beats per second are common with flies, mosquitoes, and midges; the smaller the faster, generally. A video camera operating at 30 frames per second, each frame taking (say) 1/100 of a second, will record six beats of an insect with 600 beats per second, run together on the same frame. In fact the number of wing-beats per second can be calculated from such videos. Butterflies and moths have much slower wingbeat rates which don't show as 'rods'; probably this is the reason for the uninteresting colouring of 'rods' generally. Insects aren't generally well-lit, so good videos of 'rods' usually have a dark background, the camcorder itself happening to be brightly-lit by sunlight or a night security camera. (Or they may be dark against a bright sky). Because of the insect connection, these images are often made at dusk and in country areas. Obviously the camcorder focusing is usually on mid- or far-distant subject-matter, giving the impression of fast speeds. Note, 4 Dec 2021, on Forehead Lamps: It occurs to that miners' and cavers' head-mounted lights, usually LED, and maybe infra red lamps, Have a similar effect because of the unusual style of lighting, when close objects—rain, snow, dust, cigarette smoke—and especially insects, gives the emphasis. They show up as objects in front of darkness show up.     Top of this page     big-lies website HTML Rae West First uploaded 2013-Jan-21 'Rod' image from a Youtube by HSWT2009 Forehead lamp note 4 Dec 2021

'Ropeworms' 18 May 2016

This idea has been around for several years; I only became aware of it through a chance Youtube-suggested video, on enemas. The mechanism seems to be (I'm not certain) that clean warm or hot water, introduced anally into the guts, by an enema, precipitates or loosens gut contents (complete with acid, breakdown products, mucus and what have you) to generate artefacts somewhat like tapeworms. It's a similar process to 'diagnosing' 'Morgellon's disease' by a process (staining oral food detritus with red wine) which is misinterpreted.

What interested me as much as anything else is the inability of medical professionals to explain what these things are, and why they form. I couldn't find well-written statements anywhere online.

top of page

Salt in Diet: Another Demonisation Project!

Since 2008 'WASH' ('World Action on Salt and Health') campaigned against salt in food; and 'CASH' ('Consensus Action on Salt and Health') seems to be a Britain-only variant. This seems largely driven by Graham MacGregor, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine. Neither of the above websites give any evidence relating to the actual biochemical effects of salt; or not that I could find. This is a highly contentious area; please be aware there is no general agreement. Please be aware also that it could be another quasi-scientific fraud. And it could be another Jewish fraud. (Jeremiah Stamler appears to have been a leading self-publicist and promoter of salt, and other diet, errors). Those organisations are trying to implement a 6 gram per day limit on consumption of salt for adults.

Click here for an article on the need for salt in diet on this site, presenting scientific evidence for the necessity of salt in food, with material on quantities needed.

---

Added 2014-03-09

top of page

How Dangerous is Smoking?? There is a diet link with smoking and lung cancer which is still not appreciated after very many years. This is a link to a recording of a talk by David Horrobin, the founder of Efamol, which stands for 'Essential Fatty Acid Molecules'. Horrobin, who unfortunately is now dead, researched into human and animal nutrition, and especially the types of fat in diet and their possible health links. As outlined in the talk, one man who was very influential on Horrobin's thought was Hugh Sinclair, a nutritionist. In the 1940s it was believed that almost everything to be known about nutrition was already known, or soon would be. Sinclair had the distinction of having the longest-ever letter to the Lancet published (in 1956); it was a letter, not an article, because the editor felt it may too 'controversial' to be included as an article. The subject was food processing and its relation to health; Sinclair claimed that hydrogenating fats, which made them saturated with hydrogen and less prone to become rancid, had unappreciated health risks, including increased incidence of lung cancer. Horrobin's talk here deals with the question of eczema, which in some cases is (he says) treatable with essential fatty acids, the detailed metabolic pathway of which is known. Among other things, Horrobin states that the lung cancer rate in Japan is far lower than in the USA, which he attributes to a diet high in fatty fish. Horrobin also looks at a paper critical of Ancel Keys, the originator of most popular beliefs on cholesterol, heart disease, and fats.     Since writing this I note that Ancel Keys' parents were 'Russian Jews'. Keys knew Jeremiah Stamler, another Jew; see Salt in Diet: Another Demonisation Project Click for Talk by David Horrobin at the Institute of Chemistry in 1995; the material has been known about for decades. This suggests it's highly likely that a more oily diet, of the correct type of unsaturated oil, protects against lung cancer and other diseases. To be continued... Very important note It's been known for years that male mammals need far more EFA than female. There was no known reason for this; probably nobody knows why even now. But EFAs, which ought to be regarded as vitamins, are marketed for women, when in fact men, especially smokers, are much more likely to be deficient in these oils.     Evening primrose seeds contain large amounts of one member of a metabolic pathway (starflowers were found later to contain even more); Horrobin went into business selling the oil, packaged in capsules to prevent oxidation. It's strange that tobacco companies seem to have made no attempt to investigate all this in view of the health dangers associated with smoking! Note added March 30 2014: there's a well-suppressed idea that diesel smoke, mostly from trucks, causes lung cancer. This is an aspect of the particulate hypothesis: small, often invisible, particles may penetrate to the lungs; the cleaning mechanisms, usually with gluey material exuded from cells and moved with cilia, not being well adapted to supersmall particles. Dr Kitty Little was one of many who believed this; here's a not-well-recorded informal talk of hers. The case seems to have been left unexamined; as with fluoride in drinking water, the real motive was hidden, and 'public health' propagandists took over. HTML Rae West. Uploaded 2013-Jan-21 male deficit added 2013-Jan-27 -- though the material was collected around 1995. Mobile tinkering 2016-10-23

top of page

‘Shapeshifters’ and ‘Reptilians’

Just a few banal comments on some youtube videos. The shapeshifter videos I've seen are disappointingly banal. There's no 'shapeshifting' at all. Instead, American TV is filmed (the digital feed is not used), preferably at high speed to include partial frames. This of course adds RGB pixel artefacts, and artefacts caused by poor focus and re-establishing RGB artefacts. And when zoomed in, more artefacts intrude. All that's needed is to watch the recordings of TV for something eye-catching.

Reptilians are usually videos of eyes, lips, or hands. With suitable processing artefacts, single frames may show oddly-shaped eye pupils, hands shaped like claws, or whatever.

I wouldn't bother with such low-grade stuff; but possibly some people are worried by it. Maybe this may help them.

[ To top of this page ]   |   2017-03-14

Star Trek; New Theory?

Rae West © 1998, 2000

---

This idea struck me (in Jan 1994!) and I don't think I've heard it anywhere else. There's a belief that Captain Cook's voyages as recorded in log-books and journals include a passage in which Australian aborigines could not perceive the ships as they hove into view - they were literally unable to see them. Unfortunately I wasn't able to verify this attractive idea, at least with my Everyman copy: they just seemed cautious, rightly so, in fact, in view of their forthcoming 'holocaust'. (NB: this year, near Lake Victoria in Australia, tens of thousands of skeletons were discovered..) But several parallels with Star Trek (early version) occurred to me as I read:-

    • On the 'crew' I've seen comments that the 'creator', at the supposed height of the 'Cold War', dared to include a Russian, Japanese, etc. Looking back, I;d suggest this is a Jewish attitude: Jews had people in capitals around the world, not in nations.

    • The name: James Kirk sounds like James Cook (it's surprisingly difficult to check Cook's first name is 'James'; he almost always is brusquely called just 'Cook'. Only in an obituary notice in my book is he addressed as 'Captain James Cook'; one imagines he spent his whole life stiffly being called 'Mr Cook'.)

    • He was always called 'Captain' (in fact his title was 'Lieutenant Commander')

    • Cook in the Endeavour, with a lieutenant, gunner, carpenter, surgeon, and others, voyaged for four or five years, not at all unlike the Enterprise '..a five year mission to explore..'

    • The Star Trek vocabulary is oddly past-regarding and nautical in many ways: 'Ship to ship', 'your vessel', Captain Kirk's 'yeoman', 'Admiral', 'hailing frequencies open', 'engines', 'shore-leave', 'tractor beam', the 'ship's bridge'. I seem to remember they even had a ceremony of piping people 'aboard'. The only reason I can think of for using ships as models is that they were the only really big transport machines when science fiction was developing.

    • One of the ridiculous features of 'Star Trek' is the way in which hyper-developed technology is supposed not to apply to weapons - there was a similar absurdity in Star Wars, and of course it's probably necessary to the plot, which otherwise would come to a sudden stop. However, it is applicable to the sort of situation Cook was in. (Similarly, H G Wells's War of the Worlds could be considered a possible parable of the impact of modern weaponry on undeveloped countries).

    • I found a 'James Scott' listed as one of the ships officers. There are 'Sulu Islands' somewhere in the area.

    • The (supposed) missions sound similar. That is, Cook observed the odd eclipse of the sun and transit of Venus, and collected botanical information; but probably the main motives for his voyages were empire-building. (Incidentally, according to Jillian Robertson, despite the many references of Australians to Cook, Cook had no love for nor any special interest in Australia). Similarly, although the Enterprise is supposed to 'explore strange new worlds', in fact virtually no exploration is done - I suppose Trekkies are too dim-witted to notice this.

    • There are parallels for pinching ideas for science fiction; Arthur C Clarke based his main series of stories on Gibbon's Decline and Fall..

    • It seems possible that the sort of adventures recorded by Cook - icebergs, waterspouts, poisonous fish, scurvy, trading with natives in canoes, real or supposed cannibalism and human sacrifice, ships losing contact, kings of 'great majesty', shootings of the occasional 'native', language differences, volcanic eruptions, dexterity with spears, strange medical practices, everlasting snow, occasional sexual topics - were used to provide the basis for single episodes.

    • There's an amusing filmic parallel with Hollywood films involving ships, namely that the really expensive bit is filming people getting on or off the boats. See for example the not very convincing computer graphics in the film Titanic. Similarly, Star Trek cuts down the expense here with its low-budget transporter.

---

NEWS!! Aficionados of the absurd will be pleased to see that the British Science Museum is to have an exhibition, apparently 'created by the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in association with Paramount Pictures.' '.. a range of Star Trek^TM related mechandise will be on sale ..'

      Their handout (©Paramount Pictures) repeats the ridiculous lie that 'science and technology in STAR TREK were based on sound scientific principles.' May their exhibition fail!

---

Star Trek - The Next Generation. New Theory!   © Rae West March 30, 2014

'The Next Generation' was late 1980s and early 1990s; as far as I know the full green screen and 3D computer graphics and character simulation were not yet developed. So the special effects now look unspecial. As regards plots, I suspect some of the outline *may* have been taken from Khazaria, for reasons dear to the hearts of people from that area. The Khazars became partly or wholly converted to Judaism; there were Muslims nearby, and the Byzantine Christian Empire, with its hints of Roman origin. To the north were many tribes, notably the Rus. There were Turks, Huns, and others.

    • Without wishing to delve into immense detail, the Varangian Rus sound like the 'Ferengi'; the trader characters must have had real-life approximate equivalents; the Romulans sound a bit like Romans, and the Klingons like brutal Christians of the Jewish mind set. Perhaps the fighters were loosely based on Hollywood films of gladiators? Cardassians might have been suggested by other groups of the early middle ages; I'm not interested enough to compare and contrast. But maybe.

---

19 Sept 2018

[Anon person 14 Sept 2018]– Currently I'm watching Star Trek Voyager and I just saw an episode about historical revisionism, it was all about this historian who had created a museum dedicated to keeping the memory of the war crimes from a conflict 700 yrs earlier alive. Very, very reminiscent of a lot of the conversations happening here, there were two races on the same planet and one of them were "oppressed" (they never went into what that meant in practical terms) and they use the 700 year old warcrimes to give themselves benefits and gibs. ['Gibs' = free handout and other benefits]
      ["Living Witness" is the 91st episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager, the 23rd episode of the fourth season.]

---

Top

Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site

If you have the misfortune to be a 'Trekkie', feel free to email a comment by clicking here

HTML Rae West First uploaded 1998-04-08 Revd 1998-07-27 Science Museum 2000-10-18

The Taj Mahal Yes, the Taj Mahal has a 'conspiracy theory'. The received view is that the building is Muslim, erected as a mausoleum and symbol of love by a Muslim. However, there's a Hindu opinion that, in fact, it was built by Hindus, and appropriated later by invading Muslims. Why not try to check it out? Here's another - secret underground area Youtube (apologies!) video Top of this page big-lies.org site

top of page

The Psychology of ‘UFOs’. © Rae West 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Click for: unedited emails (this page, below)   | Click for Top of this page | Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site

At the outset I should say that I accept the conventional view that the distances between stars are so great that space travel by 'aliens', and human beings, over such distances, is virtually impossible. Also that some objects in the sky are unquestionably 'unidentified'—especially if only one person's claim is the entire evidence. Personally, I also accept the view that governments routinely lie—at least about important things—so their claims can't be assumed to be reliable where evidence is missing. So what's going on here? Some notes...

This small section added 8th October 2014 There are connections with Jewish media control and lies, and UFOs. After uploading my youtube Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier: Official Fakers to the Atomic Energy Commission! (8 Oct 2014; click, below, to watch), and thanks to chance Googling, I realised that Jews had several reasons to promote UFOs: 1 UFO sensations made it seem that remote galaxy visitors were concerned with the serious threat of 'nukes'! In other words, UFOs could be used to reinforce belief in nuclear weapons and power. 2 UFO claims made increasing security and secrecy and money seem necessary. 3 Given Jewish media control, there was money in publishing books and films by Jews. Spielberg for example has a large output of Jewish lies: why would he be concerned with Close Encounters and ET? 4 Reasoning backwards, Jewish media control is so intense, and censored topics so many, that it may be assumed anything in the Jewish media is there because of some specifically Jewish interest, real or supposed. Jews and UFOs reflections in nuclear truth site. [NB Googling 'Jews UFOs' found me this First Light Forum but its frantic references to Nazis, scams, UFOs, niggers etc makes it easy to ignore]     No moving parts: when jet engines were invented about the end of the second world war, an air motor with no moving parts—or no visible moving parts—existed for the very first time. Futuristic films made before that war show planes as projections of what then existed—similar, but bigger, and with more and bigger propellers thrashing the air often somewhat like combine harvesters. I'd guess that before the invention of jet aircraft, hardly anyone could have believed in 'flying saucers', because they had no experience of a jet engine. Rockets (I think) were less important, since they were recognised as being difficult to fly inside in a safe routine way—a prejudice, if it is a prejudice, that still exists.     Change from 'fast' to 'manoeuvrable': an article in the Skeptic pointed out that, when flying saucers were first seen [term coined June 1947—followed by the Roswell incident in July 47], all the emphasis was on speed: this seemed at the time the important feature. Later—after planes broke the sound barrier, and rockets became better known—this seemed less spectacular, and more emphasis was put on manoeuvring—they were described as being able to hover, for example, although I think probably this wasn't as important as erratic changes in direction, since helicopters and some planes could hover. This still seems to be true: a satisfactory media flying saucer has to shift fast and erratically. Hairless chimp, or genuine spaceman?     Animal experiments: it's not very well known, despite the obvious believability, that monkeys were used as 'pilots' in experimental planes and cockpits: for one thing, they're small, and can be used in reduced-scale models; and there's less fuss if they're killed. Since they tend to be hairy, an obvious thing to do is shave them: this makes medical examination of the results easier. My own guess is that some reports of little spacemen are based on this. A hidden bug might present us with this taped conversation: Journalist: "So what did you see, Mr Redneck?" "Why, I saw a li ol' mayun." "Can you describe him?" "Why, just a lil ol' mayun, kinda hunched an wrinkled?" "Thanks. Er, you've been very helpful." "Say, that makes me feel real good." [Well, I thought it was funny. Polyphthongs suggested by Kingsley Amis.]     If this seems far-fetched, consider that there was a well-known, presumably true, incident in the Napoleonic wars in which a monkey from a French shipwreck was hanged by seaside villagers who thought it was a French spy.     Roswell Bomb? If the Roswell object was just bits of a high-flying weather balloon, how could it be so misidentified at the time? Perhaps the emphasis on flying hid the possibility it might have been a bomb—perhaps a mother bomb casing, or experimental flying bomb. The attraction of this idea is that it would give a powerful motive for lying, since local people mightn't be enthusiastic about loose bombs falling around them. (There was considerable fuss when a hydrogen bomb was supposed to have been dropped in Spain, presumably in error, a couple of decades later). The 'Roswell Record' said Maj Gen Nathan F Twining said "Neither the AAF nor any other component of the armed forces had any plane, guided missle [sic] or other aerial device under development which could possibly be mistaken for a saucer or formation of flying disks." So the bomb theory can't be right, can it?     Poverty of language: It's an amusing possibility that the now-standardised 'alien' (bald, big eyes etc) might just reflect the linguistic poverty of over-propagandised and under-educated people. All the short words (face, hands, eyes, nose) have their iconic equivalent in the supposed image, but the more difficult ones (pupils, nostrils, earlobes, eyelashes) have no counterpart. 'Bug-eyed' should mean having compound eyes, not just big ones. Questions such as "Did it have an exoskeleton?" or "How were the mandibles hinged?" or "Did it have adaptations for high-pressure surroundings?" are presumably excluded when 'debriefing'.     Lack of appreciation of photography/ videography: most people have little feeling for such things as depth of field and depth of focus, and even of reflection and refraction. There have been photos presented as UFOs which were taken from inside buildings, and show reflections of lights in the windows. There are videos taken in bright daylight, with little insects on the lens (kept relatively sharp by the small aperture) moving in a way suggesting a zig-zagging craft, and others with refracted parts of objects which give erratic visual effects. An interesting case is a report by Patrick Moore (famous in Britain as an astronomer, thanks to the BBC's promotion) who observed strange slowly-moving blurred dots through a telescope. He took a day or so to realise these were pollen grains drifting across the field of view. All this is quite apart from the much greater ease of faking pictures and videos thanks to computer editing.     Lack of appreciation of visual perception and optical illusions: the few visual clues in the sky (especially at night) make judgement of size difficult, as anyone can see by looking up at a clear sky, which appears to be dome-shaped, for some complicated perceptual reason. An odd example of this is quoted somewhere, I think in a book by Hynek, in which someone thought the full moon, low over the horizon, was a UFO: the moon near the horizon does seem exceptionally large. My guess is that the cylindrical flying things seen in Mexico at convenient times exploit this, and are a hoax using some ultra-high-powered centrifugally-stable rotating devices, used, as with Filipino healing, in effect, to extract money from US citizens. (What happens to the objects as they lose power seems never to be recorded). How horses were believed to gallop, before photography was invented     Lack of appreciation of physical phenomena. Things behave in odd ways (see for example the debunking—if we're right—of 'superfluid helium' by Phil Holland and myself).     Another expert error is the case of 'poly-water', starting in the late 1960s, when it wasn't realised that hot glass is reactive in a way cold glass isn't, and hundreds of papers were written on what turned out to be silica solution in water (something like 'waterglass'). Another example, hardly yet known about, is the assumption that clouds are all made of droplets of water.     Yet another example is the possibility of rolling waves in Loch Ness caused by wind starting disturbances which are reflected from the very long parallel sides of the loch. Another unexpert example: I recall being assured by a builder that he'd seen concrete burning. It's impossible that people without experience of flying objects could predict their behaviour; and it's very likely that experts will be wrong when faced with new phenomena. I doubt, for example, whether the behaviour of fly-by-wire airplanes, designed to be unstable, could be guessed at by people who'd only seen older machines.     'Abductions': Presumably the psychology here is similar to that of people showing 'stigmata': first there has to be a self-dramatizing (or money-making) impulse, and second there has to be a framework which isn't disprovable too easily. There's a Darwinian process by which disprovable aspects are pruned away: so it happens that people show stigmata rather than (say) attempting to walk on water or see through opaque objects—having first worked out some mechanism for causing wounds in the officially approved places. (I recall a TV presentation showing a woman secretly making a cross on the skin of her arm with bleach put on by her fingers). And similarly to show contact with 'aliens' obviously it's impossible to produce actual evidence (photos, objects) and the event has to be invisible: hence 'abductions' seem to be almost the only available methodology for getting into 'UFOs', perhaps assisted by Star Trek with its low-budget way of moving around, avoiding the tricky business of filming landing/take-off sequences with doors or hatches opening/closing.       The 'medical experimentation' fear seems to be a semi-permanent modern neurosis. Cf. for example the X Files film, which has antiquated material on AIDS despite this having been exposed years ago. However, possibly this just reflects the strength of the medical/pharmaceutical lobbies and the desire to evade other possibilities.     Influence of films/ books/ comics: A caption under a reproduced cover of Astounding Stories comic (1935) in John Spencer's UFO Encyclopedia says: 'Those who believe that stories of abduction reported by witnesses must be literally true because there is no cultural image from which to draw the story should consider some of the early science fiction. This illustration, has all the main features of the abductions reported in the 1960s and beyond.' [Picture shows 'bug-eyed' man-like thing with pale female body on an operating table, admittedly in a stone building, while another man-like thing grips the half-dressed hero trying to save the woman.] Another caption states '.. modern day stories.. are remarkably similar to the fairy abduction stories of Celtic myth' although the text only lists 'reality distortion', time lapses, and 'changelings' as similarities.     What's the impulse behind the belief? Is there a need to believe in superior beings, or a hope that there are such beings who might perhaps save the world? Is it a similar feeling to the belief in 'God', a transfer of parental feeling elsewhere, when parents are found to be sadly lacking in omnipotence? Maybe.       Even your doctor doesn't have all the answers is supposed to contain pearls of US wisdom. Perhaps UFOs are an unofficial subject, in a world where knowledge is parcelled up between countless experts, or supposed experts. The now-discredited Cyril Burt quoted, somewhere, a schoolboy whose main interest in life was ghost stories. When he was asked why, the boy said "because I know more about them than the school inspector".     Fear: The site https://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/ethbull/mms28.html had Phantom Airship Scares 1909-1918, the title of a book by Nigel Watson and others. Click for the review (it opens in a new window; you must scroll down past other items). Invasion scares, war fears, foreign threats, rumours of terror weapons have played their parts in impairing sense and humanity.     Problems with Witnesses: and with their presentation. Typical (but this example was accessible only to UK people) was a 4 November 1999 BBC1 TV programme, Mysteries. This was a New Zealand case, with the unusual feature that a UFO was filmed by a 'genuine film team'. The genuine film in fact showed just a detail-less dot, which the camera operator had had difficulty focussing on; the clip only lasted a few seconds. The cameraman was not interviewed, so it was impossible even to tell whether the camera was pointing up, down, or across. And yet the eye witnesses, or actors playing them (it wasn't clear which), said for example that there was a 'large light' and that it moved up and down 'thousands of feet'.     Purpose of blurred distinction between 'UFOs' and 'Extra-terrestrials': these things are often blurred together; many people speak of them in the same breath. And there seems to be an official movement to legitimise both (for example, Yahoo!'s site on the subject has at least nine out of ten sites in favour, in a section linking 'extraterrestrial life'—for which there's minimal evidence—with 'UFOs'. Just one example.) But, obviously, it's possible that there may be true UFOs, unidentified flying objects, piloted by people (or unpiloted), with absolutely no 'alien' connection.     The best explanation I have is that it's a cover for testing experimental aircraft, in slightly the same way that English smugglers used to spread stories that the countryside they operated in was haunted. Thus (e.g.) Concorde and other supersonic planes have engines developed in the 1950s. You might view this as showing how slow progress has been since then—or how large progress under secrecy might be.     The SR71 'Blackbird' Mach III spyplane, designed after the U2 incident, was designed to be so fast it couldn't be shot down. An observer interviewed on a TV program recently identified a modified refuelling tanker he'd seen, and added behind it was a black triangular craft the like of which he'd never seen. Other technologies presumably must have been tried. What new designs of flying objects may have been developed? And what for?     (Since writing this I found a remaindered book, Projekt UFO, by W A Harbinson, first published in 1994, which is subtitled The Case for Man-Made Flying Saucers. It appears to be entirely based on other books, which are listed as Sources but appear not to have been very reliably checked. Unusually, Ernst Zündel of the Zundelsite is described and quoted—and misspelt.)

Click for Top of this page Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site Comments or ideas on UFOs? Click to e-mail Click for other peoples' unedited emails on UFOS, directly below. HTML Rae West. First uploaded 98-10-06. Revd 99-02-27, 99-06-18, 99-09-13, 99-09-23, 99-10-30, 99-11-10. Cosmetics 2000-04-12. Magonia link, Harbinson 2000-11-01. Patrick Moore 2001-03-31.

Unedited UFO emails Click for Top of this page Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:22:58 EDT Very nice work. However, next time I suggest that you make your studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your arguments are pathetic and weak. A skeptic such as yourself, can do a vast amount of damage in the minds of unsuspecting people who are just now starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's thoughts for thousands of years. You assume that there is not a civilization anywhere in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not currently in position to be measured for their age. To: JAdams7730@aol.com Subject: CASTER. What? Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:58:42 >However, next time I suggest that you make your > studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your > arguments are pathetic and weak.     ** Why don't you produce a strong argument then, such as evidence? All that's needed are a few reasonable photos, samples, specimens etc etc. > starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's > thoughts for thousands of years.     ** Why should these stories suddenly start now? If 'aliens' existed, they've had thousands of years to say hello. For that matter, why should they only appear in areas where people watch silly US TV? Why not in big cities? Why not in other parts of the world? > in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my > narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not > currently in position to be measured for their age.     ** I assume the distances are far, because they certainly seem to be - the fastest moving things take millions of years, and of course there's no way of knowing exactly how big the 'universe' is. So your comments, such as they are, appear rather feeble. Why don't you try to develop some feeling for weighing evidence? You might become less narrow-minded. Regards Rae West X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:23:22 1999 Do not dance with unknown forces. You have no clue as to whom you are conversing with. The e-mail adress is a far cry from my actual designation. We use simple, and suttle means to get the point across. There is no possible way for you to win. We have inbedded ourselves in every aspect of your culture, and all of the others around this dark, and severly repressed planet. Remember, you are the ones who set up this period of time with it's luxuries, crimes, passive brain-washings, and so-called myths designed to be thrown into the realm of impossibility forever. But, the ignorance will not thrive forever. Nothing ever does. We were here before your kind, and we will remain after your kind has been destroyed by there own hands. Have nice dreams this week fool. X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:42:17 1999 Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com> Look between the lines for the important spelling. I can arrange a moon landing for your brain while you sleep. I work better in my own domain. As I said, have nice dreams this week fool. From: JAdams7730@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:39:11 EDT Subject: Re: moonland We play game, no?       Moonland fun!!!!       Know me, you do!!!! Delivery-date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:27:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:27:34 EDT Subject: ufos Dear mind controller, You seem to want to under mind many people and you are not good at it. What you said about u.f.o.s. is not true, just because there is life out there does not mean you will control it. If some finds out that no one person can control them, then you are in trouble of loosing your. jms marrujo. Delivery-date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:25:51 +0100 From: JMSMarrujo@aol.com A moon landing is a moon landing, people who had an opportunity to land on the moon. You seem to for get who runs the world. The few people that enjoy total freedom have the freedom to enjoy new things. They are never under mind and they always stay beside you. We live in a world of control the mind, always living in the world appointed to you. Just pretend Mother Earth is a 7-11 we are just a pit stop.   Just pretend that life in space is like the water at sea, try to live with your immagination. Then just pretend you are going through the motions. To live is to live with freedom when teachnology passes immagination, You end up in a world of trouble. JMS MARRUJO.   From: DSu2025715@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:19:25 EDT Subject: Nice Web Site UFOs do exist. However, not quite the way people have portrayed them OR the entities they call ETs. Furthermore, UFOs are NOT the remote prolific strange things people have made them out to be. While theologians have long since accepted that Ezekiel was taken into heaven by a UFO, it is not something that they would like to share with its congregation. Keep up the good work! White Thunder From: ONEhotBIKE@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 Subject: (no subject) Believe it or not i spotted around 15 ufo's in Brooklyn New York at incredable heights at 11.15 am sunday morning. My partner and i were watching a migration of Monarch butterflys when we've noticed these small oval shiny reflecting objects glittering in still, then move in formations. This was in broad daylight for approximately ten minutes. Heights were way above clouds and no planes were flying when these objects were present. Some moved at incredable speeds in straight lines so i ruled out balloons or birds. At moments they formed to what it appeared to us to be horoscope like figures so i thought we were watching stars because they glittered, but again stars dont move. Whoever i told this to thinks im nuts and my partner is just excepting this sighting if it is one. I wish i had pictures or video because i believe i will never see that again. The military must have something up there sleeves. From: Rrumble Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:29:00 EDT Subject: UFO's....naturally To: ufos@littleton.prestel.co.uk Well, I can't imagine anyone devoting so much energy to debunking something, but for what its worth... First..you obviously have never seen one of these objects, or your main theme would be (as those who have seen one) one of wonder as to what you'd seen. I'm 52, have flown in the military during the Viet Nam war, commercially, privately, and in flight test. I own a home, am retired and raising a four year old. I am degreed in science, and I am listed in the who's who of business and finance..a publication which honors only 1500 individuals. I say this only to underline..I'm not your stereotyped "Southern Hick Chewing Straw" which seems to get giggles from "Limeys"...I dated a girl from Newcastle on Tyne for 7 years..I got tired of her putting everyone down. Apparently if you speak Cockney everyone looks down on you..so coming here was her way of "moving up in class and being respected..which never would have happened in UK.. You don't need to put a class of people down to prove a point..it only shows a character flaw, and weakens your position. That being said..the first problem in viewing UFO's is that we use a "present" state of technology to try to explain them, and also place their ability to travel either through space or interdimensionally in the pigeon hole marked "impossible", simply because we, ourselves cannot do it. So I am going to start right there... We presently have the ability to surpass light speed. In fact, music has been sent at a rate of 3.5 times light speed by a French scientist. So right there we have the old Einsteinian theory of the speed of light being an "absolute", is no longer true. We have just not been able to aply it to spaceflight...yet. Let's see, we've had flight only since 1903..and in the late 1960's we landed on the moon. Suppose another planet in our Solar system, or another, evolved thousands of years before we did. Let's also presume their planet has different chemical compositions on their world to work with that we do not. They may have evolved differently, use entirely different metals, different propulsion systems, and may have even learned to use gravity. We have discovered there are two types of gravity. Gravity is created in "waves" just like sound, and they can be "amplified" and "lensed" as waves, and could at a later date be used as a propulsive force. Of course our limited thought processes say.."we can't do it..so they must not be able to." I have seen a number of UFO's..up close and personal..like watching one hovering over a beach in Malibu only a hundred yards away for three minutes, and then watching it depart silently in an instant. This isn't "our" stuff. What I have seen makes our technology pale in comparison. We aren't even close. Say what you will...make fun of others who actually have seen something beyoun their ability to describe it..it's out of their frame of reference..and when you do see one you're awestruck. We are like Aboriginees trying to grasp the concept of Orbital Dynamics or Lunar Orbital Insertion Parameters...and that's just on our own planet. You need to broaden your perspective...and this is WORLD WIDE, friend...not just in the deep South of the USA. To: Rrumble Thanks for your e-mail. I'm reminded of Nazi Germany, when (it's reputed) people like you believed in astrology, ice theories of the earth, and so on. Let me explain why your email is so unimpressive. First of all, you show no awareness of the psychology of perception or of anything to do with the design of flying objects. There seems no more reason to suppose you capable of assessing such objects than a bus driver is of assessing some new vehicle. On the subject of southerners etc, you miss the point. Cockneys are (or were) part of a major city and had developed their own outlooks, views etc. In the far areas of the US, people are subject to relentless modern propaganda. This may, or may not, be something new in human experience, but is the point at issue. It's true that flight has developed in the last 100 years. It's also true that not everything is known, although you can presumably not expect anyone to be impressed by your popular quasi-science. The key issues, such as why the earth appears to have been untouched for billions of years, or why UFOs should appear only to single observers or people in remote places, aren't addressed by you. The final question is whether your testimony is worth anything. Regards Rae West From: DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 Subject: Vast distances. You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe. To: DAnde10285@aol.com Subject: Re: Vast distances. > You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to > travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church > had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe. Then why has there been no evidence of interstellar traffic for the last few billion years? If it's easy or possible to travel, why aren't there bases, shops, trading posts, all over the universe? [NB the official dogma also is that the speed of light is a limit; if so, galaxies a few million light years away would take at least a few million miles in travel time] Regards Rae West Envelope-to: RaeWest@littleton.prestel.co.uk Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:46:13 +0100From: DAnde10285@aol.com I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel; how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the wind to prove that it is there? Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed. Regards, Dave Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know how to build a computer. From: Raeto West <Rae West>To: DAnde10285@aol.comSubject: Vast distances and other things Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:11:28 +0100 > I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star > system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to > take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel; > how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the > wind to prove that it is there? Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a > possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all > the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside > of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to > instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning > they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed. > Regards, Dave     ** Yes; maybe these things are possible, or not - it's impossible to be certain. (I mean, if everything were known, presumably it would be possible to state unquestionably whether quick interstellar travel or whatever could be done). But you seem to want to have it both ways. The usual UFO claim is that, now, and particularly in almost unoccupied parts of the US, there are definitely 'ships' controlled by non-earth life. These 'ships' are visible in the usual way and are recognisably 'ships' in some sense - I think it's fair to say that. If you broaden the argument to 'anything is possible' etc why have such a modest claim? I think these people are a bit like followers of the Bhagwan (?) who think that 'flying' means jumping in the air a bit. They haven't realised that if they really could nullify gravity, they'd fly off forever. It's their limited imagination, not mine, or presumably yours. So we're down to the question of evidence, and so far as I've seen in my survey of popular books etc it shows the same sort of fingerprint as e.g. 'satanic abuse', spoonbending, ESP, and church miracles, i.e. careful investigation of any one case demolishes it. What I'm saying in my piece is that there are various psychological mechanisms, all pretty obvious, which investigators ought to be aware of. Regards Rae. From: DAnde10285@aol.com Message-ID: <0.14e7bbaf.2549ca3b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:48:11 EDT Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave. To: DAnde10285@aol.com Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:09:33 +0100 > I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo > sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard > skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all > the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is > your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence > all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open > other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this > matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not > understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space > travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am > engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the > U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely > interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave. >Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know >how to build a computer.     ** I get a bit tired of people accusing others of not being open-minded. I'm completely open-minded about the possibility. It's the complete lack of evidence of any contact of any sort that's relevant. For all you know, the earth might be controlled by a giant elephant positioned under the Atlantic. Or half the people in the world might be dinosaurs in disguise. Or sheep might be planning a revolution in the year 2000. Or a can of beans might weep genuine tears of blood. Or the laws of physics might be preparing to change themselves. Or ice might cease to be solid if three magic words are spoken. Or there may be exactly 173 gods, and a big fight is scheduled to break out tomorrow. Or time might begin to work backwards. Any number of hypotheses can be invented, and looking at evidence seems to be the only way to check whether they're likely. If evidence can't be recognised, it's difficult to see how your 'new way of thinking' can have any effect, isn't it? Regards Rae West I'm not sure what your comment on the Egyptians is supposed to prove. So far as I know, nobody has claimed they had CPUs, floppy disks, monitors etc. But perhaps your special method can detect these. Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:33:34 EDT Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things Your answer is very amusing but it really doesn't help much to think that way. I am glad that you have an open mind on the subject. I do not think that you really understand what I'm Trying to say, I propose that the evidence IS there but we do not have the tchnology to discover it. Just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to find dark matter, just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to start the S.E.T.I. project. We need new ideas to hunt for evidence. I believe our communication capability compared to advanced cultures is in the smoke signal era and there is no way we are going to be able to talk to any advanced people unless we upgrade our technology in this matter. I do not believe that physics have to change to accomplish this task. I would like to see more web sites dedicated to this possibility. Most people are tired of the same old rhetoric from both sides and a new approach is needed. What input do you have on this changing way of looking at the subject? Regards Dave.     P.S. I believe the sheep revolt myself. Received: from DAnde10285@aol.com From: DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:58:48 EST Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things I completely disagree with you. By creating new technologies through aggressive research you can open up new worlds of science, thanks for answering my questions but I think I will move on to other people with more vision than yourself. Goodby. From: DRAGONSTONEFARM@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:01:46 -0000 As far as the "psychology of believers" goes, what have you to say about the equally interesting stand of skeptics such as Phillip Klass, who have written at great length about such cases as the Travis Walton case (i.e. 6 people cannot pass a lie detector test identically)?? Are you familiar with this case? As to the lack of physical evidence, isn't Walton himself physical evidence? What goes through the mind of a skeptic who puts so much energy into debunking cases? What is there to be protected by debunking? Status Quo? What is the agenda? What service do you provide? Thanks for your email. If you have any evidence for extra-terrestrials, please let me know it! Thanks. Rae West. From: DERWOLFE@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:11:51 EST IF THERE WAS REALLY A CRASH THAT TOOK PLACE AT ROSWELL, WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT THE SPACE CRAFT, OF THAT SIZE COULD BE HIDDEN ALL THIS TIME. PLEASE REPLY. IT IS HARD TO PICTURE A SPACE SHIP STILL HIDDEN ACCORDING TO SOME PEOPLE. THANK YOU MICHAEL GROSS From: Raeto West, Rae West To: DERWOLFE@aol.com ** Please reply? OK. My view on UFOs is that (i) in a sense, they exist - there must be experimental planes, satellites, flying objects which people can't identify; (ii) the supposed connection with 'aliens' is almost certainly nonsense, and muddies the water, either deliberately or through sensationalism. On Roswell, I suspect the may have been some sort of experimental aircraft, but of course it's hard to know. But I don't think there would be any difficulty in hiding whatever was found. There are plenty of large storage facilities in the US! I don't believe for a minute anything 'alien' was found. But, if it had been, it wouldn't be difficult to hide it, either, would it. Regards Rae West From: MarutKhan@aol.com Subject: Re: Not Bad considering..... Date sent: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 But one must take into account the nature of the events prior to 1947. It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years. Yet despite what should be clear an incontrovertible proof, we are no closer now than when this whole thing started, and I think that therin lies the answers. I think that UFO's are terrestrial, but not human I think that they are intelligently built designed, and operated, but for the express purpose of hiding the nature and origin of the intelligence behiond them. I think that all UFO's are fakes, only some of which are done by humans. I will be willing to explain if you so desire marutkhaniDarkAngel To: Marutkhan It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years.   ** In fact, this is not so; perhaps you can produce some evidence that there have been 'UFOs' for thouands of years? I will be willing to explain if you so desire   ** I'd be perfectly happy to hear your explanation. In fact, I may add it to my email collection. From: "stan mcgee" Date sent: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 Your site is really cool I was looking for this kind of site for a while.It  would be perfect if some was in french because i need to translate some  of this. If you know a French translator willing to do some of it, let me know! Rae West From: JLackman@about-inc.com Subject: UFOs Resource Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000Hello, I was browsing the Web and came across your email address and thought you might be interested in checking out About.com's UFOs site (https://ufos.about.com/). Here are some highlights: - Articles & news updates - A guide to UFO terms, places, and events - A timeline of major UFO events from 1897 until now - A database of sightings, updated regularly - Active forums and chat rooms - Polls of current beliefs about UFOs and aliens - Annotated links to 100s of the best UFO sites - An email newsletter Perhaps the best thing about the About.com UFOs site is its attention to detail. Your Guide, experienced UFO researcher Loy Lawhon, has meticulously sifted the available information on UFOs to bring you the most revealing resources and the most objective analysis around. I'd like to invite you over to take a look at https://ufos.about.com. We welcome your feedback, and if you find our site of use, please pass this note on to your colleagues and consider linking to us from your site. In anycase, thanks for checking us out. I should mention that, if you're interested, About.com offers anaffiliate program that will pay you 5 cents for every visitor that clicks through to our site - sign up at https://affiliates.about.com Thanks, Jon Lackman Science Editor, About.com... each site is created by a qualified About.com Guide, a company-certified subject specialist who's responsible for helping you get the most out of your time online. From: Tcscousin@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 Subject: nice sceptical talking Your type of site is very uncommon, because people are in the pursuit of self fulfillment and money. One example is an english man who video taped the shuttle coming in, he moved around to make the shuttle look like it was moving sideways. There is proof governments test and use secret air craft, and the possibilities of other life are very high. But that has nothing to do with little grays from zeta reticula and all this other fantasy. You can't be arrogant or gullible, or a LIER as many are, or you'll never know forsure. I do believe in God, but because I read the bible, some believe Jesus was an alien and all the bible stories are told right in english, but they don't even read it. Thank you, but don't close your mind, just filter it of all the trash. From: SLicKVick1465@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 u suck rip offs From: OZZY***@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 Subject: ufo's my  name is  ryan Lee im 16 years old living  in la,ca i have red book after on people's theries on  this "fling disk". i  know i will never come to  a conlution but i need more info on this matter. so if  have any info on this  please  send  it to me. ryan Hello, Ryan. Do yourself a favor and try to find some well-written books (not the usual sort of mass-produced junk) and try to teach yourself to read and write English. It will be an investment for you. Regards Rae West yeah!!!! that sounds like info ill look into a good book. i really think they are real but everyone has thare  belefs on how they fly,how do you think they fly?Or do you know of any kind of perpalltion i dont know of ? from: ryan Click for Top of this page Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site WAS https://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton Uploaded 99-11-10. Rev 2000-04-12. This standalone version more or less identical first uploaded 29 July 2016 Unedited UFO emails Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 13:22:58 EDT Very nice work. However, next time I suggest that you make your studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your arguments are pathetic and weak. A skeptic such as yourself, can do a vast amount of damage in the minds of unsuspecting people who are just now starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's thoughts for thousands of years. You assume that there is not a civilization anywhere in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not currently in position to be measured for their age. To: JAdams7730@aol.com Subject: CASTER. What? Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:58:42 >However, next time I suggest that you make your> studies of ufos and other-worldly visitors a thorough one. Your > arguments are pathetic and weak.     ** Why don't you produce a strong argument then, such as evidence? All that's needed are a few reasonable photos, samples, specimens etc etc. > starting to awaken from this spell of ignorance that has dominated man's > thoughts for thousands of years.     ** Why should these stories suddenly start now? If 'aliens' existed, they've had thousands of years to say hello. For that matter, why should they only appear in areas where people watch silly US TV? Why not in big cities? Why not in other parts of the world? > in the universe that can travel these so called great distances. But, my > narrow minded friend, technology advances in just this galaxy alone are not > currently in position to be measured for their age.     ** I assume the distances are far, because they certainly seem to be - the fastest moving things take millions of years, and of course there's no way of knowing exactly how big the 'universe' is. So your comments, such as they are, appear rather feeble. Why don't you try to develop some feeling for weighing evidence? You might become less narrow-minded. Regards Rae West X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:23:22 1999 Do not dance with unknown forces. You have no clue as to whom you are conversing with. The e-mail adress is a far cry from my actual designation. We use simple, and suttle means to get the point across. There is no possible way for you to win. We have inbedded ourselves in every aspect of your culture, and all of the others around this dark, and severly repressed planet. Remember, you are the ones who set up this period of time with it's luxuries, crimes, passive brain-washings, and so-called myths designed to be thrown into the realm of impossibility forever. But, the ignorance will not thrive forever. Nothing ever does. We were here before your kind, and we will remain after your kind has been destroyed by there own hands. Have nice dreams this week fool. X-From_: JAdams7730@aol.com Sat Sep 18 19:42:17 1999 Return-path: <JAdams7730@aol.com> Look between the lines for the important spelling. I can arrange a moon landing for your brain while you sleep. I work better in my own domain. As I said, have nice dreams this week fool. From: JAdams7730@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:39:11 EDT Subject: Re: moonland We play game, no?       Moonland fun!!!!       Know me, you do!!!!   Delivery-date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 03:27:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:27:34 EDT Subject: ufos Dear mind controller, You seem to want to under mind many people and you are not good at it. What you said about u.f.o.s. is not true, just because there is life out there does not mean you will control it. If some finds out that no one person can control them, then you are in trouble of loosing your. jms marrujo. Delivery-date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:25:51 +0100 From: JMSMarrujo@aol.com A moon landing is a moon landing, people who had an opportunity to land on the moon. You seem to for get who runs the world. The few people that enjoy total freedom have the freedom to enjoy new things. They are never under mind and they always stay beside you. We live in a world of control the mind, always living in the world appointed to you. Just pretend Mother Earth is a 7-11 we are just a pit stop.   Just pretend that life in space is like the water at sea, try to live with your immagination. Then just pretend you are going through the motions. To live is to live with freedom when teachnology passes immagination, You end up in a world of trouble. JMS MARRUJO.   From: DSu2025715@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:19:25 EDT Subject: Nice Web Site UFOs do exist. However, not quite the way people have portrayed them OR the entities they call ETs. Furthermore, UFOs are NOT the remote prolific strange things people have made them out to be. While theologians have long since accepted that Ezekiel was taken into heaven by a UFO, it is not something that they would like to share with its congregation. Keep up the good work! White Thunder   From: ONEhotBIKE@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 Subject: (no subject) Believe it or not i spotted around 15 ufo's in Brooklyn New York at incredable heights at 11.15 am sunday morning. My partner and i were watching a migration of Monarch butterflys when we've noticed these small oval shiny reflecting objects glittering in still, then move in formations. This was in broad daylight for approximately ten minutes. Heights were way above clouds and no planes were flying when these objects were present. Some moved at incredable speeds in straight lines so i ruled out balloons or birds. At moments they formed to what it appeared to us to be horoscope like figures so i thought we were watching stars because they glittered, but again stars dont move. Whoever i told this to thinks im nuts and my partner is just excepting this sighting if it is one. I wish i had pictures or video because i believe i will never see that again. The military must have something up there sleeves.   From: Rrumble Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:29:00 EDT Subject: UFO's....naturally To: ufos@littleton.prestel.co.uk Well, I can't imagine anyone devoting so much energy to debunking something, but for what its worth... First..you obviously have never seen one of these objects, or your main theme would be (as those who have seen one) one of wonder as to what you'd seen. I'm 52, have flown in the military during the Viet Nam war, commercially, privately, and in flight test. I own a home, am retired and raising a four year old. I am degreed in science, and I am listed in the who's who of business and finance..a publication which honors only 1500 individuals. I say this only to underline..I'm not your stereotyped "Southern Hick Chewing Straw" which seems to get giggles from "Limeys"...I dated a girl from Newcastle on Tyne for 7 years..I got tired of her putting everyone down. Apparently if you speak Cockney everyone looks down on you..so coming here was her way of "moving up in class and being respected..which never would have happened in UK.. You don't need to put a class of people down to prove a point..it only shows a character flaw, and weakens your position. That being said..the first problem in viewing UFO's is that we use a "present" state of technology to try to explain them, and also place their ability to travel either through space or interdimensionally in the pigeon hole marked "impossible", simply because we, ourselves cannot do it. So I am going to start right there... We presently have the ability to surpass light speed. In fact, music has been sent at a rate of 3.5 times light speed by a French scientist. So right there we have the old Einsteinian theory of the speed of light being an "absolute", is no longer true. We have just not been able to aply it to spaceflight...yet. Let's see, we've had flight only since 1903..and in the late 1960's we landed on the moon. Suppose another planet in our Solar system, or another, evolved thousands of years before we did. Let's also presume their planet has different chemical compositions on their world to work with that we do not. They may have evolved differently, use entirely different metals, different propulsion systems, and may have even learned to use gravity. We have discovered there are two types of gravity. Gravity is created in "waves" just like sound, and they can be "amplified" and "lensed" as waves, and could at a later date be used as a propulsive force. Of course our limited thought processes say.."we can't do it..so they must not be able to." I have seen a number of UFO's..up close and personal..like watching one hovering over a beach in Malibu only a hundred yards away for three minutes, and then watching it depart silently in an instant. This isn't "our" stuff. What I have seen makes our technology pale in comparison. We aren't even close. Say what you will...make fun of others who actually have seen something beyoun their ability to describe it..it's out of their frame of reference..and when you do see one you're awestruck. We are like Aboriginees trying to grasp the concept of Orbital Dynamics or Lunar Orbital Insertion Parameters...and that's just on our own planet. You need to broaden your perspective...and this is WORLD WIDE, friend...not just in the deep South of the USA. To: Rrumble Thanks for your e-mail. I'm reminded of Nazi Germany, when (it's reputed) people like you believed in astrology, ice theories of the earth, and so on. Let me explain why your email is so unimpressive. First of all, you show no awareness of the psychology of perception or of anything to do with the design of flying objects. There seems no more reason to suppose you capable of assessing such objects than a bus driver is of assessing some new vehicle. On the subject of southerners etc, you miss the point. Cockneys are (or were) part of a major city and had developed their own outlooks, views etc. In the far areas of the US, people are subject to relentless modern propaganda. This may, or may not, be something new in human experience, but is the point at issue. It's true that flight has developed in the last 100 years. It's also true that not everything is known, although you can presumably not expect anyone to be impressed by your popular quasi-science. The key issues, such as why the earth appears to have been untouched for billions of years, or why UFOs should appear only to single observers or people in remote places, aren't addressed by you. The final question is whether your testimony is worth anything. Regards Rae West   From: DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 Subject: Vast distances. You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe. To: DAnde10285@aol.com Subject: Re: Vast distances. > You're devotion to the belief that stars are just to far apart to > travel to is the same unintelligent belief the roman catholic church > had when they believed the earth was the center of the universe. Then why has there been no evidence of interstellar traffic for the last few billion years? If it's easy or possible to travel, why aren't there bases, shops, trading posts, all over the universe? [NB the official dogma also is that the speed of light is a limit; if so, galaxies a few million light years away would take at least a few million miles in travel time] Regards Rae West Envelope-to: RaeWest@littleton.prestel.co.uk Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:46:13 +0100From: DAnde10285@aol.com I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel; how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the wind to prove that it is there? Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed. Regards, Dave Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know how to build a computer. From: Raeto West <Rae West>To: DAnde10285@aol.comSubject: Vast distances and other things Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:11:28 +0100 > I am not saying that it is easy to travel from star system to star > system. I am saying that it is possible and that it does not have to > take millions of years. As far as having no evidence of star travel; > how would we know what evidence to look for? Do you have to see the > wind to prove that it is there? Perhaps dimensional side stepping is a > possibilty. Perhaps advanced civilizations use ships that nullify all > the effects of traveling faster than the speed of light on the inside > of the craft. Perhaps these ships have the capability to > instananeously be somewhere else as they travel through space, meaning > they can be a step ahead of the effects of mass versus speed. > Regards, Dave     ** Yes; maybe these things are possible, or not - it's impossible to be certain. (I mean, if everything were known, presumably it would be possible to state unquestionably whether quick interstellar travel or whatever could be done). But you seem to want to have it both ways. The usual UFO claim is that, now, and particularly in almost unoccupied parts of the US, there are definitely 'ships' controlled by non-earth life. These 'ships' are visible in the usual way and are recognisably 'ships' in some sense - I think it's fair to say that. If you broaden the argument to 'anything is possible' etc why have such a modest claim? I think these people are a bit like followers of the Bhagwan (?) who think that 'flying' means jumping in the air a bit. They haven't realised that if they really could nullify gravity, they'd fly off forever. It's their limited imagination, not mine, or presumably yours. So we're down to the question of evidence, and so far as I've seen in my survey of popular books etc it shows the same sort of fingerprint as e.g. 'satanic abuse', spoonbending, ESP, and church miracles, i.e. careful investigation of any one case demolishes it. What I'm saying in my piece is that there are various psychological mechanisms, all pretty obvious, which investigators ought to be aware of. Regards Rae. From: DAnde10285@aol.com Message-ID: <0.14e7bbaf.2549ca3b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:48:11 EDT Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave. To: DAnde10285@aol.com Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:09:33 +0100 > I am not quite sure I understand your position. You say that all ufo > sightings are explainable in one way or another. This is the standard > skeptic line and I understand that your type are sick and tired of all > the claims, photo's and the like., But what I do not understand is > your lack of openmindedness on the possibilty that there is evidence > all around and we may not be able to recognize it. We need to open > other doors of research and investigative processes in regard to this > matter. Most science is also closed minded to this approach. I do not > understand how we are supposed to produce evidence of E.T. and space > travel when we do not have the tools or the experience to do so. I am > engaged in this type of new way of thinking. I have worked for the > U.S. military on this subject and believe me they are extremely > interested in solving the E.T. problem. Regards Dave. >Another way to put it, is how would the ancient Egyptians know >how to build a computer.     ** I get a bit tired of people accusing others of not being open-minded. I'm completely open-minded about the possibility. It's the complete lack of evidence of any contact of any sort that's relevant. For all you know, the earth might be controlled by a giant elephant positioned under the Atlantic. Or half the people in the world might be dinosaurs in disguise. Or sheep might be planning a revolution in the year 2000. Or a can of beans might weep genuine tears of blood. Or the laws of physics might be preparing to change themselves. Or ice might cease to be solid if three magic words are spoken. Or there may be exactly 173 gods, and a big fight is scheduled to break out tomorrow. Or time might begin to work backwards. Any number of hypotheses can be invented, and looking at evidence seems to be the only way to check whether they're likely. If evidence can't be recognised, it's difficult to see how your 'new way of thinking' can have any effect, isn't it? Regards Rae West I'm not sure what your comment on the Egyptians is supposed to prove. So far as I know, nobody has claimed they had CPUs, floppy disks, monitors etc. But perhaps your special method can detect these. Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:33:34 EDT Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things Your answer is very amusing but it really doesn't help much to think that way. I am glad that you have an open mind on the subject. I do not think that you really understand what I'm Trying to say, I propose that the evidence IS there but we do not have the tchnology to discover it. Just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to find dark matter, just like we did not have the technology 50 years ago to start the S.E.T.I. project. We need new ideas to hunt for evidence. I believe our communication capability compared to advanced cultures is in the smoke signal era and there is no way we are going to be able to talk to any advanced people unless we upgrade our technology in this matter. I do not believe that physics have to change to accomplish this task. I would like to see more web sites dedicated to this possibility. Most people are tired of the same old rhetoric from both sides and a new approach is needed. What input do you have on this changing way of looking at the subject? Regards Dave.     P.S. I believe the sheep revolt myself. Received: from DAnde10285@aol.com From: DAnde10285@aol.com Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:58:48 EST Subject: Re: Vast distances and other things I completely disagree with you. By creating new technologies through aggressive research you can open up new worlds of science, thanks for answering my questions but I think I will move on to other people with more vision than yourself. Goodby.   From: DRAGONSTONEFARM@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:01:46 -0000 As far as the "psychology of believers" goes, what have you to say about the equally interesting stand of skeptics such as Phillip Klass, who have written at great length about such cases as the Travis Walton case (i.e. 6 people cannot pass a lie detector test identically)?? Are you familiar with this case? As to the lack of physical evidence, isn't Walton himself physical evidence? What goes through the mind of a skeptic who puts so much energy into debunking cases? What is there to be protected by debunking? Status Quo? What is the agenda? What service do you provide? Thanks for your email. If you have any evidence for extra-terrestrials, please let me know it! Thanks. Rae West.   From: DERWOLFE@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:11:51 EST IF THERE WAS REALLY A CRASH THAT TOOK PLACE AT ROSWELL, WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT THE SPACE CRAFT, OF THAT SIZE COULD BE HIDDEN ALL THIS TIME. PLEASE REPLY. IT IS HARD TO PICTURE A SPACE SHIP STILL HIDDEN ACCORDING TO SOME PEOPLE. THANK YOU MICHAEL GROSS From: Raeto West, Rae West To: DERWOLFE@aol.com ** Please reply? OK. My view on UFOs is that (i) in a sense, they exist - there must be experimental planes, satellites, flying objects which people can't identify; (ii) the supposed connection with 'aliens' is almost certainly nonsense, and muddies the water, either deliberately or through sensationalism. On Roswell, I suspect the may have been some sort of experimental aircraft, but of course it's hard to know. But I don't think there would be any difficulty in hiding whatever was found. There are plenty of large storage facilities in the US! I don't believe for a minute anything 'alien' was found. But, if it had been, it wouldn't be difficult to hide it, either, would it. Regards Rae West   From: MarutKhan@aol.com Subject: Re: Not Bad considering..... Date sent: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 But one must take into account the nature of the events prior to 1947. It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years. Yet despite what should be clear an incontrovertible proof, we are no closer now than when this whole thing started, and I think that therin lies the answers. I think that UFO's are terrestrial, but not human I think that they are intelligently built designed, and operated, but for the express purpose of hiding the nature and origin of the intelligence behiond them. I think that all UFO's are fakes, only some of which are done by humans. I will be willing to explain if you so desire marutkhaniDarkAngel To: Marutkhan It is apparent that this has been going on for quite some time, in the order of many 1000's of years.   ** In fact, this is not so; perhaps you can produce some evidence that there have been 'UFOs' for thouands of years? I will be willing to explain if you so desire   ** I'd be perfectly happy to hear your explanation. In fact, I may add it to my email collection.   From: "stan mcgee" Date sent: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 Your site is really cool I was looking for this kind of site for a while.It  would be perfect if some was in french because i need to translate some  of this. If you know a French translator willing to do some of it, let me know! Rae West   From: JLackman@about-inc.com Subject: UFOs Resource Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000Hello, I was browsing the Web and came across your email address and thought you might be interested in checking out About.com's UFOs site (https://ufos.about.com/). Here are some highlights: - Articles & news updates - A guide to UFO terms, places, and events - A timeline of major UFO events from 1897 until now - A database of sightings, updated regularly - Active forums and chat rooms - Polls of current beliefs about UFOs and aliens - Annotated links to 100s of the best UFO sites - An email newsletter Perhaps the best thing about the About.com UFOs site is its attention to detail. Your Guide, experienced UFO researcher Loy Lawhon, has meticulously sifted the available information on UFOs to bring you the most revealing resources and the most objective analysis around. I'd like to invite you over to take a look at https://ufos.about.com. We welcome your feedback, and if you find our site of use, please pass this note on to your colleagues and consider linking to us from your site. In anycase, thanks for checking us out. I should mention that, if you're interested, About.com offers anaffiliate program that will pay you 5 cents for every visitor that clicks through to our site - sign up at https://affiliates.about.com Thanks, Jon Lackman Science Editor, About.com... each site is created by a qualified About.com Guide, a company-certified subject specialist who's responsible for helping you get the most out of your time online.   From: Tcscousin@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 Subject: nice sceptical talking Your type of site is very uncommon, because people are in the pursuit of self fulfillment and money. One example is an english man who video taped the shuttle coming in, he moved around to make the shuttle look like it was moving sideways. There is proof governments test and use secret air craft, and the possibilities of other life are very high. But that has nothing to do with little grays from zeta reticula and all this other fantasy. You can't be arrogant or gullible, or a LIER as many are, or you'll never know forsure. I do believe in God, but because I read the bible, some believe Jesus was an alien and all the bible stories are told right in english, but they don't even read it. Thank you, but don't close your mind, just filter it of all the trash.   From: SLicKVick1465@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 u suck rip offs   From: OZZY***@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 Subject: ufo's my  name is  ryan Lee im 16 years old living  in la,ca i have red book after on people's theries on  this "fling disk". i  know i will never come to  a conlution but i need more info on this matter. so if  have any info on this  please  send  it to me. ryan Hello, Ryan. Do yourself a favor and try to find some well-written books (not the usual sort of mass-produced junk) and try to teach yourself to read and write English. It will be an investment for you. Regards Rae West yeah!!!! that sounds like info ill look into a good book. i really think they are real but everyone has thare  belefs on how they fly,how do you think they fly?Or do you know of any kind of perpalltion i dont know of ? from: ryan   WAS https://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton Uploaded 99-11-10. Rev 2000-04-12

top of page World Government? I just want to make one point here.   We all know that Jews have mutual networks around the globe, which interact with national or business or bureaucratic groups.   As with all politics, thoughtful people have to assume that a proportion of any political group is Jewish, and will have policies they follow blindly, permanently, and with utter indifference to their hosts.   So don't assume World Government must be 'BAD'.   What is bad is a JEWISH-RUN WORLD GOVERNMENT! RW 2-2-2019 Top of this page big-lies.org site The 'World Tree' (Someone must have thought of this; but in case they haven't...) The earth must have been known, or strongly believed, to have been more or less spherical for millennia. But the problem of how it was suspended must have been a puzzle, just as with the sun and moon. The flat earth idea may have had tortoises and elephants in some groups. I'd like to suggest the idea of an axle was fairly familiar—for example, from spinning yarn, and from wheels—where these had been invented. So possibly the 'world tree' was an axle round which the earth would spin every 24 hours. This of course begs the question of how the tree was itself supported; but, if we don't go into that, the idea of a damn great tree as an axle has some appeal. Top of this page big-lies.org site 24 May 2013 Y2K [The graphic above was taken from a free site] ©Rae West 1999 Top big-lies.org Story   The Year 2000 problem has a long pedigree. I once asked a systems analyst whether, once really efficient software was written, programmers wouldn't be unemployed. Wouldn't their programs never go wrong? He replied that there would never be a problem with unemployment, because, as the year 2000 approached, lots of people would be needed to alter programs. Such is the power of the fear of unemployment. I even remember who told me this—someone called Roger Emmens. I wonder where he is now. This little interchange took place in 1975. What computer departments do   Commercial computer departments spend their entire time, in between playing bridge/ doing crosswords/ smoking, trying to solve problems—typically every year brings new accounting or tax standards, new companies to be processed or disposed of, new product-lines to be incorporated, new standards to be applied, new hardware and software to be examined and made to operate. Every new part of a system has to be tested. Date processing is just a tiny part of all this. If the systems more or less work now, there's no reason to suppose they won't continue to more or less work. Chips   in some few cases have a time processing function (notably in personal computers). Most don't—if you want to control a lift or freezer, the absolute time of day is an irrelevance. Any competent hardware manufacture will have anticipated something as obvious as the end of the century in their specifications. (If the hardware is dangerous, the dangers exist anyway, and rational political action would seem sensible.) Old PCs have two-digit years, presumably on the theory that they weren't expected to have a working life into 2000. Whether the advice to use 1972 (or for that matter 1916 or 1944) will prolong their lives seems rather unimportant. Hysteria   The site https://www.borderlands.com/journal/millenni.htm dealt with Y2K Hysteria. Sensationalism   How is the feeling of worry generated? Looking at a website—which I won't identify—we see how this trick might be done. The approach is: (1) Make your comments seem authoritative by producing ponderous self-written CVs. If anybody wants to check what 'Background in embedded systems. Leading role for many years' or 'he worked in computing for twenty years' really means, don't tell them! (2) Repeatedly assert that there may be a danger, without producing any evidence. Is there, for example, a risk that planes might crash, or cash terminals fail? The obvious thing would be to ask the people who design them—but the correct approach is to quote a 'survey' which says, say, 40% of the general public are worried about safety of planes. Or what about nuclear power? Merely quote an article in a newspaper by a journalist, not someone who knows what he's talking about. (3) Intense repetition of this latter technique, with luck, will prevent readers from noting you haven't produced evidence. It's important not to quantify any aspect of the 'threat'. Would disruption be cleared up quickly? Slowly? What's the general record of the computer industry? No such information must be given. (4) If, or rather when, your material starts to look thin, supplement it with other material of the same sort—badly-worded surveys by other people are useful, since you can then divert attention by criticising the survey; make liberal use of such expressions as 'major problem', 'mission critical', 'spectacular misunderstanding'. (5) In your conclusion, after hinting at disruptions unequalled since world wars and the Black Death, add a book list including 'Fixing Year 2000 for Dummies', 'How to Enrol Computer Staff', and a few novels. HTML Rae West. Uploaded approx last day of November 1999. Top of this page At last ... the truth about yoghurt!!     As with muesli, processed for the average consumer's bland taste, most supermarket ‘yogurt’ is a feeble imitation of the real thing, which swarms with lactobacilli, which presumably were found empirically to compete with other bacteria and fungi, but be harmless to human beings, and therefore a pre-refrigeration preservative. Just as blue cheese has harmless (or beneficial: penicillium notatum) bacteria or fungi.     Lactobacillus bulgaricus is the uncrowned real king of power yoghurt, but it gives far too strong a taste for many consumers. The commercial versions of yogurt have gone through several metamorphoses—ingredients including starch, gelatine, different bacteria and so on—making it ever more remote from the genuine article. I mention this because I once met a Russian (or east European) at a meeting of microscopists; he looked about 55, but claimed to be 85, and I had no reason to doubt his word. He assured me his longevity was helped by his diet, largely vodka and yoghurt, and that faith in Lactobacillus bulgaricus (or written L. Bulgaricus) is widespread in eastern Europe.     Campaign for real food! Top of this page big-lies.org site 20 October 2013 big-lies.org

---

HTML Rae West. Most of this material was in separate files at the dates recorded. This joint upload of files in one (plus new Rods, Smoking, Taj Mahal) uploaded 2013-Jan-21 as part of big-lies, partly (to be honest) as bait to surfers. Gobekli Tepe added 7 Feb 2013. Fairies, leys, motorcycle inventor, yoghurt late 2013. Salt link (site grabbed CASH and WASH support) 2014-03-09. Lunar waves added 2014-12-01. 'Trivial' as in 'Trivial Pursuit'—players may google this site. Background design is based on William Morris' Honeysuckle, 1876. 'Infinite meanness' quotation from H. G. Wells. The smoking and essential fatty acid material is entirely serious. The 'artefacts' note added 2014-12-01. Lunar wave - look and see. 'Orbs' 2015-10-21. 'Ropeworms' 2016-05-18. Jews as hostile takeover of early Christians first added 2016-08-17. I may have forgotten some thing(s). 'Fun' subdirectory 2015-10-21 might help mobiles. 'Tutankhamun' TV Jew prop 2016-11-09. Twelve Days of Christmas 2017-01-18.
    Many topics added later. They are usually dated!