April 27, 2011

from PreventDisease Website

Spanish version


Albert Einstein once said that,

"all of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking."

Many experts agree that our capacities for logical thinking and rational decisions have emerged from nothing more than the randomness of information which we have attempted to categorize logically with little or no success. Indeed, there is no scientific evidence for the 'evolution' of thought and this has delayed the advancement of our species.

We have more than enough evidence from archaeological records to prove that humanity was far more advanced tens of thousands of years ago than we are today. In fact, few people realize that nuclear weapons and technology existed far before conventional historians were considering us "evolved."

Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city.

“It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”

Another curious sign of an ancient nuclear war in India is a giant crater near Mumbai (formerly Bombay).


The nearly circular 2,154-metre-diameter Lonar crater (below images), located 400 kilometers northeast of Mumbai and dated at less than 50,000 years old, could be related to nuclear warfare of antiquity.






No trace of any meteoric material, etc., has been found at the site or in the vicinity, and this is the world’s only known “impact” crater in basalt.


Indications of great shock (from a pressure exceeding 600,000 atmospheres) and intense, abrupt heat (indicated by basalt glass spherules) can be ascertained from the site.

On the whole, historians do a remarkable job of piecing together what happened long ago but they too make mistakes and quite often these mistakes are deliberate. It has always been the powerful, the winners and the secure that have the luxury of telling people what happened. You can be sure that in most cases the story they tell makes them look good and fits with their ideological beliefs.

The Baalbek Megaliths, Dendera Lights, Abydos Carvings and the Vimanas are just a few examples of evidence that there was advanced technology that was clearly suppressed to successive generations.

We know that conventional science has done little to unravel the ancient mysteries of shamanic healing power. Divorced from traditional contexts, shamanic folk medicines and visionary practices have remained a mystery.


It is only recently, through the work of researchers in the "softer" sciences of ethno- and entheo-botany, that the true role of these plants could be understood in terms the Western mind could appreciate. It is not simply an "elevated consciousness" or an "altered state" the shaman seeks through the use of these plants, but instead the shaman is said to work his or her magic through an actual psychic link to the pool of biological wisdom held within the network of all terran life, often referred to as the "plant mind" or the "Gaian mind."


But these are not practices that can be practically measured with science, so they are simply dismissed.

For the most part, science has been little more than a very controlled enterprise that has built, organized and controlled knowledge to suppress human beings. Most of the real knowledge, 95% of what is available to the world, is held in secret by a handful of individuals in elite societies.


The rest of the world is only privy to the remaining 5% of knowledge which is released for "science" to study and explain to the masses.

Science today puts people at the greatest risks for their health and well-being.


We are constantly bombarded with false information from supposed scientists including anti-factoids,

This is what science is broadcasting to our world on a daily basis. More often than not, science is a grand deception especially throughout conventional medicine..

Many people accept that the scientific method is the only reliable basis for believing something to be true. But indeed, how do we know this assertion to be true? Surely science cannot prove it! That would be a circular argument - using science to prove science is the source of truth.


Hence, we cannot know with any certainty that science is the only way to prove truth. Clearly we also must recognize that, by definition, science can only answer questions relating to nature, not the supernatural concepts that are so abundant in our universe.

Scientists assert that human beings are in contact with the universe only through their five senses. No one can reach the real "external world" by going beyond these senses.


So, how can we know that this world is not different from what we perceive it to be?

Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material. Furthermore, whatever caused our orderly universe to come into being a finite time ago must be immensely powerful, intelligent, conscious, and hence personal and impossible to define by science.

Science contributes to our knowledge of reality by making observations about physical things. If they are able to directly or indirectly observe some X, then we have good grounds for adding X to our ontology.


For example, when scientists detect a new particle such as the neutrino, we add neutrinos to our list of things that exist.


While science can identify what exists by what it observes, science cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe. If science cannot identify what does not exist by what it fails to observe, then the failure to observe a cause for particle pair production does not entail the absence of a cause.

It is beyond the scope of the scientific method to make conclusions about what does not exist.


If there is such a thing as an uncaused entity, it would be impossible to identify it scientifically because science is based on observation and induction. It is impossible to observe the absence of something, and thus it is impossible to discover an uncaused entity by scientific methods. If uncaused entities exist, they must be identified philosophically, not empirically/scientifically.

This is the eternal flaw of science and for this reason the future of knowledge will not come from a lab or experimental observation, but from identifying what science fails to observe and what we have already known for a very long time. Every answer lies within us. Our knowledge base is vast and universal and our source energy knows all that is.


When we learn to tap into this energy, it will make most of our current scientific foundations and the practice itself seem quite trivial.