United Gnosis
Jedi Council Member
The last sentence [I think the guy has gone just a tad over the top] expresses what I came away with quite a number of months ago when I tried to look into some stuff Ben Davidson aka. Suspicious0bservers presented, combined with an irritation towards his level of "certainty" or let's call it "believe" in his theory that I found a bit rigid and way too certain. I'm speaking from a rather superficial standpoint though, since I haven't researched anything he said in great detail at all, so feel free to correct me. It also sounds a bit too materialistic IMO and there seems to be a bit too much electricity in his approach. He also seems to leave out things like the unpredictability of reality.
I don't see anything over-the-top. Only a few percent survived the last catastrophe. 6 catastrophes ago (72k years ago, Toba catastrophe), the survival of the human species bottlenecked down to around 5000 specimens. Pulsewater 1A, the appalachian rock fields, channeled scablands, imbricated hundred-ton boulders demonstrating the most recent megaflood that Carlson always talks about - and that is not 'a tad too much'? No, that is the evidence lying around, the model must be made to fit observations while retaining predictive power. I do not see that coherence in any other model.
Has he tried to put a possible twin sun of ours into his equations? Seems to me that there is a good likelihood that something like that is happening in our solar system (twin sun phenomena). As far as I know, Davidson thinks he has discovered or gathered data that point to a bigger picture (or force) beyond the solar system which can explain what has and will happen (soon) in the solar system and on earth in the smaller scales? Sort of like: Davidson thinks he has discovered the larger domino behind the scenes that brings all the smaller Dominos in the solar system into motion?
Yes, the twin sun has been considered, and is largely out of consideration. If there were a twin sun, it could explain all of the observed long-term cyclical phenomena, from heliosphere EM upheaval to a nova. However, there are two main concerns that rule it out;
1; while gravitational models imply other somewhat massive plantoids beyond Pluto, recent studies seem to point to the absence of any massive unobserved body.
2; The Radcliffe Wave remains unexplained, activity in the solar neighborhood remains unexplained, and the implied structure of our galaxy lacks the galactic parker spiral, which we observe both at stellar scales and in other galaxies.
Regarding 'discovery', I do not know where that impression would come from. Ben is a scientific due diligence reporter, a bit like PrehistoryDecoded. He very often mentions how his interpretations are based on the work of physicists like Alfven or Peratt, and his micronova model assumptions are influenced (partially) both by Chan Thomas' Adam and Eve story (50 years old?) and classified interviews from Los Alamos scientists. On the civilian side, Wal Thornhill could be said to have 'discovered' the understated influence of EM fields when he predicted that Deep Impact would flash and explode before making contact with Tempei-1. This is not a Davidson discovery, nor does he claim his model to be.
As far as I know comets have some place in his theories, but just as a small part and not so significant? Or at least it comes across to me that way. I feel quite at unease with his steadfast point by point predictions of "what will happen" according to his ideas "soon". If we have learned anything from the C's, then it is that the "future" is very fluent and never fixed and pretty much impossible to predict, in part because of quantum phenomena and because there is not really linearity but cycles and other densities and dimensions etc. Yet what he says sounds very fixed and "certain".
That's right, comets or asteroids do not play any major role in his proposed model. They are assumed to be some unspecified portion of the impactors, but being thrown off orbit by either the pressure wave or EM effects from the micronova proper, they are not causal to the process. This is in stark comparison to the and electromagnetically-active comet models we usually hear about, in which a powerfully charged EM body interacts with earth - not that it would explain galactic phenomena, nor even solar-scale ones.
Regarding the predictions, I am surprised that it snags at you thus. It is the function of science to make predictions, after all, and there is nothing wrong to making predictions in a scientific context. That is exactly how you verify that any model of reality is relevant. If, standing on the surface of the earth, I release a ball and predict it will drop, is that a wild statement that goes against the C's statement that 'the future is open'? Have they never made categorical statements/predictions about a fixed future, like "Programming is complete"?
I do not see how this is different.
I'm now aware that you do not peruse much of Davidson's content, so I understand that you think this is a hard prediction style. This is what the video was about - to follow into the general predictions of the model. In the past 2-3 years, as solar minimum progressed and predictions - from all types of solar experts - were coming out for the range of activity in cycle 25, he covered tons of them, and from the trends in field strength, held the notion that the flip would happen in 2-3 cycles - in the mid 30s or 40s. It's only with the measurements of the last year (earth field being progressively more overwhelmed, by progressively smaller storms) that he switched to saying maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like it might be only 1-2 cycles. He also went over the flare-supernova energy scales a few time, proposing a somewhat wide range of energetic magnitudes somewhat above a megaflare (Carrington event) and an few orders of magnitudes below novas. This to me shows the flexibility that you assume isn't there - because this video was designed to explore a general timeline, not the specific intensity of each stage.
That being said, what is wrong with step-by-step predictions? If you categorically refuse eating, what will happen? Is that not a step-by-step prediction?
Well, in regard to the bolded part I would say that Randall Carlson (among others) makes a pretty good case that some (if not most) similar features on earth can be explained (pretty convincingly IMO) by large scale flood/tsunami events (not seldom triggered by comets) that were orders of magnitude bigger than anything we can see today. IMO there is a good likelihood that many features of Mars could have been formed similarly (of course not excluding electrical scarring sometimes too). It seems to me that Davidson might be a bit too much into "everything was caused by electrical interactions" camp, while glancing over the IMO good evidence of other factors such as water.
I have watched over 40 of Randall's 1h+ youtube episodes. I'm not aware of Randall Carlson ever mentioning similar features on earth, because those features I am talking about are not present on earth. From the massive crustal imbalance thicker on one side than the other, to destructive erosion on the anode hemisphere with constructive landscaping on the cathode side. These are not in any way explainable by geological processes, even by catastrophic geological processes such as a stand-alone megaflood. Not that the flood itself would have a cause, without the greater context.
For reference, here is a good video on the electroeroded features of Mars:
I think part of the problem here is trying to explain it all in purely physical/materialistic terms, leaving out "higher" factors such as "the human-cosmic connection" and non-linearity. I also have to say that Davidson often rubs me the wrong way in his wiseacre kind of "know-it-all" way of delivering things that leaves me with the slight impression that „he likes to hear himself speak“. But that might just be how it comes across to me subjectively.
I do not think that this is critically inconsistent. It is my understanding that 'physical' (I guess you mean, 3d?) reality transcribes the higher dimensions down into physical terms. The Cs mentioned it a few times, for instance how 4d battles transcribe into weather patterns. That seems to be Ben's unspoken perspective, which he sets aside to reach his channel's target audience, that is, a secular, science-minded audience. He sometimes points out the human-cosmic connection with the tinyiest quips, which are all the more powerful for how rarely he slips them in. I'll try to notice a timestamp next time. For instance, one of the things he mentioned a few times - presenting studies on the mental health effects of cosmic rays, pointing out current worsening trends, and then underlining, (paraphrased) 'remember, no matter how crazy the EM fluctuations may become, you are by far the strongest quantum computer and EM engine around, so it's going to be in your hands'. That is not a materialistic perspective at all.
I appreciate your final analysis. I'm sure I would also feel that he is wise-acring if I hadn't spent the last 12 years gathering information that points me in the same direction. I would be interested to hear your more refined opinion if you challenged yourself to watch, say, a week or two of his daily morning news (about 5 minutes). I'd be curious to hear if that impression remained.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Last edited: