Joseph P. Farrell and the Giza Death Star

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I am having a look at a book sent to me recently, "The Giza Death Star Deployed," which is, apparently, one of several volumes written by a fellow named Joseph P. Farrell. I did a brief search on the net and found a Wikipedia entry on him which says:

Joseph P. Farrell, born and raised in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is a physicist[citation needed], scholar on the East West Schism, and a prolific author on alternative history and Historical revisionism.

Biography

Farrell is Adjunct Professor of Patristic Theology and Apologetics at California Graduate School of Theology[1], an unaccredited Christian institution of higher learning in La Habra, CA.

Additionally, he is an organist, plays the harpsicord and a composer of classical music.[2]

[edit] Education

A student of Timothy Ware, Farrell became a professor of Patristics at Saint Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary.[citation needed] He also holds a M.A. from Oral Roberts University, a B.A. from John Brown University and is a doctoral graduate (D.Phil.) of Pembroke College, Oxford University with specialty in Patristics awarded in 1987.[3]

[edit] Work

[edit] Theology

Farrell has produced two major sets of works. One set concerns theology, the Church Fathers, and the Great Schism between East and West, with its cultural consequences for the resulting two Europes.

Farrell translated the "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit"[4] (preface by Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos of Etna), and the translation is still the only one in English.[citation needed]

He concentrated on St. Maximus the Confessor, publishing "Free Will in St. Maximus the Confessor" (forward by Timothy Ware - now Bishop Kallistos Ware), and "The Disputation with Pyrrhus".

The culmination of his work is his four volume magnum opus on the Great Schism between East and West, with its cultural consequences for the resulting two Europes, entitled God, History, and Dialectic. It has yet to be peer reviewed by any major scholarly journal.[citation needed]

[edit] Other work

Farrell's other work deals with alternative archaeology, physics, technology, history and alternative history. In his own words, he pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”.[5] He is the creator of the weapons hypothesis concerning the pyramids at Giza, based on Christoher Dunn's work. Farrell states that his books on Giza "takes off where Christopher Dunn's 'The Giza Power Plant' left off." He has also authored several books on the reputed survival of extraordinarily advanced Nazi secret weapons technology and its relationship to the U.S. Department of Defense's "black" technology programs.

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Theology

* God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.

* The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit - St. Photius (Holy Cross Orthodox Press 31 Dec 1982)
* Free Will in St. Maximus the Confessor (Saint Tikhon's Seminary Press, June 1989)
* The Disputation with Pyrrhus (St Tikhons Seminary Press, February 1990)

[edit] Alternative history

His book "The Giza Death Star" was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science". In order of subject readability and topicality[6]:

On The Paleophysics of the Great Pyramid and the Military Complex at Giza:

* Giza Death Star: The Paleophysics of the Great Pyramid and the Military Complex at Giza (Adventures Unlimited Press, Dec 2001)
* Giza Death Star Deployed: The Physics and Engineering of the Great Pyramid (Adventures Unlimited Press, 1 Oct 2003)
* Giza Death Star Destroyed (Adventures Unlimited Press, 1 Jan 2006)
* Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts (Adventures Unlimited Press, 15 Oct 2007)

On the subject of secret Nazi technology and its applications and impact today:

* Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2005)
* SS Brotherhood of the Bell: The Nazi's Incredible Secret Technology (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006)
* Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The Nazi Bell, and the Discarded Theory (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2008)
* The Philosopher's Stone: Alchemy and the Secret Research for Exotic Matter (Feral House April 2009)
* Nazi International: The Nazis' Postwar Plan to Control Finance, Conflict, Physics and Space (Adventures Unlimited Press March 15, 2009)

[edit] See also

* Christopher Dunn (author)
* David Hatcher Childress

[edit] Notes

1. ^ "Faculty". California Graduate School of Theology.
2. ^ Dirty Secrets ~ Nazi International, Part One, The Byte Show with GeorgeAnn Hughes - December 29, 2008
3. ^ Farrell, Joseph P. (Winter 2006), "Scripture, Tradition;Gnosticism, Criticism", Pro Excelsis 2 (1): 2, http://www.cgsot.edu/pdf/PROEXCELIS1.pdf
4. ^ Photius; Joseph P. Farrell (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Cross Orthodox Press. ISBN 091658688X.
5. ^ Personal website
6. ^ The Proper Order To Read The Books by Dr. Farrell - July 18, 2008

Regarding this book, I notice that he cites a whole lot of "alternative researchers" like Sitchin, Childress, Hancock, Picknett and Prince, Tom Bearden, Richard Hoagland, and so on. He contradicts himself regularly, and also regularly tells his reader that what he is saying is just a "wild hypothesis." In one instance, he declares that one hypothesis is evidence that another hypothesis is true.

Right at the beginning, he discards cometary cataclysms as possible causes of many of the anomalies noted in Earth's history and repeats this dismissal in several other places which indicates that he has apparently NOT researched the topic. On the other hand, maybe he has and that is his "assignment," to give support to wild and crazy ideas and dismiss what might be factual. He writes:

So, lacking an adequate physical model of the spontaneous explosion of planets by natural causes, the evidence of such a planetary catastrophe having occurred at some time in the distant past of our solar system constitutes corroborative evidence of the weapon hypothesis of the Great Pyramid advanced here and in my previous book, the Giza Death Star." [...]

I should stress that the deliberately exploded planet hypothesis is only corroborating evidence to the hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was a weapon of mass destruction employing scalar physics on a planetary scale. The Weapon Hypothesis does not stand or fall on the truthfulness or falsehood of the exploding planet scenario. However, the scenario would constitute corroboration of the type of physics posited for the Giza Death Star, and hence thoroughness requires that it be investigated.

I guess he figures that his readers are too dumb to realize that he is right here pulling the wool over their eyes. He talks about a LOT of things that interest us here, but his knowledge base seems to be rather naroow - or, conversely, it is wider than he lets on and he is deliberately misleading.

I don't know how much one can trust a person educated at non-accredited Christian schools... or "Oral Roberts University." He claims to have his doctorate from Oxford. Can anybody check that out? Vinnie Bridges claimed to have attended Oxford and it turned out to be a complete fabrication.

Has anybody else read any of his stuff, or is anybody interested in taking a look and discussing it?
 
I had a room mate a long time ago who was studying to be a minester He spent 4 years of his life learning how to do those mega dollar, send me some money and I'll step into my prayer closet for you, televangelist sermons. He taught me on of my top ten Life lessons:

The most frightening people in the academic world are those who learn just enough that they are able to con themselves, and others into believing they know all they need to know.
 
Hi Laura -- I don't have Joseph Farrell's books on the Giza Death Star, but I do own a copy of his 'The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics and Ancient Texts'. I haven't cracked it yet, but if you don't mind me discussing a Farrell book other than the one you just finished, I would be happy to put my other reading aside temporarily, read this book, and get back to you. I don't read as quickly as I understand you to, but I could probably finish it in a bit more than a week. Let me know if that sounds good, and if not, no harm done.
 
Laura said:
I don't know how much one can trust a person educated at non-accredited Christian schools... or "Oral Roberts University." He claims to have his doctorate from Oxford. Can anybody check that out? Vinnie Bridges claimed to have attended Oxford and it turned out to be a complete fabrication.

Has anybody else read any of his stuff, or is anybody interested in taking a look and discussing it?
For what it's worth:

Interesting, but perhaps not important, is that I found another guy who's name is also Joseph Farrell and has (apparently) a PhD @ Oxford as well (1981). But I think they aren't the same person since this guy is Professor of Economics.
_http://emlab.berkeley.edu/facdir/farrell.html

I couldn't find much about Joseph's doctorate from Oxford other than many sites just claiming he has one. I did found this interview:

Interview w. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Concerning his 4-Volume

God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences”

Conducted by Asher Black, March 4, 2008

_http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/interview-with-dr-farrell-on-ghd/

Where you can read:

It is rumoured that you once debated for several days straight, when you were at Oxford - in other words, you never left the debate hall over the course of several days. What can you tell us about this rumour - can you fill in the blanks?

Yes that’s true. The debate took place in, and was sponsored by, the Oxford Union Society, the famous debating society there. It was cosponsored by the Heineken and Guinness Corporations for Ethiopian famine relief. By the fifth day the chamber had thinned out considerably, but there were still a few diehards bulling their way through, and slogging it out with each other at the dispatch boxes. The debate was not “about” anything mind you, but more of an ongoing “roast” of each other’s positions using parliamentary rules…all very “British” and “civilized”. After eight days of this, we had achieved our objective, made it into the Guinness book of World Records, and were utterly exhausted. The Union Society gave little certificates to the more vocal participants, part of which thanked the participants for their efforts and thanking them for exhibiting “occasional sobriety”. It was like a very raucous House of Commons at times, when the chamber was more full. It’s untrue, however, that we never left the hall. We had to, in order to eat or take care of “other matters”. The point of the debate was to keep it going no matter what, because Heineken and Guinness sent corporate representatives to sit in the chamber at all times to ensure that the debate kept going. If one went into the library or even went home to sleep occasionally, one would most likely get a call from someone requesting you return in order to keep the debate going. That happened to me. After two days I went home to sleep, and after only about 4 hours of sleep, was called to return to the chamber to keep it going. So for the next five days I more or less lived, ate, and slept at the Union Society.
I couldn't find anything about this debate.

Nonetheless, I think there are some interesting comments beneath the interview.

Another interview here: _http://www.mytholog.com/interviews/farrell.html

Joseph P. Farrell is a conference speaker, frequent radio talk show guest, and author of the Giza Death Star Trilogy and the Reich of the Black Sun series (both from Adventures Unlimited Press) -- works of speculative history dealing with the "weapons hypothesis" of the Great Pyramid at Giza, and Nazi weapons research, respectively. His works include:

* The Giza Death Star
* The Giza Death Star Deployed: The Physics and Engineering of the Great Pyramid
* The Giza Death Star Destroyed: The Ancient War For Future Science
* Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend
* The SS Brotherhood of the Bell (forthcoming)

We interviewed Joseph P. Farrell, because his Giza works offer creative interpretations of ancient texts of mythology, finding in them little-appreciated descriptions of ancient cultures. Likewise, his works on Nazi research offer a unique analysis of the current mythos surrounding Nazi science in the Third Reich. The author graciously answered the following questions:

What connections, if any, exist between the two series of books -- the Reich series and the Giza series?

Well, as I point out in both books, I hypothesize that both the Great Pyramid and a super-secret Nazi weapons project called "The Bell" were both based on a kind of vorticular, or scalar, physics. Moreover, as I detail in the third Giza book, The Giza Death Star Deployed, the famous revisionist Egyptologist R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz did research for the Nazis during the war, and made no secret of his support of the Nazi regime. This is interesting in and of itself, since Schwaller was probably the last century's most learned esotericist and hermeticist.

The bios on the Net indicate that you have a background in theology. What connections, if any, exist between that research and this research?

One would think that there is none, but in some respects, my "paleophysics" interpretations of some ancient Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Hermetic texts -- particularly in the first and third Giza books -- are really telling "the other side of the story" to some of my published commentaries on theological texts. The search for this "paleophysics" was planted in my mind years ago when I read in some Greek Church Fathers (who were responding to a particular Neoplatonicially influenced doctrine that had arisen in the Mediaeval Latin Church) that such formulations and texts as the Latin Church was appealing to or developing were more appropriate to "sensory things" (i.e., were more appropriate as physics than as metaphysics). Since one of my hobbies is reading physics papers, that really stuck in my mind, and I began keeping private notebooks of observations, many of which are included in the Giza Death Star series -- as many, that is, as I dare include in them.

Why, given the rebirth of interest in and study of myth, do you think the mythological material mentioned in your Giza series (e.g., the Hindu sources) has been underanalyzed, or would you say that's true?

Oh, I don't think it has been underanalyzed. The more one looks, the more one comes away convinced that at least some serious scientific study is being made of such texts with a view to ascertaining their scientific contents. One only need think of the magisterial work of Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend in Hamlet's Mill, or plasma physicist Anthony Peratt's study of ancient petroglyphs as depictions of large scale celestial plasma discharges. And, of course, during World War II there is every indication that, at some level, the Nazis were engaged in organized research into this material. Perhaps the most famous example is Robert Oppenheimer, father of America's atom bomb, who quoted a passage of the ancient Hindu epic, The Mahabharata -- a passage eerily descriptive of a nuclear blast, though written hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago -- during the Trinity test of the plutonium bomb in New Mexico.

What is there to be learned from the ancient myths that would interest those not particularly fascinated by myth studies?


There is certainly a wealth of encoded scientific information, and, I believe, history -- albeit garbled and perhaps disguised -- as well. There's something for everyone, really: for the philosopher and moralist, for the sociologist, for the anthropologist, the physicist ... I could go on and on. The trick is learning to swallow one's pride in thinking we are at the pinnacle of civilization, and learning to see the modern parallels in the ancient myths.

As a writer, what has been your most discouraging moment?

I suppose every writer goes through this, but writing is hard work, and one always wonders if anyone out there is actually reading one's books.

As an author, what has been your most satisfying experience?

I write fairly technical books, as I've never thought writing "for a popular audience" about technical things -- especially when one is elaborating a radical alternative hypothesis to the standard view (whatever that may be) -- is the way to go. I sometimes get criticism for this, as my books tend to be footnoted rather heavily. But this is offset by the more predominant response from people who tell me that they are grateful I don't talk down to them. And some have even told me they appreciate the footnotes!

What advice would you have for those writers struggling to finish a book?


Ha! That is a difficult one to answer, as I've never had any difficulty in finishing a book. My hang-up comes in starting them, in hitting just the right tone and articlation of the themes that will be with the reader throughout the book. It's that initial string of information, that initial setting of the mood and tone, that is so difficult, and I often stew over how to get started on a book for weeks or months. Once inspiration hits, though, one just knows it. It feels right, it fits. Once that happens to me, I usually am able to organize the book fairly quickly in my head, and then writing it usually goes rather quickly after that. I'm "working" on a book right now that I hope will tie up loose ends from the Giza Death Star series, but I haven't set a word to paper yet, as I'm still trying to figure out how to articulate that initial statement and mood. And I've been stuck in this stage for some five months now. I know what I want to write about and where it has to go, but as yet haven't figured where and how to start it.

What would you do differently in terms of authorship and publishing, knowing now what you did not know at the outset?

If anything, I think I would have had more confidence and tried to seek out a larger publisher with wider distribution. But given the highly "alternative" nature of the history and science I deal with, I am grateful that there are publishers and readers willing to tackle such material.

Do you think all literature of "alternative science," "alternative archeology," and "alternative history" gets relegated to obscurity, or is there a mainstream audience and a wider market?

I don't think one can honestly say that it's mainstream yet, but the audience is growing and is now quite large. Certainly authors like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval have penetrated major publishers and a very wide market with their works, and they are wholly of the "alternative" ken. I can say that one reason so many "alternative" works get relegated to obscurity is that the referencing is threadbare, if it exists at all. That's one reason I try to footnote so heavily, since my works are highly speculative. I try to show I'm not just pulling things out of my head, but to show the basis for my speculations.

What do you think about the words "conspiracy theory" being applied nearly without qualification to all such literature?


In my opinion, it's the response of a lazy and narrow mind.

We're all aware of some alternative science, archeology, and history that became accepted fact, and is no longer "alternative." Whether it's a species once thought extinct, a civilization once thought non-existent, or a long-held historical explanation that turned out to be fiction. What does it take for an alternative explanation to become the accepted one?

Well, that depends on the alternative explanation. But in the case of my work or Chris Dunn's or others of a similar vein, I think it really boils down to what the German scientist Max Planck said, that a new idea or theory is really accepted when the older generation quite literally dies off and the new comes to occupy the academic chairs and editorial positions in newspapers and publishing houses.

How has story, in the case of your non-fiction writing, been helpful in pursuing that writing?


Well, very simply, the Giza Death Star series would not have come about at all if I had not read some ancient texts that were told as stories and that were conventionally understood to be "myths." In reading them, however, I encountered detailed descriptions of things and events that sounded far too detailed and too similar to some modern ideas, so I literally decided to investigate further by comparing the "stories" to these ideas.

In the case of Reich of the Black Sun and its sequel, The SS Brotherhood of the Bell, there is a certain "mythology" that most of us are familiar with, of Nazi survival after the war, of incredible secret weapons projects. The stories are all out there and have been since the end of the war, and with the arrival of the Internet, many of them can be easily accessed, so one doesn't have to chase down the obscure and rare book or veteran. Yet, in many of these cases, the stories were without adequate substantiation. All of that changed with the reunification of Germany in the last two decades of the 20th century, and it became possible to investigate the stories for their factual content and basis. So again, the stories served as the point of departure for my investigations.
 
i've read 'Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend' several years ago.
but this was before i was even aware of COINTELPRO, so i didn't really look out for telltale signs.

i remember it being a breezy read and i found it interesting at the time. IIRC it even had a photo of a 'nazi-UFO' in it.
sorry i don't remember more ;)
 
Laura said:
Has anybody else read any of his stuff, or is anybody interested in taking a look and discussing it?

I've read:
SS Brotherhood of the Bell
Secrets of the Unified Field
The Cosmic War
The Giza Death Star
The Giza Death Star Deployed (half way through)

Overall IMO, he is well worth reading, although some of his corroborating evidence I do not agree with. If nothing else, it is worth the summaries of many other authors in an attempt to tie big parts of the "picture" together. The books are really all related and they deserve a fair read regardless of how you may feel about some of the references (authors) he uses. The way I look at that aspect is to examine what part of these author's work he is using, recognizing that some elements of good Cointelpro is true.

From his SS Brotherhood:
"But there is a final potential Kennedy enemy to consider. In June of 1963, the same year as his assassination, Kennedy took aim at one of the most powerful of the "entrenched interests" of the Establishment: international mercantile banking. President Kennedy authorized the printing of approximately four billion dollars of United States Notes and their release for circulation, thereby entirely bypassing the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank, established by subterfuge and calculated political manipulation after the notorious Jekyll Island meeting. Kennedy's move clearly portended an end to the bankers' monopolistic hold over the nation's money supply and a return to "constitutional money", money entirely free of interest to private banks. This aspect of the assassination conspiracy is even less well-known than the Nazi connection, and remains so.

"Careful consideration of the disparate groups connected with the assassination - the military-industrial complex, the "national security "community"" represented by the CIA, FBI, and other agencies, the space program, the Mafia, the military, right wing emigre groups represented by various anti-Castro fronts as well as the Eastern Europeans, and international corporate finance and banking - will indicate many connections between all these elements, as many assassination researchers have pointed out. But there is one group with connections to all of these organized interests, and that, of course, is the Nazis."

From his Giza Death Star Deployed:
"The terrible clarity of some of the ancient texts highlights a puzzling fact, and shines a spotlight on an entirely different cast of characters and set of anomalous questions regarding the Pyramid. And writ large over the playbill and plot synopsis is one, looming question: Why, after the publication of Zecharia Sitchin's The Wars of Gods and Men, has no one except this author stepped forward to investigate the weapon hypothesis? Surely such a hypothesis, suggested by the ancient texts, is so radical and so pregnant with huge implications for human science, military technology, geopolitics and history, that someone else would have noticed and undertaken an investigation. It is therefore the deafening silence that puzzles, especially when considered against the backdrop of the rather noisy effort being made to assert that the Pyramid and the Giza compound contain some "ancient wisdom" of benefit to humanity. Such musings suggest that some sort of deliberate manipulation of opinion might be occurring with the recent Pyramid research.

"And this means that an investigation of the investigators may itself uncover some interesting things, perhaps even things that would directly or indirectly corroborate the weapon hypothesis. After all, if anyone ever previously considered the Great Pyramid to be of any military significance, then one would expect to find recurring military and intelligence interest in the structure."


Farrell goes on to present some interesting evidence for this. Of the work that I have studied on the Giza Pyramids, I find Dunn's to be the best for analysis/postulates. But I think Farrell takes Dunn's work a step further in the right direction.

I would love to hear what Ark has to say about the physics after reading Farrell's material.
 
There is another reason that I have recommended Farrell’s books for at least a top-level read. I did not include this in my last post since an involved explanation is required to make sense of the reasoning for the recommendation. So please bear with – this will be a lengthy post.

In 2005 while on business at a military base, I met a Lt Col, who, based on perceived openness of my expression in the areas of technology and physics (Electrical Engineering by profession), related to me his recent experience with an inventor. His motivation at the time was to solicit my help in analyzing the Inventor’s device, and finding a home for it that would compensate the Inventor for development work over many years. The Lt Col had exhausted avenues available to himself through the Gov (due to the non-conventional nature of the device) and was trying to help the Inventor by seeking other private/corporate sponsorship capable of outright buying the rights to the device.

A little background on the Inventor: Currently the Inventor is over 80 years old and believes to be nearing the end of his life. He has spent over 30 years working in the field of the device which began with a great interest in dowsing. He is non-technical with a professional background in construction. He spent much of his life savings on the development of the device, and for the past several years has been trying to sell the rights to it in order to provide something for his surviving children and their families (there may be some guilt feelings involved – understandable). The problem is that the technology is totally non-conventional and generally draws reactions of disbelief and denial (as many react to dowsing). Although it has produced amazing results in the hands of the Inventor (as well as myself and a few others), conventional “academics” cannot explain it and generally run a rapid retreat.

While meeting with the Lt Col, he placed a transmitter portion of the device on the floor of the office area and set the device for interrogation of plutonium (in fuel or storage). He then used dowsing rods (the receiver in this case) to demonstrate lines of bearing to each nuclear power plant within a distance of many 100’s of miles. At the invitation of the Lt Col, I visited the Inventor in his home to get the story from the horse’s mouth. I met with the Inventor for several hours and learned much about his history with dowsing and how all this led to a series of devices for the interrogation of the line of bearing to any material compound/element (existing in lump form in some quantity). [And fun discussions over many “revisionist” themes]. I tried out the device myself with some success locating the bearing to a lump of lead buried in a neighbor’s yard. The Inventor invited me to take training on the device and I subsequently spend four days developing some consistency and skill in its use. He then agreed to ship the device to my home for independent testing by myself and a friend.

On the device: The “transmitter/receiver” are pulsed at ELF frequencies and operate through monopole and wire coil “antennas”. I use quotes here to indicate that these are unconventional in the sense that TEM (transverse EM) are not involved due to the fact that the antennas cannot support it, and no high-Q tuning is used. Thus, to think of the device as a radar of some sort is an error. The frequencies used depend on the nuclear characteristics of target of interrogation. The device is placed on the ground (free of rebar, metal, or standing water) and rotated over short circular sections while standing in a particular relation to the device and angular section under interrogation. A specific two-dimensional wrist motion must be used, and audio output from the “receiver” indicates what I call a line of sympathy between the device and the location of the material under interrogation. A line of bearing results by reading an analog car compass once the operator has stopped the device at the estimated centroid of the audio response. This process takes some practice and training before accurate reads result. According to the Inventor, it sometimes takes a short time to set up these lines of sympathy, and once set up, they can remain for some time afterwards in absence of the device. These lines can be “cleaned” by use of frequencies associated with the seasonal position of the sun. Difficulty in the use of the device has contributed to the lack of interest in the “conventional” community.

The following is a brief list of some of the characteristics of the measurements:
1) Targets in place for long periods work best
2) Gasses and radioactive isotopes can be interrogated over continental size distances if the mass is large
3) Performance can be affected by seasonal position of the sun
4) Any substance can be interrogated if the atomic/molecular makeup is known
5) The minimum amount of the material that can be interrogated is small
6) The greater the amount of material, the greater the range
7) Water content of the ground can affect the measurements

The Inventor’s contention is that all atoms/elements/compounds exhibit a unique spectra of frequency resonance by which they “know each other” and this frequency resonance is determined by the nuclear makeup. [I would add that this frequency resonance is associated with gravity/gravity waves]. When the transmitter pulses the right frequency, and the antenna is swept over the line of bearing to the corresponding target, a sympathetic response is produced by a change in the relationship between transmitter and receiver resulting in audio detection. In other words, the device is made to “look like” a huge pile of the target material.

Before I met the Lt Col, he was able to attract Gov funds to commission an independent consulting group to analyze the efficacy of the measurements conducted by the Inventor. Both blind and double blind tests were designed and conducted with the Inventor at the helm of the device. Fascinating results were obtained since double blind interrogation for formaldehyde resulted in the triangulation of most of the cemeteries and funeral homes in the local area. Blind tests for small amounts of newly placed material were also a success. In the summary words of the consulting group, “The null hypothesis that doubly blind formaldehyde detections to cemeteries within a 10 mile radius was a random occurrence can be rejected with a hypothetical confidence level of at least 99.93 percent... The null hypothesis that [the Inventor’s] detection of multiple samples of blindly place hydrochloric acid was a random occurrence or guesses can be rejected with a confidence level of between 92 percent and 97 percent depending on certain assumptions as discussed in the body of this report.”

There are many more fascinating results (including my own) that I could go into, but I don’t think a public forum is the appropriate place. But I would be willing to give additional info to QFS as long as anonymity of the persons/organizations involved is protected. I cannot give details on the device since I am bound by a non-disclosure agreement with the Inventor.

Back to the original reason for this lengthy post. [BTW, the Lt Col is not Bearden. The folks I refer to, as far as I know, have never heard of Bearden, and they are not the type that would be interested in his books.] In Farrell’s book The Cosmic War, pg 44:

“Simply put, since every atom and every type of atom consists of particles with charge and/or mass, then every atom has its own peculiar “scalar signature” or “resonance” (recall the diagrams above and imagine the mathematical notations that would describe each in quaternion geometry). Thus to produce an effect on any one of these systems, one simply has to “work backwards” as it were, and configure its scalar signature, decomposing each of the scalars into its own pair of bi-directional longitudinal pulses and waves”. …

“More than anything else, it is this ability to configure a template based upon the scalar signature and its long distance resonance effects in the medium that allows one to produce an action at a distance … It is, indeed, a very sophisticated form of magic, and sympathetic magic at that.” [pg 45]

As far as I know, I am the only one to describe the operation of the device as frequency resonant sympathy (among the many players in this saga). And this was years prior to my read of Farrell’s material.

In Farrell’s book The Giza Death Star Deployed pg vi:

“Discovering that Tesla speculated that atomic weights or other properties of the elements of the periodic table seemed to be related to his oscillating impulse phenomena drove me to look …”

“That is, quaternion cross products produce non-zero scalar resultants that may be understood as indicating the non-translation stress of the medium itself. Since this scalar resultant has no electromagnetic translation involved, [here he switches to a quote from Bearden – pg 175]

it does not interact with the electron shells of the atom. Instead, it passes through the electron-shell ‘Faraday Cage’ surrounding the nucleus and interacts with the highly non-linear nucleus. What is now oscillating is the electromagnetic potential (charge) of the nucleus itself. The energy density of the charged nucleus – and hence its electromagnetic potential – is being oscillated as a periodic function of time. …

So now you can see why I had to go through all of the above in order to give meaning to these quotations based on my experience with the Inventor’s device. For this reason, among others given in my last post, I think Farrell’s books are worth a read for those forum members so inclined regardless of his use of some questionable sources.
 
LQB said:
I would love to hear what Ark has to say about the physics after reading Farrell's material.

Well, I got him to read that part and he chuckled at how thoroughly Tom Bearden has bamboozled people.

And yes, I agree that Farrell makes some interesting deductions but it is important to remember that most of the authors he cites are the second level disinfo. Overall, he mainly dismisses the hyperdimensional ultraterrestrial hypothesis and the comet hypothesis for his "weapons" and 3 D space wars ideas, which effectively manages to divert attention away from the two most likely realities. He writes some strange things for somebody educated at Oral Roberts...

You are also right that it does give one a good synopsis of the books of others - most of whom are the New Age disinfo crowd.
 
Laura said:
Well, I got him to read that part and he chuckled at how thoroughly Tom Bearden has bamboozled people.

And yes, I agree that Farrell makes some interesting deductions but it is important to remember that most of the authors he cites are the second level disinfo. Overall, he mainly dismisses the hyperdimensional ultraterrestrial hypothesis and the comet hypothesis for his "weapons" and 3 D space wars ideas, which effectively manages to divert attention away from the two most likely realities. He writes some strange things for somebody educated at Oral Roberts...

Yes, and I find it interesting that he sees an "engineerable" unified physics in the pyramid, and yet relies on Bearden who has not produced anything "engineerable" as far as I know. [BTW, Igor Witkowski's latest called Axis of the World is a good summary of some of the evidence for Farrell's "Paleoancient Very High Civilization"]
 
I have the full range of Farrel books. I have not finished them all and I loaned out Nazi International and it never came back home.

My favorite read was Cosmic War, so far that is. As good an explanation of what happened way back when as any I supposed, nobody will know for sure at this point anyway.

The Giza as a weapon hypothesis, I think its plausible as is any hypothesis. IE anything can be a weapon. Water can be a weapon if used in a certain way, so can consciousness, so can a device that focuses the consciousness, its all about intent of course.

I have exchanged a number of emails with Farrel over the last 2 years, pretty likable guy. Short and to the point, busy writing books as far as I can tell. That is his living after all, and that's how I take his books, as fanciful hypothesis. At least in regards to the Giza books, the Nazi books seem to be pretty well researched.

I dont doubt his Oxford education, not that it makes him an expert on the paranormal.

I dont recall off hand any specific reference to what ET hypothesis he subscribed to.

Maybe its here in the Byte Show archives. Enjoy.

_http://www.thebyteshow.com/JosephPFarrell.html
 
1)What do you mean by saying „disinfo“? Disinformation is intentional misleading by wrong information. On what grounds – concrete and undisputable – are you stating that the group of the persons aforementioned by you intentionally lead us astray?
2) The system of argumentation based on they-belong-to-that group or if –that- was-written/said/performed/sung/painted-by-these-nerds-then-it‘s-all-shit principle is totally fallacious, because it presupposes dominance not of facts and its analysis but that of ideological labels and clichés that have nothing common with scientific discussion and searching the truth and resembles the system of drawing up the line of arguments and counterarguments used by Nazi and Communist ideologists where everything was determined by are-you-with-us-or-with-them position.
3) Any author‘s work, dedicated to certain scientific subject aside of lots of valuable, new and helpful knowledge contains in a great or minor extent some sort of misleadings, errors and inaccuracy. Therefore, one shouldn‘t make one‘s conclusions about the WHOLE from the PART that has errors and inaccuracy: careful treatment of the WHOLE piece is needed. It can’t be that EVERYTHING is totally bad or EVERYTHING is totally good. Sitchin, Childress, Hancock, Cremo and others have produced THOUSANDS of typed text pages altogether. To conclude if it‘s junk or not is possible only when you read it ALL. Have you really read it ALL?
Whatever your attitude towards these researches might be, it‘s impossible to avoid recognition that they have put into circulation thousands of facts, never known before. Some of them turned out incorrect, however a plenty were simply undeniable. Many of the latters were and still continues to be ignored by the mainstream science for years – that can’t be denied either. Along with many missings and misinterpretations there numerous achievements and unexpected discoveries happened. Who could reproach them when the academic science itself has experienced a number of mistakes, misleadings and even hoaxes no less if not more. And speaking of historical events of such deep antiquity who‘s able to boast of having exact knowledge of EVERYTHING that happened „a long time ago“? It‘s hardly possible to have that knowledge. The official historical science in the major part dwells on hypotheses too, still it requires that only ITS hypotheses were taken into serious consideration unreservedly. For that reason both „academic“ and „alternative“ sciences are on equal terms.
4) As for J. Farrell‘s „Giza Death Star“ series (and the rest of his books), your pretensions make an impression, sounding as if his ideas would be a kind of a clerical dogm that is stuck to by the Church Patters and needs „disputing“. It seems, you have read the book inattentively, which caused your misinterpretation of the main message of the author. In the preface Farrell notes for his readers that „the conception presented in this book is merely hypothesis. It has not been worked out to the level of the theory and was not supported by the means of experimentation“. A hypothetical character is kept up through all the course of the book in a prevailing way, therefore your statement that „he substantiates his hypothesis with someone‘s else hypothesis and makes conclusion of the fact being establishes“ makes no sense at all, for it‘s yours interpretation, not author‘s.
Speaking of his writing style Farrell himself emphasizes that he doesn’t adhere to his hypothesis dogmatically, that other interpretations are possible: his method is to build a logical theory as he sees it upon either direct or indirect evidences that supported directly or indirectly more or less. He avoids making final conclusion, leaving his hypothesis open both for corroboration and disproof and what is most important for the inquisitive reader, thus stimulating an interest in the subject forcing to think and to do the search. And isn’t that the true way for the genuine scientist is to draw up his theory without a fear, to look for its corroboration or disproof, not to be afraid of discussion and risk?
You pretension that he cites either his own books or the ones by mentioned authors (disliked by you) sounds strange and leads to counter-question: if the mainstream scientists are often cross-referring to each other’s researches (and the same names appear constantly), why do alternative scientists can’t do the same? Ironically, alternative researchers usually refer to academicians no less often that there the latters among themselves. Besides, as we don’t have something like the faculty of atlantology at a present time and the circle of authors and problems that unfortunately haven’t got scrupulous treatment and proper elucidation as well is quite narrow, to what sources else, discussing THAT kind of problems, they should refer?
5) As in a number of analogical cases, the discussion, alas, often begins with finding out credentials of a discussed author. I’m not well-informed of the US education system nuances as well as by what criteria an educational institution is considered to be better, I have to refer to that kind of discussion characterized by the style I mentioned earlier – the one of ideological nature, in the latter case ‘accredited – non-accredited’ (interesting to note, though, that you are using the word ‘trust’: “is it normal TO TRUST a person who got his education in non-accredited Christian school”, well, c’mon, the scientific thinking is alien to the very faith paradigm and is not supposed to be the subject of it, so it’s wholly the matter of your preferences whether you decide ‘to trust or not to trust’: one’s believes have nothing common with establishing facts, nor it does bring any change). Are you assured that this is a decisive factor to speak of quality? But that applied to the school in your talk. However you were not able to apply that sort of pretensions to the Oral Robert University (is it ‘accredited’ :D?) therefore you’re calling value of education there in question thus attempting to call Farrell’s competence in question. Again, on what real grounds?
But if you really want to clear up whether Mr. Farrell studied at Oxford, why not send a request there and be curious about his studying (in what years), credentials (if he received them), dissertations (if he defended them) instead of doing so in a roundabout way by questioning some Vinny Bridge, who allegedly used to study there some time ago? You copy-pasted a fragment from Wikipedia, containing some details of Farrell’s bio, including the list of his early works from the field of patristics also but it seems you’ve not valued it in a proper way. Shouldn’t it be clear that the very fact of its existence bears witness of it being the fruits of some university activity as a student? Consider that he was unknown for the wider audiences at that time and your Vinny Bridge cold simply unnotice him. If you’d like to expose Farrell as a liar, you should in addition to the previous scrutinize the bio of his fellow co-author Dr. Scott de Haart that both he and Farrell claim to be in the same years of their studies in Oxford. How do you feel, would it bring more or less indications of “the fabrication”?
To summarize, all your arguments lacked concrecity and were of too general a character that disabled them to get much sense.
LBQ, your story about some Inventor that you seem to be friend with together with a depiction both of his invention and scalar effects were of great interest for me. Also, as it goes from THAT part, you don’t have much to mention of what Farrell should be criticized for. However, it’s obvious that you can’t leave him without your criticism blade (that’s ok, it should have place!), so to sharpen it you wrote: „I find it interesting that he sees an "engineerable" unified physics in the pyramid, and yet relies on Bearden who has not produced anything "engineerable" as far as I know“. This is a clear distortion: are you really ignorant of the whole field of the modern physics called “theoretic physics” that is closely tied up with the experimental one which it interacts with? So many discoveries were made in theory and realized in practice later! And what “engineerable” gadgets Einstein, Bohr, Plank and some others have constructed with their own hands? Ironically, the honor of formation of the modern physics’ cost of mind felt on these persons. Others did “the dirty job” which to do the first were simply not able to and what they had not any belief to be realized to: it’s said that Einstein himself held the construction of the devices would be capable of using the nucleus energy impossible. And his theory of Relativity are acknowledged without a question. Why then do you believe it (if you REALLY do) when it hasn’t even be proved! As far as I understood by now from what I’ve read on the controversy, considering T.Bearden and his claimed “MGE” anybode of those have criticized harshly his approach have NOT seen it from the close-up! Or have they and I’m missing something? Besides Bearden, Farrell bases his narrative on experiments hold by E. Dollard, T.T.Brown, on known results of experiments by N.Tesla, on research by M.King, who collected all information on both theoretical and experimental researches by scientists working in the field from all over the world, including experimentations by V. Schauberger, De Palma and participants of the Philadelphia experiment etc. It’s very likely that T. Bearden relied on these experiments as well as on those, held by scientists at the end of 19 and the beginning of 20 c. and what he was doing was either construction or SUMMARIZING of these numerous researches with a goal of building up a theory. In addition, Farrell had accustomed to his own research and used widely the results of that by Chris Dunn, AN ENGINEER, who personally made an investigation of the Great Pyramid (and other ancient Egyptian artifacts). Plus he used the well-known facts of scientific expedition to the Great Pyramid from 17 to 20c. in the latter case carried by acknowledged atomic- and geo –physicists and other high class specialists. In other words, there’s a plentitude of materials and sources. Is it not enough? If you’re raising pretensions to the amount of used sources then you should show us that the sources already used to support author’s hypothesis were insufficient. However, I’d like to remind once again: Farrell has built up a HYPOTHESIS, even not a formal scientific theory, to say nothing of experimental support. His hypothesis, according to his own words, is OPEN FOR ANY POSSIBLE corroboration and disproof and is not a refined scientific truth either. Learn how to read attentively what an author argues himself.
And the last one: LBQ, it would be smart to know who is that Inventor (or is it you, really?), what is your own donation to the development of the scalar physics theory and practice, maybe you have your own webcite? Why don’t you write to Farrell himself (to GizaDeathStar.com) to discuss the problems, he’s not hiding, you know, besides, he holds vid-chats with his readers regularly, so it’s good akin for you to join them :)
 
Hello scrutinizer,

Welcome to our forum. :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

It would also be considerate and helpful to others if you could organize your posts into paragraphs to make it easier to read and follow. ;)
 
LQB said:
There is another reason that I have recommended Farrell’s books for at least a top-level read. I did not include this in my last post since an involved explanation is required to make sense of the reasoning for the recommendation. So please bear with – this will be a lengthy post.

In 2005 while on business at a military base, I met a Lt Col, who, based on perceived openness of my expression in the areas of technology and physics (Electrical Engineering by profession), related to me his recent experience with an inventor. His motivation at the time was to solicit my help in analyzing the Inventor’s device, and finding a home for it that would compensate the Inventor for development work over many years. The Lt Col had exhausted avenues available to himself through the Gov (due to the non-conventional nature of the device) and was trying to help the Inventor by seeking other private/corporate sponsorship capable of outright buying the rights to the device.

A little background on the Inventor: Currently the Inventor is over 80 years old and believes to be nearing the end of his life. He has spent over 30 years working in the field of the device which began with a great interest in dowsing. He is non-technical with a professional background in construction. He spent much of his life savings on the development of the device, and for the past several years has been trying to sell the rights to it in order to provide something for his surviving children and their families (there may be some guilt feelings involved – understandable). The problem is that the technology is totally non-conventional and generally draws reactions of disbelief and denial (as many react to dowsing). Although it has produced amazing results in the hands of the Inventor (as well as myself and a few others), conventional “academics” cannot explain it and generally run a rapid retreat.

While meeting with the Lt Col, he placed a transmitter portion of the device on the floor of the office area and set the device for interrogation of plutonium (in fuel or storage). He then used dowsing rods (the receiver in this case) to demonstrate lines of bearing to each nuclear power plant within a distance of many 100’s of miles. At the invitation of the Lt Col, I visited the Inventor in his home to get the story from the horse’s mouth. I met with the Inventor for several hours and learned much about his history with dowsing and how all this led to a series of devices for the interrogation of the line of bearing to any material compound/element (existing in lump form in some quantity). [And fun discussions over many “revisionist” themes]. I tried out the device myself with some success locating the bearing to a lump of lead buried in a neighbor’s yard. The Inventor invited me to take training on the device and I subsequently spend four days developing some consistency and skill in its use. He then agreed to ship the device to my home for independent testing by myself and a friend.

On the device: The “transmitter/receiver” are pulsed at ELF frequencies and operate through monopole and wire coil “antennas”. I use quotes here to indicate that these are unconventional in the sense that TEM (transverse EM) are not involved due to the fact that the antennas cannot support it, and no high-Q tuning is used. Thus, to think of the device as a radar of some sort is an error. The frequencies used depend on the nuclear characteristics of target of interrogation. The device is placed on the ground (free of rebar, metal, or standing water) and rotated over short circular sections while standing in a particular relation to the device and angular section under interrogation. A specific two-dimensional wrist motion must be used, and audio output from the “receiver” indicates what I call a line of sympathy between the device and the location of the material under interrogation. A line of bearing results by reading an analog car compass once the operator has stopped the device at the estimated centroid of the audio response. This process takes some practice and training before accurate reads result. According to the Inventor, it sometimes takes a short time to set up these lines of sympathy, and once set up, they can remain for some time afterwards in absence of the device. These lines can be “cleaned” by use of frequencies associated with the seasonal position of the sun. Difficulty in the use of the device has contributed to the lack of interest in the “conventional” community.

The following is a brief list of some of the characteristics of the measurements:
1) Targets in place for long periods work best
2) Gasses and radioactive isotopes can be interrogated over continental size distances if the mass is large
3) Performance can be affected by seasonal position of the sun
4) Any substance can be interrogated if the atomic/molecular makeup is known
5) The minimum amount of the material that can be interrogated is small
6) The greater the amount of material, the greater the range
7) Water content of the ground can affect the measurements

The Inventor’s contention is that all atoms/elements/compounds exhibit a unique spectra of frequency resonance by which they “know each other” and this frequency resonance is determined by the nuclear makeup. [I would add that this frequency resonance is associated with gravity/gravity waves]. When the transmitter pulses the right frequency, and the antenna is swept over the line of bearing to the corresponding target, a sympathetic response is produced by a change in the relationship between transmitter and receiver resulting in audio detection. In other words, the device is made to “look like” a huge pile of the target material.

Before I met the Lt Col, he was able to attract Gov funds to commission an independent consulting group to analyze the efficacy of the measurements conducted by the Inventor. Both blind and double blind tests were designed and conducted with the Inventor at the helm of the device. Fascinating results were obtained since double blind interrogation for formaldehyde resulted in the triangulation of most of the cemeteries and funeral homes in the local area. Blind tests for small amounts of newly placed material were also a success. In the summary words of the consulting group, “The null hypothesis that doubly blind formaldehyde detections to cemeteries within a 10 mile radius was a random occurrence can be rejected with a hypothetical confidence level of at least 99.93 percent... The null hypothesis that [the Inventor’s] detection of multiple samples of blindly place hydrochloric acid was a random occurrence or guesses can be rejected with a confidence level of between 92 percent and 97 percent depending on certain assumptions as discussed in the body of this report.”

There are many more fascinating results (including my own) that I could go into, but I don’t think a public forum is the appropriate place. But I would be willing to give additional info to QFS as long as anonymity of the persons/organizations involved is protected. I cannot give details on the device since I am bound by a non-disclosure agreement with the Inventor.

Back to the original reason for this lengthy post. [BTW, the Lt Col is not Bearden. The folks I refer to, as far as I know, have never heard of Bearden, and they are not the type that would be interested in his books.] In Farrell’s book The Cosmic War, pg 44:

“Simply put, since every atom and every type of atom consists of particles with charge and/or mass, then every atom has its own peculiar “scalar signature” or “resonance” (recall the diagrams above and imagine the mathematical notations that would describe each in quaternion geometry). Thus to produce an effect on any one of these systems, one simply has to “work backwards” as it were, and configure its scalar signature, decomposing each of the scalars into its own pair of bi-directional longitudinal pulses and waves”. …

“More than anything else, it is this ability to configure a template based upon the scalar signature and its long distance resonance effects in the medium that allows one to produce an action at a distance … It is, indeed, a very sophisticated form of magic, and sympathetic magic at that.” [pg 45]

As far as I know, I am the only one to describe the operation of the device as frequency resonant sympathy (among the many players in this saga). And this was years prior to my read of Farrell’s material.

In Farrell’s book The Giza Death Star Deployed pg vi:

“Discovering that Tesla speculated that atomic weights or other properties of the elements of the periodic table seemed to be related to his oscillating impulse phenomena drove me to look …”

“That is, quaternion cross products produce non-zero scalar resultants that may be understood as indicating the non-translation stress of the medium itself. Since this scalar resultant has no electromagnetic translation involved, [here he switches to a quote from Bearden – pg 175]

it does not interact with the electron shells of the atom. Instead, it passes through the electron-shell ‘Faraday Cage’ surrounding the nucleus and interacts with the highly non-linear nucleus. What is now oscillating is the electromagnetic potential (charge) of the nucleus itself. The energy density of the charged nucleus – and hence its electromagnetic potential – is being oscillated as a periodic function of time. …

So now you can see why I had to go through all of the above in order to give meaning to these quotations based on my experience with the Inventor’s device. For this reason, among others given in my last post, I think Farrell’s books are worth a read for those forum members so inclined regardless of his use of some questionable sources.

LQP, I've been reading Joseph P. Farrel's books and agree with you here. Is this device "available" at this point?
 
Hi PaulfromMinneapolis,

Thanks for posting. :) It would be great if you could post an intro in the newbies section of the forum so we can get to know you better. It doesn't have to be long, just a bit about yourself and how you found the forum.
 
Dr. Joseph Farrell

I've been viewing a number of interview vids of Dr. Joseph Farrell whose topics run a very wide gamut and so felt he deserved his own category. I did post some vids in the Antarctic thread previously.

Dr. Farrell has indicated that his degrees are in theology, he's a history buff, and has physics as a hobby! What a combo! I'm amazed by his tremendous ability of recall as well as how many books he has written & is continuing to write.

I'm currently listening to this 2:40:48 interview published on Aug 10, 2015:

Rise of the Bormann Reich (Part 1 & 2) A conversation with Joseph Farrell
How did Martin Bormann survive the war and what was he up to afterwards? What is the truth regarding the nuclear weapons research of the axis powers? What is scalar weapons? Did nazi scientists attain cold fusion in Argentina? To what extent did the extraterritorial Nazi state influence USA? Dr. Farrell returns to continue the uncovering of our recent history, which addresses many more mysteries regarding WW2, as an Antartica revisit, the Nazi remnants transformation into a Bormann reich, the crucial year of 1947, and where HQ is located... and Joseph shares some tidbits with us about his background in South Dakota.

Farrell was a very astute & perceptive person even as a child. About 1:25 min in, the 1947 timeline is discussed:
Operation High Jump >>> Roswell incident >>> Truman creates NSA. And then in 1958 (geophysical year), US, Great Britain & the Soviet Union all agreed to detonate over the claimed area by Nazi Germany in Antarctica ('38/'39), each detonated nuclear weapons in the atmosphere over this region - a fact that even Richard Dolan was unaware of.

Fascinating & intriguing:


https://youtu.be/KdfK5iLx7uQ

On another note, the long-awaited demise of evil personified, David Rockefeller, brought to mind a tidbit about him & his brothers in a Farrell interview re his book, Rotten to the (Common) Core.

According to Farrell, the roots of Common Core go back to:

"Wilhelm Wundt, a sinister figure in early education responsible for developing the idea of students as 'Stimulus Response Mechanism.' He also trained the Russian scientist Pavlov, of 'Pavlovian Response' fame, using dogs as his test subjects for mind control programs. Farrell has concluded that the elite may have miscalculated by attempting to turn an average student into a 'Stimulus Response Mechanism.' In his opinion, they may have dumbed down their own advisors and those implementing their program of global domination in the process. By surrounding themselves with obedient, programmed 'intellectuals' who are no longer able to use the more dynamic, creative thinking functions of their minds, they may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Especially by appointing them to leadership positions where they can damage society beyond repair."

The three Rockefeller brothers - Lawrence, Nelson, & David - were schooled under this type of progressive education in which reading/writing/arithmetic were not especially emphasized. The result was that both Lawrence & Nelson complained that they had difficulty reading books - they didn't like reading/found it tedious to do. Nelson Rockefeller served in many prominent positions including being an intelligence advisor to FDR, Truman & Eisenhower for Latin America, vice president under Gerald Ford, & governor of NY. So someone who wasn't especially keen on reading because he found it difficult, may have counted on others to summarize the main points of memos, etc. rather than slog thru the material or be able to pick up on the finer points. Comforting thought for a state governor or other position of important responsibility.

For those interested, part one of two:


https://youtu.be/lGj92o2OKmQ
 
Back
Top Bottom