Who Is Nassim Haramein?

One of the people whose views the Thrive movie showcases is a man named Nassim Haramein. A caption on the screen identifies Mr. Haramein as “Cosmologist, Inventor.” Beginning at 12:23 in the film, excerpts of interviews with Haramein begin and continue for almost the next ten minutes. Mr. Haramein opines on questions of astronomy and ancient history. Even before Thrive, Mr. Haramein was well-known in New Age circles. This article will evaluate what Mr. Haramein claims in Thrive, and also try to answer the question, who is he?

What Does Nassim Haramein Claim in Thrive?

In his first appearance in Thrive at 12:23, Nassim Haramein appears in the context of the discussion about the “torus” design which Thrive creator Foster Gamble believes is the key to free energy. Mr. Haramein refers to “big arms of galaxies spinning around” and a claim is made at 12:34 that the galactic halo is shaped like a torus. A little later, at 16:12, Mr. Haramein appears again, talking about the Osirian Temple in Abydos, Egypt. This discussion occurs in the context of the “Flower of Life” design that Foster Gamble asserts is of extraterrestrial origin. At 16:32 of the film, Mr. Haramein states that the Flower of Life at the Osirian Temple is “burned into the atomic structure of the rock in some extraordinary way.” No backup is given for this claim at all. In fact, this claim is false. It is the only factual claim that I know of, to date, which the Thrive creators have retracted.

Mr. Haramein continues to appear sporadically over the next few minutes. He appears again at 18:20 talking about the Forbidden City in China, “where the sun gods reside.” Later still, at 20:10, Mr. Haramein again refers to “sun gods” from Egyptian, Incan and Mayan culture who supposedly came to earth and taught ancient peoples engineering, writing and science. This is clearly an assertion that “ancient astronauts” are supposedly responsible for great feats by ancient civilizations, who were mistaken by these civilizations for “sun gods.”

At 21:25, Foster Gamble states that “Nassim has impressive evidence to back up his theories.” He does not state what this “impressive evidence” actually is.

Is Nassim Haramein Right About the Things He Says in Thrive?

Not very much of the time. A lot of what Mr. Nassim states in Thrive is simply false. On this blog we have already debunked much of the material he presents. For example, we’ve already noted that his claim about the “Flower of Life” in the Osirian Temple is incorrect. It is not “burned into the atomic structure of the rock.” In this article, which debunks the idea of “ancient astronauts,” I explain at length how and why Mr. Haramein’s assertions about ancient civilizations and ancient history are wrong. For instance, the Egyptian and Mayan “sun gods” had nothing to do with science or engineering. A case can be made that the Incan “sun god” did supposedly teach some knowledge to the Incas, but the context in which Mr. Haramein employs this idea—supposedly to illustrate that “ancient astronauts” exist—is totally incorrect. There is not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the world indicating that aliens visited ancient civilizations thousands or hundreds of years ago. The only basis for the “ancient astronaut” claims is the supposition that particular structures, such as pyramids, were beyond the capability of ancient peoples to construct, and therefore they must have been built by aliens. As I explained in the article debunking ancient astronauts, that supposition is totally unsupportable. Furthermore, he’s also wrong about the Forbidden City being “where the sun gods reside.” The Forbidden City, built in Beijing in the early 1400s, was where the terrestrial emperor resided, not the “sun gods.”

Who is Nassim Haramein?

The subject that concerns the bulk of Mr. Haramein’s testimony in Thrive is ancient astronauts. He is clearly identified with that theory. In fact, while this article was being written, in late February 2012 yet another YouTube video popped up of Mr. Haramein claiming that certain archaeological artifacts “prove” ancient astronauts existed. These claims are no different than the basic gist of his claims in Thrive. All proceed from an assumption that “ancient peoples couldn’t possibly have created this!” because whatever is being examined is judged from the standpoint of modern technological and scientific understanding.

However closely he’s associated with ancient astronauts in Thrive, this theory is not Mr. Haramein’s main claim to fame. Who is he, then and what his he known for?

According to the bio that appears on his own site—for the Resonance Project—Nassim Haramein was born in Switzerland in 1962 and began developing, at the age of nine, a “hyperdimensional theory of matter and energy.” His bio goes on to state:

“Haramein has spent most of his life researching the fundamental geometry of hyperspace, studying a variety of fields from theoretical physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology and chemistry to anthropology and ancient civilizations. Combining this knowledge with a keen observation of the behavior of nature, he discovered a specific geometric array that he found to be fundamental to creation and from which the foundation for his Unified Field Theory emerged.”

Mr. Haramein often gives lectures at conferences, and you can see many of his talks on YouTube. The topic he lectures on most often is something called the “Schwarzschild Proton,” which we’ll get to in a minute. I find it interesting that neither the Thrive movie nor Haramein’s own website list any degrees or credentials. That is noteworthy, because people who do have degrees or credentials and who are interviewed in Thrive are usually presented with a title card on-screen that lists what their credentials are—example, “Dr. Jack Kasher, Ph.D.—Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Nebraska” (31:01). I have also not been able to locate a C.V. (curriculum vitae), sort of an academic résumé, for Mr. Haramein. If anyone is aware that he has advanced degrees in physics or other relevant fields, please pass on the information to me and I will gladly add that to this blog.

What Is the “Schwarzchild Proton” Claim?

This blog has already debunked what Mr. Haramein claims in Thrive, both in this article and the previous articles. Let’s move on to some of the other claims he makes other than the ones in the film. Although the focus of this blog is on the film, Mr. Haramein’s other claims are relevant to judging his overall credibility as a source on matters of science and ancient history.

The “Schwarzschild Proton” theory states that a proton is really a miniature black hole. I am not trained in physics, but what I do know of it, this assertion is completely outside the realm of science as we understand it. Needless to say, the scientific community is not impressed by the “Schwarzschild Proton.” In fact, it’s very difficult to get a scientist to spend their time debunking it. Nevertheless, there are scientific opinions about Mr. Haramein’s theories. Here’s one, a fairly high profile blog called “Up,” which ran several articles about Mr. Haramein and his various theories. The creator of this blog, Bob (also known as Bob-a-Thon), had this to say about Mr. Haramein and his paper:

“(a) His overall argument is circular, which means it shows nothing. A hypothesis is presented that a proton might be considered as if it were a black hole, and his first conclusion, after a few pages of equations, is that the forces between them would be very strong, like the forces in a nucleus. But this goes without saying! If you pretend that something is as heavy as a thing can be, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that the forces would be as strong as a force can be. There’s no significance in this whatsoever.

(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons. This does seem a bit silly – but theoretical physicists do hypothesise apparently silly things sometimes, so that’s not a deal-breaker. For obvious reasons, though, you need a very convincing reason to do something like that, including an explanation as to why we never measure this huge mass when we weigh hydrogen (or anything else), and none is given.

c) The paper, while using some scientific terms, is presented at a very basic level. This could be considered a plus – all scientists would agree that there’s nothing better than a simple theory, if it works. But Nassim is merely playing with equations from student textbooks (these are the only references cited in the paper), things that have been explored thoroughly for decades, and he’s using them in a pretty simplistic way. It’s unlikely that he’ll find anything that hasn’t been found before by doing this. What he has found is some values for things that look suspiciously like what he knew when he started. This is often what happens when you go around in a circle.

It’s a bit of a joke to claim that anything profound can come from this kind of thing. But again, it looks cool, and it’s clearly enough to impress a lot of his followers.”

Bob went on to post a lengthy scientific debunking of the Schwarzschild Proton theory. You can find it here. I won’t reproduce it here because it’s full of a lot of very specific scientific jargon and equations that I don’t think I need to show here so long as it’s available at the link. Suffice it to say that Bob’s blog makes a strong argument that Mr. Haramein’s theory does not have any validity when judged against actual provable science.

Bob’s conclusion, at the end of that article, was the following:

“Haramein claims to be doing serious science. He claims to have unified the forces of nature, and to have created a unified field theory. He claims to be able to point out where all ‘the other physicists’ are going wrong. He claims, moreover, that his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has won serious academic acclaim. All of these are patently false.

The only sensible conclusion from looking at this example of his work is that he is utterly incompetent as a physicist – even with the help of his hired academics, whose “advice and careful reading of the manuscript” didn’t reveal any of the myriad of nonsensical implications that a little exploration should have found.

He knows that taking on the air of authority of a research physicist will give weight to his outlandish ideas, many of which are in the language of physics. And he knows that this will bring him followers and cash. Indeed it does.”

It appears likely from this analysis that Mr. Haramein’s claims are not supportable by science. I say it appears likely because I’m not a trained scientist. While I suspect that Bob is a trained and credentialed scientist, we do not know this for certain. Therefore, I’ll state that if someone with at least a Ph.D. in physics is willing to come forward and state (1) that Bob’s debunking of Mr. Haramein’s Schwarzschild Proton theory is fundamentally flawed, and (2) that Mr. Haramein’s theory is correct or at least reasonably arguable in good faith, I will retract this article and issue a high-profile correction.

Good luck. I’ve been searching for a physicist who will comment on Mr. Haramein’s theories on the record since Thrive came out. No one will touch it. It’s that bad.

Here’s what other scientists are willing to say, however. On the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast of January 12, 2011, linked here, Dr. Phil Plait had this to say about a video he saw of Mr. Haramein expounding various astronomical theories (the relevant part starts about 50 minutes in):

“It’s hard to actually describe or understand a place to start or find any sort of grip on the amount of weirdness that this video has in it. I mean, he just says stuff and it doesn’t matter what he’s saying, he just says it. He’s talking about watching Shoemaker Levy 9, the comet, hitting Jupiter back in ’94, and he says, “the community said that comet might not be visible from the earth.” No, actually most astronomers thought it would, and there were a few who said it might not, but we weren’t sure, but that’s how science works…His whole thing, watching this, he’s talking about the tetrahedron dictating the energy about to happen inside Jupiter, and I’m thinking tetrahedrons, certain specific latitudes, he’s talking about Hoagland! And five seconds later “this is the theory of consultant to NASA, Richard C. Hoagland!”…This is so bad it’s not even wrong…You can watch this guy giving talks about pyramids and Egyptians and he just says stuff…it’s made-up silliness.”

Richard C. Hoagland is an infamous pseudoscience purveyor and conspiracy theorist. He’s most famous for expounding the ridiculous Face on Mars theory from the ‘80s. Any mention of Hoagland as a credible source should set off alarm bells.

Need more to convince you that Mr. Haramein’s theories are not good science? Check some physicists kibbutzing about him over at Reddit. Here are some of the comments:

“For some reason I was browsing /r/psychonaut and I saw a video posted of this guy, Nassim Haramein, lecturing about “sacred geometry and unified field theory”. After about 5 seconds you see he’s just making it up as he goes along, misunderstanding even the most basic principles of physics and math(s). He basically just tells people into that whole “new age” thing exactly what they want to hear. This pseudoscientist is either deliberately misleading the public, extremely deluded or mentally ill in some way.”

“We can, but on the other hand we could do physics instead. Nevertheless, I took the liberty of correcting one of your hecklers.”

“You’re probably right… I’m not sure why it bugs me so much. I guess I just think it’s sad that the people who are enjoying his talks are showing an interest in physics and not being told anything that resembles real physics.”

What Does Mr. Haramein Say In Response?

Bob’s “Up” blog engendered a response from Mr. Haramein himself. Here it is. Please go to the link for the full text, as it’s very lengthy. Here are a few excerpts:

“I typically avoid wasting my time participating in these so-called debunking sessions. However, as I can see that the gentleman has invested substantial efforts in this particular example, and because it is such a prime and typical expression of the reactionary tendencies defending against all odds the status quo and proclaiming it as “the truth”, I feel obligated to reply.

I actually don’t believe in mediocre minds, as I consider that everyone is born brilliant but that certain life experiences and difficulties can reduce one’s capacity to access deeper levels of awareness that are necessary for creative and fundamental reflection. Here the inhibitors are constraints resulting from a style of education in which what is taught is proclaimed as the truth and the only truth, and where students are discouraged and severely reprimanded if they tend to wander in the awful world of untruth as predetermined by the Obvious Truth Holder…

[H]istory speaks for itself as any new significant changes that were brought to the scientific community were typically largely resisted, ridiculed and then eventually accepted. As Schopenhauer said, ‘All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’”

Much of the rest of the response is very technical, and those issues, while quite relevant, are beyond the scope of this blog. Nevertheless, Bob responded to the response. Needless to say he wasn’t too impressed:

“So, what to make of all this. To summarise, his rhetoric is great! The bits of physics he’s thrown in look really impressive! If the aim is to wow the fans and seal their contempt for me, he’s done an excellent job.

But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I’ve raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I’m missing something, but I really don’t think he has. I’ll illustrate some of the ways he’s misused physics in his defence later on.

If you disagree – if you can find any single point in there that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics aren’t completely valid – then I’d really love to hear from you. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won’t happen, but it would be great if it did.

Meanwhile, as you can see for yourself, he has had fun doing what he does best – inventing things to entertain his fans, and telling them what they want to hear. He presents this new, conveniently fictionalised version of me to his followers as “an important study for anyone who is interested in my work.”…

The back-and-forth between Bob and Mr. Haramein is actually quite interesting. Because I can only present the smallest snippets of it here, I strongly recommend that anyone interested in evaluating Mr. Haramein’s grasp of physics (or ancient history, for that matter) look at the entire exchange. Looking at this material certainly led me to a a conclusion regarding the level of credibility to which Mr. Haramein is entitled.

A Related Issue: Academia, Credentials, and the Value of Experts.

A key theme that you should see emerging from this analysis is that Mr. Haramein does not and cannot back up any of the major assertions he makes with any evidence or argumentation that passes muster among professionals in the fields he opines on—physics and ancient history. If you read Mr. Haramein’s responses to Bob’s critique, you’ll see a lot of references to Einstein and how Einstein was not (supposedly) a “mainstream” physicist, coupled with philosophical statements about how closed-minded and corrupt the institutions of mainstream learning are. Indeed, from what I’ve observed in my research for this article, this is the primary line of defense when Mr. Haramein is attacked: claim that Einstein (or someone else who is well-respected but has an unorthodox background) had radical ideas too, and suggest that because he was vindicated, Mr. Haramein’s unorthodox ideas are worthy of the same level of credulity and acceptance that we today give the theories of Einstein and Copernicus.

I’ve encountered this line of argumentation many, many times before. In fact, it’s a trope used almost universally by believers in fringe phenomena such as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and conspiracy theories. I wrote an article about this about 18 months ago on my other blog, specifically in the context of conspiracy theorists, and explaining why their views on academics and experts are wrong. The same principle goes here. People who accept fringe beliefs exhibit a curious form of bipolar behavior when it comes to experts. On the one hand, they really wish that some credentialed experts would agree with them so it would lend credence to their pet theories. Simultaneously, because they can’t get any credentialed experts to agree with them, they’re forced to explain why this is by claiming that credentialed experts are worthless and that the institutions they come from are closed to any new ideas or new knowledge.

The problem with this argument, however, is that it presumes the legitimacy of credentialed experts and institutional knowledge—academia and peer-review, if you will—is essentially arbitrary and has little to do with the substantive content of their fields. Followers of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiracy theories think that academia and institutional knowledge is a sort of old boy’s club, where a cap and gown and a secret handshake get you “in the club,” and only knowledge that originates from within “the club” is taken seriously. The reality is very different.

You do not have to be a credentialed expert with a Ph.D. in physics to come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. You could be a plumber and still come up with a revolutionary new idea that totally redefines scientific truth. However, whether you are a Ph.D. physicist or a plumber, the validity of your idea must be still be provable using the scientific method.

You do not have to possess a Ph.D. in archeology to come up with a bold new theory that explains the workings of ancient civilizations. You could work at Subway and still come up with a revolutionary theory that redefines ancient history as we know it. However, whether you are a Ph.D. archaeologist or a Subway sandwich maker, the validity of your idea must still be provable with evidence and the methods of archaeological research and historical analysis.

This is what Mr. Haramein doesn’t seem to understand. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is not because he is not a credentialed expert doing research at a traditional institution. The reason his theories don’t have any credibility is because they’re not verifiable or supportable according to the methods of physics, astronomy and ancient history. It’s the methods that matter. Scientific inquiry and historical analysis have been built up over centuries, even millennia. Democritus was doing science in Thrace in the 4th century B.C., and Thucydides was researching history at about the same time. Guess what? The methods that Democritus used all those centuries ago are still sound by today’s scientific standards (though of course technology is much different), and the methods that Thucydides used to describe the Peloponnesian War are still recognized as hallmarks of historical scholarship today. This is not to say that science or history haven’t advanced since the time of the ancient Greeks; clearly they have. But our process of asking questions and seeking answers, of judging hypothesis based on verifiable facts, and of testing the evidence for its reliability are remarkably similar to the processes that experts have been using for centuries to get at the truth of various problems.

Want to know something else? The “scientific heretics” that fringe believers like to trot out on cue—Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.—could prove their unorthodox theories by using those same processes. Galileo was persecuted by religious authorities, but he could still prove that Jupiter had moons; Copernicus’s books were banned by political authorities, but his mathematics still proved that a heliocentric solar system was the truth. Einstein wasn’t even much of a heretic at all. After all, he won a Nobel Prize. They don’t give Nobel Prizes to people who don’t use the scientific method or whose discoveries can’t be verified by it.

Through his rhetoric about institutional knowledge and credentialism, Mr. Haramein and his supporters seem to want you to jump to the conclusion that he’s a bold innovator and a brave defender of scientific truth in the face of unreasonable conformity. But the real bold innovators and brave defenders of scientific truth, like Galileo and Copernicus, could prove their theories using scientific methods and reasoning, and thats why their ideas are accepted today as truth. By contrast, Mr. Haramein seems to want to skip the part where his theories are actually proven using the methods and reasoning that experts have been using for centuries to determine what’s true and what’s not. Unfortunately, science and history don’t work that way.


During his brief appearance in Thrive, Nassim Haramein makes a number of statements and invites a number of inferences. He makes statements about the “Flower of Life” design which are incorrect. He makes statements about ancient gods and the history of ancient peoples which are incorrect. He invites the conclusion that aliens came to Earth long ago to help civilizations build various things, a conclusion which is unsupportable.

Outside the movie Thrive, Mr. Haramein is known for making similar wild claims, which are similarly incorrect. His “Schwarzschild Proton” theory is absolutely unsupported given physical science as we know it today. Real scientists consistently deride his methodology as flawed and his arguments as totally unpersuasive. His response to these criticisms, which is to dismiss the value of expert opinion or institutional knowledge, is similarly unpersuasive.

The rational viewer of Thrive, when confronted with these facts, should not only be extremely skeptical of the assertions Mr. Haramein makes in the film, but should also wonder why the makers of the film did not conduct better research, and consult more reliable sources, about the matters Mr. Haramein discusses.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

713 responses to “Who Is Nassim Haramein?”

  1. Roger Anderton says :

    Quote: Galileo was persecuted by religious authorities, but he could still prove that Jupiter had moons

    Galileo could not prove anything before his debunkers – they dismissed that evidence as a faulty telescope, and wouldn’t even look through it.


    Quote: Galileo challenged them to come and look in his telescope for themselves, to see with their own eyes the things he was describing, but they declined, saying that they would not look in his telescope, because it showed merely appearances, which were illusions, not to be trusted when they conflicted with logic and reason.

    • Dvir says :

      Just because it turned out to be true for Galileo doesn’t mean that it is true for Nassim.

      • Jeevus Criest says :

        that’s not the posters point and you know it, or at least you should.
        The poster you replied to refers to the unscientific way that (according to the writer of this article) ” No one will touch it. It’s that bad.” and that kind of reaction by scientists to a theory as “ludicrous and obviously flawed” as Mr Haramein’s is just not very scientific
        What’s the big deal? If the man is wrong it shouldn’t be beyond the scope of his betters to show ‘m wrong and that would be the end of it
        But in stead the author of this article has had trouble finding any scientist at all and also has to take another “self proclaimed scientist” a blogger only known as Bob, speaking of credibility eh? Then he has to resort to “good faith” because admits he’s not a physicist himself and doesn’t understand the presented pro’s or contra’s in this case, soo, what about his “credentials”? After all he is making some serious assumptions all because “No one will touch it. It’s that bad.” I may safely assume that the “It’s that bad” portion is also his view on why “No one will touch it”
        So, my conclusion is that the poster yo repplied to has made a valid point and you seem to have chosen to distort his point by stating
        “Just because it turned out to be true for Galileo doesn’t mean that it is true for Nassim.”
        My very predictable answer is: But it also doesn’t mean that it is not true for Nassim, does it now?
        So your argument says absolutely nothing about the subject you reply to but so much more about you

      • john brown says :

        Have a mind that’s open to everything and attached to nothing… I do not see vast criticism of Wayne Dyer? What makes his ideas and beliefs more true? together with all those philosophers and scientists he talks about more true?Is it because he is American??? there is,also, much criticism of Deepak Chopra.
        This moron that attacks Haramaein probably likes to be heard and is jealous…And the jerk above, that speaks of his EGO has one of the size of the universe …Get a life fools…

      • Paul says :

        zzzzz bored of Harramein leaving now zzzzz

      • a scientist says :

        This person who tries debunking free creative thinking has probably never had an original thought, and therefore cannot imagine anyone else ever having one either.. Being a painter an artist myself, I am very familiar with original thought, and only create my best work while having these creative free flowing revelations.. One day, possibly before he dies perhaps, he will get to know that there is infinitely much outside of his five senses, and then he may know what is meant as original thought and transcendence..

    • Lauren says :

      ive been thinking we need a good ole fashion paradigm shift like Copernicus (and Galileo). =)

      • Paul says :

        Well that’s all very well. Why do you want or need a paradigm shift? Just for the sake of it? The limitations of current theories are well known. What cannot be explained is well known and entirely open to enquiry. There are no secrets here. There is no watertight theory of gravity and everyone involved in looking for one knows that full well. Einstein knew it very well, unless you think he might have been stupid. So a useful contribution would come from someone with something to say on what the new theory would be. Our friend who dreamed he knew the answer when he was nine years old has had plenty of time since to come up with something concrete, but he hasn’t. He’s just a massive ego as far as I can tell.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Einstein would have been the first to say there are no “water tight” theories on anything. As much as mainstream science is driven by feckless propaganda does by no means mean that alternative commentaries “must” be right.

      • John Brown says :

        Paul certainly is NOT Saint Paul

      • Wyboth says :

        Ummm… okay? He never said that he was…

      • Wyboth says :

        @OzzieThinker Once again, you have shown that you do not understand how science works! There is absolutely NO propaganda in real science. Science is driven by facts and proof. If anyone tried to use propaganda in a scientific paper, they would be kicked out of the community immediately. But Thrive, although I wouldn’t say that it’s driven by propaganda exactly, manipulates and deceives the unwary viewer into believing what they might have otherwise rejected. You obviously didn’t take Thrive with a grain of salt. You just swallowed their rhetoric without a question. I’ll bet you also swallowed the rhetoric of Mitt Romney without checking to see if he’s being truthful?

        As for alternative theories, it’s fruitless to try and promote one when another theory about the same thing has already been proven true. If the two can’t both be true, and one is already true, then the other must be false. I know you’re going to say, “What if you find out that the mainstream theory is false?” By proven true, I mean scientifically proven, which means that it has been shown to be true under every circumstance. If something is scientifically proven true, then anyone who claims that it is false is lying. It’s as simple as that.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Wrong. Science is driven by critical analysis of clinical data. It relies on a number of premises.

        1) evidence
        2) controlled testing
        3) arguments supporting clinical analysis

        The discovery of the SARS coronvirus floored science. Prior all scientists [except for a few radical “conspiracy theorists”] supported the lie that the nucleus was the “brain” of a cell. SARS contains no nuclaeic acid, so now they have decided the intelligence is in the cell lining. This may be utter nonsense.

        Here is a quote that all would be worthy to digest. This is taken from Herbert Marcuse, ‘Towards a Critical Theory of Society” (2001)

        “One dimensional thought and behaviour are systematically promoted by the makers of politics and their purveyors of information: their universe of discourse is populated by self-validating hypotheses, which, incessantly and monopolistically repeated, become hypnotic definitions of dictations……Reason is turned into submission to facts of life and to the dynamic capabilty of producing more and more and bigger facts of the same sort of life. The politico-technical apparatus and its totalitarian rationality and productively militate against change, they blunt the recognition that facts are made, mediated by Subjectivity (a recognition long since incorporated into scientific method).”

        Too wit, when it CONFICTS with the theory EVIDENCE IS DISMISSED!!!!!

        Sorry for all those big words. Ask your parents if struggle with any.

      • Wyboth says :

        @OzzieThinker When did I say that science wasn’t driven by evidence? I said facts, which is a synonym for evidence, and proof, which is really all 3 of the things you mentioned. Proof is the same as evidence, proof comes from experiments, and an argument comes from proof.

        As for SARS, it does contain RNA, which is a nucleic acid. Evidence that SARS contains RNA: http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/01-03/sars_research.asp Evidence that RNA is a nucleic acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA (Yes, I linked to Wikipedia. It’s a reliable article. Look at the sources if you don’t believe me.) Scientists still believe that the nucleus is the “brain” of the cell, since it contains the genetic material and it runs most of the cell’s functions. The idea that the cell membrane is the brain is false. The membrane is only responsible for allowing molecules in and out of the cell. It is controlled by the nucleus.

        I’m just laughing at you quoting Marcuse. Do you realize that he’s talking about what you are falling for? No? Let me explain.

        Although he’s not talking about conspiracy theories, it can be applied to them. He refers to self-validating hypotheses; a good example of one would be the government disinformation agent assumption. Basically, whenever anyone tries to convince a believer in this conspiracy that they’re wrong, they say, “You’re only saying they don’t exist because you are one!” And then they believe in it even more. This is a self-validating hypothesis, or undeniable statement. Although I’m not sure if you’ve fallen for this one particularly, many other people have, and they are thus incapable of re-evaluating their belief, which leads me to another point.

        Marcuse touches upon one-dimensional thinking,which I do see you doing. This is basically not accepting anything that doesn’t fit your worldview, like mainstream theories. I do entertain alternative theories, but I almost always find them false through the scientific method. But I never see you do this.

        He also talks about people giving up reason and just accepting things. I talked about this in my last comment to you on the other reply, so I won’t repeat myself. But there is one last thing I need to address about Marcuse. He says that subjectivity (bias) has been incorporated into the scientific method. This is untrue. No scientist can bias his or her work. They understand that the truth, no matter what effect it may have on them, is reached through experimentation. Anyone who biases their work isn’t a scientist. Furthermore, he gives no examples of how this is true, and there are many examples of how it is false, so I can only conclude that he made it up. Quite an interesting fellow; he talks about how people are swayed by political rhetoric, which is true, but then turns around and accuses scientists of being biased.

        The only person who I know of who dismisses evidence when the theory conflicts with his wit is Nassim Haramein, who is not a real scientist. As I said before, real scientists do not let their own beliefs get in the way of their research and conclusions. For example, many scientists are Christian, but when the Big Bang theory conflicts with their belief that God created the universe, they don’t dismiss the evidence that there was a big bang (except for people who follow Christian Science, which is not real science). Instead, they continue unbiased research, and re-evaluate their beliefs. For me, the big bang theory holds water, and I BELIEVE that perhaps God created the big bang. Again, I believe, not know. If science is ever able to show what existed before the big bang, then I can either know that that happened, or re-evaluate that belief.

        I found your last line to be an ad hominem attack. If you’ve ever sat down with someone my age and had a deep discussion with them, you would have found that their age has very little to do with their reason. If you are particularly concerned about a high school junior’s knowledge of vocabulary, I would encourage you to take the SAT. It sets the standard for knowledge of vocabulary of people my age. Although this is difficult to determine, I would say that I exceed this standard. You can also easily see that I have no difficulty with grammar and mechanics just by looking at this comment. It is grammatically sound, and contains no spelling errors. Another thing that I would point out is that you probably believed me to be an adult by my quality of writing and reason before I told you my age!

        I am eager to hear your response.

      • a rational person says :

        hey “scientist”…heres an original thought for ya…u’re nuts. there ya go…give me my nobel prize…i can get on youtube and shoot my mouth off on stupid shit i know nothing about just like this haramein clown but it won’t get me a bunch of conspiracy loons thinking ive got the answer so some “paradigm shift”…why don’t u shift paradigms urself and stop believing in this ridiculous garbage nonsense…i mean srsly ive been reading this blog for 2 days and ive had it up to here with the bullshit from these conspiratards….these crazy loons who think 911 was an inside job and the moon landing was faked…how crazy u got to be, jesus christ…man this depresses me so much i gotta drink…i mean i literally started drinking when i read the comments on this page…u’re all nutbags, just stfu about this haramein idiot and u can stick this paradigm shift straight up your butt…i need a drink

      • OzzieThinker says :

        It is you who is presenting foul mouthed gibberish of a most irrational nature. You have cofirmed you are good at issuing insults, but have no information to support your argument. It is difficult to be scientific with someone of your, clearly, low intelligence, but I will summarise your insults which provide zero information in support of their case.

        You say:

        a) Hey “scientist”…you’re nuts

        b) I [you?] get on youtube and shoot my [your?] mouth off [about] “stupid shit” I [you?] know nothing about?

        c) Haramein is a clown

        d) [garbled nonsensical insult] Attempted play on words “paradigm shift

        e) I’ve been reading this blog for 2 days [I am that pathetically lacking in creative output and struggle reading. That’s why I have spent so much time here]….bullshit from conspiritards

        f) These crazy loons who think 911 was an inside job

        g) [The same people] think the moon landing[s?] was faked

        h) I believe in Jesus Christ and talk to him regularly

        i) I need to drink [alcohol]

        j) {I condradict myslf and claim] I literatally started drinking [alcohol] when I read these comments

        k) You are all nutbags

        l) just stfu about this Haramein idiot

        m) You can stick this paradigm shift straight up your butt

        n) I need a drink [because I am a deranged junkie with only three functioning brain cells]

        My advice to you, ‘a rational one’, is if you wish for anyone to reply to your views you actually provide some basis. It is no wonder you have found some support from a proven ignorant twerp who assures his loving audience that evidence is not necessary when the speaker is properly certified. Conversely, if the speaker is not certifiable the evidence is irrelevant. I fondly remember a heated debate on another board when an individual claimed he would NEVER believe in aliens “EVEN IF HE WERE BEING EATEN BY ONE”!!!!!!!! I do so hope he was.

        Nuff said.

      • a rational person says :

        @ Ozzie Thinker “no information to support my argument” eh?…how about this information: nassim haramein is a complete amateur…doesn’t know a thing about science, don’t care either…he wants to pretend to be a scientist but he refuses to do any of the real work to make his theories stick…it’s more fun being a pseudoscientist because then he can get conspiratards like you to stroke his ego and he can get em all riled up by telling em how horrible and closed minded “real” scientists are…this is just a bunch of bullshit, it’s junk food for stupid idiots like u who are too lazy to check out what the facts really are. srsly this bullshit is very harmful because it teaches people that science is not reliable…well let me tell you something, asswipe, science got us to the moon, eradicated polio, beat the nazis, beat the japanese, and gave us the computer u type your retarded shit into about how science is “driven by propaganda”…while u were sitting there whining about how unfair it is that real scientists don’t take assclowns like nassim haramein seriously, real scientists were landing rovers on mars…and guess what? those scientists think haramein is a fucking loon…guess what again? theyre 100% right…you got an answer for that? let me guess, just more bullshit, because thats all u pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiratard nimrods can do, open your mouths and spew bullshit…no wonder the world thinks u’re a joke. and yes i am drinking because do u think i could handle your dumb asses if i was sober? hahahahahhahaha nice try dickbag

  2. anticultist says :

    Galileo sure was a cool cat, shame that it was the religious establishment that was against him rather than the scientific though, other wise your point might have some validity.

    And since science disagrees with Haramein and religion agrees with him I think you might wanna go sit in the corner.

    • Roger Anderton says :

      religious establishment and scientific establishment were the same in Galileo’s day; only later came split from Church and State.

      • anticultist says :

        OK perhaps it may have been political, i will concede that the church may have been willing to accept Copernican claims if the hierarchy and political pressure was not insurmountable at the time.

        But again Haramien is of little value to this debate point because his science is not even of high standard, and it fails to impress even the most basic of testing. His language is defensive and obtuse, and he shows no understanding of anything that would prove his claims, namely peer review, academic thoroughness, the scientific method in general.

        Likewise his affiliations and public claims of conspiracy theories, anti academia and new age woo further discredits his claims to be scientific.

        You can talk about Copernicus all you want, but his life is of no relevance to Harameins and the comparison is of little value.

      • Anand Singhnand says :

        Churh (all religious institution) still works with state. They never want that religion and science should meet. Divide and Rule. Walter Russell is pioneer who gave “A New concept of the universe” and sent to all science institution existed on this planet. Nobody even replied except Nikola Tesla who said “Hide your research in a scintific museum for 1000 as Man is not ready yet as Man is greedy.”

    • knowledge seeker says :

      Anticultist, Actually his point is valid. The only one who doesn’t make sense is you. For some reason you speak before you research. You lack knowledge of history and therefore lack knowledge of the present and future. Why would Nassim need credientials from an “accredit” college for you to validate his work? That fact alone lets me know that you have no idea about the origin and boundaries of our education. Google Carnigue institute and tavistock institute then try again. Think about it…has a school ever taught you to think outside the box, or do they train you to remain in the box? I don’t like it when someone spends their energy to “disapprove” as opposed to find the truth for themselves. The reason is because the truth is undeniable.

      Anticultist, How about you explain to me the technology involved in the pyramids and Florias “Coral Castles” since you seem to know things. Prove something to us. I would love for you to ask me the same thing when you’re done. Thanks!

      • Anastasio says :

        @knowledge seeker

        As you will see in the below link, literally thinking inside ‘the box’ can sometimes furnish the most probable explanation with regards to the pyramids:

        Here’s an explanation of the technology Leedskalnin employed in the creation of his ‘Coral Castle’:


        And here is Leedskalnin using that same technology:


      • anticultist says :

        Are you serious ? You are talking about credibility on one hand and then side stepping away from credible academic institutions in favour of credibility outside of academia ?

        You are either dumb or xlueless on how reality functions and how expertise operates in the real world.

        You don’t just rad a few books, watch a few videos and talk to a few people online and then deem yourself an expert. You have to do decades of hard nosed research and academic paperwork combined with years of on the floor work and experience to even be considered an expert on a topic. Academia is essential in this and any attempt to denounce it’s importance just shows you to be a foolish internet poster.

        And as far as the coral castles yes, he used pully systems at night time, noone saw him using his supposd magnetic technology first hand. He has never provided any technology he claimed he usd either further denouncing his claims.

        The pyramids are easily explained by hard work and tools, any attempt to demean the understandings and capabilities of the Egyptians is just foolishness and ethnocentrism.

      • anticultist says :

        And if you truly want to know how the pyramids were built here is a web site that explains everything thoroughly for those with an underrstanding.


        Digest the information and then prove it wrong.

      • Willow Lovejoy says :

        You said it perfectly!! I particularly like your suggestgion that to spend one’s energy trying to disprove someone is a waste.

      • CreativeThinker says :

        Oh @Anastasio – you clearly do not know a single thing about gravity or the nature of sand or physical human strength. If the building of the great pyramids were so easily explained, why is it that modern day engineers say that they could not reproduce anything remotely close to that today? Our greatest modern buildings are not even CLOSE to being that accurate. And that still doesn’t answer as to why different cultures all over the earth would be building pyramids. As elaborate tombs? That idea is laughable really, considering they had no contact with each other as crossing the oceans were impossible in those times.

      • anticultist says :

        ” If the building of the great pyramids were so easily explained, why is it that modern day engineers say that they could not reproduce anything remotely close to that today?”

        We could, we just do not have the time or manpower to do it. In the days these things were built huge work forces of people were given the task out of religious and political obligation to the god king on the Earth ‘the pharoah’.

        “And that still doesn’t answer as to why different cultures all over the earth would be building pyramids.”

        You surely can not be ignorant of the sea faring and land traversing trades that existed in those days ? They even found sea faring boats buried at the foot of the pyramids. Trades with countries across the planet existed between all major cultures, this included trade of everything including religion, education, skills, tools.

        Your ignorance to human abilities and knowledge in history is either through lack of reading, or through sheer xenophobia

      • anticultist says :

        “Excavation of the remains of seagoing ships at Wadi/Mersa Gawasis, south of Safaga on the Egyptian Red Sea coast, in 2004–05 and 2005–06 provides extensive physical evidence for construction techniques, wood selection, and recycling and re-use practices of the ancient Egyptians. Discoveries at Gawasis prove that common Egyptian river-oriented design and construction techniques were successful both on the Nile and at sea”



        Eritrea is South of Egypt on the coast line of the red sea, and 2,000 or more years ago it was one of most important trade ports for sea faring civilisations of the era. Between the west and southern countries across the Indian ocean.

        eritrea’s position on the map: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=adulis&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&ei=6WoaUdSjKcK40QXV1IGYCw&sqi=2&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg


        A few examples of peer reviewed documents discussing the ancient SEA FARING societies and ship building techniques can be found by Cheryl Ward, Ph.D., RPA and Dr Chiara Zazzaro – University of Exeter.

        Peer-reviewed contributions to volumes

        2008- Principal Investigator, Maritime Archaeology, University of Naples “L’Orientale” Boston University Wadi Gawasis Project, Red Sea, Egypt

        2005-2006 Chief nautical archaeologist, Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”/Istituto Italiano African I l’Orient/Boston University Wadi Gawasis Project

        2010 C. Ward and C. Zazzaro, Ship remains from Marsa Gawasis, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 39.1:27-43

        2008 K. Bard, C. Calcagno, R. Fattovich, C. Ward, and C. Zazzaro, Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, an Egyptian Harbor

        2007 C. Ward, Ship timbers, pp. 123-45, in Bard, K. A., and R. Fattovich. Seaport of the Pharaohs to the Land of Punt. Archaeological nvestigations at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt, 2001-2005. Naples

        2007 R. Fattovich, K. Bard, and C. Ward, Sea Port to Punt: New Evidence from Marsa Gawasis, Red Sea (Egypt), in J. Starkey, P. Starkey and T. Wilkinson eds., Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea, BAR Int’l. Series 1661: 143-148.

        submitted into the press and articles

        [2010] C. Ward and C. Zazzaro, Maritime artifact report: 2009-10 season at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis. Accepted.

        This is just the tip of the ice berg regarding research and academic evidence to show cultures and societies having the ability to sail across oceans and trade that existed.

        Your lack of knowledge about this only shows why you think that there is something miraculous about these buildings and concepts.

      • Anastasio says :


        “Oh @Anastasio – you clearly do not know a single thing about gravity or the nature of sand or physical human strength.”

        It’s funny you should say that, because as a subsea engineer I happen to know a fair bit about how gravity applies in my area of expertise, in terms of static head, pump suction lift, pig runaway etc

        And some international work, mainly Africa funnily enough, involves sand removal from large bore pipelines which requires just a basic knowledge of the ‘nature of sand’ so one can suitably employ the right gels and chemicals , pumps and materials, calculate pressures and flow rates required etc in order to prepare a procedure and execute the operation.

        You could therefore say I know just enough about gravity and sand to make a comfortable living from it. How it might pertain to pyramids in Africa is a question that only your ‘creative’ mind can answer. Oh, and I regularly bench over 100 kgs; so you are wrong, wrong, wrong on all three counts ma boy!

        Let us all see how much you actually pretend to know about the subject in which you’re attempting to deliver an education:

        “If the building of the great pyramids were so easily explained, why is it that modern day engineers say that they could not reproduce anything remotely close to that today?”

        Which modern day engineers have said this and why? Why do they not accept the easy explanation? Because they are more conspiracy theorist than engineer perhaps? I would confidently propose that your statement is simply a manifestation of your creative thinking, largely because you are seriously trying to convince us that the technology to stack large stones on top of each other to form a pyramid does not exist.

        If you can’t debate the facts then just make it up. I like your style Creative Thinker. True to form, true to name.

        “Our greatest modern buildings are not even CLOSE to being that accurate.”

        Who determined this to be fact and accurate in what sense?
        Accurate that measuring instruments were able to ascertain the true values of quantities and dimensions used in a specific pyramid, or accurate in the sense that the pyramids had little or no margin of error from the original schematics?
        Schematics which you or your mystery engineers cannot claim to have any possible knowledge of and therefore no authority to judge accuracy in any context.

        Some pyramids contained obvious errors (the Bent Pyramid of Dashur is a good example of the trial and error process used in early projects) and even the Great Pyramid of Giza was left incomplete. How is that at all accurate in any definition?

        Why not give us an example of accuracy Creative Thinker? Juxtapose one of our ‘greatest modern buildings’ with a pyramid that is ‘that accurate’. It would be interesting to see how the standards of 5,000 years ago compare with the NPL and ANSI standards of today.

        It’s statements like this that really highlight your ignorance. Vague and naive and devoid of any intellectual value. Comparing two entities you patently don’t know much about in the hope that we will passively accept your argument as having any hint of credibility. How can anyone possibly be crazy enough to think it would work? And you try to argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about?

        Your screen name was enough to tell me you are a walking blowjob.

        “And that still doesn’t answer as to why different cultures all over the earth would be building pyramids.”

        What is there to explain? You seem to imply that ‘cultures all over the world’ built pyramids that were mirror replicas of the Egyptian Pyramids, when in actual fact a little investigation will tell you that the pyramids of Africa do not closely resemble pyramids found elsewhere. You could have answered your own question – if you were clever enough, that is.

        Why should it be so unusual that a simple geometric form that also happens to be the strongest should be realised and used for construction in more than one place in the world?
        There was also a pattern across the globe where people built accommodation from their surroundings, killed wildlife for food and clothing and worked metal into tools, weapons and jewellery.

        Do you have an alternative explanation for this global phenomena too? Or do you prefer to sensationalise only what piques one’s interest?

        “As elaborate tombs? ”

        And why on earth not? Because you watched Star Gate and it gave you a much more plausible explanation?

        “That idea is laughable really, considering they had no contact with each other as crossing the oceans were impossible in those times.”

        I am positively overjoyed that you addressed me with sarcasm and impunity because now I can take great delight in advising you that you are one of the most unconvincing halfwits ever to take a stand here!

        Do you actually deny the existence of the Levantine Corridor or the evidence of an exodus from Africa some 125,000 years ago? How was knowledge of the wheel and fire propagated in the ancient world or are these unexplainable anomalies also? Have you ever even looked at a map or read about ancient Egypt in your lifetime, Creative Thinker?

        You are laughable Creative Thinker. The idea that you actually think is laughable.

        See Anticultist’s links with regards to your accusation that seafaring was impossible in ‘those times’ and enjoy those last moments of coveted smugness as they slip away to be replaced with an epiphany of one’s utter stupidity.

        Indeed Creative Thinker, it is rare one ever has the opportunity to converse with someone who speaks so eloquently from the arse and feigns knowledge.

        Thank you for the sorry exhibition.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Mr Anastasio

        You are so fond of rhetoric and so lacking substance you should change careers. Try law….

        The cracks are already showing in the “laws” of gravity, which is an assumption based on Newton’s THEORY. Deep science is begining to contemplate the wisdom of Halley, for instance.


      • Anastasio says :

        @Ozzie Thinker

        You are so fond of rhetoric and so lacking substance you should change careers. Try law….

        Oh, it’s like that is it Ozzie? Finally plucked up the courage to intervene after calling me a bigot and then running home with your ball the last time?

        One could effectively argue your above comment is an admission of deliberate ignorance or at the very least, a question of the reader’s ability to discern and understand the points in plain view, right in front of their nose. While your obvious contempt of gilded phraseology (and the law?) might provide you with an excuse to disparage material you appear to lack the intellectual capacity to entertain and then to subsequently write the points off as ‘lacking in substance’, bear in mind that regardless of however I might put my skill set to better use, you, Ozzie Thinker, still utterly fail to address any of the points I have made – and of course, the unsubstantiated claims made by Creative Thinker with whom we can now quite safely associate you with by default.

        Kind of ironic is it not Ozzie?

        Your entire defence of the pyramid enigma is suitably delivered in a single vacuous attempt at derision which speaks more about yourself and how you evaluate substance than you would ever have liked to have let slip in front of such a critical audience.

        Out of respect for your age Ozzie, and possibly even your mental state, I have held my tongue with regards to the cryptic, irrelevant, assblabber you insist on bombarding the blog with.

        I have remained courteously reticent on your many cringe-inducing endeavours to garner respect and approval through your constant reminders of how many ‘thousands of documents’ you’ve claimed to have read and references to the book you’re writing.

        I have previously not seen fit to pass comment on your continuous attempts to inject Halley and Dawkins into every argument and how it highlights that you are here to ‘showboat’ a pre-concluded argument that in all actuality makes sense only to Ozzie Thinker.

        Yes, you are succinct and monosyllabic, but bereft of substance, originality and inspiration. Why not consider a career in writing assembling instructions for flat pack furniture?

        “The cracks are already showing in the “laws” of gravity, which is an assumption based on Newton’s THEORY. Deep science is begining to contemplate the wisdom of Halley, for instance.”

        And still, the earth is solid and man built the pyramid, despite what your citeless paragraph is meant to infer.

        For a man who whinges about substance you’re certainly a little light on it yourself – but that’s hardly surprising given that you people are the least likely punters to rise above hypocrisy.

      • Frankie says :

        Wtf!? deep science?!! hahahaha! you call conspiratardism deep science?
        You are a joke, Ozzie. You show a lack of common sense and insight. If thats your “deep science”, I then wonder whats the bullshit for you.
        I haven’t the slightest clue what else do u believe on. You probably believe Arnold from “hey arnold!” is real and that all those events happened. Maybe you even believe in Rupert the Bear is real and lives in a place called Nutwood.
        By your logic and the one of all your fellow nutters, we can believe in everything we want, doesnt matter how preposterous it is.
        I wish i lived in a parallel universe, if there are any, where you conspiratards dont exist. Geez! you seriously make the human race look bad.

    • get it right says :

      here is nassim’s peer review in the american institute of physics, http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/1303/1/95_1?isAuthorized=no bag the guy all you like but his math is amazing, and id bet my bottom dollar that in the next ten years his hypothesis will be accepted as the one unifying theory in physics. Its just to elegant to be wrong just like Einsteins theory of special relativity. That wasn’t universally accepted until 20 years after the fact either.Or Wegeners theory on continental drift and seafloor spreading that wasn’t accepted until 60 years after the fact.If you want to know if the guy is for real look to the people who know, thats what scientific journals and peer reviews are all about. Basically he has put forward a hypothesis which he has then endeavored to prove through observation and mathematical calculation, presented it to the scientific community to be scrutinized by his peers and none of them have been able to “debunk it” what makes u bunch of know all know nothings think you have what is needed to do so. If you look at his math you will see that its just too amazing to be wrong he is doing equations on exponential s up to 10 to the 55th nailing numbers to the neg 38th that are within .0000000009 accuracy can u even fathom the size of those numbers we are talking about numbers 126000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 being divided down to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and being within the accuracy of lab equipment. There is a very good reason why alot of the mainstream aren’t jumping to embrace his work because he completely discredits some of their entire life’s works especially anyone who has been struggling to make sense of the tangled web of convoluted and confusing rubbish that is string theory. I will tell you one thing good science is never hard to understand, if you find your self going in circles you prob made a mistake just like back in high school trying to balance chemical equations in chem. anyway rant over have a good one see ya

      • Anastasio says :

        “here is nassim’s peer review in the american institute of physics, http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/1303/1/95_1?isAuthorized=no

        That is a publication of the conference proceedings that Haramein attended, not a peer review of his work by the AIP. NIce try but perhaps you should start with what peer review actually means.

        Almost four years since that conference passed and you people still can’t get it right.

        Basically he has put forward a hypothesis which he has then endeavored to prove through observation and mathematical calculation, presented it to the scientific community to be scrutinized by his peers and none of them have been able to “debunk it””

        And neither have they published it. The fact that no reputable journal has ever published Haramein’s work is a debunking in itself.

        ———————————————————————————————-” Its just to elegant to be wrong just like Einsteins theory of special relativity. ”

        I’m not convinced that you know what you’re talking about. Even Haramein’s co-author (the one who worked out all the elegant math) distanced herself from Schwarzschild Proton Paper. Kind of says it all really.

      • anticultist says :

        That journal has an impact factor of 2 ou of a possible 30:


        That puts it in one of the lowest possible categories for a journal on the planet.

      • anticultist says :

        What is a journals impact factor ?


        What are all of the AIP journals impact factors ?


  3. Roger Anderton says :

    Your arguments are same as would have been used against Galileo by his debunkers.

    • anticultist says :

      Weakest debate points to prove Nassim Haramein to be valid possible Roger, you just sidestep everything mentioned in the article, which even includes a discussion about your current argument. Truly fail.

      • Roger Anderton says :

        I was dealing with Galileo bit being nonsense; the whole article builds on similar nonsense; its a house of cards – all falls down

      • anticultist says :

        New age baloney Roger, you are just easily suckered by pseudoscience.

      • Roger Anderton says :

        Re: anticultist says : March 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm

        I clearly pointed out what was wrong. Modern physics requires a unified theory and when one is offered just going into denial same behaviour as Galileo’s opponents is block to scientific progress.

      • anticultist says :

        It’s not my fault you don’t understand the difference between reality and fabrication, just because something looks ‘sciencey’ and has some nice looking equations you don’t even understand, does not make it intellectually sound. Try actually going to school and getting yourself a physics education and then come back and re evaluate what the dude is saying.

      • Mitch Brooks says :

        the actor who plays Nassim also played the husband in orgasm during Childbirth on youtube…Eddie Bolero

  4. Jonathan Sebastian says :

    It seems as if you want to totally trash everything about this movie.

    Can you go back to the original question which is a good one:


    I think this would set the tone for a healthy discussion. Or are you satisfied with where the EARTH and HUMANITY are at this point in time?

    • muertos says :

      Perhaps you should read the FAQ. https://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/faq/

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Jonathan! I feel your pain, which you are suffering deeply because the gang of debunkers here is in such denial about their own pain that they cannot help themselves in lashing out at you and your THRIVE colleagues. Please forgive them! They know not what they do! And they just can’t help themselves — but you can!

      Therefore, please read these stirring words of Foster Gamble himself which he spoke in the middle of this long and revealing interview with The Daily Bell. Here he articulates his inspiration for the film, which will eventually cause even these now pathetic and miserable debunkers to be relieved of their present suffering and eventually to thrive in their lives just like you are thriving now.


      What really inspired me to do the film, and the turning point, was when I learned about meditation. The deeper I went in meditation the more I kept hearing this sound, which turned out to be the wailing of the suffering of humanity.

      And once I started hearing that literally screaming inside my own being, which wasn’t me in my privilege of Ivy League college but actually the humanity of which I’m a part, I committed myself to doing everything in my power and privilege to relieve that suffering.

      And when I made that commitment, that wailing went away from my meditation. So I think that was the major turning point and everything in my life that I have learned has only made me want to do more to relieve suffering and to help humanity discover the principles and practices that can allow everyone to thrive, without exception.

    • Professor Pious says :


      An addiction to magical thinking.

    • Richard Haynes says :

      This is the point. We are heading in a very destructive direction…Do we want more wars, more domination, or do we want to Thrive? If so all the debunking is not helping.

      • muertos says :

        Actually, the debunking is helping a lot. This blog has informed quite a lot of people about the errors and factually unsupportable claims in the movie Thrive, including Nassim Haramein’s. Many people who would otherwise have swallowed the movie’s false claims now understand at the very least that there’s another side to the story. I believe that access to reliable information and verifiable facts is instrumental in helping people make informed decisions. This blog is doing a lot to counter the distortions and misrepresentations in Thrive. Therefore, the debunking clearly is helping, and I intend to continue doing it.

      • Jonathan Sebastian says :

        Thank you for the opportunity to respond. From my perspective, the factual criticism is not significant to the thrust of the movie.

        Let me give some examples:
        Harramein – you attack his credentials but not what he says. Do you not think the torus is not a part of the creative energy field? I see the torus everywhere myself (you can start with the shape of your red blood cells). Also, my understanding is he created this design of the double torus. I do not know where its place is in quantum physics, but what have you created? It is very creative…do you not give him credit for that? It is creative ideas that help allow mankind to make progress.

        I do not know how you can possibly look at the universe and deny that torque does not have some role. And in terms of the layman type explanation…do you think the audience wants to get a lecture on quantum mechanics? I took it and understand it but most do not. People want answers in an understandable manner.

        The key point here is that there is a natural energy flow in the universe and we need to align with it to thrive.

        Second, you attack David Icke on things that were not even mentioned by him or Gamble. David spoke on Fractional Reserve banking as I recall. Do you not agree with the model of the Fractional Reserve banking they presented?


        Do you agree with the charts of all the media companies merging into 5?

        Do you agree with the figures on the disparity between wealth in the United States and in the world?

        These are the important facts as I saw the movie.

        And back to the main question…why are we not thriving? Can you answer that?

      • muertos says :

        “the factual criticism is not significant to the thrust of the movie.”

        So, facts don’t matter, then? It’s perfectly fine for the makers of Thrive to present factually incorrect information, as long as the overall message of the movie is valid in your mind?

        I cannot accept this. Facts do matter. They are significant. We can’t give Thrive a pass on its spurious facts and instead praise its message. I explain exactly why in this article, which I suggest you read:

      • Paul says :

        Gullability is our enemy if we are heading anywhere. Why do so many people believe so much bullshit? Address yourself to this question. A man with no qualifications who appears never to have come near a real laboratory comes up with a theory that smashes all of established theory and all of established experimental observation and he cannot: quote any sources; publish his work; get it reviewed by anyone who matters. Neither, as far as I can tell does he: ever say what the theory actually is; publish the maths behind it; show any experimental result that backs it up; explain what in his theory explains why all previous observations and theories were wrong. In fact not many words you would expect to hear in connection with a grand unified theory of everything seem to appear at all in his talks. Personally, I find the nine years old stuff (the first thing he says) enough evidence to know he’s a nutter. And a dangerous one. David Icke stuff.

    • Cultist of the Living says :

      Thank you Jonathan.. it seem this “anticultist” is the one really being.. how did he say it . . “easily suckered” by the system in place that has taught him. . you are stuck in the web anticultist.. and it’s people like you that we need on our side.. to really THRIVE

  5. Roger Anderton says :

    re:anticultist says : March 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    you got things round the wrong way

  6. Roman says :

    may I ask you to debunk Daniel Estulin some time?

    Daniel Estulin exposes the Bilderberg in the EU Parliament:

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Very well thank you, Roman! Not only can I debunk Daniel Estulin, I can debunk him by using only two words:



    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      I cite this article because of the section about debunking Daniel Estulin, but the author covers a lot more, including David Icke, which I will post over on the icke section.

      This is an excellent article that shows how Foster Gamble’s cluelessness about history and politics will lead his THRIVE Movement ever deeper into a new pit of fascism.


      The Conspiracy Industry and the Lure of Fascism

      by Bill Weinberg, World War 4 Report


      New York City’s WBAI Radio—flagship of the progressive, non-profit Pacifica Network, where I am a producer—unfortunately provides a case study in the increasing embrace of right-wing conspiracy theory by the remnants of the American (and global) left.

      The most useful propaganda device in this ongoing hostile take-over of the rump progressive forces has been an exploitation of the traumatic events of September 11, 2001. Alex Jones, who trumpets anti-immigrant bromides alongside 9-11 pseudo-exposés, now rivals Noam Chomsky as an icon on lefty websites. Where our rhetoric once invoked the military-industrial complex and even the sacrosanct capitalist system, today our ire is frequently targeted at such arcane entities as the Bilderberg Club, the Bavarian Illuminati, and stranger things.

      WBAI provides a useful case study because it has followed the same trajectory as many of basically progressive inclination since 2001. What began as an examination of seeming anomalies in the case of 9-11 has lured some of our best minds down a black hole of irrationality that ultimately leads—and this, as shall be demonstrated, is not just hyperbole—to fascism.


      Debunking Daniel Estulin:

      Blind to the populist element of fascism, we become vulnerable to its propaganda. Amazingly, among those to exhibit this error in recent days is none other than longtime leftist icon Fidel Castro. Since stepping down from power, Havana’s elder statesman has been writing a lot for his blog, “Reflections by Comrade Fidel,” which is posted on the website of the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina. His Aug. 19 entry was entitled “The World Government”—traditionally a canard of the political right, which sees the globalist conspiracy as one of the left. The entry consists in its majority of an extended excerpt from Daniel Estulin’s The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club. There isn’t the slightest initmation that Fidel is quoting Estulin in any sense other than favorably.

      Most ironically of all, the Estulin quote includes a citation to far-right cult-master (and convicted credit-card fraud felon) Lyndon LaRouche, in which he portrays the “Aquarian Conspiracy” of the “counterculture” as an insidious tool for social control. Those who can remember back to the 1980s will recall that LaRouche was a big booster of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program, which was instrumental in driving Cuba’s Soviet patrons to collapse. In true fascist style, LaRouche weds paranoia about sinister banking conspiracies with a vicious anti-communism.

      So why is Fidel Castro embracing a writer who, in turn, embraces Lyndon LaRouche? It may be cruel to speculate that it has to do with his advancing years, but Fidel did have the humility to step down from power when he felt he was no longer up to it. Maybe his handlers should clue him in that he should stop doing his blog.

  7. Dave says :

    “debunkers” are not different from others in the past who tagged iluminated minds with radicals ideas, like terms like “sinner” , “lunatic”, “crazy”

    • Anastasio says :


      Unsurprisingly Dave, the only person to have employed such scornful designations is yourself. You’re either on the wrong blog or you need to work a little harder at building a convincing strawman.

      Let us know when you’ve figured it out.

    • Paul says :

      Yes they are. Very different. Deal with the facts, if you can find any.

  8. Mike says :

    Dr Ruascher and Dr Hyson work with Nassim and do scientific analysis with Nassim (Dr Rauscher has a PHD in physics) and support Nassim’s findings. Dr Rauscher’s details are below , and the paper with Nassim (in Selected Works):


    Bobathon has no scientists on his side, and no identity. So, you debunkers had better get your facts right.

    Further, Bobathon doesn’t believe the universe is a black hole, contrary to contemporary scientific inquiry: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

    Therefore, I’d seriously question the strength of Bobathon’s argument and claims, particularly when Nassim is working with good scientists.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Greetings Mike!

      How fortuitous that I should come across your comment here! I might even call it quite a bona fide synchronicity because just this afternoon I had an hour-long telephone conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and among many other things, we did speak about her work with Nassim, so I will be able to update you on the latest information from her and correct a few of your statements above.

      First of all, you will have to put Dr. Rauscher’s work with Nassim into the past tense since she told me that she has not had any contact whatsoever with Nassim for over 3 years now. And furthermore, she does not support his present work in any way at all. Mind you, she’s not against what Nassim is doing now — she is simply indifferent to it all, as she is pursuing her own avenues of research.

      She was hired by Foster Gamble in 1998 to write the 4 papers for Nassim you see on his website since Nassim has no background or ability himself to do so. But please don’t take her authorship of these papers as any kind of support or endorsement for Nassim.

      Dr. Rauscher does not even share Nassim’s beliefs about the universe from a modern physics perspective , let alone believe in the preposterous nonsense that Nassim spouts forth about ETs and UFOs.

      And as far as Bob Athon is concerned, I’m afraid to break the news to you that Elizabeth Rauscher would agree completely with Bob Athon that Nassim’s assertion about the Schwarzschild Proton is quite wrong when he equates so-called “strong” gravity with the strong force. I quote Elizabeth from our conversation today: “The proton is NOT a black hole!” No physicists of any repute today would claim that the gravity of general relativity can be equated in any way with the strong nuclear force of quantum mechanics. It’s the purest of wishful thinking on Nassim’s part to do so. And yet many people believe him and follow him around for it. But that is where Nassim leaves the world of actual physics behind and fancies himself the guru of some New Age Millennial cult in Hawaii.

      While we are on the subject of that paper, please notice that the authorship is entirely attributed to Nassim. And yet Elizabeth Rauscher wrote most of the paper (Dr. Hyson wrote the rest.) Why is her name not credited? Nassim certainly had asked her to take credit like she did for the other 4 papers, but the reason she refused is because she told both Nassim and Dr. Hyson that their physics was wrong and since both Nassim and Dr. Hyson rejected her professional physicist’s judgment, she refused to sign off on the paper.

      Finally, you take Bobathon to task for not believing in the universe as a black hole. What you fail to realize is that all these theories out there on what the universe is or isn’t are the purest of speculations or conjectures based entirely on the consistency that these scientists can coax from their mathematical treatment of those ideas. All these scientists, including Dr. Rauscher and of course even imaginative non-scientists like Nassim are engaging in what I might call the truest science fiction writing of our time. None of these theories about the universe can be proven or disproven, so they can only be speculated about. The problem comes when these speculations are believed in as literal scientific facts as if they had been proven. So that being the case, then Bobathon’s belief about black holes is no better or worse than yours, or mine, or even Nassim’s.

      • Mike says :

        I gathered from Nassim’s fame that he alone was the true innovator. I believe Nassim is a true visionary and has come up with a theory that will stand the test of time. Science has been neglected many times in the past for many years, simply because the people of the time couldn’t make sense of it. Further, I wouldn’t discount the possibility of a proton being a black hole. http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv6i22p167.pdf

      • Mike says :

        I don’t believe you’re impartial enough about Nassim, you seem very quick to ridicule the man with comments like:

        ‘New Age Millennial Cult’, and ‘…truest science fiction writing of our time.’

        I believe Nassim’s doing a good job at telling a different story, and standing up for his opinion. My own personal experience does agree with a lot of Nassim’s findings regarding synchronicity, the power of the subconscious/conscious mind. And, weather patterns are very unusual and people are becoming more aware of the corruptness of western governments, which is reflected in the rise of Ron Paul in 2012. Btw, I find Ron Paul to have a brilliant policy perspective.

      • Curious George says :

        Mike you butt plug, the reason why people are becoming more “aware” of conspiracy theories is because they’re gaining popularity and are being publicized more often, even on fox news, bbc and ex-WWE superstars that manage to hold public office (Jesse Ventura). That’s not some metaphysical phenomenon you moron!

      • stratoblaster says :

        correct Hollywood, Nassims ideas point closer to a mystic relation to matter than “science” because what has been discovered when scientists reduce the physical universe to a point? They find a smaller and smaller unit of measurement that requires bigger and bigger colliders to verify….interesting…we see/find what were looking for. Debunker, believer, doesn’t “matter” when we get this far down the rabbit hole….Takes the wind out of the whole debunking or proving effort. Where does that leave us?

        Unified Theory? Here’s mine: Your world is what you make of it, and I don’t think we’ll ever find proof of this, other than the tone of our daily experience.

        meditation brings amazing results into my life lately, I’m happier, healthier, more civil.

        I still think 911 was a controlled demolition tho…and fractional banking should be terminated.

  9. vuurvogel says :

    Who’s Nassim Haramein is clear. But:
    Who is the owner of this blog, i.e. what’s his/her name and credentials?
    Who’s “bobathon,” i.e. what’s his/her name and credentials?
    The entire discussion is disingenuous because of a lack of true identities, aside Haramein’s.

    I’d gladly sign my own name too, if the writers’ identities were honestly disclosed.

    • Mike says :

      You are so very correct vuurvogel. Could the real debunkers please stand up!!!

      • Curious George says :

        Why would anyone want to bring attention to their professional lives from the obvious trolling that would occur from Nassim’s devotee’s. Their arguments “stand the test of time” and “logic”. Who they are, and what they do is irrelevant, just like you guys claim about Nassim not having any credentials.

        It’s all feel good for you people, isn’t it?

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Come on guys, you know how the game is played. Look, Foster Gamble himself believes that there are paid government disinformation agents whose mission is to discredit him personally and to sabotage the message and dissemination of his movie THRIVE.

      Now let’s just suppose — and I really must be clear here that I am just making a hypothetical conjecture — let’s just make believe that myself, muertos and bob-a-thon were actually paid disinformation agents whose mission is to subvert the THRIVE movement springing up from the movie.

      First of all, would you really expect us to use or real names and identify ourselves?

      Second of all, if we were such paid government agents, then Rule #1 is that we can neither confirm nor deny to anyone outside the agency that we are such paid government agents.

      Why can’t you live with and accept the way the government works?

      • Mike says :

        You couldn’t have said, ‘I’m a government disinformation agent’, any better than you just did.

      • Curious George says :

        Woooooosh. The sound of his point missing the orbit around your noggin!

    • Anastasio says :

      Sorry, but someone has to ask, what gives you the idea that anyone is even remotely interested in your name?

      “That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.”

      And I’m sure by that token the opinions of Haramein’s supporters would still smell bad no matter what monicker we append to them.

      Why exactly did you comment? I’m sure it wasn’t to demonstrate your clumsy comprehension of the word ‘disingenuous’. I can assure you this debunking of Haramein is quite sincere. To that effect we cannot say the same of your use of ad hominem, strawman fallacy or even Haramein’s lies.
      You failed to recognise ‘disingenuous’ when it was literally right under your own nose.
      But don’t worry – every day is a learning day here. Welcome to the floor.

      Now, why don’t you start by reminding us of what Haramein’s credentials are again, and why you think credentials are important?

      • muertos says :

        Anastasio, the reason why people want to know my name is they want to investigate me for evidence that I’m a “paid disinformation agent.” I’m not, of course, but no lack of evidence will ever convince them of that; since they will never adduce any actual evidence that I’m paid to write this blog (since none exists), the only result of disclosing who I am would be to invite a bunch of conspiracy theorists to churn through my private life to no avail.

        Furthermore, the facts and reasoning that I present in this blog should stand on their own. It doesn’t matter a single bit who I am. It doesn’t change anything. Making this blog about me, personally, would detract from the message of this blog, because Thrive supporters would then try to make it about me and not about the movie. I stand nothing to gain by going there.

      • Anastasio says :

        My above comment is of course directed at my good friend vuurvogel.

        ‘Meurtos’ works just fine for me!

  10. Anastasio says :

    @ Mike

    It’s all just a bit too accountable, the act of accusing someone of being a ‘shill’, is it not?
    You have to admit, it smacks of a certain childish ignorance; castigation on par with name-calling in the playground. The kind of rejoinder one offers when he discovers the caliber of his riposte has not increased since adolescence. The flavour of puerile wit delivered mid-tantrum that even Golding wouldn’t touch.
    I mean let’s face it Mike, you sh*t a brick when your dated understanding of Haramein was extinguished like a candle in a rainstorm by someone who actually moves in those circles. While you might try to save face by writing it off as the work of government agents, remember that exact thought does little to entertain a rational mind.
    I’m sure you can appreciate that one does not have to be in the employment of the government to have a differing opinion to yourself. Or can you?
    Perhaps diversity of opinion has no place in this brave new world that Haramein and Gamble are leading us to?

    Was Haramein paid by the government or any other body to lie about the Flower of Life etching at the Temple of Osiris? Probably not. But still, that’s one huge piece of ‘disinfo’ right there that his fans let slide.

    It seems like it’s all about the ‘pick and choose’ these days…

    • Mike says :

      Well, you guys are trying to tell me that the western governments are good. That’s the biggest joke I’ve ever heard. Ron Paul 2012.

      • Curious George says :

        Where have they said that Mike?

        See how you conspiracy theorists make up straw man arguments when you fail to comprehend the real one due to having invested your own self identity in the ridiculous theories of another quack?

    • Mike says :

      And, no I didn’t ‘sh*t a brick’; I wouldn’t be surprised if Haramein and Hyson are light-years ahead in terms of their understanding of physics. I’ll let the scientists physicists debate this.

      No, Haramein didn’t lie about the Flower of Life, it is simply a speculative claim that is open-ended. And I doubt anyone would actually chip into the rock to see how deep the inscription goes.

      So, you say you’re not a government disinformation expert, and yet you tell me that western governments are very well run.All I have to say to you is RON PAUL 2012!! I can’t wait for Ron Paul to be president.

      • muertos says :

        Oh my. If you’re waiting for Ron Paul to be president, I’m afraid you’ll be waiting a very long time.

        Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who is incapable of commanding mainstream support. He’s a distant third (at least?) in delegate count with no mathematical chance of getting the Republican nomination. Even if by some miracle he did, whoever gets the GOP nomination will be handily defeated by Obama in the fall.

        Also, where did I ever say that “western governments are very well run?”

      • Anastasio says :


        Ah I see; it was open-ended speculation that can’t really be proved without “chipping away at the rock” was it Mike? Funny that, that’s pretty much what Thrive said on their website about it too. Oh, you lifted it straight from there! How clever..
        Ever have an original thought from time to time? It can be quite rewarding I can assure you.

        Anyway, see the below link for Haramein’s take on the subject. Notice he employs the same tawdry, rehearsed rhetoric in this clip as he does nine years later in Thrive:


        Now, I’m not convinced that you can discern the difference between ‘speculation’ and ‘conviction’ Mike but I can, and I can advise you that Haramein is most certainly employing the latter in this clip; and he definitely didn’t “chip away at the rock” to arrive at that conclusion – that is the litmus test that Thrive (and yourself) are now relying on is it not?
        In fact it would seem Haramein has based his conclusion on a fanciful passage he read in an obscure book and a photograph that his “friend went out there and took”! i.e. Haramein hadn’t even laid eyes on the damn thing.

        While people who have actually witnessed the FOL symbol (visually, with their own eyes) said it was simply “drawn on in red ochre”, Haramein, who had never stepped foot in the Osirion Temple, was contending that it was “burned into the atomic structure in some extraordinary way”. Who do you think’s telling the truth here Mike?

        I have never heard or read a disclaimer absolving Haramein of potential inaccuracies in his lectures, or Thrive. Surely a man with so many dedicated followers is duty bound to ascertain the validity of his ‘facts’ before selling them for $80 a pop in his DVD boxed set? I doubt there would be much material left in that boxed set if he did stick to that philosophy but still, I presume he’d be better respected because of it.

        I agree that Haramein is an intelligent man, and I argue that he was intelligent enough to realise that a photograph and a book do not go far enough to back up his claims about the Osirion Temple. Therefore, he lied to you Mike. Just like your ‘Evil Western Governments do’.

        Now I got the impression you thought you were a clever guy who doesn’t like having the wool pulled over his eyes? It seems we’ve arrived at this juncture where you’ve given up on defending Haramein and now insist on delivering a broadside of incessant bleating about Ron Paul!
        Could this be your tacit admittance that you were perhaps wrong about Haramein?

    • Mike says :

      Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win this year, the movement will continue and will sweep across the globe. It has already begun and will not stop.

  11. Mike says :

    Oh dear, you think Obama’s a good president. Ron Paul is polling better than Obama. Obama is the same as Bush.

  12. Mike says :


    Well, it’s still open-ended regarding the exact nature of the FOL symbol creation. However, the fact that that symbol was there at all is quite remarkable.

    And, the success of Ron Paul is very relevant, as his movement is the start of the good conscious-shift at this time. (Something that Nassim Haramein often talks about.)

    And a lie is saying something that is false with intent, saying something that you believe to be true at the time is not a lie. Haramein says that there are chips in the rock already, and the FOL goes deeper into the rock, below the surface.

    ‘Therefore, he lied to you Mike. Just like your ‘Evil Western Governments do’.’ — what a childish attempt to put me on your side and against Haramein. I admit that Haramein may be wrong, but you don’t even consider the fact that he may be right with his unified field theory and his other marvellous findings.

    • muertos says :

      It’s not open-ended at all. The Flower of Life is not “burned into the rock.” Mr. Haramein is wrong.

      I can state with categorical certainty that Ron Paul will not be President of the United States. There is no even remotely realistic scenario under which that could happen. The chances of him even getting the Republican nomination are virtually nonexistent. Your trumpeting of his chances (as well as his bizarre and frightening ideology) is based on nothing than pure faith. That doesn’t mark you as a particularly clear or critical thinker.

      • Mike says :

        Your corrupt elitist establishment will fall. I will resist and fight the control for all eternity. Ron Paul will win.

      • muertos says :

        Wow. You sound like a really scary political fanatic. And you believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories + political fanaticism = trouble.

      • Curious George says :

        I have just revised my opinion of Mike. I believe he’s a paid government shill who’s job is to propagate faith based conspiracy theorists by giving the illusion of solidarity through sheer repetition. In this way the evil western government can keep more idiots focused on irrelevant banter (like Nassim being legit) rather than learning skills that will really free them, like critical thinking.

    • Anastasio says :


      No Mike, it is not open-ended. No matter if Thrive says it is, no matter how much you want to believe it is, no matter how much you repeat it like a labotomised parrot, it is not open-ended.
      Read and digest the following account from a man who actually went to Egypt and did the hard work (mostly out of genuine interest I would presume and partly in order to NOT make himself look like a complete asshole when opining on the subject):


      No matter what “Haramein says”, he has not been to the Temple of Osiris in order to qualify what he says, nor does he mention (oh so conveniently) the Greek text accompanying the Flower of Life symbols which give a rather telling insight into their origin and make the fact they are there in the first place all the less ‘remarkable’.

      Face it, the whole topic only appears ‘remarkable’ because Thrive and yourself haven’t bothered your arses to read up on it; THAT’S why it’s enigmatic. Because you don’t know the whole story Haramein can augment it with ‘unknown technology’ yet immediately identify that ‘unknown technology’ as ‘laser technology’ that has “been burned into the atomic structure” and all that by looking at a single photograph that his buddy went out there and took for him – and you and every other sucker for Haramein believed it.

      It’s far beneath me to ever use that predictable, circular-saccade-inducing cliche that you people love to administer like clockwork, brain-dead drones, but if there ever was a time to open your eyes Mike, then I have observed that moment has truly come to pass. Live in your Haramein fantasy world, nobody here would ever dream of stopping you from doing that. Whatever makes you happy. Just at least appreciate that not everyone wants to join you there.

      However you wish to define a lie, I still contend that there is no way Haramein could be that dumb to make such a conviction based on the evidence he felt he had.
      However, if I’m wrong and Haramein really was that dumb, then that’s all the reason I need to reserve any consideration you feel I should have for him and place it somewhere more deserving.

      Wouldn’t you say that’s fair enough?

      • Mike says :

        No, it isn’t ‘fair enough’. You are simply too narrow-minded and condescending to appreciate a difference of opinion other that what the status quo spits out at you — your anti-Ron Paul attitude is proof of this. (All you ‘debunkers’ are scared of Ron Paul, I wonder why?)

  13. Rehsab Thgir says :

    Your corrupt, elitist embellishment will fail. I reject your reality and substitute it with my own. Ron Paul has fins.

  14. bitbox says :

    And the spiral goes on !

    Everybody seems to go into political conjectures lately, which is probably related to current USA political agenda and is fine, but isn’t there a deeper evidence that is obscured before any of this ?

    What is “debunking” in the first place ?

    I pretend to be a “free mind”, and standing on this edge isn’t always an obvious position as “information” has become blurred by the overwhelming data that gets available at the touch of our fingers on the Internet !

    The point I wanna make here is that I appreciate “debunking” people, like you muertos, because so much fake information is being carried around it IS important to have “vigilantes” taking the necessary time and effort helping and educating others not to believe ANYTHING they see, hear or read.

    That said, I myself still have a lot of questions about the validity of Mr Haramein’s statements but definitely believe he’s up to “something”. And, yes, I agree that all his “esoteric” digressions are not reinforcing him in the eyes of the “scientific” community. But take it a little further…

    Why don’t you also “debunk” the so-called “scientific” community ?

    Isn’t it a fact that something close to a “unique though” is currently ruling the “official” scientific community ?
    Isn’t it a fact that this “unique though” is based upon axioms stating that 98% of the matter in the universe hasn’t yet been observed and consist of some “dark matter” that is needed to fullfil the equations they predict ?
    Isn’t it a fact that gravity hasn’t yet been explained and “unified” with the other major forces of the standard model ?
    Is there any proof that the “Strong interaction” really exists or is there any possibility that it indeed could be explained by some other forces interactions ?
    And we could go on like this…

    It seems like the “scientific establishment” can invent whatever condition or forces it requires to fullfil it’s requirements without discussion. But whenever someone else comes out with another possible approach it’s rejected, isn’t it ? On what basis ?

    So my question is: why do you fustigate Mr. Haramein not coming with “proofs” of what he pretends while the whole “scientific” community is doing the exact same thing sustaining their allegations by “inventing” whatever forces or conditions they need, but nobody seems to even notice ?

    I strongly believe that, all over time, science has always been the true way for humanity’s freedom. But at the same time it has always been opposed by the “establishment” willing to maintain it’s control position, and I strongly believe we are at this crossroad once again.
    20th century’s Physics is showing it’s limitations and we need to open new ways of investigation. I agree the scientific community cannot jump onto all and every jester that shows up but, please, keep an open and neutral mind. I really believe this is the way humanity is going to reach the next step.

    Best regards.

    • Anastasio says :


      Can you explain what you think constitutes the ‘scientific community’, give an example of what alternative approaches they reject and examples of the forces and conditions this community invents to sustain its allegations?

      Forgive me, but perhaps I’m one of those people who “hasn’t seemed to notice”; plus it’s late here and it’s probably a more prudent decision to go to bed and catch some Zs before work, rather than to stay up late ‘doing my homework’.

      It has always been my understanding that even if a theory is rejected at one time, if it can stand up to empirical scrutiny then further corroboration and elucidation can see it accepted by the scientific community at a later point – such as illustrated in the cases of Wegner and Semmelweis.
      Most interestingly was the acceptance of the Michaelson-Morley experiment which contradicted popular belief in the ether at the time, as did Einstein.
      I’m a little confused as these examples seem to go against the idea that the scientific establishment has any control over what can and can’t be accepted in order to serve its own needs; especially when a theory can be shown to hold water.

      Maybe Haramein could give us all examples of how this rejection by the scientific establishment works by printing the rejection letters he recieves from the journals to which he submits his ‘marvellous findings’. I guess those letters would give the most interesting critique of his work. It’s just a shame (or should we say suspicious?) that he doesn’t make them available.
      Of course, he and his fans can’t really complain about rejection if he doesn’t submit his papers for peer review, although I highly doubt this is the case.

      An example of a rejection letter from a peer-published journal can be seen below:


      Haramein’s lauding of what he calls a ‘peer review’ for one of his papers (which in all fairness he won in a competition) proves he seeks approval from the scientific establishment (or the status quo as some people like to call it) which arguably implies he trusts it and wants his work to be a part of it.

      Do his followers not find that just a little bit strange?

  15. Pat Jack says :

    Profound ignorance increases at an exponential rate in ratio to any quantity of certainty.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Pat Jack

      I would ask you to share the findings of the study that supports such a bold claim…if I thought for one minute that they actually existed.

      But I would not be so presumptuous to say that you are certain your paradoxial inanity makes any sense at all!

      “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Socrates

      A man can entertain a multitude of conflicting thoughts, and through the humble virtue of comparison he can be ‘certain’ that some are more veritable than others.

      I’ve now learnt that not accepting Haramein means you are a government agent, ignorant, narrow-minded or possibly a combination of all three.

      Well variety is the spice of life as they say!

  16. Tekrunner says :

    Try Debunking yourself before you make blogs like this. ridiculous. Its time to wake up with the rest of us.

  17. Changes says :

    Mr. Debunker-,there was time when a persons handywork speaks for itself– phd or degree don’t mean squat in this dumbed down world- it only says you paid money to go to learn what we pre-determined in books as facts and now we want to get our money back to payoff the school loan. I know more of endless subject and are more skilled natural than any ” schooled person just by share talent and education and experience and that the ” true” Degree of life– So get off that politics and really try to give a listen and maybe you will learn something profound.
    Noone want to touch Nassim because frankly they are scared of being “wrong”. He appeals to anyone with half a brain and want to care of our planet regardless of phd degree and his time spend doing it shows his passion.. What have you done for mankind and passion? Einstein left phd and degree to become the leading scientist so far. Let’s spend more time debunking the truth hidden from us by Vatican and secret societies who pay people like you to do just what you’re doing– keeping people’s mind ENSLAVED.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Changes (and all who agree with him)

      People are definitely dumbing down, and after reading an opinion like yours I have to wonder if it’s not an entirely self-inflicted phenomena..

      “He (Haramein) appeals to anyone with half a brain…”

      And you are right on the money with your keen observation!
      Thank you for saying what most of us here are too polite to say, although I think the point has already been demonstrated quite adequately all over this blog.

      So now we have returned the wily implication back to its rightful owner, let us now appreciate that no matter how many Ph.Ds and degrees Haramein DOESN’T have, no matter how many times he DIDN’T go to shool and no matter what his ‘altruistic’ intentions are, he, unsurprisingly, does not appeal to his accredited peers in the field he so desperately seeks recognition in.
      Do not lose heart though; let us glean some encouragement in observing that the scienctific community admits when it is wrong and will indeed adapt to encompass new theories and scrap old ones when necessary.
      It is written all over history; have a look sometime.

      Tell me Changes, will Haramein’s work become the stuff of “pre-determined fact” (‘observations that have failed to be disputed sufficiently’ is a more fitting description; therein lies the clue as to why Haramein still sits at the fringe) should it ever pass peer-review?
      Should his understanding of the physical world become the status quo at some time, then will that be our cue to dismiss it as just that and instead direct our attention to unknown, unschooled mavericks who patently lie and charge hundreds of dollars for seminars they don’t even attend in person? It does indeed seem to be the trend.

      Can you admit there is perhaps a small element of bias in your haranguing of those of us, who by your estimation, are in possession of more than half a brain? Have you really looked at Haramein and his work with an impartial eye? Simply wishing his work to be correct is a sentiment not shared by everyone, and Haramein’s goon-like followers should do more in the way of appreciating the dynamic diversity of opinion we have on this wonderful planet!
      You have to ask what Haramein is doing for mankind and passion when he seems to attract and stir up so many paranoid nutcases in his wake. Death threats? For all the accusations of death threats the only perceptible ones seem to come from the supporters of Thrive and Haramein! I guess it takes a smarter person than your average Thrive/Haramein fan to appreciate the irony.

      Mankind and passion? Please…

      Consider that maybe your man Haramein isn’t the best candidate to bring about the paradigm shift that so many of you ‘awakened ones’ eagerly anticipate. If your mind is open or you are truly ‘awake’, then this is a possible outcome that you must also be willing and prepared to accept.

      Afterall, if we claim to be open minded then we cannot pick and choose what we open our minds to…can we Changes?

      “Einstein left phd and degree to become the leading scientist so far”

      What, exactly, is the implication of this statement?

      Are you suggesting that a Ph.D. or a degree in physics is a handicap in understanding or exploring physics?

      Are you saying that Einstein had neither a Ph.D. nor a degree?

      Please, enlighten me.

  18. Ian says :





    these r worth reading to gain a better picture of this science field.

    I won’t take a stand either if this man is right or wrong, it’s just an interesting theory which could be groundbreaking. Debunking before hand is maybe comforting for some but won’t help u gain a bigger picture of what might be possible.

    ps his connection with this whole new age movement makes me more skeptical but I still (even after your wall of text site) can’t debunk him.

    gl with your research

  19. Angela says :

    Regarding Nobel Prizes: B H. Obama (former USA President) was given a Nobel Prize for using the word “HOPE”. All HOPE seems to have been lost, given away, and sold to the highest bidder by Mr. B.H. Obama.

  20. OzzieThinker says :

    I have been quite interested in exploring Nassim Haramein’s planets in the sun theory but did not connect his relationship with the “spin” Thrive rip off…er movement. However I do rather like what Richard Hoagland has to say. He may be a NWO masonic plant but at least what he says is interesting and intelligently constructed.

    I haven’t researched far and wide, so please advise me of any technical papers “without a shaddow of doubt” explaining the how “face on Mars”.and the nine “pyramids” are a mirage.

  21. Pap says :

    I don’t believe that I read one thing on this post that debunks anything,
    Various opinions are still just opinions no matter who makes them. Once I see the Phrase “Conspiracy theorist” the caution flag goes up. An over used cliche that seems not to have the teeth it once had with the mindless, seeing that so many of these supposed theorist were absolutely right. Then the New Agers who meditate….is that suppose to put up a warning sign. Meditation has been around for thousands of yrs…nothing new age about it. Still I see nothing that offers counter evidence to say that Thrive is nonsense or that Haramein offer of thought cannot exist. When the physicist explain to us how ancient Egypt moved 80 ton 40 ft long solid rock to a site 100 miles away and PROVE it will I truly feel secure in there revelations. Something like that could reveal more about reality than the Higgs bosom.

    • Lee says :

      “An over used cliche that seems not to have the teeth it once had with the mindless, seeing that so many of these supposed theorist were absolutely right.”

      When did this happen?

      All the real conspiracies from Tuskegee Pilots to Watergate scandals were not exposed by conspiracy theorists IIRC. Woodward and Bernstein aren’t conspiracy theorists, and so are other people who exposed real conspiracies AFAIK.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      “Meditation has been around for thousands of yrs…nothing new age about it.”
      Yes, for thousands of years meditation was used as a mental exercise technique. Now, people are misinterpreting ancient scripture and using it to back pseudoscientific medicine.

      “When the physicist explain to us how ancient Egypt moved 80 ton 40 ft long solid rock to a site 100 miles away and PROVE it will I truly feel secure in there revelations.”
      Has been explained numerous times, but we don’t need to prove it. The Pyramids exist, and the ancient Egyptians existed, so that’s all the proof we need.

    • OzzieThinker says :

      There were 27,000 3D holodiscs(?) found under the Great Pyramid of Giza which show an alternative history to the rise and fall of civilisations here over the last 100,000 years demonstrating different types of “intelligent life forms”. I feel sure the pyramids “mystery” is explained and does not conform to today’s “science”.

      Uh-oh, sorry that’s a “conspiracy theory”. The evidence was lost, no stolen, no hidden….er….dosen’t exist. My bad…..

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Citation needed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Evidence? Where you been brother? Everything that confuses is carefully filed away where prying eyes won’t see. That which was seen before is either “disputed”, “discredited” or “disappears”. Believe what you will. There are many sources. Try this one:

      • Mr. Anon says :

        David H. Lewis is discredited for a very good reason. He claimed to find the interior of the “hollow Earth” (a long debunked hypothesis). To my knowledge there has been no peer review of his work. He is not a reputable source. Try harder.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Obviously we have different standards on the meaning of “debunked”. Edmond Halley’s “hollow earth” theory has never been debunked by ‘wasn’t liked’ and was the oldest and ORIGINAL theory [by 300 years]. Conversely the 1950’s molton core theory (I forget who came up with it) has never been proven, so I guess that debunking isn’t necessary. There have been at least 3 other hollow earth models since Halley and would go some way to satisfying the earth’s electro-magnetic irregularities.

        At your lofty “debunking standards” science would colapse as, within the spectrums of interpretative arguments, there is agreement on just about NOTHING! Maybe you support propaganda science-doctrine perhaps with official “champions” such as windbag Dawkins who ignore all evidence or discussion that doesn’t suit the “pitch”?

        Nuff said.

      • muertos says :

        Hollow Earth? You’re kidding, right?

      • Mr. Anon says :

        1. Supports ancient aliens
        2. Supports hollow earth
        3. Supports creationism

        OK, I’m done with you.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        1. Supports ancient aliens’

        This is nonsense. How ancient and in what form/paradigm? What do you mean by the word “alien”?

        2. Supports hollow earth

        Correct within limits

        3. Supports creationism

        Absolutely not.

        Your lack of “attention to detail” is staggering Mr Anon. Look up Mr Dawkins. You and he can wallow in unfettered ignorance in the form of assimilated arrogance. Please don’t purchase my book. It would give you a “headache”.

  22. JG says :

    So what will the news about the discovery of the Higgs Boson mean for Nassim Haramein’s Schwarzschild proton?

    • OzzieThinker says :

      Early days for Higgs Boson. There was a time when every cell “had to have” a nucleus. And then SARS came along…

  23. Mr.Insanity.cure says :

    OMG, Debunker site that really dosent debunk anything, all I have read was lot of excuses for your own oppionion to work,,,,,and thats all it is,,,this site is full of bullshit, Nassim Haramein,,,,Nikola Tesla before him,,,,,omg, these silly debunkers dont understand anything,,,,, POWER TO THE PEOPLE,,,,that is what Nassim and Tesla ever wanted, not fame, not money,….you need to wake up, this place were living in is very very beautiful, stop sleeping and join the movement!!!! today!

    • OzzieThinker says :

      In fairness to this website the thrive movement has the feel of a “cult”. I wonder why they charged $5 for their video is they were purely “philanthropic”.

      Happy to be proven wrong and I keep one eye on what is going on, but sadly [for you] I don’t buy it at this stage.

      • Neo says :

        interestingly enough the dvd has been released for free on youtube by the thrivemovement themselves…it is really funny how I ended up down this rabbit hole. Ok I will finish watching the movie and form my own opinion of whether this is nonsense or something to it

    • Mr. Anon says :

      You are playing the Tesla Gambit. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

  24. Dude says :

    This Nasim has no credentials to show and can’t prove anything. Listening to his nonsense is a waste of time and a poor indication of your mental state. This makes you an easy target for criminals who want to take your hard earned money. I have no doubt that you are the very same person that would buy this ionic foot bath. So just to let you know, God talks to me daily and if you pay me, I’ll tell you things that we’ve talked about.

    • OzzieThinker says :

      What & whose “credentials” and what is “proof”?

      So far I see a lot of “establishment backed” spokesmen who can say more-or-less what they like provided they make the plot too complicated for reasoned debate, evidence inaccessible and slander critics as “those without credentials” or “conspiracy theorists”.

      Look at the treatment of Pye and his Starchild skull and the absolute LIES circulated by his mainstream critics. But now he can quietly offer them a big FU very much 😉

      You offer me credentials….I use them to wipe my ass. Now SHOW ME THE MONEY!

      • muertos says :

        Why don’t you show me the evidence that Nassim Haramein is correct? So far I haven’t seen a single shred of it, and yet somehow all the Thrive fans are claiming he must be Galileo re-incarnate.

        Never mind the money. Where’s the EVIDENCE?

      • OzzieThinker says :

        I have never said that Nassim Haramein is correct. In prior comments I have expressed doubts over the integrity of the thrive movement. You would do well to read before you think.

        My point has always been that the “mainstream” follows their agenda – an agenda I do concur with. My point has been that all “credentials” are worthless. Just show me the evidence in a way the evidence is clear. That’s all I ask.

      • Anastasio says :

        @Ozzie Thinker

        “So far I see a lot of “establishment backed” spokesmen..”

        “Everything that confuses is carefully filed away where prying eyes won’t see. That which was seen before is either “disputed”, “discredited” or “disappears”

        It seems your ancient aliens and hollow earth beliefs are failing to inspire any kind of intelligent conversation, so I thought I’d offer your above two statements as a possible explanation as to why a “reasoned debate” continues to elude you, as does the definition of ‘conspiracy’.

        Then there’s also the question of whether you are indeed capable of participating in or even recognising a reasoned debate in the first place, given your conspicuous lack of modesty in trusting paranoia and your dependence on accusations of connivance to spew out an argument.
        A little unreasonable no?

        Or perhaps Haramein’s followers can defy space-time continuum and they really can eat their cake and have it?

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Spoken like a bigot. You know nothing and will understand less Anastasio. Live in your dream world & don’t interfere with mine.

    • Slingshot says :

      The “Galileo and Copernicus were shunned” argument doesn’t hold water for me anymore. That was 400 years ago. Even Einstein’s difficulties in the scientific community was 100 years ago, and if anything, these examples highlight why new theories are tested and peer reviewed more regularly today.
      I’d like to think that Haramein actually believes his own fairy tales rather than being aware that he’s just taking money from the gullible.

  25. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Ah, Messrs. Muertos, Anastasio, and any other niggling naysayers gnashing their cravenly envious teeth at the numinous prominence of Nassim Haramein.

    Do you realize that this very evening, Tuesday, July 24, 2012, late night into the wee hours of Wednesday morning, the single guest for the entire four hours of the celebrated and renowned Coast to Coast AM radio program hosted by George Noory, is none other than the greatest visionary physicist of the 3rd Millennium, yes, the one and only Nassim Haramein?

    Do you understand the enormous and far-reaching consequences for the future evolutionary development of all humanity that this interview portends? No, I don’t think so. Therefore, you all need to realize that the average nightly audience for the Coast to Coast program fluctuates between 3 and 4 million listeners. The program is broadcast on 562 affiliate radio stations in the US, Canada and streamed online throughout the world, and as such, it is the Number One radio program in its time slot in the entire world.

    Listen to a summary of what Nassim Haramein will be broadcasting to this stupendously vast audience tomorrow night. I copy the blurb from the C2C website.


    Redefining Space & Time
    Date: 07-24-12
    Host: George Noory
    Guests: Nassim Haramein

    Nassim Haramein has spent years researching the geometry of hyperspace, theoretical physics, cosmology, chemistry, as well as anthropology and ancient civilizations. He’ll discuss how recent technology could re-define the structure of space & time, and usher in a new era of time travel and teleportation.


    For only $84, you can receive this DVD set.

    Crossing the Event Horizon 4 DVD Set

    In this 4 DVD presentation, Nassim Haramein takes you on a journey through humanity’s evolution, exposing the changes necessary to produce an all-encompassing Unified Physics; a unification of not only the four forces of nature, but also evolution and the occurrence of consciousness.


    Do you realize that since Albert Einstein died in 1955 and that Nassim Haramein was born 7 years later in Switzerland in 1962, during the same year that Niels Bohr himself died in Denmark, that you are witnessing the very entelechy of Albert Einstein now reincarnated as the being known as Nassim Haramein?

    I challenge you, Muertos and your disinformationistic coven of sniveling malicious malcontents who comment here , to show any kind of evidence whatsoever that proves Nassim Haramein is NOT the reincarnation of Albert Einstein. Until you provide such definitive evidence, then we can all proceed on the conviction that indeed Haramein is Einstein. End of story.

    So Mr. Big Shot Debunker Muertos, you snide, contemptible, loathsome, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistically sardonic academic dilettante, how dare you and your sordid spiteful ilk of ill-willed, petty, puny-brained, faux-intellectual, carping, cretinistic, caviling critics say anything negative against the most sublimely intelligent and perspicacious physicist genius since Galileo Galilei? How utterly clueless you are about the greatness of Nassim Haramein. And yet he is magnanimous enough to forgive your crude inanity and crass invidiousness and still invite you to the banquet table of his Grand Unified Theory of Modern Physics so that you may partake of his marvelous feast.

    Just watch the eager and blessed students here taking the Nassim haramein delegate course as taught by chief emissary Jamie Janover

    Now contrast that presentation with the pitiful decrepitude of your simplistic erudition exhibited here on this blog as a last gasp of your seething envy and rank jealousy of Nassim’s evolutionary and revolutionary greatness.

    The choice is up to you, Muertos. You can either remain self-righteously aggrieved in your simpering petulance and thus be left behind as a Death-Star-like fossil of evolutionary failure, or else wake up and join the new Millennial action and solutions groups that the Movie THRIVE has already engendered where you can begin to celebrate the interconnectivity of all human beings and affirm the limitless human potential that Nassim Haramein offers you right now — if only you would accept his gift.

    Therefore, I challenge you, Muertos, and your fellow gaggle of goons to listen to even just one of the four magnificent hours that Nassim Haramein will broadcast to the entire world tonight.

    (And just so you won’t have the excuse of not knowing what radio station Nassim will be broadcasting from in your area, I provide you this link of stations in the USA. Just click on your state map to find the radio station that will shine on you like a loving sun the magnificent intelligence and heart-warming therapeutic words of Nassim Haramein.)


    • Wyboth says :

      Ok Hollywood Tomfortas, I’m going to address every claim you have made and refute it. Let’s start with Coast to Coast AM. Coast to Coast AM’s main focus is on UFOs, strange occurances, life after death and other strange phenomena. It is very well known for broadcasting the “Rapture” that was supposed to happen on May 21, 2011. This radio station is not reputable. It has made several wild predictions that have been completely false. Haramein being on the station is no big huzzah. He fits right in with the rest of the crowd.
      Secondly, you assume that by him being on the radio station, his credibility and/or greatness is improved. It is not. If anything, appearing on a tabloid radio talk show does nothing but damage his credibility even further.
      “Do you understand the enormous and far-reaching consequences for the future evolutionary development of all humanity that this interview portends?”
      This interview means nothing for the development of humanity. It is simply two lunatics talking to each other on the radio.
      “Therefore, you all need to realize that the average nightly audience for the Coast to Coast program fluctuates between 3 and 4 million listeners. The program is broadcast on 562 affiliate radio stations in the US, Canada and streamed online throughout the world, and as such, it is the Number One radio program in its time slot in the entire world.”
      The size of its listeners has nothing to do with the argument. Next claim.
      “Do you realize that since Albert Einstein died in 1955 and that Nassim Haramein was born 7 years later in Switzerland in 1962, during the same year that Niels Bohr himself died in Denmark, that you are witnessing the very entelechy of Albert Einstein now reincarnated as the being known as Nassim Haramein?

      I challenge you, Muertos and your disinformationistic coven of sniveling malicious malcontents who comment here , to show any kind of evidence whatsoever that proves Nassim Haramein is NOT the reincarnation of Albert Einstein. Until you provide such definitive evidence, then we can all proceed on the conviction that indeed Haramein is Einstein. End of story.”
      I hope you are not serious. This is positively absurd. Haramein is in no way the reincarnation of Einstein. We don’t need to provide any evidence that he isn’t Einstein. Instead, YOU, the one who came up with this idea, should give us undeinable, solid evidence that he is Einstein before we’ll even begin to believe it. Firstly, if Haramein was Einstein, then he would act more like him. He would have coherent theories with actual evidence to back them up. Also, Einstein wouldn’t mingle with phony “New Age” thinkers and UFO enthusiasts. It seems you don’t even know how scientists prove things. Scientists must have undeniable evidence for something to be true before they can accept it. You, on the other hand, need undeniable proof that something is NOT true for you to reject it. So that is why I ask you for proof that Haramein is Einstein. As for your proof against it, I thought the thing would speak for itself, but apparently it doesn’t for you. Let me put it simply. Einstein proposed logical, insightful theories that shook the foundations of science and were proven correct. Haramein proposes absurd, fabricated theories that have been disproven and are of no significance to science. Moving on.
      You give much praise the Haramein, calling him “the greatest genius since Galileo.” Yet you fail to realize that he pulls ideas out of thin air and calls them the truth. Why do you continue to follow him? Is it because you believe that all of his theories are absolute truth and that anything conflicting with them must be false? If so, wake up. Haramein is a fraud. Don’t listen to him.
      Next claim, summed up: “Haramein is a great scientist and you are pathetic and jealous of him.” We are not jealous of him. We would never be jealous of a pseudoscientist such as Haramein.
      “Listen to what Haramein is saying!” I’m sure it is the same bullshit that he said in Thrive.
      “Join us or be left behind!” Firstly, let me say that Haramein is not leading you to a great revelation. He’s simply accumulated a massive following of idiots like yourself and leading you to believe completely false things. Why? Because you give him your money. This isn’t much unlike Scientology. Both preach made-up bullshit and then have you pay them a pretty penny for hearing their “amazing insight.”
      So, in the end you’ve just been twisted by his phony claims and are too stupid to realize it. Yet you so passionately believe in them that you’re willing to pay $84 for a DVD full of his nonsense. Then, when someone tries to set you straight, you simply attack them because you’re so mislead that you think they are the frauds and that you’re an amazing visionary of the next generation.
      I also noticed you had quite a vivid vocabulary. Did you think that would make you look smarter? Because combined with the ridiculous ideas you propose, it makes you even more of a laughingstock.

      Muertos and company, I am so sorry that you have to listen to these dunces. I appreciate your articles and I will try to help you set these people straight as best as I can. Thanks for all that you do.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Tom isn’t a Thriver. He likes to troll and parody Gamble and his followers. So I guess joke’s on you for trying to debunk him :P.

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

        Hi Wyboth,

        I appreciate your long response to my announcement of Haramein’s appearance on C2C. I just finished answering Slingshot below and I would raise to you the same question I raised to him, namely, why did he correctly perceive my posting as satire while you did not recognize it as satire?

        As I told him, I have a definite reason for trolling, not for its own sake, but for pedagogical reasons. I am a retired HS math and physics teacher. I have a BS in Physics, having bailed out in 2nd year grad school without an MS. I taught undergrad physics labs at Vanderbilt U. in Nashville, TN for 4 years.

        On the other side, I am also friends with Elizabeth Rauscher, who was hired by Foster Gamble to write Haramein’s physics papers for him. Indeed, in my last phone conversation with Elizabeth, she detailed the reasons why her name is NOT attached to Haramein’s “Schwarzschild Proton” paper. She told Nassim to take her name off the paper because Nassim had decided to make a leap of faith to declare that there was a unification of relativistic gravity with quantum vacuum considerations.

        Such a unification is still dead wrong in the field of modern physics and only those who may be called “Quantum Mystics” — like Nassim and other New Agers — champion that alleged unified field theory. That’s when Elizabeth bailed out of her collaboration with Nassim and they have not been in contact for 3 to 4 years by now.

        But the reason for my trolling is that I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the approach of the skeptics and debunkers toward anything called pseudo-science. Obviously, you are correct in debunking Haramein — hells bells, even his own former collaborator debunks him!!! — but when all is said and done, no matter how effective the debunking is, it really doesn’t mean diddly-squat in the greater scheme of modern science today.


      • OzzieThinker says :

        Your comments debunk nothing. It still boils down to “who is believed”. “We” have no evidence for or against so we…

        a) claim they have no “credentials”
        b) ridicule the information source
        c) slander all “connected to” or “appear to support” the theory
        d) generally flame “obviously stupid” ideas.

        All I can say is [large & smelly] :farttttttttttttttttttttttttttt:

        The same goes for the “for” camp who

        a) claim the “credentials” confirm genius
        b) overstate the information source
        c) congratulate the “integrity” of all who support or claim a connection to the theory [however unrelated]
        d) generally flame “obviously stupid” ideas

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Ozzie, I do not think you understand the scientific concepts of peer review and falsifiability. Any scientific theory must be testable, and Haramein has not offered a means to test his theories. Show me a peer-reviewed paper on his subjects, and then we will talk. Show me a way to test his theories, and then we will talk. Until then, do not claim that he has scientific merit.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Mr Anon I have NEVER claimed Mr Haramein has any merit.

        Where you bin dog?

    • Slingshot says :

      I can only imagine that your comment is a piece of sublime sarcasm, and with that in mind, I really enjoyed it.

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

        Thank you Slingshot. You got it right and I appreciate your praise. But even more, I appreciate the fact that you can recognize good satire when you see it.

        Now the question I would really like to see addressed here is: what is it that caused you to perceive and recognize my satire as satire, while the commenter just before you, named Wyboth, failed to recognize it at all?

        Since I am a retired math and physics teacher and have at least a passing acquaintance with the philosophy, history and methodology of science, then the raising of that question is something that actually begins to speak to the essence of scientific epistemology. In short, I do not troll for the sake of trolling; I troll for the sake of teaching.

        Oh, BTW, Slingshot, since you were so perspicacious in recognizing a good trolling satire, then I ask you a further question which speaks to the method in my trolling madness: which side do you believe was the target of my satire: the New Agey Haramein side of gushing light-worker Thriveteers? Or the dour hidebound tunnel-vision skeptics on the debunker side? Or possibly both?

  26. jeremyhornephd says :

    Haramein published “The Schwarzschild Proton” in the American Institute of Physics CP 1303, pp. 95-100, December 2010, and Kurweil net seems to approve [http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-nassim-haramein]., My concern as a logician and one interested in the philosophy of science is about what occurs at what I would call the “borderlands of science”. Muertos, I like your approach about pointing to scientific methodologies irrespective of credentials, and for one who has to deal with peer review issues constantly (www.iiis.org), we need to direct people to the discussion in this way. I would like to invite you to submit a paper to our conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication, and Management [http://www.iiis-fall2012.org/icta/website/default.asp?vc=49 ] formalizing your article, of which I am a program committee member (among numerous others). We need to present “case example” of those treading on those borderlands.

  27. sorbes says :

    Some of these comments are hilarious.

    My parents are really into Nassim and I’m sick of all the “woo” crap. What we need are more logical thinkers who make decisions based on fact and reason. Real solutions to our problems come from things like changing our food and farming practices, finding not free but sustainable energy, and accepting that we may be flawed but we are capable of so much.

    Thanks, muertos, for putting up with all these bullshitters to help spread logic and reason.

  28. jd huff says :

    prove it i was waiting for him or some one to prove or disprove his science as for the math it seems to be used to make up for all the things that don`t work in physics kinda like bad accounting make the numbers say what you want so far i have seen two kind of people talking about this blind hate and blind faith i was hoping he may be right if he is break through`s are forth coming if not the fact that there is no truth in any of the science will speak for its self don`t tell me what an ass he is show that he is wrong physics is not that hard the math looks hard the question is why they need this math to be so hard because string theory does not work the numbers don`t add up so how do i make the numbers work make the math harder then it can say what i want is what he`s saying right true or real science good question why are none of you willing to wait and see or at least show prove that he is wrong prove prove he is wrong i will study the math learn some new physics or at least try but blind hater have no more to offer than the blind faith

    • Lee says :

      JD, the burden of proof isn’t on us but Haramein. Which is why Muertos call out Haramein as charlatan because so far he has not provide proof for his theories.

  29. Kevin Morrissey says :

    What utterly amazes me is the complete ABSENCE in either the documentary “Thrive” OR its debunkers, of the work of John Searl and Searl Magnetics, and his Searl Effect Generator. The same pattern emerges: Searl invented a zero point energy device harnessing exotic magnetism to create ionization and then apply it to create electric current. In the sixties. His claim is that he used it to power his home for 30 years, but that it was confiscated by the British utility company by whom he was employed. Why was he left out of the entire loop?

    • OzzieThinker says :

      Searl effect looks ‘closed shop’ and full of “huff and puff”. When they “open it out” to the real world maybe I’ll figure it. Otherwise it’s jest another “thrive project” open to the cynical jackals.

  30. Mitch Brooks says :


    the actor who plays Nassim Haramein also played the husband in the film orgasm during childbirth on youtube
    his name is Eddie Bolero

  31. Alan says :

    Nassim Haramein’s patent…


    Picture of his device…


    Nassim answering (possibly) some of your questions… (Please don’t waste your time “debunking” the interviewer, just listen)

    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZckzcqJQjU
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUUoGX5GvDo&feature=relmfu

    I would be interested in knowing how he could create such a device if his theories are ‘unprovable’ as a lot of you are refuting.

    @Mitch Brooks – That is his wife and that is his kid. They weren’t hiding any of those details in the film that clip was taken from. Conscious / natural birthing is a beautiful way to bring people into this world, unlike the torturous practices of our patriarchal medical establishments.

    • Lee says :

      “I would be interested in knowing how he could create such a device if his theories are ‘unprovable’ as a lot of you are refuting.”

      Alan, is there any video of his device tested and verified by scientists to be real?

      • Alan says :

        There are no videos of the device as far as I know, but it has been tested and verified by other scientists. Sorry I cannot find the verification documents for that claim… other than what Nassim has said about it. But that is something that I do not have a hard time believing, his message / claims / theories really haven’t changed that much in the last 20 years. Everything that I have found on him is very self-consistent, but of course on this blog that means nothing.

    • Lee says :

      No offense to you or Mr Haramein but unless there’s proof his device has been verified by the scientists he claimed then i still don’t believe him.

      • Anastasio says :

        Come on Lee, what you have here is Alan’s faith in Haramein’s word.

        Surely that’s good enough proof for even the most hardened of sceptics?

        To be fair, it’s nice to see Haramein finally give something tangible back to his followers in return for all the money he’s taken off them – and no doubt a welcome relief for Alan, given the amount of time and money he’s admitted to blindly investing in Haramein’s delegate programme.
        It is kind of funny though huh? How a “leading world physicist” has to beseech the general public for funding to develop ideas he’s had a mere twenty years to bring to fruition?


        Anastasio’s thought of the day:

        Q) How many $10/month subscription fees does it take to bring about a paradigm shift?

        A) Well if you don’t pay you’ll never know!

        I wonder just how much of those fees will go to help pay the rent on his plush pad in Hawaii? Presumably, the hot tub in his back yard was paid for by the likes of Alan? Perks of the job, nothing wrong with that. I’m sure Nassim is completely transparent when it comes to accounting for how he spends his subscribers’ investments, sure.

        “I would be interested in knowing how he could create such a device if his theories are ‘unprovable’ as a lot of you are refuting. ”

        What Alan doesn’t seem to understand is that the more important issue here is that his mentor actually delivers on his claims, not that we nasty, narrow-minded people check our tendency to refute them as ‘unprovable’. That’s just an inevitable side effect of repeatedly suffering prevarication at the hands of a “leading world physicist”.
        We can’t help it if we prefer to see evidence for extravagant claims made by unqualified strangers who beg for our money. It’s not necessarily sceptical, cynical or close-minded behaviour. It’s just a simple common courtesy that any gentleman would extend to another with the tacit understanding that this, along with a great outside-the-box idea, is how the world moves forward.

        So as Haramein has allegedly had his device independently verified then it shouldn’t be too long before the evidence is made public proper, and I’m sure Alan will keep us all updated as to Haramein’s imminent breakthrough in physics.

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :


        Your problem is that you have lived for too long in the Mother Country of England. What you need to do is plan a vacation in Hawaii because that’s where all great minds go to shift world paradigms.

        Not only does Nassim and his Resonance Project crew live in Hawaii, so does Adam Trombly. You have a great mind, Anastasio! It’s such a shame to let it go to waste in a drab and dreary country like England. Instead, please fulfill your world destiny by moving to Hawaii and joining forces with Nassim.

        I was inspired by this comment on the above panhandling video:

        I have watched all of his videos. He lives in Hawaii and works with other great minds to get the message out about the possibilities that exist with the new physics that he has put together and is sharing with the world. I think $10.00 a month is worth being part of the change that has to come. It is so little for so much.

      • Paul says :

        $10 is nothing until you multiply it by all the stupid people in the world. Shit, that’s a lot of zeroes!

  32. Cantor's Dream says :

    I’ve seen Thrive…
    Thrive is a very positive movie that can bring positive change in this world.

    So what’s the point in debunking a movie ? You state Thrive is debunked ?! Does the process of debunking even use the scientific method ? Debunking is science at al isn’t it ? How can something that isn’t science at all bring ‘Evidence’ or deny ‘Evidence’ for advanced theoretical scientific theories ? Debunking almost always ends in trashing people. Which is a very negative thing.

    • Lee says :

      “How can something that isn’t science at all bring ‘Evidence’ or deny ‘Evidence’ for advanced theoretical scientific theories ?”

      You should ask those questions to the makers or “Thrive” movie because so far they haven’t shown any evidence which has been scientifically tested or verified AFAIK.

      “Debunking almost always ends in trashing people. Which is a very negative thing.”

      Just because the debunking upsets someone doesn’t mean it’s negative.

      False hope derived from conspiracy theories is even more negative IMO.

  33. Alan says :

    You’ll be the first to know Anastasio.

    Alan’s thought of the day:

    Q) How would anyone bring about a social / political / economic / scientific / human revolution without being funded by the people who the changes would actually benefit?

    A) Well if you don’t pay WE will never know.

    If you want to talk to Nassim about issues you may have with him or the foundation he is a part of he makes himself available to the public every month in his conference calls and he gladly answers everyone’s questions.

    • Anastasio says :

      Aw shucks Al, thanks for putting me first and keeping me in the loop. In fact, why not just fly by my pad for a beer and tell me in person when Haramein hits the big time? Just be sure you give me advance warning, as owing to the fact I cannot disprove the existence of vampires I might inadvertently slap you in the face with a handful of garlic if you come tapping on my window in your new hash-powered anti-gravity boots.

      Until that moment, I’ll maintain my interest in programmes where $10 a month really does makes all the difference to the beneficiaries. Let’s not say I am closed-minded to reject Haramein’s pleas, but perhaps more guilty of prudence in balancing my resources so those who are actually in need of help receive it.

      I mean you don’t exactly fill me with confidence anyway Al – you suck as a salesman and as an official representative of Haramein you know surprisingly little about his work and motives. So yes, given your advice it is perhaps wiser to speak with the organ grinder instead of the monkey – and you can ask yourself if that delegate course was money well spent.

      I’m sure Haramein will gladly answer why he has no problem being called “one of the world’s leading physicists” yet he feels the need to lie on his site about one of his papers ‘passing the peer review process’.
      I don’t know; maybe I’m the only person who finds that wrong and hilarious in a perverse kind of way? Those with intelligence to insult also have reasonable cause to gripe.

      Tell me Al, before the incense was lit and the rumination of your daily profundity started working its magic for the greater good of humanity, did you consider how Einstein was able to deliver his Special Theory of Relativity at the tender age of twenty-six, while working at a patents office in Bern? Or how Tesla arrived in the USA with four cents in his pocket and for an episode even resorted to manual labour to make ends meet whilst (supposedly) wishing to power the world free of charge? Do you wonder why Pasteur didn’t hold the world to ransom with his cures for rabies and anthrax because no one subscribed to him?

      Do you find it impossible or illogical that none of these men requested subscriptions from the people they wanted to help so they could develop their work, yet they still managed to deliver?

      Sometimes Al your ideas are just so full of WTF!? I have to wonder if you’re maybe spending just a little bit too much time inside your own head with all this meditation business!

  34. Alan says :

    I would be happy to address any questions regarding Nassim’s work to the best of my knowledge, but as of yet nothing has been brought up concerning that side of this issue. This blog is about attacking his character (and now mine?), claiming he is a fraud / charlatan without a single person here who can decipher what his equations actually mean. If you watch his videos he spells it out quite clearly in an elementary fashion and he even takes the time to explain these things further in various interviews, newsletters and conference calls for people to find answers they may have regarding the work he does.

    Tell me Ana, have you ever heard of Jacob Barnett? His college professors think he may have solved some of the biggest problems in astrophysics, expanding on Einstein’s Relativity, “debunking” the big bang theory and he is 12… Only time will tell where his theories actually take him but more and more people are coming around to ideas that are solving the current problems in every aspect of our global community. If you are involved in other projects that are helping humanity evolve don’t you think a collaboration would be much more effective rather than attempting to refute other people’s projects or areas of interest?

    I’m not sure where the problem with his ‘peer-reviewed’ paper is coming from. Maybe you can enlighten me on what that process is about? I would imagine since his paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal (American Institute of Physics) and was reviewed at the CASYS ’09 conference that it was peer reviewed…?

    Yeah Einstein took the claim to fame for his famous equations but was he just a front man for a body of unnoticed work that he took notes from; did his financiers choose him over others because he was willing to adjust his equations to match the current understandings of a static universe rather than go with his original findings of an expanding one? I honestly do not care either way because it is probably impossible to know for sure, but since there are still unsolved problems in his theories I will continue my research to find the solutions to those problems. I found Nassim because of the research I was doing for one of my physics classes and have yet to find a professor that will / can refute his theories (more of them are interested in learning more about his theories oddly enough). I am continuing my own progress in math and physics to figure it out for myself but until someone takes the time to fully address problems in his theories from an informed and qualified position (not from an alias like Bob-a-thon) I will not be convinced of a “de-bunking” based on someone else’s character judgement.

    If you want to read into more of the “technical” explanations of Nassim’s theories consider reading from this blog: http://vacuumsingularity.wordpress.com/

    • Anastasio says :

      Character assassination? Jesus Alan, I’ve only just met you and all I know of you are the few innocuous, conjecture-ridden comments you have posted here which hardly give me any ground for a fair evaluation of your disposition! In fact, if really pushed to put you on the couch then I would err on the side of caution and contend that you are an open-minded, peace-loving and well-intentioned human being! A little naïve at times perhaps…ok, maybe more like dripping wet behind the ears kind of naïve, but that only convinces me that you are not clever enough to push Haramein’s work on us through deception.

      To that end however, it is my opinion derived from observing Haramein’s behaviour from my position as an innocent bystander that he does indeed capitalise on his sensationalised and mystified brand of bullshit and uses ambiguity to add credence to it. And I won’t apologise for thinking there’s something unwholesome in his methods. His monthly conference call? $12 a call? Since when does it cost $12 to call someone on Skype Alan? That’s just a little less than my internet bill for a whole month!

      This of course brings me back to my original point of funding, a point that you have attempted to smudge over with a conspiracy theory which you then proceeded to disassociate yourself from in the most spectacular nonchalant manner i.e. “This is what really happened but I don’t care anyway because it’s impossible to prove”.

      So why say it and open yet another can of worms then Al?

      Because now I’m obliged, as the narrow-minded sceptic that I am, to ask you to spill the beans! Who were Einstein’s financiers and how far did the influence of their domain extend as to successfully convince scientists and mathematicians all over the world from Russia to the USA to adopt the theory of relativity? Of course, by simply tying Einstein’s work to some kind of conspiracy you run the risk of consequently writing off oh just a few inconsequential contributing factors to the dissemination and reception of Einstein’s work e.g. the results of the Michael-Morley Experiment, mathematical implications of the theory, advance of Mercury Perihelion, variations of electron charge with velocity and a plethora of social and idealist implications to name just a few.

      But no Al, let’s go with your claim that Einstein was financially inclined to adapt his theory to fit the status quo, which of course at that time, was the hypothesis of the ether.

      The irony, you could argue, is that Einstein and Haramein maybe aren’t so different after all! Why you ask? Well where you semi-correctly asserted that Einstein “adjusted his equations”, or rather, Einstein invented the ultimately flawed Cosmological Constant to make his equations fit the model of the static universe (perhaps more of an oversight on his part than a conspiracy by his financiers), Haramein can be seen using the same technique to make his rather heavy protons fit the model of an expanding universe, Of course, we cannot observe the mass of the Schwarzschild Proton as, according to Hyson, it could be oh so conveniently hidden behind an event horizon, but the equations do indeed suggest an entity that should in all actuality weigh billions of tonnes, as correctly asserted by Bob-a-Thon.
      Speaking of whom, the fact that you cannot see past an alias does not detract from the essence of what the man is saying. That’s what we call Argumentum ad Hominem (you go ahead and write that down) in the civilised world, and it’s a classic sign of reluctance to engage the appositeness of the matter.

      If you ask me, Haramein should have thanked Bob for the free-of-charge in-depth review he gave of his paper.

      You want to know what a peer review is? If you seriously have to ask Al then you simply do not deserve to know..

      Now you’ve made this thing grow arms and legs when all I asked was for you to simply explain to me how a $10/month subscription is essential for mankind to benefit from one man’s idea.
      I gave you three classic examples straight off the top of my head why a $10/month subscription isn’t essential and you hit me with some Einstein claptrap. Can you really blame my hesitance in taking you seriously?

      While you chew it over, here’s another reason why I think Haramein is a con artist; jump to 03:59 for the revelation:

      Now here’s a list of all the solar telescopes in the world to date (two were not in commission at the time of Haramein’s statement):

      GREGOR solar telescope,
      BBO NST
      Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope
      Prairie View Solar Observatory
      Dutch Open Telescope
      THÉMIS Solar Telescope
      Vacuum Tower Telescope
      Swedish Vacuum Solar Telescope
      Hida Domeless Solar Telescope
      Full Disk H-alpha Telescope
      H-alpha Spar Telescope
      Coudé Telescope
      Big Bear Solar Observatory
      Richard B. Dunn Solar Telescope
      Solar Observatory Tower Meudon
      McMath-Pierce Solar Telescope
      ARIES Observatory
      Locarno Gregory Coude Telescope
      Solar Tunnel Telescope
      50-foot tower, McMath-Hulbert Observatory
      10.5 inch, McMath-Hulbert Observatory
      Solar Tower Telescope by Zeiss
      150-foot tower, Mount Wilson Observatory
      Snow Solar Telescope, Mount Wilson Observatory
      Lerebour/Grubb-Parsons, Kodaikanal Solar Observatory

      Q) How many solar telescopes in the list above?
      A) 26 (24 at the time Haramein makes his accusation)

      Q) How many solar telescopes in the list above are owned by the Vatican?
      A) None

      Q) How many solar probes have been launched in total?
      A) 19

      Q) How many are owned by the Vatican?
      A) None

      (For the sake of brevity you can Google “Wikipedia Solar Probes” for documentation)

      Maybe you can ask Haramein about the slight discrepancy in his research next time you pay $12 for the privilege of speaking to him on the phone.

      • Alan says :

        I actually did not watch your posted video because it has been “blocked from my country on copyright grounds.” But I am rather amused by your defense of the Vatican, trashing of research pioneers / their methods of making money with their intelligence, hyping up of your own incredulous thought process and the admitted attempt of making others accept this blog’s de-bunking without offering any type of credential to your existence.

        There have been many speculators on this site claiming that you and your team of debunkers are of a misinformation nature (which remains a valid theory until proven otherwise). The defense to that accusation is usually not wanting to get personal lives involved… but instead spend countless hours criticizing the personal lives of those who are on record.

        I am interested in finding out what your research has lead you to find, what theories do you prescribe to? What does the advancement of humanity entail in your version of the future? Where does your vote (euro, pound, dollar, whatever currency you use) lay? What is it that drives you to wake up every morning? What is your purpose? Is it all doom and gloom in your eyes? Can we thrive as a species? Does having a negative attitude towards people who believe it is possible to thrive put you in some superposition?If so, what can you see from that position that we can’t? Does responding to every subject with a negative pretense and “all-knowing” vibe make you feel better about your overall message? What is your understanding of the term ‘god’? Is it possible to “know god”? What does ‘god’ look like? Are you a happy person? Are you a sad person? What’s your favorite color? Which movie from the ‘Back to the Future’ series is your favorite? Are you still reading these questions?

        I am willing to read your responses to my latest posts but after that I think I am going to retire from this blog due to the differing nature of our lives. I wish you the best in all your endeavors and I thank you for the progression of your inquisitive nature imposed on my ideas on the given subjects. Your pressuring to advance my level of thinking has put me on a excellent precursor to this semester’s studies.

        Much love and happiness,


      • Fancy Feet says :

        How about this:

        He presents the movies “Contact” and “Men In Black” showing clips of a birds eye view escaping through the solar system, galaxy and then universe as >>>EVIDENCE<<< for his theories?

        Really? Hollywood imagination and animation is now EVIDENCE HARAMEIN?!?!?!

      • Fancy Feet says :

        I should have clarified at 28-30min mark of that video above he does this… very “illuminating” haramein. Still has a wild imagination that kid!

  35. Alan says :

    “With the continuously increasing population of Rome the skies above the Observatory again became too bright. For this reason in 1981, for the first time in its history, the Observatory founded a second research center, the Vatican Observatory Research Group (VORG), in Tucson, Arizona in the United States, one of the world’s largest and most modern centers for observational astronomy. The Observatory staff have offices at Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona where they also have access to all of the modern telescopes located in the Tucson area. In 1993 the Observatory, in collaboration with Steward Observatory, completed the construction of the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope ( VATT ) on Mt. Graham, Arizona, probably the best astronomical site in the continental United States. This is the first optical-infrared telescope of the Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO), a project which in the coming years will see the construction of some of the world’s most sophisticated and largest telescopes. The VATT has pioneered the new technology of creating large (2 meters in diameter), lightweight, stable mirrors in a rotating furnace. With the VATT in Tucson, the astronomers of the Observatory can finally continue long-term research programs, as done in the past in Castel Gandolfo. Thus from its two centers, located at Castel Gandolfo and at Tucson, the Observatory is continuing various current studies including: cosmological models, spectral classification of particular types of stars, the spread of metal-rich and poor stars, binary stars and exchange of matter, the composition of dark clouds from which new stars are born, particles surrounding young stars and science history. The Observatory carries out these programs in collaboration with many astronomical research institutes in countries including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, South Africa, the United States, and as members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics (ICRA). In 1987 the Observatory in collaboration the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California, began a series of interdisciplinary study seminars bringing together science, philosophy and theology on the theme of divine action from a scientific perspective.”


    Solar telescope that the Vatican has access to in the Tucson area:

    McMath Pierce Solar Telescope – Kitt Peak – http://nsokp.nso.edu/

    Vatican-sponsored meeting discusses chances of extraterrestrial life

    Father Funes said that even though the study week looked exclusively at scientific evidence and theories, it was “very important that the church is involved in this type of research” looking at life in the cosmos.

    He quoted Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, president of the commission governing Vatican City, as telling participants that “truth from research cannot make us afraid; what is to be feared is error.”


    “During much of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, Roman Catholic churches were the best solar observatories in the world.”


    According to Dr. Heilbron, the church “gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other, institutions.”


    If the church has such an interest in astronomy…bases their dogmatic beliefs on solar events…is admittedly interested in extra-terrestrial life in the cosmos…has an extremely questionable financial history…

    I wonder what more than 20 minutes of research on this subject would reveal to me… other than the fact that the Vatican is involved in solar observatories. Your copy and pasting of wiki information clearly shows that you really didn’t look into this matter before writing it off as conspiracy.

    (Give me a minute for the Einstein thing, I just found a copy of his biography from the thrift store and would like to read it first)

    • Lee says :

      What does Vatican interest with astronomy prove (Besides their interest in astronomy)?

      To read anything more than that, without corroborating evidence, is reaching IMO.

    • Anastasio says :

      Wow! What a fantastic education in the Church’s interest in astronomy! That post had it all; well-constructed from start to finish, cites and links to verifiable sources included and your own personal conclusion appended to the bottom. You goddam nailed it Al! And you know what the best part is? If you were posting that in reply to someone who was steadfastly denying that the Vatican has any curiosity in what happens outside the bubble then you would have wiped the floor with them champ!

      But as your own twenty minutes of research correctly demonstrates; the Roman Catholic Church does not hide its solar agenda nor is it a secret that the Jesuits or indeed anyone with a web browser can indeed access a solar telescope:


      Of course there is no conspiracy to ‘write off’ regarding the Vatican’s assets or involvement with astronomy, but how your riposte addresses my point of contention i.e. “MOST of the telescopes and probes that observe the sun are OWNED by no one else than the Vatican” is perplexing to say the least! Did you actually fast forward to 03:59 and listen to Haramein’s inexplicable claim and juxtapose my counter claim, or did you automatically try to smudge over Haramein’s bullshit with more of your own?
      I think the discourse speaks for itself huh Al?

      Now I understand that your role as Haramein’s apologist/ sycophant requires that you systematically throw yourself in front of your idol and obstinately deny any argument I shoot at him, but this bastardisation of the truth regarding the Vatican’s solar assets and the ensuing implications will perhaps take more than twenty minutes of your time to validate.

      Try never in your lifetime.

      What you cannot deny, is that my minute’s worth of Wiki research and copying and pasting, as rudimentary as it was, explicitly highlights yet again Haramein’s ‘gift’ of employing hyperbole and, dare I use that truther cliché, misinformation to sucker those incapable of a minute’s worth of Wiki research out of their money and intellectual dignity.
      He’s a bare-faced liar Alan, and while he suns it up in his hot tub at your expense, you’re here taking the flak and behaving like an asshole in defending him (Straw Man Argument; you go ahead and write that one down too), and as his representative, your whimsical spin on what passes for a solid rebuttal makes Haramein look like even more of a quack every time you open your mouth.

      Just answer one question Al: does the Vatican own most of the world’s solar telescopes and probes as claimed by Haramein?

      Once you’ve figured it out, go back to the drawing board and come back with something a little more relevant please.

      Perhaps you should have read Einstein’s biography before making the claim, but do let me know once you’ve finished skimming through the pages for the incriminating evidence. Who is the author? I guess we should compare notes given that I have admittedly read only one account of the man’s life (Einstein: His Life and Universe – Walter Isaacson) and I am therefore in no position to argue that because there is no conspiracy of the nature you implied in the book I read, does not mean it is not present in other books.
      That would be most narrow-minded of me Alan!

      Perhaps your author will reconstruct the race between the incorruptible Hilbert and the impressionable Einstein to relativity as a foregone conclusion, or he might play on the relationship between Einstein and the highly influential Planck and how he published several of Einstein’s papers in some kind of surreptitious arrangement to finally kill off the ether hypothesis? Perhaps your author might portray Einstein’s pedantic quest for covariance and abandonment of earlier theories i.e. Entwurf and the proposal of his Cosmological Constant as an act of acquiescing to his mysterious ‘financiers’ who wanted to uphold the ‘beloved status quo’ which for many scientists (including many stubborn Limey scientists for years after), was the ether hypothesis?

      While I might be well acquainted with the theories that are usually anti-sematic in origin (tread carefully Alan) and the tired accusations of plagiarism, this is the first I’ve heard of Einstein having financiers who had an influence on his work was wrought out and its international acceptance by scientists and mathematicians in some countries that weren’t exactly seeing eye to eye at the time.
      I can only guess you heard it first on David Ickes’s forum or somewhere equally as reputable.

      To me it just doesn’t add up Al, but to be fair it is an interesting insinuation, and one I truly hope you can follow up on this time.
      I am genuinely open to an education on this matter.

      I’m a roast, baste me.

  36. Alan says :

    Founder of Institute of Advanced Study – Princeton: Abraham Flexnor

    A younger brother of the medical researcher Simon Flexner, who was employed by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901–1935

    Flexner’s book attracted the attention of Henry Pritchett, president of the Carnegie Foundation, who was looking for someone to lead a series of studies of professional education. Although Flexner had never set foot inside a medical school, he was Pritchett’s first choice to lead a study of American medical education. Thus he joined the research staff at the Carnegie Foundation in 1908.

    With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, he worked toward restructuring the nation’s medical schools.

    Flexner helped to bring over many European scientists who would likely have suffered persecution at the hands of the rising Nazi government. Flexner even penned the letter inviting Albert Einstein to the Institute and to the United States.


    Interesting criticism of the Institute:

    The Institute’s founding premise, that individuals with lifetime tenure and no assigned duties will produce the most outstanding scholarship, is not universally shared. For example,

    The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn’t the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren’t good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.[2]
    —Richard Hamming, You and Your Research, 1986

    When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don’t get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they’re not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. Nothing happens because there’s not enough real activity and challenge: You’re not in contact with the experimental guys. You don’t have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!
    —Richard Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, 1985


    “To his horror, during the late 1930s, physicists began seriously to consider whether his equation E = mc2 might make an atomic bomb possible. In 1920 Einstein himself had considered but eventually dismissed the possibility. However, he left it open if a method could be found to magnify the power of the atom. Then in 1938–39 Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, Lise Meitner, and Otto Frisch showed that vast amounts of energy could be unleashed by the splitting of the uranium atom. The news electrified the physics community.

    In July 1939 physicist Leo Szilard asked Einstein if he would write a letter to U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt urging him to develop an atomic bomb. Following several translated drafts, Einstein signed a letter on August 2 that was delivered to Roosevelt by one of his economic advisers, Alexander Sachs, on October 11. Roosevelt wrote back on October 19, informing Einstein that he had organized the Uranium Committee to study the issue.

    Einstein was granted permanent residency in the United States in 1935 and became an American citizen in 1940, although he chose to retain his Swiss citizenship. During the war Einstein’s colleagues were asked to journey to the desert town of Los Alamos, New Mexico, to develop the first atomic bomb for the Manhattan Project. Einstein, the man whose equation had set the whole effort into motion, was never asked to participate. Voluminous declassified Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files, numbering several thousand, reveal the reason: the U.S. government feared Einstein’s lifelong association with peace and socialist organizations. (FBI director J. Edgar Hoover went so far as to recommend that Einstein be kept out of America by the Alien Exclusion Act, but he was overruled by the U.S. State Department.) Instead, during the war Einstein was asked to help the U.S. Navy evaluate designs for future weapons systems. Einstein also helped the war effort by auctioning off priceless personal manuscripts. In particular, a handwritten copy of his 1905 paper on special relativity was sold for $6.5 million. It is now located in the Library of Congress.”


    The book I am reading is the same one you mentioned, “Einstein: His Life and Universe” – Walter Isaacson. It is very interesting to read about his childhood, for some reason, to me, it resonates with the childhood stories of Nassim being an independent, questioner of authority, strong proponent of peace and anti-nationalism, questioner of dogmatic practices… all while not negating a strong need for understanding the nature of ‘god’ from a scientific standpoint. In many ways it would almost seem as if Nassim picked up directly where Einstein left off (in an almost reincarnate type of manner). But of course that much speculation and “reaching” are not supported here.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      In many ways it would almost seem as if Nassim picked up directly where Einstein left off (in an almost reincarnate type of manner). But of course that much speculation and “reaching” are not supported here.


      How exciting that you should refer to a reincarnational link between Einstein and Nassim because in my comment of July 24, 2012, which you can reach by merely scrolling up on this very screen, I actually offered convincing evidence that Nassim indeed is the very reincarnation of Albert Einstein!

      Therefore you can remove the word “almost” in your sentence above and replace it with “actual.”

      Please allow me to copy that part of my comment for you. (And don’t you think I could go toe to toe with Mean Old Anastasio in an ad hominem invective hurling contest? Please let me know.)


      Do you realize that since Albert Einstein died in 1955 and that Nassim Haramein was born 7 years later in Switzerland in 1962, during the same year that Niels Bohr himself died in Denmark, that you are witnessing the very entelechy of Albert Einstein now reincarnated as the being known as Nassim Haramein?

      I challenge you, Muertos and your disinformationistic coven of sniveling malicious malcontents who comment here , to show any kind of evidence whatsoever that proves Nassim Haramein is NOT the reincarnation of Albert Einstein. Until you provide such definitive evidence, then we can all proceed on the conviction that indeed Haramein is Einstein. End of story.

      So Mr. Big Shot Debunker Muertos, you snide, contemptible, loathsome, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistically sardonic academic dilettante, how dare you and your sordid spiteful ilk of ill-willed, petty, puny-brained, faux-intellectual, carping, cretinistic, caviling critics say anything negative against the most sublimely intelligent and perspicacious physicist genius since Galileo Galilei? How utterly clueless you are about the greatness of Nassim Haramein. And yet he is magnanimous enough to forgive your crude inanity and crass invidiousness and still invite you to the banquet table of his Grand Unified Theory of Modern Physics so that you may partake of his marvelous feast.

      Hollywood Tomfortas,
      The Tom-Fool Dzogchen of Los Angeles

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      OMG, Alan! Wait, please don’t leave the enemy camp yet! Something astounding just happened that you will need to report directly back to Nassim! I have just received a definite mathematical confirmation from the universe that indeed Nassim is the reincarnation of Einstein. More than that, the particular number that appeared is the very missing link that Nassim needs to prove conclusively his Grand Unification of Quantum physics with relativity.

      You see, when I had submitted my comment to you above confirming the reincarnational pedigree of Nassim Haramein, I returned to the top of the page and noted that my comment was Comment number 137 for this particular blog entry.

      I realize that with your physics background I need not tell you the astonishing significance of the appearance of this well nigh magical number. But I must now explain this number’s significance to those who are not well-versed in the field of physics.

      This magical number 137 is the truncated integer value of the inverse Fine Structure Constant, FSC, symbolically expressed by the Greek letter lower case Alpha.

      Thus 137 = 1 / Alpha or equivalently Alpha = 1/137

      Here is what Richard Feynman wrote about this number in 1985:

      “ It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

      Now applying this number to Nassim’s Grand Unification of black holes with protons, here are some avenues of research for you and nassim to follow.

      [1] If you take any 2 point particles each with a mass equal to the Planck Mass and each one having a Coulomb charge of the elementary charge e and put them at any distance apart from each other, then the FSC is always the ratio of their Coulomb electric repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force.

      [2] Alpha is the very ratio between the maximum angular momentum allowed by relativity for a closed electron orbit in an atom, and the minimum angular momentum allowed for it by quantum mechanics.
      Finally allow me to quote from a website where some classical physics speculation by physicist Bill Riemers provides the 137 key to Nassim’s unification of black holes and photons.


      Dr. Bill Riemers writes: classical physics tells us that electrons captured by element #137 (as yet undiscovered and unnamed) of the periodic table will move at the speed of light. The idea is quite simple, if you don’t use math to explain it. The ratio 1 to 137 is the odds that an electron will absorb a single photon. Protons and electrons are bound by interactions with photons. So when you get 137 protons, you get 137 photons, and you get a 100% chance of absorption. An electron in the ground state will orbit at the speed of light. This is the electromagnetic equivalent of a black hole. For gravitational black hole, general relativity comes to the rescue to prevent planets from orbiting at the speed of light and beyond. For an electromagnetic black hole, general relativity comes to the rescue and saves element 137 from having electrons moving faster than the speed of light.

      Thus you see now Alan what a pivotal role you are playing as an important emissary of Nassim Haramein, the greatest physicist in the world since “sliced bread.” Please invite him to participate in this monumental discussion of his Grand Unified Theory for All of Humanity as well as all the Extraterrestrials who communicate to us through crop circles.

      Hollywood Tomfortas
      Tom Fool to the Stars
      The 137th Dzogchen of Los Angeles

  37. Alan says :

    More interesting similarities of Albert and Nassim:

    “Eddington’s confirmation projected Einstein–already one of the world’s most highly regarded physicists–into the public limelight. An “original” who expressed amusement and indifference at his notoriety, he traveled frequently over the next fifteen years: around the world in 1922-1923 (in part to escape from threats against his life in the anti-Semitic aftermath of Walther Rathenau’s murder), to South America in 1925, to the United States in 1921 and then several times in the early 1930s. In his travels he spoke about physics–usually general relativity–and raised funds for the Zionist cause. His high-pitched voice, uncomplicated (not to say unrefined) manners and clumsy gait, and his large frame and mane of white hair made him an instant sensation. Institutions of higher learning vied for his attention, offering him honorary doctorates and visiting positions. His preferred arrangement was at the University of Leiden, where he could be near Hendrik Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest, although he also found Oxford and Pasadena to his liking. Heads of state–President Warren G. Harding and King Albert of the Belgians–sought his audience. No scientist had ever enjoyed such encomium.

    Given his public commitments, the mature Einstein’s scientific output is remarkable. He continued to explore the technical side of general relativity and sought a theory to unite gravitation and electromagnetism–work appearing in a regular stream of articles. He neglected new developments in atomic and nuclear physics. Einstein held the quantum theory–the elaboration of which had netted him the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics after years of studied neglect by the Nobel committee–to be a temporary construct. He steadfastly declined to embrace quantum mechanics, worked out during the 1920s by Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Louis de Broglie, and Max Born. The uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality, cornerstones of Niels Bohr’s philosophy of quantum mechanics, had no appeal. Einstein explicitly rejected Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics in a paper published jointly with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (Physical Review 47 [1935]: 777-80), and for the rest of his life he publicly contested Bohr about it.

    Einstein’s greatest emotional distance was not from the lay public–he got along easily with financiers in New York as well as farmers in nearby Freehold–but rather from professional physicists. Precision measurement and Baconian inventory had dominated exact sciences in the United States since the nineteenth century, and massive machines of research–enormous telescopes, diffraction-ruling engines, electrical power generators–naturally paved the way for particle accelerators in the 1930s. Physics, as well as other scientific disciplines, was organized into academic departments. The academic physics department was a federation of scientists sharing common principles and retailing a coherent syllabus. The system departed from the academic individuality of Central Europe, where universities could harbor two or three independent institutes in one discipline and where no authority prescribed the content of lectures. The Institute for Advanced Study had little in common with American Universities. Professors at the Institute were left to follow their karma, and this was just the environment that Einstein sought. Princeton was his ashram, and he worked there as he had worked in Europe.”


    • Lee says :

      Alan, your excerpt above actually shows Haramein and Einstein have very little in common academically.

      Einstein was respected, he was given honorary doctorates and audience with heads of states.

      When did Haramein or his theories ever get even half the respect Einstein got?

  38. Slingshot says :

    It’s dots…. it’s dots all the way up.

  39. Micheal says :

    You touched on the topic of fringe scientists. How would you explain the fact that there have been many proffesionals in there fields that if they find something that does not fit, history, as stated in the text books, they tend to loose there jobs. Why does that happen. Personally I tend to think it lends credability to the fact that there are some subjects that those in power do not want tampered with. How would you explain it.

    • Lee says :

      “How would you explain the fact that there have been many proffesionals (Sic) in there fields that if they find something that does not fit, history, as stated in the text books, they tend to loose there jobs.”


      I didn’t know Einstein and Stephen Hawkings lost their jobs as scientist because of their breakthrough theories on relativity and black holes, respectively /Sarcasm.

      • Paul says :

        Yep. In fact, Newton was so revolutionary they put him in charge of the bank of England.
        PS Have you noticed how few people know how to spell “lose”?

  40. OzzieThinker says :

    A paragraph from the Chapter “Mohamed & the Pig” of my book “A brief history of human conscience” fits in nicely in relation to the above comments:

    Going back to knowledge – knowledge is based on observation and/or experience. Therefore if the observer recognizes the possibility of the Meta or beyond physical, then these are not illusions but simply unquantifiable observations. Illusions are things that are proven to evaporate and not anything that can’t be proven in an empirical sense. When basis is reduced to a consensus of opinion it becomes baseless. Therefore scientific conclusions which are formed from a theoretical basis supported by the consensus, border on being irrelevant. This is not to say science theory is automatically wrong or flawed, but there is a ravine between science-theory and science-fact. The problem science has is nicely summarized by Albert Einstein by the musing, “Man cannot see the truth”. At the quantum level, science is heading towards the conclusions of a holographic effect which reduces reality itself to a super illusion. Under this premise, could Mohamed have been a pig all along and no one around him could see it? For science things are not looking good. As discussed at length later in this volume, science is rapidly turning into little more than a marketing tool. Nevertheless we are faced with a Damocles sword as science is the only way humans can rationalize their environment. The corruption of science is further pressured by the demands from religions to be proven scientifically correct in all their fantasy statements. This is not to say religion is fantasy, but rather if religion makes a statement fantasy is upgraded to fact by proxy. Religion has imposed identical standards for science-history and science-morality. This draws any sane [and impartial] observer to the conclusions that the rationale behind the so-called moral code is more about stereotyping political interests than any credible process towards defining an effective path to redemption. In that way, religions go some way toward creating the broad definitions for moral prisons. Was Mohamed a prisoner of his own faith?

  41. Kevin says :

    I was not raised with any religion and for that, i have a mind that is open to many possibilities and a curiosity to the different religious beliefs or interpretations of a great story….So being raised without religious influences, that would have me believing in something that defines GOD as great when good things happen and GOD’s plan or GOD works in mysterious ways…when millions of people die every year from poverty, while most of us argue on the internet. GOD must be good to all of us online, but if you cant afford internet access or food for your children for that matter and you die from poverty in a time of excess…then that must be his plan or mystery way.

    This basic realization from a child lead me to rely on factual evidence as a base for my personal beliefs in everything. Proof as you might say.
    My personal motto is ‘Question everything and use your intuition’

    Question Newton, question Einstein, question Hawking. I’m am not dismissing their laws, theories or place in history but only to see if what they think is something that sits right with me. It would be very unwise for anyone to treat the word of any person as fact, just because they were people with PHD’s or Doctorates. If anything, I have learnt that science has a major problem with unifying Cosmology and Quantum Physics. As a result ridiculously complex equations are produced that still do not agree and give rise to a new spin off called theoretical physics. Please, you wise people just stop and look at things without the clouded lens of your knowledge being based on equations that may have been wrong! yes maybe Einstein was wrong…he himself apparently was not completely satisfied with his own findings before he died.

    Fortunately we have a fundamental language that we use to indicate what is right and what is not…that being mathematics. There can not be an incorrect mathematical answer, everything must balance to be correct. In my opinion BALANCE is the key, not only to mathematics but to all of the interactions in nature and beyond.

    I was never satisfied with accepting any theory until Nassim Haramein, who looked at the big questions with an open mind and found the commonality in everything. I, believing that everything is connected, had finally found some sense of satisfaction when he demonstrated how the same geometric structures are evident everywhere, but let us not forget about pi and the golden ratio either as they seem to appear all over the place including our own biology.

    All I am saying is that he seems to tie everything together with a fundamental pattern that sounds right to me. Everything big should be based on the same principals of everything small.

    Even the most complex design ever to be conceived should have a fundamental pattern, program, or structure at it’s very core to allow it’s stability and ability to evolve.

    What if Nassim proves to be the guy who got it right.
    Meanwhile, I will continue to question everything including the theory of gravity as opposed to my belief of magnetic forces and an electromagnetic universal force…anyway, for another time.

    • Wyboth says :

      If you’re the guy who questions everything, why not question Nassim? I’m sure you’ll find Einstein’s theories to be much more valid than Haramein’s.

      • kevin holley says :

        I do question everything including Haramein, until his theories became main stream science, I will continue to question everything. Einstein himself was not satisfied from his own findings, and currently speed of light theory is currently under challenge.

        ” To not know is to live in the dark, to not question is to accept no light.”

      • Wyboth says :

        @kevin holley Well, that philosophy is fine, as long as you truly are questioning everything and looking at things with a clear and unbiased mind.

  42. WeFYB says :

    Everybody wins!! I’ve just wasted an hour of my life reading through this nonsense to see if anyone could bring enlightening facts on either side to help me get to at least a balance of probabilities either way about Nassim’s work. So far all I see is people arguing back and forth as ignorantly as the people they counter. Starting from the first letter of the article to the last post.

    FACT: All the things we think we know will change. This has been the case throughout time as civilizations rise and fall we interpret reality differently. Until we know everything is safer to assume we know nothing.

    So congratulations!! You’ve all proven you know nothing!

    Now I float away on a quest for information, facts, relevancy, and evidence (because I can at least admit when I don’t know anything). So here is your prize!!


    You’re welcome! Use it in your quests for knowledge and you might find yourself breaking bread in enemy camps.

    (Also as a bonus prize for anyone who finds a need to try and troll me. I’ve left spelling and grammar errors through out this post so that you may easily arm yourself with how unintelligent I must be. As this has always be the sole indicator of a person’s intelligence as the internet trolls have so thoughtfully asserted.)

    • tofufighter says :

      “Until we know everything is safer to assume we know nothing.”
      WeFYB…. you are joking, right? troll trolling perceived trolls, perhaps?

      “Now I float away on a quest for information, facts, relevancy, and evidence”
      Really, by your logic, what is the point? Anything you learn will either change, or is simply a construct of a falsely perceived reality, so are you not therefore just wasting your time?

      Better to just sit in a mud hut and wait until we know everything.

  43. Wyboth says :

    Hey guys, I’m back – aaaaaand this shit is still going on. Firstly, my apologies to Muertos for being gone for 1 month +. Secondly, I believe I have an explanation for why there are so many idiots in these comments and so few smart people. And no, it’s not a conspiracy theory.

    So, firstly: the reason why there are so many conspiracy theorists here. All of these conspiracy theorists are Thrive fanatics. They’ve been manipulated by Thrive and are looking for everything related to it. Well, if you Google Thrive, this blog is one of the first results. Naturally, they’re curious as to what it is, so they read a few words of it, then proceed to spread their ass cheeks and shit all over the comments. So that explains why there are so many conspiracy theorists here, but why so few intelligent people?

    Well, Thrive is the kind of thing most (intelligent) people would stay away from. It’s a conspiracy theory documentary, and if you possess at least half of a brain, you wouldn’t be looking for anything related to it in the first place. So most of the people who happen upon Thrive stumble upon it by accident. In my case, I was searching for models of a torus when I happened upon the infamous “free energy” segment, and when Haramein said that stars travel in a torus path above the galactic plane, I went dumb ape. I believe that this is most likely the case for intelligent people, that they come upon Thrive by accident. But only a small portion of these people actually decide to do something about it. Why? Most think it’s a waste of time to try and convince conspiracy theorists that they’re wrong. Others, like me, want to give it a try, and maybe actually help someone. These are the few intelligent people in these comments.

    So, that’s my theory on the nature of the commenters. Opinion time!

    Conspiracy Theorists: Go die in a hole.

    Debunkers: Keep up the good work.

    • OzzieThinker says :

      Are debunkers allowed to debunk “official” or “mainstream” opinion? Uh-oh that would make then “conspiracy theorists”.

      Why not be honest Wybroth. Fess up your real name Mr Propaganda.

      • Wyboth says :

        I said before that revealing your full name and identity on the internet was a bad idea, so I’ll give you my first name and my last initial, as well as my state. My name is Richard T. and I live in Tennessee. The reason why I don’t debunk mainstream opinion (on science, I assume is what you mean) is because I find no faults in it. Conspiracies, however, I do find faults in, so I debunk them. You see, I don’t exclusively debunk only one kind of opinion. I perpetually criticize those opinions which I find logically unsound.

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

        Hey, cool beans, Richard! I taught undergraduate physics labs at Vanderbilt U. in Nashville for 4 years before I went Hollywood. Lived in Franklin and even got to be a Damned Yankee expert on the Battle of Franklin.

        And also of note: during that time frame in TN (1999-2002), I actually met with both Foster Gamble and Nassim Haramein at a conference in California.

      • Wyboth says :

        That is pretty cool, Tom. I’m considering Vanderbilt among my college options (yes, Who_Cares, I’m in High School). Too bad you’re in California; I could have met you in real life.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Well Richard T. of Tennessee it is clear you are either deaf dumb and blind or have so little insight the world passes you by unnoticed.

      • Wyboth says :

        Ozzie, I think you deserve the Medal of Hypocrisy. Through your extensive history on this website, I have been able to grasp the vastness of your lack of understanding of nearly everything. If anyone, you are the person that the world ignores. Really, try going up to a normal person and tell them all of your beliefs. See how many fucks they give. But, if I told that same person what I believe, they would agree with me. You see, the real world thinks before they accept. You are a minority, Ozzie.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        Clearly you are a little twerp. As one who has read 1000’s of books and 10,000’s of circulars, I point you to humble Ghandi who said, “the truth only needs to be supported by a majority of one”.

        As you can’t comprehend truth, doubtless you will not understand Ghandi.

      • Wyboth says :

        You misunderstand Gandhi. I would add that the truth only needs to be supported by one, but because something is supported by one does not mean that it is the truth.

        So how do you go about finding the truth? You do so by examining every possible option, thinking deeply about all of them, then conducting rigorous experiments until all are eliminated by one. You will then know that the one remaining is the truth.

        But you do not do this. You just accept Thrive’s messages as the truth without question. How can you know that Thrive is telling the truth if you don’t put it to the test?

        When I watched Thrive, I didn’t just accept it. I said, “If these are true, then they should be supported by fact and experiment.” But they were neither, so I concluded that Thrive was not proclaiming the truth.

        If you really want to find the truth, I advise you to do the same.

  44. Jan says :

    At some point in the video (at about 18 minutes) Nassim talks about the “fu dogs” in The Forbidden City – this is untrue: they are lions.

  45. Tosca Z says :

    So, if you debunk all alternative theories, that leaves us with what? Accepting what we’ve been told about reality, about governments, big corporations and all there rest of the hogwash that’s continually being fed to us to keep us ignorant, un-thinking, quiet and manageable.

    Better to dare think differently in the search for truth and be proven wrong (not by you but by new knowledge and future experience) that to sit like wing-clipped birds quietly in our cages.

    Shame on you for setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth. You are just another person with another opinion, with your own beliefs. Like all of us, you have the right to choose who and what to believe, but not to pretend you know how our universe really works when even esteemed scientists don’t claim to.

    Humanity’s search for truth and understanding has always, and will continue because daring individuals are willing to present their new ideas, knowing that they may be ridiculed, dismissed or even harmed because of their ideas. The Inquisition did not stop in the middle ages. It continues in sites like these.

  46. Daniel Arzuaga says :

    I’ve seen the movie thrive a few times and i have also seen the work of Nassim Haramein a few times. Although i come from a more academic background myself i am of the believe that even though i see some flaws in the research and even in the explanations the give, i always try to integrate what i find valuable from anything i learn and incorporate it into my current mental model of reality. This i have found gives me a more complete and integrated picture. This has been my experience.

    As far as the discussion going on here between the ‘debunkers’ and ‘believers’ i personally think its great because even though from the outside it may seem like you guys are on opposite sides of the argument, this is helping more and more people to at least start thinking and questioning things for themselves whether they choose to ‘believe’ or ‘debunk’ is not as important (at this moment in the development of were these issues stand) but what seems more importnat is that its starting to be more and more in the forefront of what people are thinking and talking about.

    So thank you both to the ‘believers’ and ‘debunkers’ for being so passionate on your views, it helps us all.

    • Michelle Kathryn McGee says :

      As far as the infamous-to-debunkers Nassim, I don’t think he’s off base in being passionate about fixing our notions of reality or even in trying to find a coathook in the cosmological unknown (the notion of protons as black holes). The problem is that he is not only ahead of his time but ahead of himself! Thus his lack of humility in the face of the great unknown he himself likes to evoke becomes, to the same degree as his conviction and enthusiasm, a sham.

      Daniel A you get the heart-mind award! I mean that sincerely. The perspective you shared is not just about “okay guys wouldn’t it be nicer if we all got along”. It is about noticing that whether we see it or feel it at a given moment or not, the things we feel, do, and believe connect us not only to ourselves but to each other.

      I imagined for years that nothing could be better than being a Nassim. lol In my case I found that reluctant patience — and skepticism among scientists — has been the stuff of my own greater awakening.

    • Paul says :

      Nonsense. There is no questioning going on here. The illusion of people questioning is no different to the illusion that this Haramein is saying anything at all. He doesn’t actually say anything because he doesn’t know anything, has never been recognised as knowing anything, and isn’t taken seriously by anyone who does know anything. Even wikipedia deleted him. He fails to reach the point there he can be dismissed for saying something “wrong”. He is not even wrong. He’s no more than a schoolyard philosopher who thinks he’s discovered you can’t prove a negative.

    • Curious George says :

      So you don’t care that he’s selling nothing more than new age religion by confusing a few scientific terms in the mix? I mean….really?!?!

      • Michelle Kathryn McGee says :

        I absolutely care. But to dismiss him while elevating those who are scientifically blessed is hypocritical. We need to teach skepticism that applies across the board, not just with our pre-conceived notions or pre-digested lessons, media, etc. It’s a balance, a dance — one most of us abdicate to others in our yank for acceptable understanding.

      • Paul says :

        I wonder what that is supposed to mean. Haramein talks bull and a skeptical mind would dismiss him in seconds and wouldn’t be wrong to do so. If he’s not the only one spouting bull that changes nothing. He’s spouting bull. It’s bull.

  47. sophos says :

    I had a lot of fun watching one of Nassim’s conferences….he talks very well and has a sense of humor. exemple: Who started ( is still) blowing in the baloon (the univers…) Too bad it gets (according to me )a little out of hand afterwards….space has infinit density…proton’s are micro-blackhole’s…lol …and the way he prove’s it (Planck cte….etc) …I mean ….I had lot’s of fun ….so to me he is a genious ….I could give him some ideas for his conference…exemple all things that move at the speed of light (photon’s…..)have not realised yet that the univers is in expansion …they still think they find themselves in a singularity ….an emitted photon has no notion of the time during its travelling through space …according to the photon it arrives immediatly at destination ….space /time does not exist for photon’s etc…only for matter….so have fun…. (sorry for my poor english…)

  48. sophos says :

    My comments dont seem to have sucess…ok Maybe by giving some “debunking” material…:-)
    How about this one ….the famous relationship between mass and energy E=mc2 is wrong….What prevents two protons to fuse together…the strong force…but they do fuse and and burst into energy ….befor the fusion one of the properties of the proton is gravity (very weak force -but exists) one s’ transformed into energy (photon’s, boson’s etc) gravity disappears (no more mass…because energy composed of bosons does not have mass) so energy and mass cannot find themselves in the same formula because they have totaly different properties…..have fun!!!!

  49. fire science programs illinois says :

    I’ll right away grab your rss feed as I can’t to find your e-mail subscription link or newsletter service.
    Do you’ve any? Please allow me know so that I could subscribe. Thanks.

  50. OzzieThinker says :

    These comments are going nowhere and have mushed to pointless “racism”. Correct me if I am wrong but Haramein has produced nothing more than rhetoric packaged as “constructive theory”. Criticism? No. That is the extent of much mainstream “science” – plausible theory. When something is “tested” in a “controlled environment”, it is debated to the point that the figurework could demonstrate black is white or while is black. No wonder Dawkins has such an ‘eloquent’ fan base.

    Even supposed eminent champions of alternative thinking, such as the Keshe Foundation have shown no evidence they can produce zero point energy and other revolutionary sciences. Beware of pied pipers and the lure of sweet music.

  51. Curious George says :

    Haramein is selling religion. He’s the new Pope and his new army of devotee’s are being trained to witch hunt anyone who is really telling the truth (true scientists), if they don’t swallow Nassim’s half baked new age mumbo jumbo without question.

  52. Alan says :

    3.6- The Einstein Hoax consists of maintaining the quasi-religious belief that the phenomena associated with velocity and gravitation cannot be understood by ordinary men using their common sense. It can only be understood in terms of mathematics performed by initiates who possessed the prerequisite ‘yup’s. Whether it is recognized or not, all of the essentials of a religion are present. There is a deity in the form of Dr. Einstein, who, like most of the men who have had that role thrust on them over the centuries, probably did not seek or even relish it. It has an established but unproven set of truths which were revealed by that deity. Finally, it is protected by selected defenders of the faith who, in this case, act through the peer review process to insure that heresy in any form is never published. The motive for the maintaining of the Einstein Hoax is rather obvious, it’s money. Society expends a large sums supporting this priesthood through tuitions paid by parents and grants by governments and industry. The donors believe they are paying for the teaching of the young, however, that teaching is mostly done by graduate students who are seeking
    their own ‘yup’s. The established possessors of the necessary ‘yup’s spend most of their time in research because, not only is that activity more interesting, it serves to advance their tenure protected careers. Should Special and/or General Relativity be shown to be fundamentally flawed, the careers of Relativists, most Cosmologists, and those working on Quantum Gravity and/or
    Unified Field Theory will have been wasted.

    3.7- In the material which follows, the author will attempt to provide and justify the heresy required to remake Relativity Theory into a subject which both can be understood at the undergraduate level in terms of common sense and which will eliminate glaring defects in our current understanding of the fundamental principles of Nature and of Cosmology.

    “The Einstein Hoax – The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common Sense”
    by H. E. Retic

    • Paul says :

      What kind of half-baked idiot uses the term “Einstein hoax”? Clearly you have no idea how science works. H.E.Retic, I might read your book just for a good laugh. Hope it’s funnier than David Icke.

  53. Marica Ellis says :

    Theory, by definition, can be defined in a number of terms–an abstract thought, speculation or can be an unproved assumption. Obviously Haramein, is a thinker & quite capable of causing others to think—-even if it is to refute or to attempt to refute his theories. I think that is a positive. I respect a thinker—especially if it is outside the academic box. Interesting–

    • OzzieThinker says :

      This is a very important comment – acutely important. Yes Haramein certainly sees outside the square. My concern is, in my minor understanding of him, is he is so far outside the square that his theories have formed a cult. It is rather discorncerting that he also make positive assertions towards “Sol Invictus” and the Brotherhood of Babylon ideologies. I don’t think – I know that, in terms of properties of the whole, this is a selfish and vicious indulgence in the form of capitulations that reward “the believer”. Thus, anyone daring to contradict that “status quo”, should be slandered, hung from the nearest yard arm……or both as far as these heretics are concened, “Dawkinism” is an understatement of this sad trend, certainly if one is aware of sabotaged Valsacio (Mexico) evidence which ABSOLUTELY refutes the “Out of Africa” model for human evolution.

    • Wyboth says :

      If Haramein wants to think, then he should do that, not preach pseudoscience. What he is doing is destructive: it hooks people on fake solutions to problems and diverts their energy from real solutions.

  54. d says :

    To the writer of this article: Not only is your reasoning flawed, but you need to learn how to spell.

    • Wyboth says :

      How is his reasoning flawed and where does he make any typos? Be specific.

      • Wyboth says :

        No response? I guess this was just an empty hate comment like the rest of them.

      • a rational person says :

        he won’t answer…these nutbags are hit-n-run artists…they do a search on the internet and see “OMG SOMEONE IS CRITICIZING NASSIM HARAMEIN!!!!!! MUST DESTROY!!!!!!!!!!!!” and so they come here n spout their stupid shit to defend him…theyre like those radio controlled penguins in that batman movie…you just switch em on and point em at the target…all conspiratards are like that, but it looks like these thrive groupies are worse than the usual ones.

      • Wyboth says :

        I know they are; I see them here and almost everywhere on these types of blogs. I hope that through the use of reason they can be brought back to sanity, but unfortunately it has failed for many of them. I’ll stick to my guns as long as this type of ingorance exists.

  55. Jerome says :

    Wow… an excellent post! I’ve written about conspiracy theories myself, but never anything so deep. I just make fun of them. It’s fascinating reading the angry comments made by people who believe in the nonsense. They can’t address the fact that your critique is valid and that the man is clearly not a scientist’s arse, so they resort to name-calling.

    As long as there are fools ready to part with their money, who need something to believe in, there will always be Nassim Harameins and David Ickes in this world. Just throw in some scientific-sounding jargon and talk a bit about vibrational frequencies, and you have believers.

    As my father always used to say, “Bullshit baffles brains”.

  56. satarah yazdanpanah says :

    To say that anything at all is impossible in this day and age is foolish. To knock people for what they beleive is also foolish. After all don’t most of the people on this planet follow books of religion? Killing one another because they beleive one man is better than another? Who’s to say whos story is true? 100 years ago a cell phone would have been considered “magical”. 30 years ago people would have laughed at you for talking about touch screen. today it exist.

    • Wyboth says :

      You’re missing a key point in this argument: cell phones and touch screens are both possible according to the laws of physics. Free energy isn’t. Yes, I just said something was impossible.

      • Daniel says :

        I think you’re the one who’s missing the point. We’ve only been on this planet for the past 10k years more or less. “Modern science” I.e: ( laws of physics) is a relatively a new field of study. I’m not saying that nassim haramein is right in his views, but I am saying that for someone to say that something is impossible is just ignorant (not trying to be offensive). The universe is billions of years old and somehow you think that because we have a basic understanding of a few of its laws we know what’s possible or impossible… Physicist themself disagree with each other about the laws of physics.

      • Wyboth says :

        So what? Sure, science is relatively new, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say certain things are impossible. I mean, I can tell that I can’t fly. You can, too. Experiment a bit, maybe jump off a skyscraper and flap your arms to see if you can fly. (Don’t really do this, you’ll kill yourself.) You see my point, the age of science has little to do with its findings, and besides, you overlook the fact that science has been around for at least 500 years, and that things are being discovered every day. Why can’t we know what’s possible and what’s not when we sent people to the moon? Why can’t we know what’s impossible if we’re cracking the genetic code and creating artificial humans? My point is, science is no new thing. We don’t know everything, but we know a whole lot, and we can safely say that free energy is impossible. That was settled hundreds of years ago with the Law of Conservation of Energy, which no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to tell me how it’s wrong. Basically, the universe is a closed system, so no new energy can enter it, nor can energy leave it. It changes form, like from kinetic energy to heat in a car crash. This has shown to be true time and time again, and I haven’t seen any legitimate reason to revise it. And I’m not the only one who shares this opinion; go down to your local university and ask the physics professor there to revise conservation of energy. He’ll just laugh in your face. Then you can explain to him about how new science is, and how ignorant he is to say that something is impossible. His answer will be this: “Science, although new on the scale of human history, has been in existence long enough to prove certain things and to disprove others. No matter what paradigm of possibility one holds, there remain certain things that simply cannot happen. We determine which things are possible and impossible by observations, and from these we make theories, and then laws. It does not matter then what one singular person believes to be possible, the true laws of the universe remain.”

      • Paul says :

        I think the most educated scientists know up to 10% of how the universe(as a whole incl all the relations inside) works(the other thing is if all that they know is TRUE). It’s so complex thing, theory of multidimensional universe, how they influence each other and so on…
        In such case new alternatives that Nasim posts can belong under the remaining 90% of what the scientists haven’t discovered yet. It’s the same as our own brain, where we are sure only about the top level “functionality”, but when we try to get deeper into it we are finding new and new obstacles that prevent us from putting all the elements together.
        Back to Nassim..if nothing else I’m glad to see that anyone steps outside the “boring world” of modern science, full of scepticism where most of the scientists say only what is acceptable for mass society(not sure what’s happening on the background 😦 ) and would¨t cause a panic worldwide. But of of course I don’t consider all that I mentioned above as relevant for modern illuminated scientists and people that they reproduce their words and thesis, because only they know what is black and what is white, no other colors exists 😉

        Btw., regarding “free energy”…What do you need to create a “piece of electricity”..1.magnet 2.wire ..and prerequisite is that input energy has to be < than what we has in output..it's not too complex, what do you think? In spite of that we are still using motors based on the "BOOM BANG" principle in ages of smartphones etc..
        I think something is wrong..:(

      • Wyboth says :

        Again, I say “So what?” Sure, we don’t know everything about nature, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make conclusions about the basics. And don’t ever get me started on Nassim. Yeah, what he says pertains to that “other” part, but it doesn’t help him at all that he makes all of it up without doing a single shred of an experiment to prove it.

        As for your second paragraph, you’re saying “Why not have output energy be greater than input energy?” I think I’ll leave this one to nature. Nature, would you please? *Nature* “BECAUSE I SAID SO.”

      • Paul says :

        OK, sorry..you sound like a scientist, self-confident what you are talking about. I’m only like amateur wasting your time, hmm..But from what I can see and from what we know about history, I’m pretty not sure if so called “basics” will be the same basics in following hundreds years also. Hundreds years ago people thought that the place where they were living was a flat land, or that Sun is circulating the Earth and so on…They also thought it’s basic thing that cannot be displaced. It makes me feel that you are thinking just like themselves.
        I think people in the very far future can have a pretty similar picture about us with their very advanced technologies that can measure all the physical elements with contradiction to all the others(Theory of everything – it’s basic I think), not only one to one, or one to ten that we do. Consider the behavior of the static elements as basic as something indisprovable is (partially)madness anytime. World is too complex and I think institutions like CERN wouldn’t exist if everything called basic is supposed to be static for ages.
        Back to Nassim. Example “The Schwarschild Proton” – http://theresonanceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf . It doesn’t seem to me like something that came to his mind yesterday and today he released everything to mass media without any research work. It seems he and his team spent quite a lot of time to support what they are talking about.
        Or from another cup of tea..Two days ago I got a link to one pretty interesting image – http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse//2012/11/30/behind/euvi/195/2048/20121130_043530_n7euB_195.jpg . Can you see the little dots on the upper left hand side in the middle of the Sun’s corona? What are these? From the basics we have they should burn away, right? Why they didn¨t?

      • Wyboth says :

        You seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit. First you say that scientists are so incompotent that we can’t rule one thing impossible given 500 years, but then you turn around and say that in a few hundred years we’ll have such advanced laws of physics that we’ll laugh at ourselves now? Something seems off with that. Anyways, to respond to your first paragraph, I’ll say that the current basics were found through the Scientific Method. The old basics (flat Earth, Earth-centered universe, etc.) were never proven with the Scientific Method. They came about from “thinking men,” or philosophers. They thought about things and made educated guesses, or hypotheses, about what the answers might be. That’s the first step of the Scientific Method: make a hypothesis. Unfortunately, after that, they skipped right to the conclusion, which is the main reason they were wrong. To be scientifically robust, you have to also perform experiments, gather data, and analyze it to form a conclusion. Now, it’s not entirely the philosophers’ fault for not doing this, since in many cases the technology to perform such experiments didn’t exist, but they still shouldn’t have broadcast the hypothesis as a conclusion; they should have filed it away for future generations (that sure would have saved Galileo a bit of trouble!) You see where I’m going; you can’t compare modern basic laws of Science to ancient basic laws, since they were found differently.

        Anyways, to address Nassim, I’ve already read The Schwarschild Proton, and I share the same opinion on it as the rest of the scientific community. I’m surprised that you don’t think his theory is something that came from his anus, because that’s exactly what it looks like! He doesn’t give any evidence that protons are mini black holes, nor does he explain why he measures a Hydrogen atom’s nucleus to be millions of tons, when what we’ve measured is in the nano range! All that he really does is make a hypothesis and then jump to a conclusion, just like those philosophers that got us those incorrect basic laws that you’re so worried about. You see, in science, most people are pretty trustworthy. But once in a while a faker comes along and he’ll try to hook you on a theory that’s really a bunch of baloney. So, to avoid falling for these people, we review their work. If there’s little evidence behind it, we’ll dismiss it until they gather more. But what about the average person? They could try to review it, but when they read it the page would be filled with so much science jargon that they might as well be reading Greek. How, then, can the common man avoid falling for a crackpot theory? Some will say to see a demonstration. Yet, this doesn’t work for a very good reason: if the person is trying to trick you, they’re going to rig the experiment. You’ll never know, and it’ll be just like a magic trick; the act is illegitimate, but the audience is impressed. So what do you do? Here’s the answer: call a lawyer. What do you do if you’re buying a house but you’re not sure if the agent’s trying to pull a quick one on you? You call a lawyer to look over the deed. If they say, “Yep, it’s good,” you can sign it. But if not, then you just avoided a pitfall you wouldn’t have seen otherwise. The same goes with theories: you should call a scientist. Actually, you don’t even have to call them. All you have to do is google it. Look for what’s called an independent study. All this is is an independent team of scientists who re-create an experiment to see if it’s legitimate. You can think of them as the lawyers; they’ll read through the jargon and even redo the experiment. If a theory has an independent study backing it up, then you’re safe. If it doesn’t, steer clear. It might be possible that a theory doesn’t have any independent study yet, but if that’s the case, they should wait until the study is finished to try to sell it to you. So, in a nutshell, if somebody’s trying to sell you a theory with no independent study, take everything they say with a grain of salt; most likely, they’re trying to trick you. With all of this in mind, go ahead and re-read The Schwarschild Proton.

        For your last paragraph, I can’t see the picture, since I’m writing this on a Wii. Go to a reliable source, like NASA or the Scientific American, and see what they have to say about it.

        Hope this helps.


      • Wyboth says :

        Alright, I finally got to a computer. I’m no heliophysicist, but I’ll try my best to explain what’s going on in the picture. Since all you gave me was the image, and not an actual article, my job is going to be difficult. Based on the captions in the image, it was taken from the STEREO B sattelite. According to http://www.spaceweather.sflorg.com/current/euvi195_behind.html, “Image of the Sun, taken by the SECCHI Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI) on the STEREO Behind observatory. The 195 Angstrom bandpass is sensitive to the Fe XII ionization state of iron, at a characteristic temperature of about 1.4 million degrees Kelvin. This image was produced from the STEREO space weather beacon telemetry. Because of the high amount of compression used for the space weather beacon, the image quality is far lower than in the final science product.” There’s no mention of what these dots are, and there is an extra one in the top right of today’s image, so it doesn’t seem like it’s anything out of the ordinary. The only other things I can find are conspiracy theory blogs shouting about NASA censoring evidence of UFOs. Needless to say, I skipped over those.

      • Daniel Arzuaga says :

        I would like to clarify a few things, Nassim Haramein does not believe in free energy in the sense that you can get more out of something than you put in (simply put) what he believes and he has said is that he believes that we can create technology that can be 100% efficient so you can get the same amount of energy out as the energy you put in, without loosing any in the transfer of it, hence this would be a perpetual machine that has the potential for infinite energy. I am not agreeing or disagreeing i’m just clarifying.

        Now as far as Nassim not having any credentials i do not believe we should use that as a crutch to automatically say he is pulling things out of his “anus” to con people. Many great scientist never had any credentials themselves before they made great contributions to science i.e. Einstein (and by no means i’m i saying Nassim Haramein is like albert einstein).

        If you want to con someone there are far better ways to do it, which will yield better results than dedicating his life to studying a very complex subject and questioning our current belief or paradigms of the world, and opening himself to being ridiculed for many years. It seems improbable to me that this is his MO.

        Now one last thing, as far as the point you made that it is impossible to get something from out of nothing i would like to refer you to this video by Lawrence Krauss a world-renowned theoretical physicist with MANY credentials and see what he has to say about getting something from out of nothing. A lot of what physicist are just starting to understand now it is very similar to what Nassim Haramein has been talking and trying to explain for many years.

        I do not believe that everything Nassim Haramein says is correct, but i will also not dismiss everything he says just because i do not agree with all his views, i dont’ think anyone has all the answers. I think we solve nothing by bashing Nassim, thats the easy thing to do. The hard thing to do is to take in what he is saying and contemplate it, and integrate it where it makes sense… if anywhere.

        ” Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.” – Henry Ford

        If you are expecting for someone to come one day with all the answer and a perfect model of how things work i believe you will be disappointed, because the universe and our understanding of its ever evolving and if you don’t leave space for new ideas you’re world will become very small and full of restrictions.

        btw i dont’ mean you especially, i am speaking in general to anyone who is reading. I enjoy the discussion and have respect for anyone who gives their opinion as you have done, just dont’ be offensive that is not necessary no matter how passionate you are in you’re believe.

  57. Jeremy says :

    Well the one thing that is consistent with Mr Haramein’s thinking is that black holes exist and are everywhere in the universe as well at the milecular level this black hole idea repeats itself. We know this because we can see this. As well who is Bob a Thon and what are his credentials? Once again the consistent idea of The Black “Whole” Mr Haramein describes is very tangible and has more substance then most of the writing I see here trying to discredit Mr Haramein.

    • a rational person says :

      nassim haramein is a fraud. pure and simple. even he knows the crap he’s shlepping is total bullshit. he is lying to people for money. u nutbags think he’s the second coming of einstein. u people are the reason why nobody in this country understands or cares about science anymore. u’d rather listen to this windbag fart out his mouth than read a book about real science. well, got news for u hoss, while u nutbags were jerking off over mini black holes, free energy machines and ancient aliens, real scientists put a rover on mars. hmm, don’t see haramein working for nasa…wonder why not?

  58. gilaman13 says :

    I think most forget Einstein was first a patent clerk and not a renowned physicist. What an entrenchment we have in established ideas, so great that we become livid when it is potentially challenged.

    • Wyboth says :

      But Einstein didn’t spout BS. Haramein spouts BS.

    • Anastasio says :

      What difference does it make if Einstein worked in a patent office or at Burger King before he published Special and General Relativity?

      The point is, Einstein graduated with a teaching diploma and was awarded a Ph.D before publishing his papers.

      Even while working at the patent office he suitably impressed Planck, a very well renowned and respected physicist, and was subsequently published in the Annalen der Physik, before he became famous.

      It’s not a question of where the similarities between Haramein and Einstein begin and end, but rather why attempt to draw comparisons when the resulting juxtaposition leaves Haramein looking even more like an unaccomplished, uneducated and desperate quack?

  59. stratoblaster says :

    Lots of vitriol here as usual, I’m concerned about the immature approach on this blog. Step back, you don’t have to believe in this…just think about it….there is a lot of “maybe” in this theory, but it’s breaking open new territories at the least, the right direction for understanding…..if you are an expansive thinker.

    If you want to reduce the universe to a singular proof….or if everything valid in your world requires explanation by someone with a PhD, you will be a disgruntled, grumpy, debunking, blogger.


    • a rational person says :

      yea but you’re a nutbag who thinks 911 was done with ray guns from space. muertos even put u on the “comments hall of fame” for that. how are we not supposed to laugh at u when u believe in shit like that?

      • stratoblaster says :

        I never said I think that 911 was done with ray guns from space, I proposed it for deeper discussion and provided evidence (time lapse photos) that there were un answered questions surrounding the disintegrating spires phenom….among other issues re: unprecedented metal tower buildings fire related collapse and more. Since I began here, I’ve never claimed BELIEF in any of it, I THINK 911 Report is a farce, but who of us can make claims or proofs for certain? I have not come across any conclusive theory worth explaining 911, nobody to date has, yet. The issue awaits such a proof, or prosecution. Bigger minds than yours and mine remain unsatisfied on the topic, especially relating to the 911 Commission explanation. This blog has done nothing to further knowledge or proof, either way, Muertos’ attempts are thin and emotional in my opinion.

        It is testimony to Muertos’ argumentative obsession with being right that he would include my comments in the hall of fame, and testimony to the nerve I continue to tickle among those who need to possess a reductive world view free of unknowns and mystery.

        My comments are intended to reveal that no conclusive and successful debunking has ever occurred on this blog, despite the wild claims to that effect.

        Watch the above video I linked on Nassim Haramin, and if it doesn’t at least inspire one new thought in your head (doesn’t have to be “true”….just fascinating), than we have no reason to be communicating.

        I appreciate his ideas and take them as valuable attempts to reach deeper into the mechanics of the universe and our place in it. I find someone who wants to soapbox about him as a charlatan, as sad, and missing his point entirely.

      • a rational person says :

        even if u think judy wood and her ray guns from space theory is worthy of “deeper discussion” proves u’re a nutbag and we should laugh at you. i mean, you honestly don’t realize how fucking nuts that woman is? srsly? u really think there’s something of value in the bullshit that woman farts out her mouth? along with your other 911 truth nutbag heros like dick gage and david ray griffin?

        here’s an “unanswered question” for you…why are truthers still stinking up the internet 11 yrs after every single thing they ever believed in was totally debunked? answer me that, hoss.

        and yea, i think u really do believe 911 was done with ray guns from space. i dare you to come out and say that it wasn’t and judy woods is nuts…i dare you. you won’t. because u really believe her.

  60. stratoblaster says :

    rational: I see your tone and I ignore it
    no credibility whatever, my questioning doesn’t match that at all, or deserve such emotional wailing…..

    are you a structural engineer or expert? No?

    quiet down….

    • a rational person says :

      so you refuse to say that judy wood is a nutbag and her ray gun theory is completely crazy…ok…that means u think it might have some validity, which means you are nuts.

      u believe ray guns blew up the world trade center towers. admit it. u won’t deny it and u were the one who shat that ridiculous judy wood video out on this blog which muertos called u out for.

      you believe 911 was done with ray guns. why won’t you just admit it? because even most of your truther friends will point and laugh at you…even they think you’re a nutbag, thats why.

      • Anastasio says :

        Let’s not forget Stratoblaster also lends his implicit trust to the AE911 movement – a movement that has also extensively debunked Judy Woods and her energy weapon theory. And we’re supposed to believe that Stratoblaster knows what he’s talking about?

        However, it’s nice to see him back with a new axe to grind and new and improved delusions of intelligence -plus he now considers himself an ‘expansive thinker’ because he watched some videos on Youtube.

        Ooh fun, I like where this is going.

      • a rational person says :

        u can always tell what a conspiracy nutbag really believes in if they refuse to denounce a specific theory, especially if it’s a super nutty one like ray guns. that’s why i’m sure that foster gamble really believes in lizard men because he won’t say he doesn’t. stratoblaster won’t close the door on judy woods because he believes her ray gun theory or at least thinks there’s something worthwhile there…but he knows everyone is gonna say he’s nuts so that’s why he hides behind shit like “i never said that i think 911 was done with ray guns from space.”

        just like foster gamble won’t say he doesn’t believe in lizard men because he does.

        stratoblaster likes ae911 which is run by dick gage…yea, they call him “box boy” over on that screw loose change blog…he demonstrated the collapse of the twin towers using cardboard boxes…what a nut…that’s not an engineer, that’s a clown…dick gage is wrong bout everything he ever said about 911 since the beginning of time…but this nutbag (stratoblaster) think hes the shizznit…yea, u’re right, i like where this is going. gonna save a shot of stoli for stratoblaster’s reply.

  61. stratoblaster says :

    you guys don’t write like experts.

    show me a building that has collapsed from fire
    explain how metal disintegrates to dust

    throwing insults is not debunking

    you sound like 7th graders in a boys restroom

    Yes I’m inspired by You Tube, so much to learn, so much to expand thought. Some of it is credible, some not, takes insight to parse the facts, perhaps a bit of intuition too, hard science helps, but I think we’re moving into realms where hard science has become subjective (quantum physics….If you are capable of that kind of expansive thinking).
    But wow, what an amazing world we live in.

    You could benefit from it.

    • a rational person says :

      are you willing to say that the world trade center towers were definately not blown up with ray guns from space?

      are you willing to say that?

    • Wyboth says :

      Stratoblaster, everything you want to know can be found here: http://www.debunking911.com/

    • Anastasio says :

      “you guys don’t write like experts.”

      Not that you’d willingly recognise an expert opinion if you’d saw it, but I can live with your insinuation. This is the internet and everyone thinks they’re an expert, including yourself. Impressing people with knowledge is of little importance to me.

      Admittedly, I’m a subsea engineer, not a structural engineer, but my education and daily experience with pressure/ temperature and yield strength of materials, plus a background in mechanical engineering, ensures I cannot ever willingly make the same half-witted and insensitive accusations as yourself.

      But my background is completely irrelevant; common sense alone, I contend, is all one ever needs.

      ———————————————————————————————– “show me a building that has collapsed from fire”

      Your question is pointless and saturated with logical fallacy and ignorance.
      I can show you two examples of two unique structures that were allowed to burn for hours without intervention and no fireproof cladding AFTER suffering an impact from a commercial airliner, and one that suffered extensive damage from falling, burning debris. I can show you the people who admitted responsibility for it too.

      Still, if you were canny enough to type the question into Google I’m sure you’d find more than one example of buildings collapsing from fire damage. Do you really need to be taken by the hand like a child and spoon fed the information?

      “explain how metal disintegrates to dust”

      Again, the question is wholly irrelevant and a straw man. You are simply obsessed with a video on Youtube that says “Disintegrating Spires” and consequently you now believe the metal in the WTC buildings was disintegrated by a mysterious energy weapon, which also of course requires us to provide a scientific debunking. Can you prove that the metal was turned to dust? Are you going to renounce Woods as your heroes of AE911 have done? Can you even make up your mind as to which of the truthers who have impressed you are actually telling the truth?

      Can you honestly entertain the idea that the spires did not disintegrate and what you are seeing is in fact lighter debris and dust suspended in the air momentarily as the metal structures with less air resistance give way? Are you capable of such expansive thinking?

      “Show me!” and “Explain to me!” are two more good examples of truther stock arguments.

      They are telling admissions of ignorance, if anything.

      “throwing insults is not debunking

      you sound like 7th graders in a boys restroom”

      Oh my frigging God stratoblaster, I really cannot tell if we are the victims of some twisted machination of Socratic Irony, if you have a penchant to contradict yourself or if you really are as thick as two short planks.

      Whether it’s A,B or C, your weird, unprovoked and distasteful sanctimonious analogies would be better kept inside your head.

      Our arguments aren’t to be taken as a Rorschach Test, you deviant.

      “Yes I’m inspired by You Tube, so much to learn, so much to expand thought.”

      Well, this explains much.

      “Thank you Wyboth, will look at the link”

      And this explains everything – from your one dimensional arguments to your dog-headed insistence that a Youtube video can prove that energy weapons disintegrated the WTC buildings.

      You simply haven’t looked at the other side of the coin; you’re entertaining yourself and arming yourself with pre-fabricated arguments to come and try out on the debunking forums. No doubt that’s what you’ve been doing while licking your wounds since the last time we clashed.

      Expansive thinking and research is just some thing you say you do stratoblaster, as there is never any proof of it in your posts.

      Why not go away and read ALL the information before trying to take on the disgruntled, grumpy debunkers?

      • a rational person says :

        thanks hoss, this is some of the most awesome ownage i’ve ever seen of a conspiracy nutbag. that stratoblaster fuck probably won’t even bother returning after having his ass handed to him like this. well played sir!

      • Wyboth says :

        Phew, it’s good to see I’m not the only one busting my ass to write lengthy, detailed responses to conspiracy theorists. Hats off to you for picking up the torch.

  62. stratoblaster says :

    Thank you Wyboth, will look at the link

    • a rational person says :

      if you think you know something about 911 and have never seen debunking911.com, u’re even farther gone than i thought.

      u keep dodging the question. wtc towers blown up with ray guns from space. yes or no?

      • anticultist says :

        Chances are he will ignore your question by ducking out.

        I get the impression that stratoblaster isn’t here to discuss the facts about subjects. I get the impression he is here to dictate his beliefs to us, ignore any evidence provided that counters his. More importantly however, I suggest his main motivations are to make everything in this world relativist so that he can frame his anecdotal arguments on the same level as scientifically verified ones. This allows him to perceive hypothetical claims such as the ones he believes to be true as important as those which are peer reviewed.

        I feel the main problem here is not that what stratoblaster claims can easily be shown to incorrect, rather its is that he lacks the ability to differentiate the difference between good and bad thinking skills.

    • Wyboth says :

      I’m not surprised that he hasn’t been there. Literally every conspiracy theorist has never ventured to our side to really see what we’re saying unless asked to. Even then, I’m surprised he didn’t blow me off, saying “That’s just another government disinfo site!!!”

  63. Paul Blinked says :

    And who is WordPress and where do they come from? What is their agenda invisible as they are?

  64. Alan says :

    For anyone actually interested in what this blog is supposed to be about, here is a recent discovery from NASA “that they cannot explain” that validates the theories of Nassim Haramein:


    Nassim’s dual torus topology of black (w)holes was predicted (officially) in 2005 with the publication of his paper: “The Origin of Spin” where he incorporates terms for ‘torque’ and ‘Coriolis forces’ into the field equations generated by Einstein’s Relativity theory.

    A layman version of “The Origin of Spin” can be found here:

    Click to access origin_of_spin.pdf

    • anticultist says :

      Bullshit, you are telling me Nassim predicted something at the centre of the universe in 2005 without a telescope ? Where did he get his information it existed then ? Did he just dream it up ?

      If that is what he is discussing why didn’t he specifically say at the centre of our universe is a structure that is twin bubbled emitting x rays and gamma rays ?
      The mere fact he didn’t just proves your claim is crapola.

      • Alan says :

        What are you talking about? No one can see the center of the Universe. In fact, in the standard model, a “center” does not exist. Considering the best and most famous physicists are well known for their “thought experiments” and would even come up with them to prove or disprove a theory, I would say that “dreaming it up” would be a valid way to actually figure something out.

        If you read the article it isn’t even about the universe, it is about our own galaxy. Nassim’s theory about x-rays and gamma rays forming a dual torus structure around galaxies (around black holes in general) came way before 2005. It is not surprising that you are not aware of that, but the mere fact that you are calling it crapola proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.

        Do you have any intelligent questions about this? Or maybe even a thought or two?

      • anticultist says :

        Don’t sidestep the issue I made about your claim Nassim can predict the future without a telescope Alan, don’t talk to me about intelligent conversations when you just overlooked my point and then waffled on about me not understanding the post you made.

        i fully understood and am laughing at you for it.

      • anticultist says :

        “Nassim’s theory about x-rays and gamma rays forming a dual torus structure around galaxies (around black holes in general) came way before 2005. It is not surprising that you are not aware of that, but the mere fact that you are calling it crapola proves that you don’t know what you are talking about.”


        Even wikipedia has the information about black holes emitting gamma rays from its poles dated way before 2005 by credible scientists, with information and structural composition of a spherical black hole with figure 8 bursts at it’s dipoles.

        To even attempt to give Harramein any credit for this information is quite simply bogus. He isn’t even mentioned on there as an academic or of relevance to postulating any evidence for it.

  65. Alan says :

    You didn’t make one remark that showed you understood what my post was about, and now you are defending your claim that you need a telescope to make a prediction about the universe? Okay, well have you heard of the “big bang” theory? Do you think they were able to “see” that with a telescope? Did they have telescopes in the patent office so Einstein could observe the stars as he wrote his Special Theory of Relativity? or that he ever used a telescope when working out General Relativity?

    I would say that you are the one who is sidestepping the issue here, I provided evidence that supports Nassim’s theories and all you can come up with is that he would have needed a telescope to make those predictions. In fact if a scientific theory does not make predictions that are eventually found, or able to set up an experiment to prove then it is usually scrapped or amended.

    Now that this evidence is public, scientists are probably scrambling right now to come up with some story that explains how this all fits into the ‘standard model’ because they were unable to predict this before using a telescope. Not because they are incompetent scientists but because their theory is not completely accurate and will need some adjustments. That is how the scientific method works.

    • anticultist says :

      ” “big bang” theory? Do you think they were able to “see” that with a telescope?” Are you kidding me ? there are numerous things that are seen with telescopes to ascertain the big bangs likelihood, background radiation, doppler effect, the expanding universe, all this is not something that is mere conjecture, it is observable and proven with observation. It wasn’t just some pseudo scientist in his living room saying that it is so like Harramein.
      Your analogy is transparent.

      “Did they have telescopes in the patent office so Einstein could observe the stars as he wrote his Special Theory of Relativity?”
      You do realise that this theory was all based around observations already made in the universe with, you guessed it telescopes. He utilised known facts and theorised, he didn’t just say oh you know there might be something happening out there guys, fingers crossed.

      “or that he ever used a telescope when working out General Relativity?”
      Clue…gravity is observable, you don’t have to imagine something exists when it is all around you affecting everything in the visible universe and on our own planet.

      You give Harramein way too much fucking credit. You say he made some vague claims about something in the universe and invented some LOL equations that to quote him:
      ‘we then solved the equations and modified them for a grand unified theory for electromagnetic and subatomic particles of reality’ and ‘..this amendment to Einstein’s theory becomes a landmark foundation from which a new level of physics can be written’.

      You seriously believe this dude blowing his own trumpet with no scientific peer review, or academic backing of any kind has solved this on his own ?
      Why are there no discussions about it in scientific literature, why is he getting no credit for these amazing claims he makes?

      Oh you guessed it, because it’s fucking bullshit and no one takes his claims seriously, because only non experts and fools believe him.

      “In fact if a scientific theory does not make predictions that are eventually found, or able to set up an experiment to prove then it is usually scrapped or amended.”

      Bingo, why can’t you apply this to Harrameins claims then ? Are you so far sold down the river to see how delusional you are about this guy ? He makes claims that nobody else backs or validates. It has and should be scrapped, but you seem unwilling to do so.

      “Now that this evidence is public, scientists are probably scrambling right now to come up with some story that explains how this all fits into the ‘standard model’ because they were unable to predict this before using a telescope. Not because they are incompetent scientists but because their theory is not completely accurate and will need some adjustments. That is how the scientific method works.”

      Unlikely, all that will happen is they will laugh a Harrameins equations and paper. The standard model is being revamped by real scientists at CERN, not by some half ass charlatan, who peddles pseudo science. Think again if you believe that idiot is getting any credit for something he has not done.

      • Alan says :

        Yes my analogy is transparent, I didn’t write it so you could respond with its meaning though. That was inherent in the purpose of me typing it. Of course the theories I mentioned were made upon already made observations, they wouldn’t be valid theories if they didn’t take into account already known facts about the universe. Fortunately for Hubble and Einstein (and many other scientists of their time) physics and astronomy was in its infancy when their theories were published. There were many many unsolved sets of information that needed theories written to explain.

        Nowadays when theories are written, everything previously known has to fit into the new theory. For instance string theory must include everything predicted by relativity and quantum theory.This method is commonly known as “standing on the shoulders of giants.” That is why the basis for Nassim’s theories is built upon the field equations generated in Einstein’s Relativity. He didn’t just magically think that there must be some guy named Einstein with equations that needed to be solved in order to unlock the mysteries of the universe. He did his own research and his own studying to come up with theories that he thought would make a more accurate picture of the observable universe.

        Just because you can dissect something I say and interject with rude condescending statements about me supposedly not knowing the purpose of why I said something doesn’t change the fact that what I presented is observed evidence that was predicted before it was observed. You can go on dissecting my posts and ignoring the actual meaning behind them and see where that gets you, but it was not my intention to get you flustered about presenting evidence in support of something.

        He didn’t solve all the equations on his own, he presented his theories to an accredited scientist and they worked out the math to fit it in with the current theories and observations together. The fact that what he predicted with his theories 20 years ago is just now being discovered (observed) and accepted in mainstream science communities (such as black holes being at the center of all galaxies and being there before the galaxy’s formation) is proof that maybe some attention should be paid to his theories (but it probably won’t). There is still a ton of work that exists beyond the scope of his theories; hence the statement you quoted from Nassim “..this amendment to Einstein’s theory becomes a landmark foundation from which a new level of physics can be written.”

        Meanwhile Nassim is building a research facility with a 15 million dollar donation made by someone who apparently does find importance in his telescope-less predictions about the universe.

      • anticultist says :

        Alan your boy is not valued by modern science or scientists, so whatever you say or claim is just the rambling of a follower. He might as well be a guru or a spiritual advisor or a self help salesman, however, he is most certainly not a respected scientist.

        So you can babble on all you want, the fact is science is on my side not yours, and you are just backing the losing horse when everyone around you is telling you to save your money. But fuck it, if you want to spend your life following some cretin go ahead man, don’t say we didn’t warn you when you realise.

      • Wyboth says :

        I know about standing on the shoulders of giants; Newton coined the term. Our problem with Nassim isn’t that he’s standing on Einstein’s shoulders, our problem with him is that he’s dead wrong. He’s wrong and he’s been told it, but he just brushes those people off and goes on spouting his incorrect theories, consequently hooking gullible people like yourself on pseudoscience.

        “Nassim thought that black holes existed at the center of galaxies before it was proven!” Oh, good for him, going with the flow for once! I highly doubt that he was the first person to propose the theory however, and I also doubt that your claim about him passing his research up the chain of command is true, especially since every real scientist steers clear of his theories.

        “Nassim received 15 million dollars to build his own laboratory!” Oh, good grief. Looks like he’s managed to swindle a rich person into thinking he’s hot stuff. I guess this means we’ll be hearing more quackery from the peanut gallery soon. Brace yourselves.

    • anticultist says :

      Nasim Harramein is so whack he doesn’t even have a wikipedia page, that is how bulshit he is considered.

    • a rational person says :

      bunch of bullshit. haramein is a pseudoscientist. he doesn’t understand science. his theories are laughable. no one respectable will fund him so he has to beg for money from people on the internet who get boners over his bullshit theories instead of getting grant money from real institutions, you know, like real scientists! the garbage he spews about ufos and ancient aliens makes him a laughing stalk in respectable circles. i can’t believe u’re defending this guy. he’s a clown. he’s a circus side show, like the sword swallower or the bearded lady.

      people like you are the reason why science is a joke in this country. they’d rather get force fed bullshit than pay to have real scientists do real research on how the universe really works. your comments are worthless.

  66. Alan says :

    All any of you are doing is trying to change the beliefs of others with absolute faith that yours is mightier than anyone else’s. Why not address the fact that what my original post was about is that there is new evidence being discovered that is not explained by current theories in science. Nor was it predicted to be found by any theories in science. Now this is not some trivial random piece of evidence. This evidence points to the influence that a black hole has on the space surrounding it. This evidence shows that the galaxy we live in has structure taking the shape of a dual torus. When the data is collected and observed about all other galaxies, a similar shape will probably be found because we are not in some special galaxy. The laws of physics are supposedly universal.

    So, at the end of the day, when scientists finally figure out that what is missing from the solution to Einstein’s field equations to account for this observable data is a term for torque and a term for Coriolis forces and then determine that an objects influence on the structure of space and time forms a dual torus, then what?

    Never mind your belief systems, (which in this case you are all claiming to be followers of science) look at the evidence.

    • anticultist says :

      No faith or belief system here Alan just scientific evidence and peer review, now move along you are boring me now trying to reverse the role of the believer on us. Go read a book or something.

      • Alan says :

        Ignoring the evidence is not science. Sorry but it’s not.

      • anticultist says :

        Evidence !!! you mean the post hoc claim that harramein discovered black holes and gamma ray bursts after they were discovered and theorised lol

        If you consider anecdotes and post hoc valuable evidence in the scientific field go ahead, mean while here in the real you are sounding more fucking stupid each post.

    • Wyboth says :

      Could you link me to Nassim’s theory on this? I doubt it’s correct, given his past history. I see that you think his theory as the solution, but I’d urge you not to have so much faith in it.

      By the way, to avoid confusion, the galaxy does not have a sideways torus shape. The stars are still spiral; only the gamma rays have a toroidal shape.

      • Alan says :

        Here’s the scientific paper:

        Click to access torque_paper.pdf

        Here’s the layman version:

        Click to access origin_of_spin.pdf

        The gamma rays are held in a specific structure by the force of the black hole at the center of the galaxy though. They are part of the galaxy. Just the same as our solar system, it is also dual torus shaped if you take into account the oort cloud which makes a spherical shape around the entire solar system.

    • a rational person says :

      the evidence shows that u (alan) are a nutbag…you believe in crop cricles…yes, CROP CIRCLES….i mean, how fucking retarded is that shit. you expect anyone to take you seriously when u’re spouting bullshit like that? srsly? ANSWER ME?! seriously?…maybe there is proof of extraterrestral life after all, because no real human being would believe in CROP CIRCLES…i mean, how stupid do you think we are?

      • Alan says :

        Who cares what I believe? It’s attitudes like yours that start mass murdering inquisitions in the name of their own beliefs. You need to calm down with your claims of heresy against your system of beliefs, you sound psychotic.

      • a rational person says :

        I’M psychotic? i’m not the one who believes in crop circles, david icke’s lizard men and thinks big bang darth vader star wars ray guns blew up the world trade center on 911. u wanna see crazy, just look in the mirror, hoss. every one of you conspiracy nutbags is certifiable.

      • anticultist says :

        Pretty dramatic claims Alan although completely ridiculous and far fetched of you. Nowhere does he mention killing people.

        As we have already established above the one with the belief system is you. If anyone is coming across as psychotic it is you with your whacky beliefs in crop circles, aliens, and pseudo science. No one here believes anything without evidence other than you, you are the epitome of a person with beliefs.

        You must stop trying to make other people wear your shoes bro, they don’t fit us.

      • Alan says :

        Dramatic claims? What about the claims of “knowing” what people believe, and then demanding that people admit he is right? Have you read this person’s posts? I am pretty sure these are clear signs of either paranoid schizophrenia or he is delusional. I didn’t say anything about him actually killing people, he is getting so defensive about what he believes is true he is just throwing whatever he can think of to attack the beliefs of others. He is so overly paranoid about conspiracists he has just lumped them all into one category no matter who it is or what they have said.

        Everyone has a belief system, since when is that something that anyone should feel ashamed about having or be attacked for?

      • anticultist says :

        shut up Alan you nob head

      • a rational person says :

        ppl should be ashamed of believing in pseudo science and conspiracy bullshit because it isn’t real and because those beliefs hurt people.

        look hoss, i’ll be the 1st one to admit i’m an asshole…but i have a zero tolerance policy for bullshit…and that’s what all this is, bullshit. “i have a right to my opinion”…yea, but u don’t have a right to your own facts. u also don’t have the right to twist scientific analysis or other facts to fit the conclusions u want…this is exactly what’s wrong with people like foster gamble, alex jones and nassim haramein, and that’s what’s got to stop. i can back up everything i believe with fact. u can’t. what’s “schizophrenic” or “delusional” about wanting people to tell the truth? huh? answer me that?

  67. Alan says :

    This is the evidence from my original post:


    Your anger is making your claims about what I have said very unreliable. I have never said anything about Nassim discovering black holes or gamma ray bursts. Now you are just making shit up.

    • anticultist says :

      You have no evidence Alan, you are just posting other scientific work that has nothing to do with Nassim, and then using that as corroborating evidence to vindicate your claims he discovered something else first years prior. That is essentially what you have done above.

      Sorry Alan that’s not science, that’s just you being dumb.

      • Alan says :

        Quotes from the article regarding the dual torus bubbles:

        “We don’t fully understand their nature or origin.” -Doug Finkbeiner, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

        “Scientists now are conducting more analyses to better understand how the never-before-seen structure was formed.”

        “Whatever the energy source behind these huge bubbles may be, it is connected to many deep questions in astrophysics.” -David Spergel, a scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey


        Yes, this is other people doing scientific work, they are collecting data so that other people can make sense of it and write theories about how these bubbles came into existence.

        How it ties to the work of Nassim is that he has already written the theory that explains how this structure came into existence. His theory predicts this structure, so if it was part of mainstream science there would be no confusion about this structure’s existence and it would just be supporting evidence.

      • anticultist says :

        But it isn’t part of mainstream science because the guy is a crank who no one respects or considers of sound mind. How many times do we have to keep telling you …peer review process.

        His theories are meaningless without scientific review, and he [and by proxy you] has nothing without that.

      • a rational person says :

        i’ve gone back and searched every comment “alan” has left on this blog…he’s been here more than a year…he believes in crop circles…yes, CROP CIRCLES! HAHHA AHAHAH HHAHHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HA HAAHAH AHA HAH AHAHAH AHHAAHAHHAHAHAAH!!!!!! he really thinks litle green men are buzzing around in flying saucers making crop circles in england…check out the crop circles page on this blog and u can see where every skeptic on this blog (including u, anticultist) owned this clown 6 ways to sunday…he probably beleives “911 was an inside job” too, because all of these nutbags buy into the same bullshit…so that alone tells you what this asshole’s opinion is worth, which is NOTHING…nassim haramein is a fraud…he’s the bearded lady at the circus…he’s a geek show…srsly, anticultist, why waste time trying to present facts to this dicknob? he’ll never accept them…only thing u can do is ridicule him. nutbags, fools & conspiratards never change…get that thru your thick head…these people are vermin pure & simple, enuf said.

      • anticultist says :

        My debate points aren’t solely for him, they are for other people who might pass by and read this. Remember for every Alan, there is a potential person who might understand common sense. Presenting common sense is important at least for those other people.

        But yeah nut bags are worth laughing at always.

      • Alan says :

        Half of your debate points are made up things that you think I have said. Then you don’t even address the points that have been brought up and claim that I am sidestepping the issues. What kind of debate is that?

      • anticultist says :

        dude you believe in pseudo science you have no footing here, move on you are an embarrassment and you don’t know when to give up.

    • a rational person says :

      it’s this haramein clown who’s making shit up. c’mon, every atom is a black hole? is he serious with this bullshit? he really thinks people with brains are going to buy this shit? srsly, this guy is the bearded lady…the sword swallower…u are a fool for worshipping this nutbag. do you not realize how retarded you look by defending him? when he has zero credentials and when not a single one of his theories has held up to the facts? NOT ONE? how many times does this dickhead have to be wrong before you realize he’s a con artist who’s taken u all for a ride? HUH?

    • Anastasio says :

      ———————————————————————————————–“Why not address the fact that what my original post was about is that there is new evidence being discovered that is not explained by current theories in science. Nor was it predicted to be found by any theories in science.”

      Alan, the fact that black holes can emit twin jets of matter is not a new observation. Observing the phenomenon through a telescope, you may be able to argue, is – for whatever purpose you feels this fulfils.
      Hawking has theorised that black holes emit radiation since 1974, and it’s hardly surprising it should follow a uniform course.

      Perhaps this from Phys.org is what the professional “can’t explain”:

      “As galaxies go, our Milky Way is pretty quiet. Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. In contrast, the Milky Way’s center shows little activity. But it wasn’t always so peaceful. New evidence of ghostly gamma-ray beams suggests that the Milky Way’s central black hole was much more active in the past.”

      Why was it more active? Why has it slowed down? In addition to the questions in your linked story one could ask many more. Haramein might think his work is consummate and that has the correct response, but why should we assume he has the correct answers when even the people who do the math for his papers disassociate themselves from his work? (as reliably advised by Mr Mellet).

      Whether these ‘bubbles’ are torodial in nature and fit Haramein’s model, or not, has yet to be seen. As of yet, the image you link to just appears similar to Haramein’s depiction of a dual torus galaxy; which of course is proof enough for you.

      But remember, there is no confusion (despite what you are trying to have us believe) that black holes eject matter at both poles, so in essence, Haramein predicted nothing. What evidence have you brought to the table for us to ignore?

      “that they cannot explain” is you quoting yourself Alan, and your insinuation does not in any way ‘validate’ anything Haramein has supposedly predicted. It just means the professional astrophysicists would prefer to make the unknowns known in an analytical fashion before proffering a theory to the rest of the world. And there is at least one possible explanation in your linked story (don’t tell me you missed it?); a story which is, at the very least, two years old.

      Is this where you have been all this time, searching for stories that you think gives Haramein any validity?
      “Now this is not some trivial random piece of evidence. This evidence points to the influence that a black hole has on the space surrounding it.”
      Are you honestly saying that the fact that a black hole influences the space around it is new evidence?

      “The fact that what he predicted with his theories 20 years ago is just now being discovered (observed) and accepted in mainstream science communities (such as black holes being at the center of all galaxies and being there before the galaxy’s formation) is proof that maybe some attention should be paid to his theories (but it probably won’t)”

      More prevarication Al. This tale reminds me of the stories flying around about Haramein’s work being peer reviewed – when in all acutallity he won a ‘Best Paper’ award from a panel of non-physicists. I note he’s recently changed the wording on his website which gives a slightly more accurate account of what happened, but he still uses the misleading “peer reviewed” insinuation.

      I guess real physicists don’t have to dupe people to get themselves noticed.

      Astrophysicists have long believed that a black hole existed at the middle of the Milky Way. In fact, they found it so plausible a German study started in 1992 and proved it in 2008. What was also found in a number of observations was the black hole predates the galaxy, as Haramein predicted. But come on Al, are you saying Haramein was the only one to think that?

      People wouldn’t go looking for things for 18 years if they didn’t have a theory that it existed.

      But of course, as a non-professional physicist, Haramein had nothing to lose by saying “this is definitely the way it is”, and unfortunately professionals have reputations to protect and a duty to provide proof before saying “this appears to be the way it is”.

      Haramein seems to think his assertion caused controversy amongst the scientific community. Where is the evidence of that?

      Haramein’s layman’s paper on The Origin of Spin (that you linked to in your original post) contains another great example of the man’s arrogance; congratulating Dr Stephen Hawking on ‘catching up’ with him by working out that black holes can emit ‘information’ no less.

      I’m sure Mr Hawking appreciates Haramein’s gesture of goodwill.

      I won’t comment on the suspect nature of Haramein releasing his paper at the same time (possibly before) Hawking presented his findings, but it is there all the same.

      What we’re missing here, is that Dr Hawking has a professional reputation as a world renowned physicist, and has a duty to relate his theories in the language of physics, which is maths. That’s right, when making the ‘180 degree turn’ Dr Hawking was fully expected to show why and how he had arrived at his conclusion, and he did.

      Haramein however, as we can all suitably observe, can theorise without restriction and use ancient Egyptian texts (or whatever it is he says turns him on) and logic (wow what a maverick!) to present a theory that he will later burn to DVD and sell, charge people hundreds of dollars to hear it at his seminars and work shops (you have first-hand experience of this Alan), charge dupes $12 a Skype call to speak to him, and ask for a $10 monthly subscription so he can continue his research.

      Haramein turns his theories into commodities. No two ways about it.

      Further to that, Haramein arrogantly insists on comparing himself to Einstein at every possible opportunity without realising he has achieved none of Einstein’s accomplishments – despite now being almost twice Einstein’s age of prominence and most presumably in a more agreeable financial situation and arguably of more distinguished social standing.

      Einstein redefined the world of physics at the age of 25 in the employment of a unglamorous patent office as an unknown, educated graduate – and all without a $15,000,000 research facility.

      What possible fucking similarities can anyone hope to derive from comparing the two other than to highlight the fact that there are no similarities?

      What we can say for sure, is that when a professional physicist makes a discovery, the world progresses and benefits.

      When Haramein makes a discovery, Haramein benefits and Haramein accuses others of stopping the world from progressing and benefiting.

      There’s absolutely no other way of putting it.

      We’ve been through this before Alan, and it is evident your head is buried far, far up your arse when it comes to Haramein – so far that you are completely unable/unwilling to offer an objective opinion on the man. The fact you willingly and blindly leapt to Haramein’s defence when I called him (you) on his completely ludicrous assertion that most of the solar observatories and solar probes belong to the Vatican demonstrates just how far gone you are, and you still haven’t offered a reasonable explanation for his sleazy and retarded accusation.

      The funny thing is, plenty of truthers come here with assbackward comments like “it’s stupid and arrogant to think we have all the answers when it comes to physics” when the only person saying he has all the answers is Haramein. He even states it in his paper you link to!

      Had you have just come here and said something like “hey guys check this picture out…what if Haramein is on to something?” then I would have looked at the story, noted the similarity and pondered the possibility in solitude.

      But that’s not how it happened is it Al? First you assert that the professionals ‘can’t explain it’ and then insinuate that Haramein’s theories are undoubtedly affirmed because of this, and all with no room for debate!

      “All any of you are doing is trying to change the beliefs of others with absolute faith that yours is mightier than anyone else’s.”

      Right back at ya Al. I personally don’t care what you believe and I’m sure everyone who has responded to you thus far doesn’t either. But you crossed a line when you came here enforcing your beliefs on us with some tenuous link between Haramein’s work and the already observed nature of a black hole.

      You came here, you enforced beliefs and you used absolute faith that your belief in Haramein is mightier than anything else.

      It’s easy to be a sanctimonious asshole without realising, isn’t it?

      • Alan says :

        This blog doesn’t exactly come off to me as some friendly place where people can come in and say, “hey look at this picture I found.” I admit that I came in “smartassedly” trying to get a rise out of this group because I knew I would get one. Well let me try to come at this again, and I will try to keep this down to a friendly chat trying to offer some evidence in support of some theories that I think have some validity when the full picture is taken into account.

        So yes, there are astrophysical jets in the article I mentioned (which have been theorized and explained as being inherent features of a black hole) but it was the spherical structure surrounding the entire galaxy that I was trying to point at, that is what “they can’t explain the nature or origin of” and “is connected to some deep questions in astrophysics.” But since these astrophysical jets are in question let’s take a deeper look into where else we see them.

        “Astrophysical jets are highly energetic streams of matter and radiation that arise from the poles of galaxies, quasars, microquasars, pulsars, and blasars. They are also found at the poles of the sun and in its atmosphere and are even emitted from protostellar clouds, prior to their full ignition as young stars. It has been suggested that jets from active galactic nuclei may be the source of gamma-ray bursts which are the most energetic events ever observed, sometimes briefly becoming brighter than the whole universe.” -Michael Hyson (from The Resonance Project Newsletter)

        Now this would be a strange coincidence to find this inherent feature of black holes at such a wide range of scales because the mainstream understanding of black holes would conclude that black holes are born out of the “death of a star” once it has gone supernovae. But this does not seem to be the case. These poles are emitted from our own sun, and when taking the entire solar system into account (including the oort cloud at the farthest reaches of the influence of the gravity of our sun) we just happen to see the same double torus shape that was recently discovered to exist in a much higher energetic state surrounding our galaxy.

        We see these features forming around objects that are not thought to be black holes, and black holes are one of the most mysterious objects in cosmology where not much is known about them, how could the features be thought to form from anything other than a black hole? When Haramein decided to look into this he wrote a scaling law that shows just how similar these objects are and came up with fascinating results. Every object he plotted on the scale that compared Frequency vs Radius of objects from universal size down the the Planck distance formed a linear progression showing a “coordinated” attempt of the universe to show what is causing this relationship. Furthermore he went on to demonstrate that the phi ratio exists between the different scaled objects plotted on this graph, which is a ratio that is found everywhere in living organisms, galactic structures, weather patterns, the human body, etc.

        Click to access scalinglaw_paper.pdf

        When we look at how these objects are considered black holes, Haramein is using the “Schwartzchild condition” which was the first approximation to a solution to the field equations generated by Einstein’s Relativity in 1915. The term black hole was not coined at that time but the solution was found using a non-rotating spherical object that contains a singularity (the density would go towards infinity) at its center. Since that time numerous solutions have been rendered to more accurately describe the behavior of objects we see in space, such as rotation. But what Nassim’s solution offers is something different, his solution calculates torque and Coriolis forces into the solution, not only does this give us a rotating object it gives us a solution that accounts for WHY this rotation is occurring. The example in his paper is the difference between two eggs: if you spin an egg that is hard boiled and cooled it will spin continuously and if this was a frictionless environment you could imagine it would spin forever, but if you spin an uncooked egg, the viscous core will not spin very long. This analogy is important when taking into consideration the liquid core of Earth.

        Here is what Harvard says when asked about what goes on inside of black holes:

        “The only way to answer this question is by developing a better, more fundamental theory of space, time, and matter. Unfortunately, Einstein’s theory of gravity – which gave us the idea of black holes in the first place – does not accurately predict what happens at the very smallest scales of distance. For example, the atoms in our body all contain electrons, yet electrons are so small and so dense that they ought to form black holes. Obviously, they don’t. Why not? If new theories of physics, such as “string theory,” are correct, then there may be additional dimensions of space beyond the three dimensions we see; these extra dimensions may be important in explaining the behavior of matter at very small scales of distance, including what happens at the center of a black hole.

        This may be the ultimate value of black holes: helping us to understand how the universe works at the most basic level. In the meantime, physicists will probe the behavior of the smallest particles in giant accelerators, and astronomers will hone in on the behavior of black holes in the great reaches of space. And just as everything in nature is in some way connected, so too are the various fields of science connected. Eventually, these explorations will cross paths and will lead to a unified understanding of black holes – and to an even better appreciation of this marvelous universe that gives birth to such strange things.”


        This is where a good theory comes in handy. The more unified your approach is from the beginning, the more accurate your theory will be in the long run. Since Newton was only able to make observations about our local solar system his theory is only accurate to account for what he could observe. Einstein came along and widened the range of accuracy to a whole new level, but as we are beginning to discover his theories still do not account for everything. As more and more evidence has been discovered about our universe the pieces have slowly started to fall into place for being able to paint a more complete picture of our universe. So as many people have started doing since Einstein began the trend with trying to take a unified approach to solving the issues in physics, we are getting closer and closer to figuring it all out.

      • a rational person says :

        alan sez: “This blog doesn’t exactly come off to me as some friendly place where people can come in and say, “hey look at this picture I found.”


        listen hoss, there’s enough places in this twisted fucked up septic tank called the internet where bullshit like yours gets a free pass, but this isn’t one of them. this blog is about setting the record straight and telling people that thrive is garbage. most of the places on the web where people talk about thrive are friendly to conspiracy nutbaggery and other bullshit…trust me, i’ve seen em, looked up several since i started coming to this blog…if u just want a big circle jerk of bullshit new age and conspiracy nutbag believers, then go to above top secret or the david icke nazi anti-semite forums.

        why am i so hard on bullshit believers? because everyone else is too easy on em. if u can’t man up and actually look at the facts, then fuck you. srlsly, just fuck you. the world is run by rational people. u believe in nassim haramein? u believe 911 was an inside job? u believe little green men in flying saucers make crop circles? then u have no place in any responsible discussion of the world’s problems.

        so stop being uppity and pretending like u’re so put upon. i don’t go to conspircay nutbag forums and spam the shit out of them like you’re doing here. yea, i think they’re all nuts, and i think the ideas they believe in are poisonous shit thats destroying our society. but i’m not trolling them am i? and u have the balls to come here and try to spew your stupid pseudo science bullshit and pretend like it’s serious, like it’s factual? srsly, man, just fuck off. u can’t handle facts and evidence, u’re not wanted here. goodbye. end of story. don’t let the door hit u in the ass on the way out.

  68. ehab subuh says :

    Mr. Haramien is providing to humanity a new window of light. This light is not necessarily to be the light of sun but it could be a small light of candle yet both are light and both will kill the darkness. However the sunlight will provide warmth that we could feel. Mr. Haramien with his candle light is showing us the road through the dark cave to the actual warmth of sunlight. But from your aggressive comment about him I just see the darkness of your mind using Mr. Haramien candle light. Please don’t claim knowledge even if you have it and no matter what training you had, still you are not prepared to claim judgement on people knowledge. You proved ignorance when you claim knowledge.

  69. takdog says :

    if NH is so very ‘unscientific’ and just plain wrong, then his claims would be easily debunked….but you have not done that have you ? you sure have excited the trolls however ……..your good at it ,wonder where you learned how to do that……?

    • Anastasio says :

      @takdog & ehab subuh

      Let’s not get carried away shall we my open-minded, awakened, enlighted ones?

      Nassim Haramein is a qualified ski instructor, not a physicist, and the professionals who have bothered to check his work have shown him out to be a charlatan. There are a couple of good threads on ATS where more than one qualified physicist (including a regular user of CERN) has looked through his work and highlighted his errors.

      Once instance of Haramein being ‘just plain wrong’ is his accusation that “most of the solar observatories and solar probes that observe the sun, are owned by no one else than The Vatican” (sic).

      It’s resoundingly suspicious that none of his supporters will address this perverse statement of his.

      Still, don’t let me spoil your ride towards that window of light. Blinkers on, eyes forward and all that chaps..

      • OzzieThinker says :

        I like this comment Anastasio.

        However, rather than being a “charlatan” per se, I believe Haramein has backers in the New Age area and problably “believes”. They, the “New Age” illuminati, are wanting to push some of those stoopid reptilian concepts that will never work – not in a million years. People are not born scientists. Scientists are made and these days qualifications (sic) rarely mirror ability or output. Qualifications, sadly, are all about “huff and puff”.

        Nevetheless, I may have appeared to side with Haramein in other comments. I do not. His arguments are flawed and, in some cases, full of holes. My criticism goes far wider that Haramein. It is leveled at what I term (in my book) propaganda-science or science-propaganda. I am not the first to make this observation, nor will I be the last.

  70. Rodney simpson says :

    Ok so when someone comes with ideas theories people want to instantly debunk them, from what I know and from what I have researched his theories seem sound.
    He explains everything in great detail like with many things when you speak the truth people look at you like you’re from mars. We are moving into something new things are changing the ancient spoke about sacred geometry they knew so much, we have forgotten so much we are changing and we will remember nassim haramein great man keep up the good work nuff respect.


    • anticultist says :

      You clearly know nothing if you think his ideas are sound, sacred geometry is a pile of shite, and no one here cares whether you believe in it. Try some real science and then you might see how stupid this clown actually is.

  71. Alan says :

    “Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural.” -Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to “The Mismeasure of Man,” 1981

    • anticultist says :

      That section is stuck between an area where Gould is discussing how historians of science would perceive science.

      For right after that quote on the same page 259 he continues: “This argument, although still an anathema to many practicing scientists, would , I think, be accepted by all historians of science. In advancing it however I do not ally myself with an over extension now popular in some historical circles; the purely relativistic claim that scientific change only reflects the modification of social contexts, that truth is a meaningless notion outside cultural assumptions, and that science can therefore produce no enduring answers.”

      In short he is saying that science is not equivalent to pseudoscience by him saying this, and that good science can not be compared to bad science. Relativism is not something he would endorse, all he is implying is that science is embedded within its social surroundings, and that human attributes go toward helping science become what it is.

      He is not saying that science is somehow at fault or that the scientific method is somehow bad or wrong. The whole book is not framed like this, he is in fact discussing a much wider topic about racism, eugenics, class and how science played a negative role in history, and that if unchecked by human morals it could be used negatively in regard to human breeding and creation with genetics. This is the framing he sets up before your quote.

      So what exactly is it you are trying o say by quoting Gould here Alan ?

      • Alan says :

        I guess what I am trying to say is that our culture is evolving, the interconnectedness of all things is becoming more well understood, and people all the around the world are waking up to this fact and demanding a more scientific approach to living in a global society. This also goes along with Michio Kaku’s philosophy on evolution of a society. When humans begin to think globally, it is only natural to begin thinking spiritually and philosophically because there are many things that are not explainable in what we know of today as science. Look at the origins of science though; it is deeply embedded in understanding the universe philosophically and spiritually and there were many schools devoted to this esoteric knowledge. But nowadays science tries very hard to steer clear of these things because of the importance of having measurable and repeatable results.

        Well then that begs the question, what happens when people try to take a scientific approach to understanding these unexplained esoteric phenomenon? Instead of being incorporated into the fields of science, these things have become completely separate fields of study with little to no interaction, psychology has nothing to do astronomy for instance because if it did it would be called astrology and therefore be referred to as a “pseudoscience.” Despite the vast subjective value of the study of astrology from an individual’s point of view, it has no value in “true science.” But before you begin exclaiming the unimportance of astrology, try looking at it from just a monetary point of view and look at how many people are out there making a hefty living from this area of study. Obviously there is a demand for it so apparently people are looking for some type of explanation to this phenomenon.

        So, in light of the Gould quote I think that his seemingly dual position analogy, that historians say culture shapes science but scientists curse this idea so they ignore it and stick with the objective results of their experiments, is a safe way to say that no one is in the wrong (as in the historians or the scientists). Because of this perceived separation, once again the fields of history and science are viewed as two things that do not overlap in their relevancy with what is currently happening, so do we have a separate area of study that tries to combine history and science? Of course! I would say that the entire global economy depends on the relevancy of these subjects. Obviously it isn’t that simple of an issue but in short these were just some of the things I was thinking of in response to Gould’s quote.

        But in tying that quote in to what Nassim is doing, I think that since he is trying to tie multiple areas of study into one complete theory, a grand unified theory, he can be easily written off as pseudoscience based purely on the idea that there is no relevancy in his assumptions that everything in the universe is related, including all fields of science and esoteric knowledge. As with my example of the demand for astrology, Nassim’s (not for profit) organization is bringing in lots of money because there is such a high demand for this type information. And in fact the elementary school that I was doing a field experience for last semester is moving more towards this type of approach to teaching kids, integrating multiple different subjects into their lessons.

      • anticultist says :

        “When humans begin to think globally, it is only natural to begin thinking spiritually and philosophically because there are many things that are not explainable in what we know of today as science.”

        Nope because spirituality is just another word for mysterious or the unknown or the magic. If you want to say we don’t fully understand everything yet that is fine, if you want to start filling the gaps with imaginary spiritual things that is not fine. You can’t fill gaps with magic, that is simply not scientific it is religious.

        Science will explain things which we do not understand yet, that is how science functions, but saying until then it is spiritual is utter nonsense.

        “Look at the origins of science though; it is deeply embedded in understanding the universe philosophically and spiritually and there were many schools devoted to this esoteric knowledge. But nowadays science tries very hard to steer clear of these things because of the importance of having measurable and repeatable results.”

        Yes that is because we were naive and did not understand natural behaviour of the universe and earth. We know better now, this should teach you not to think things are magic or spiritual and know that science will eventually explain things, so calling shit magic is as stupid as people calling things magic in the past. As a species we have outgrown this type of thinking because we can see into history how naive people were giving the unknown stupid labels and explanations.

        It is much more scientific to say we do not know or understand yet, but one day we will.

        “Well then that begs the question, what happens when people try to take a scientific approach to understanding these unexplained esoteric phenomenon? ”

        In that very book Gould discusses the non overlapping magisteria and how science can not explain the unexplainable, such as the idea of god or something that is inherently unmeasurable. This is simply put two picture frames, one frames religion, the other frames science, they do not overlap, but they do question one another.

        If you are asking scientists to be religious or spiritual, then you are quite literally asking for oil and water to mix, because religion is framed so that science can not disprove it, therefore it is unscientific. Science and the scientific method demands that anything it attempts to explain must be falsifiable, for if something can’t be falsified then it is a claim that it is true without the need to explain or understand it. Which is why religious and spiritual matters are mostly unscientific and beyond the scope of study in a scientific way.

        “So, in light of the Gould quote I think that his seemingly dual position analogy, that historians say culture shapes science but scientists curse this idea so they ignore it and stick with the objective results of their experiments, is a safe way to say that no one is in the wrong (as in the historians or the scientists). ”

        That is relativism right there, you are asking scientists who can validate everything they say with mountains of evidence, this can be stated as beyond reasonable doubt, this is not 100%, but it is as close to it as is possible. Which is why they are termed facts, truth and right. You can not just wander in and say oh they might be wrong in the future, therefore let’s assume they are incorrect. That is not how people operate. If there is evidence to show something as truth right now, then it is true right now, if evidence in the future shows this incorrect, then it is incorrect in the future. That is how science and life works.
        Plus Gould was dualistic on science, he was fully immersed in the reality of the scientific method and that facts can be stated as facts. I even showed that in the quote I showed you after yours.

        “so do we have a separate area of study that tries to combine history and science?”

        Not at all. We have a historian looking back on science and explaining how the progression of science and scientists opinions have changed over time utilising the scientific method to show how beliefs have been incorrect, and that we have made mistakes and errors in judgement and behaviour over time. This is not saying that we have some separation of science and history or a new topic, rather that using hind sight and historical records we can see how science, methods, and skills have changed. It is not saying anything but this.

        “As with my example of the demand for astrology, Nassim’s (not for profit) organization is bringing in lots of money because there is such a high demand for this type information. ”

        Demand does not equate to truthful or correct, all that matters is evidence. If there is none then it is of no value to any scientist, this is the mistakes made in the past and the reason why scientists take a more material approach to science. Becuase in the past opinions and beliefs ahve permeated into science and caused all manner of mad decisions, for example eugenics,racism like Gould explained. Religious beliefs are prejudiced by their very nature, and spiritual beliefs are biased towards a direction with zero substantive evidence. It is for this reason that scientists are more suited to avoid the overlap of the magisteria, and to only allow what can be proven to direct the scientific consensus.

        Putting in beliefs and what ifs is mere hypothetics and has no value to scientific fact, of course hypothetics are great for putting forward scientific enquiry, but that is about as far as it should be taken. Beliefs should be left at the door when conducting any science.

        “And in fact the elementary school that I was doing a field experience for last semester is moving more towards this type of approach to teaching kids, integrating multiple different subjects into their lessons.”

        As we discussed earlier there is no room for different subjects in science, we keep the fields separate for reasons. If you want to water down or mix things up you can do it in your own time, but mixing things up in order to try and explain something ethereal or religious/spiritual where there is no evidence is simply unprofessional.

      • anticultist says :

        I made an error I should ahve said this in my reply…..”Plus Gould was NOT dualistic on science”

      • Frankie says :

        I think science has unveiled a more amazing and wonderful universe, more than any woo philosophy or religion could ever imagine.
        Some believers in woo say that there are “8 suns in the universe”. Then they complain science takes wonder away from the world… seriously, nothing could be more retarded than this.
        They argue that science wants to make us think we know everything, and that they are arrogant. But, dont you guys think the arrogance lies in the woo? If you notice, they want to explain everything away with their bullshit, when science keeps going with the data and admits there are things we dont yet know, and that eventually we will.
        Science is humble, woo is arrogant.

      • Alan says :

        I’m not saying science isn’t important, or that it hasn’t discovered great things. But one thing that science does do is imply beliefs to try explaining the unknown, the magic and the spiritual experiences that people have every day on this planet. It is called theory and it is everywhere in science, theory is just another word for belief. So to say there is no room for belief in science is just plain ignorant of what science is all about. If there were no beliefs in science we would not need to send space probes to other planets, we would not need to build particle accelerators, we might as well just go find a cave and practice our finger painting skills to express what we think we know so future generations can look back and say “aww look how cute they were, they thought that going to war would solve their problems. Oh and look they managed to send something to another planet! We should write a kids book about this.”

        Obviously we have differing opinions about all of this, and in no way am I saying you are wrong and I am right. All I am asking of you is to look at the bigger picture here. Spirituality has been around much longer than science. There is a reason for this. Spirituality does not mean magic in the sense that you are calling it (which I am assuming you are referring to the slight of hand, “can’t fool me” performance magic). It is a term that is used in describing the everyday experiences we have on this planet. The reason why different religions form out of spirituality is because no one wants to have this life experience alone on this planet, we want someone to talk to about our experiences and we need a common set of terminology to describe these experiences.

        This can go two ways, either the group of people coming up with the common experience terminology can be very strict in their defining what constitutes a valid experience in life, proper terminology must be used in the proper manner, their experience must not invalidate what is currently believed in the system, etc. etc. etc. There will be institutions built to train people to think in their manner, learn how to follow their rules for making new discoveries and getting them validated and so on. Now I would imagine you have figured out that I am talking about science in this example but the same rules apply for strict religious practices as well although there probably aren’t so many new discoveries in a religious practice because they claim to have all the answers and that everyone else is wrong and will be going to hell when they die. They are excommunicated so to speak. Well this same thing happens in science if someone starts exploring taboo subjects. They are shunned from the institutions and no longer looked at as valid members of their society.

        The other way this can go is every individual can fend for themselves in deciding what terminology they deem necessary to describe their experience on this planet. This type of group is responsible for intermingling science terms with religious terms, these people are usually self-educated and are particularly uninterested in subscribing to any one set of terminology over the other. Of course you will recognize this type of person as a woo woo new age looney pseudoscience quack who knows nothing because they can’t provide the proper prerequisites to adhere to your system of thought. And we all know that these people do exist, they are claiming to see multiple suns in our solar system like Frankie mentioned for example.

        Obviously these are two very extreme stances. This is a very political-esque way to explain things (you are either for or against) and does not cover the middle majority or people who are stuck there in their lives not wanting to get too involved one way or the other. Every once in awhile something is discovered or announced on either side and groups of people are persuaded to learn about, support financially or defend in their own interactions with people who try to defy their newly acquired belief. It has caused wars, it has defiled belief systems, it has opened new areas of study, it has caused greater understandings of the experiences human beings have on this planet. It is an amazing process of growth and learning that every person goes through.

      • anticultist says :

        “It is called theory and it is everywhere in science, theory is just another word for belief”


        Theory in science is this: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

        This is not belief Alan, nice try to reinterpret the actual meaning o something that fits your own belief.

        “So to say there is no room for belief in science is just plain ignorant of what science is all about. ”

        Again wrong, belief is for the spiritual/religious. Knowledge and facts are provable, and this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with belief. You talk a very unknowledgeable game when it comes to scientific terminology Alan.

        “If there were no beliefs in science we would not need to send space probes to other planets, we would not need to build particle accelerators, ”

        this has nothing to do with belief it has everything to do with explaining, understanding, and pioneering expeditions. To attribute this to belief is quite simply ridiculous, we know the planets are there by evidence, we know that we can get to them with probes through scientific experiment and technological creations. We calculate the probability of the probe reaching the planet through mathematics and calculations.
        Nothing about that is belief, it is all factual knowledge that is done through experiment.

        “Obviously we have differing opinions about all of this, ”

        No, you have an opinion on it, I am using scientific terminology in its correct usage. You are ascribing terminology incorrectly in order to put forward your case Alan.

        As for the rest of your post I honestly can not be bothered to discuss it as it doesn’t really interest me that much.

        On the whole your general thoughts are simply trying to state we should have religion and spirituality in science and that disciplined subjects should become multi disciplined. Thankfully your wants are not the common wants of the scientific establishments, and I have nothing to worry about here.

        I honestly have nothing more to say on this topic of spirituality and science as it is not a topic that even interests me, I will however pull up any misuse of science or terminology you do.

      • anticultist says :

        “Well this same thing happens in science if someone starts exploring taboo subjects. They are shunned from the institutions and no longer looked at as valid members of their society.”


        This only occurs when a scientist is shown to be a bad scientist or a proponent of bad scientific technique. Science is all about studying the unknown or taboo, and to say that scientists only study conformist and conservative topics shows your lack of understanding of scientific history.

        Everything science has done has been against the societal norms of the day, it progresses and expands our world view and has been responsible more than anything else for shaking off the stupidity of religions grip on humans. Science is by its very definition a means of asking questions of established beliefs to prove their claims. it seeks to show what can be proven and not, and for this reason is a means of breaking taboo subjects down to their component parts.

      • Frankie says :

        Well said, anticultist.
        Science is always portrayed by woo woo proponents as a group of closed minded skeptics with no regard to the wonders of the world. They couldnt be farther from the truth.
        Another thing that annoys me is when laypeople, specially christians, say evolution or relativity are “just theories”. They think a theory is just a supposition based on nothing, and that it doesnt equal something probable. haha! They think theory is equal to blind belief, just as they do.
        Evolution and relativity arent “just theories”, they are great scientific achievements that have been finding accumulating evidence as time goes. Something the Just-a-theoryers dont understand is that for something to be called a theory, it must pass certain filters, which are very rigorous. It first needs to be observed many times by different experimenters accross the planet, and if they find more amd more confirmation, it becomes a theory.
        This is an oversimplified example, but it serves to debunk the whole “theory=belief” bullcrap.

      • Frankie says :

        Another thing: it seems christians and all believers in superstitions and new age use the whole “its just a theory” thing to justify their belief in irrational things.
        They often argue scientists engage in “wild theories” concerning time dilation and parallel universes, and that they arent excempt from belief.
        Stop using that inaccurate argument to justify your beliefs in nutbaggeries. It makes one look stupid

  72. Alan says :

    Some interesting reading on this idea of “skepticism” when dealing with beliefs and spirituality in science which I think all of us here may find something to resonant with whether we like to admit it or not:

    “An open-minded skeptic is someone who generally will not accept superstition or beliefs to explain physical or psychical phenomena. He or she will however accept scientifically and other objectively based results. As has been explained, to a person all of the most famous psychic researchers began their investigations as open-minded skeptics.

    However, historically there are also what are known as “closed-minded skeptics” also known as debunkers. These people have already made up their minds about everything. And, like the clergy in Galileo’s time, they will refuse to consider even scientific information that contradicts their personal beliefs. They have changed the definition of “skeptic” from “one who doubts” to “one who will never accept”. The term “closed-minded skeptic” as used in this book refers to this group.

    Some unreasonably closed-minded skeptics have made most cowardly attacks on the lives and reputations of great men and women involved in psychic science and have been responsible for holding back knowledge of the afterlife for several decades. Many are still operating today, accepting large salaries and grants from the materialists to ‘debunk’ all things relating to the afterlife and psychic phenomena.

    But what has to be remembered is that the belief of closed-minded ‘skepticism’ in itself is NOT scientific, not empirical. Closed-minded skepticism does NOT have the substance of science or objectivity to show that it is correct. On the contrary, closed-minded skepticism, like religion, is a subjective belief and as a belief it is subject to fundamental error and to complete invalidation.

    While there have been many eminent scientists who after investigating psychic phenomena did accept the existence of the afterlife, there has NEVER ever been any scientist in history—a physicist, biologist, geologist, astronomer or anybody else—who could rebut the existing evidence for the afterlife.”


    “What distinguishes the majority of men from the few is their inability to act according to their beliefs.”
    -John Stuart Mill

    • Frankie says :

      you are a nutbag. problem?

    • anticultist says :

      Now Alan is asking us to believe in psychic research , sigh.

      He is also asking us to prove a negative. Psychics make the claim there is an afterlife, he posts the nonsense that no scientist has been able to disprove the claim.

      News flash Alan, psychics have to prove their claim is real not the other way round, first rule of science, completely amateur post man.

      By the way your source: A lawyer presents a case for the afterlife, too funny man. We all know you can’t prove it, so give up on this whole silly game of asking others to believe something you have no ability to prove.

      • Alan says :

        I’m no expert on this subject but I believe this style of argument is the “Chewbacca defense.”


        Nothing you said makes any sense. Science is not about discovering what is true, the purpose of science is to remove what can be tested to be false in the search for what most people believe to be “true.” That is a very interesting concept that has a different meaning to every single person on this planet, but that is apparently beside the point on this website.

      • anticultist says :

        No evidence for the after life or psychics? As I thought Alan, move along, the next cranks claim needs trashing too.

    • Anastasio says :

      “And, like the clergy in Galileo’s time, they will refuse to consider even scientific information that contradicts their personal beliefs.”

      Exactly Alan, I’m positively enraptured that you are finally grasping this!

      Do you now understand how your analogy perfectly mirrors Haramein and his clergy’s refusal to accept scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs? Do you see how you and the clergy can never accept that Haramein is wrong?

      I mean Christ Alan, even the Roman Catholic Church pretty much tacitly accepted Galileo’s observation in 1822 and even formally apologised in 1992!

      Thousand of years prior to that, people all over the world were had already observed a round Earth; Galileo only proved what we already knew.

      Now, can you please explain why Haramein has accused the Vatican of owning the majority of solar observatories and solar probes? Will he ever amend this statement and apologise, in true keeping with your analogy?

      Are you mature enough to address the issue?

      • Alan says :

        I am not really sure the three of you read a really pertinent paragraph so I’ll repost it (remember that a paragraph is a complete thought and taking a sentence out of context from that paragraph changes its meaning):

        “However, historically there are also what are known as “closed-minded skeptics” also known as debunkers. These people have already made up their minds about everything. And, like the clergy in Galileo’s time, they will refuse to consider even scientific information that contradicts their personal beliefs. They have changed the definition of “skeptic” from “one who doubts” to “one who will never accept”. The term “closed-minded skeptic” as used in this book refers to this group.”

        In case you missed it once again, “the clergy” in this paragraph are the “closed-minded skeptics” also known as debunkers *glances up at title of website* Whoops!

        Who’s arguing here? Debating yeah, but really, who is arguing? I mean honestly, you are talking down to me as if I am the author of my above (almost completely) quoted post. You are trying to step all over me as if I just offended you and now you want me to reply to an inaccurate statement made by someone else. You know, I really don’t think I am mature enough to address this one Ana. But I really don’t think that he would have a problem admitting his own inaccuracies if someone addressed that with him. I mean, it was a strong enough statement to get you all worked up about, which in my first attempt to research it myself found that the Vatican does indeed have at least partial ownership / anytime use of some of the solar observatories.

      • Anastasio says :


        Yes Al, you got me. As you can see I very much disagree with the use of “closed-minded skeptics” to describe debunkers and the clergy – hopefully the context of my ensuing argument will be in no stretch of the definition ‘lacking’ this time!

        But whom am I to address in this debate Alan? You or Victor Zammit? Is there anything of your own you’d like to add to Victor’s words or would you like to sit at the sidelines while I again address the fallaciousness of his buffoonery? Presumably you once had a point in quoting his book?

        While a mind eager to contradict or camouflage their own shortcomings in adding to a discussion (an argument consisting solely of someone else’s opinion demonstrates a trait of unimaginativeness) may well complain that I have some how equivocated Zammit’s words (and yours by association), it can be argued that the impetus of my response is evident in the very same paragraphs I have written my good man!

        Ergo, read for the first time, or again, Alan. Read about Galileo and heliocentrism before allowing biased, unlearned individuals such as Victor Zammit to act as your mouth piece.

        The point I bring to light is the analogy, metaphor and the strawman argument presumably appended by yourself to the detractors of Thrive and Haramein (I don’t take it personally Alan don’t worry; we can keep this civil).

        Using ‘closed-minded skeptics’ to refer to the clergy of Galileo’s era and debunkers of today, is undoubtedly incorrect and smacks of the asinine reasoning to justify the position of quacks, charlatans, hoodwinkers and the generally aggressive atheist bigotry towards religion in today’s society.

        So, are you blind Alan? Have you not witness the perpetual bleating of Galileo’s name on this blog? Do you and Victor Zammit not know that Galileo’s observations of heliocentricism were generally well-received and even repeated by the most scientifically prolific members of the clergy i.e. the Jesuits? Did you not know that ‘the clergy’ has moved science forwards for hundreds of years and continues to do so today? By God, the mighty Zammit even manages to excoriate the lowly Aristotle and reduce him to the status of a bigot lacking in outlook! (who is Zammit again?)

        Can you accept this Alan, or at the very least, accept that I do not need to pluck certain elements of an argument out of context to riposte to Zammit’s limp grasp of historical events?

        I actually agree with Zammit in principal but he has applied the definitions to the wrong camps. Perhaps a small case of projection occuring in his argument as well.

        “They have changed the definition of “skeptic” from “one who doubts” to “one who will never accept”.

        And by your own admission Alan, debunker and clergy alike today and yester-century observe a heliocentric solar system, with the Pope, like I said before, issuing a formal apology to Galileo in 1992. You couldn’t be more within the boundaries of acceptance than that Alan.

        But can you now accept that using ‘closed-minded skeptic’ to name ‘the clergy’ and debunkers is somewhat of a misnomer?

        Why do you find the above quoted statement pertinent enough for inclusion when it is utterly wrong?

        “I have a list of citations just waiting to be posted, but I would rather not waste anyone’s time. Actually reading about the subject that is being so violently rejected… nonsense! Science rules!”

        By all means, if you have the cites, then cite away. Prove you have something other than closed-minded faith to back you up. I don’t violently reject the idea of an afterlife at all. In fact, like billions of other people, I actually welcome it Alan. I just don’t accept that those who investigate the idea have had attacks upon their lives or that evidence of the afterlife has been suppressed without good enough motive and a little evidence at least.

        Whether you can cite or not, my own personal beliefs, like billions of others, will remain largely unaffected. Kind of pointless to prove or disprove something that requires no evidence for belief and adherence in the first place, don’t you think?

        “You are trying to step all over me as if I just offended you and now you want me to reply to an inaccurate statement made by someone else…..

        ….which in my first attempt to research it myself found that the Vatican does indeed have at least partial ownership / anytime use of some of the solar observatories.”

        And that “someone else” is Haramein, your mentor Alan – the source of the ‘inaccurate statement’.

        As I understood it, you participated in his delegate course and therefore have inside knowledge on how the man’s fabulous mind works. You are an ambassador of sorts for the Resonance Foundation and therefore have a duty to spread and defend all it’s teachings, correct?

        The assertion that almost ALL the solar observatories and solar probes BELONG to the Vatican is a very different idea to the Vatican having partial access to some (‘some’ being an undisclosed amount of which you evidently cannot relay through the instance of simply not knowing) of the solar observatories, which is partially correct. Everyone with internet access has ‘anytime’ use of a solar telescope Alan.

        Partial ownership? Which solar telescopes in particular does the Vatican partially own? And more to the point, which solar probes does the Vatican own?

        Haramein’s accusation is beyond ‘inaccurate’ Alan. It’s completely fabricated bullshit used to sensationalise a conspiracy theory for cash and therefore requires debunking. Am I to be labelled closed-minded for doing so? Why should anyone take your man Haramein seriously knowing that he has no problem lying for cash?

        What I am ultimately trying to demonstrate to you, is the ‘closed-mindedness’ Zammit speaks of ironically applies to himself and people like you who would rather defend than accept and move forward.

        Anyone who defends or proposes utter fuckwittery like this, which is brazenly sold as a commodity, deserves to be ‘stepped all over’ Alan.

        It’s nothing personal, I’m sure you’re a great guy in all actuality. It’s just that your moniker on my LCD screen has some pretty misguided ideas.

        Yep, that’s about it Al.

      • Alan says :

        It’s very difficult to understand what you are actually trying to say with the way you write. I don’t know if there are just too many large ambiguous words. It seems like it would take a lot more energy to type the way you do, it is way beyond my capacity so kudos on that part.

        Please, if you are going to dissect everything I have said by doing the copy and paste thing, at least read the whole thing, critically think about what it is I am saying (the whole thing), maybe look into a few things for yourself… I don’t know. It really just seems like you can take any one sentence out of context of the entire point someone is making and totally go off on a rant and ignore everything the person is saying. It would be like interrupting someone who is expressing themselves to you and you just butting in every 30 seconds to say how dumb they are sounding for sharing their feelings with you. Maybe I don’t fully address everything you say either, I don’t even know what half the words you use mean most of the time, but I try to respond each time with a thought out complete response to everything you have said to me, minus looking into the Galileo thing because I am really not in the position to be studying such trivial information where my opinion on the matter makes no difference to anyone.

        Why did I use Zammit’s quotes? Well, mostly because the argument he is making is very similar to the ones that go on, and on, on this site. They are ultimately useless, they throw around accusations that may or may not be true depending on who’s history book you’re reading and the main similarity that I think is most relevant is the questioning / challenging of authority.

        When I think back to Galileo’s time (please correct me if I am wrong) I see the ultimate public opinion maker (judge, trial and jury) as the church clergy. They ruled pretty much everything, including everyone’s souls (according to their opinion on spirituality). If they did anything against the church doctrine they faced severe punishment, if not death. So when Galileo come’s along with his telescope saying that he can prove by simple observation that Earth is not the center of the existence (from what I understand) the church punished him for presenting information of this nature. In this instance, Zammit was merely pointing out that the authority figure of the time was closed minded in listening to Galileo’s presentation of his observations.

        Nowadays, the general public (those who go through established education facilities and follow mainstream propaganda) opinion is not formed by the church anymore. It is formed by scientific publications of many different areas of research, study and experimentation. I know you already don’t like where this paragraph is going, but hang in there it is just part of my rant on this subject and I allow you to have your opinion to say what I am saying is not the truth (I accept the fact that we don’t see eye to eye). Anyways, what I was getting at is the fact that life after death is not studied, is not included in scientific theories and is not openly talked in ‘science.’ You being a proponent of life after death, wouldn’t you say that there should be science behind that? I mean if it is actually happening, we should be able to write the physics, calculate the math, conduct the experiments, do whatever it takes to figure out exactly what is happening with this thing called consciousness and just get it over with, right?

        This is where Nassim’s theory (and many other Grand Unification Theories out there, Nassim’s being the most complete as far as I have found) comes into play. He is not only able to experience all the “exotic states of consciousness” that every sect of spirituality has spoken about for thousands of years, he has spent 30 years of his life studying science so he can figure out exactly how to incorporate and express his experiences in a ‘scientific’ theory. Of course his theory is so off the wall, no one can accept it as being anywhere near the truth, but at the same time no one with openly stated scientific credibility can disprove his theories, or spend the time to study and fully comprehend his theories. Seemingly the only people who side with his theories are those who have had similar experiences he has. That is, people who are not completely satisfied with how science conducts business.

        As I too believe that there is life after death, and reincarnation, and out of body experiences, and psychic phenomenon happening everyday to hundreds if not thousands of people, I also believe that science should be able to address these phenomenon and figure out exactly what is going on with them and include them in theories of every field of science, or better yet, as Nassim has already done, come up with an understanding of the underlying function of the source of how these phenomenon can exist and not completely ignore the science that is in place already. I really don’t care if anyone here takes Nassim’s or my claims seriously. I have experienced more than what science says is possible. I have had a near death experience. I have experienced “Christ” or “Universal” consciousness. I have felt vacuum energy made coherent by a lab grown quartz tetrahedral crystal charged by Nassim Haramein’s “Harmonic Sphere Flux Resonator” which is his patented device (which is not some subtle “new age” crystal energy, it was a physical buzzing sensation in my palm). I don’t base my beliefs on some wild and crazy research project where I accept any old theory that comes along and woo’s me into buying their product. I have always been an intuitively guided curious individual, trying to figure out exactly what it is I am experiencing in life. Life is a very mysterious and miraculous thing that I think most people take for granted. And from my research as well, it would seem that there are people who want to control, distract, limit or outcast anyone who attempts to explore the limits of human evolution / consciousness (I am mostly referring to hallucinogenic experiences, but natural explorations are not supported by the mainstream either).

        For your reading pleasure, here are Nassim’s patents:

        Original patent filed:

        Newest patent filed:

    • Anastasio says :

      “While there have been many eminent scientists who after investigating psychic phenomena did accept the existence of the afterlife, there has NEVER ever been any scientist in history—a physicist, biologist, geologist, astronomer or anybody else—who could rebut the existing evidence for the afterlife.”

      Now you want to argue about what happens after we die? Wow. It’s not as if every living, breathing soul in the universe won’t find out for themselves at some point in their lives – and you want to consume energy arguing about it now?

      I suppose if this is how you allay your fear of your own mortality then go ahead Alan, indulge yourself. But as long as we all know that your shoehorning of a faith-based supposition into this blog yet again sides you with the Roman Catholic Church.

      “Some unreasonably closed-minded skeptics have made most cowardly attacks on the lives and reputations of great men and women involved in psychic science and have been responsible for holding back knowledge of the afterlife for several decades. Many are still operating today, accepting large salaries and grants from the materialists to ‘debunk’ all things relating to the afterlife and psychic phenomena.

      To ask you to cite just one example of the above…would be a complete waste of everyone’s time.

      Both you and I, and everyone else here, knows that you have made this up, or, have regurgitated some sensationalist, source-less conspiracy trash you’ve read somewhere which confirmed what you already knew to be true.

      Billions of people believe in the afterlife Alan. Billions.

      For the love of God man, take a step back and think about it.

      • Alan says :

        I have a list of citations just waiting to be posted, but I would rather not waste anyone’s time. Actually reading about the subject that is being so violently rejected… nonsense! Science rules!

      • Alan says :

        I think I figured out your argument tactic. You don’t really say anything. It’s like you know all these big words and you know the syntactic structure of the english language quite well, but in all actuality there is no meaning behind what you are writing. Every once in a while you’ll throw in some ambiguous ‘fact’ as if everyone who reads it can be like “yeah, that sounds about right” but your only purpose for doing that is to get people on your side, your side being the side that will not fully commit to taking a side, thus leaving you in some higher position to always make the best move based on you own personal interests in proving everyone else wrong by simply taking the majority stance on every issue and because none of your chips are on the table you have nothing to lose. Sneaky sneaky Mr. Anastasio.

        Now the question is, are you doing this consciously?

        Just out of curiosity, is your name in reference to “Tough Tony” Anastasio? The NYC mobster. Maybe your name is Anthony? I highly doubt you would be referencing the Phish guitarist Trey Anastasio. I just think that is an interesting screen name.

      • Anastasio says :


        You know Al, for a man who complains about being misrepresented for the lack of qualifying text, you evidently aren’t averse to omitting certain context when it suits you.

        Here’s an example (yes, I dissect your argument for brevity and to address the most pertinent issues. It’s nothing personal):

        “Zammit was merely pointing out that the authority figure of the time was closed minded in listening to Galileo’s presentation of his observations. ”

        If this was all that Zammit was ‘merely’ doing, then I would have mostly agreed and simply not responded. However, there’s more to Zammit’s quote, and you know it.
        Zammit continues on to draw similarities between the clergy of Galileo’s time to sceptics of today, and presumably modern secular governments and science institutions, implying that they ‘will never accept’.

        That is the part I have a problem with, and this is the same the part you seemingly never perused or simply declined to disclose for discussion in your reply.

        I went on to highlight that many of the clergy, particularly the Jesuits, agreed with, and even repeated Galileo’s observations, meaning that the institution that Zammit attacks was not a single-faceted, homogeneous entity that echoed the voice of all its constituent parts. The Great Schism and The Reformation are two good examples of this.

        Therefore it, is true to say that the clergy was, and still is, made up of some very forward-thinking, accomplished scientists, as well as the minority who held the ultimate say and adhered to Aristotle’s geocentric view of the solar system and supposedly even refused to look through Galileo’s telescope (the minority Zammit conveniently chooses to base his analogy on – surprisingly enough).

        Do you think Zammit gives Aristotle a pass or is he a closed-minded sceptic too?

        I then went on to highlight that not long after Galileo’s house arrest for heresy, the Roman Catholic Church dropped it’s stance against heliocentricism and, for the third time I say this to you Alan, even issued a formal apology to Galileo in 1992, meaning that Zammit’s definition of ‘those who will never accept’ is not applicable to ‘the clergy’ either. Hopefully my use of syntax and big words will not have served to obscure the point this time; that point being that Zammit’s analogy is unnecessary and ergo he is quite simply, a bigot.

        We are not forced to believe under duress any more Alan, by the church or state. You are free to believe as you wish and you can even publicly vent spleen against Queen, Pope, president or whom ever you like without fear of reprisal. Haramein cannot be accused, never mind stand trial, of heresy.
        There simply is no analogy.

        Zammit’s quote is essentially a derisive jab at those who choose not to be seduced by new-age mystique. I’d be insulted but Zammit apparently is simply not clever enough to insult anything but his own reputation.

        Can you now see where I am coming from with my objection to your quote Alan? It is simply not worthy of rumination on any scale (in my most humble opinion) but if it warms your heart to draw a comparison between Haramein and Galileo then go for it. Why spoil the habit of a lifetime? Who am I to rain on your parade?

        At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter what happened 400-fucking-years-ago because ill-conceived analogies don’t peer review papers or win Nobel Prizes. People do!

        “You being a proponent of life after death, wouldn’t you say that there should be science behind that?”

        I am a tacit subscriber, not a proponent Alan. I offer you my views based on information that every man, woman and child viewing this blog can observe and process to a logical conclusion. My beliefs however, are personal and it is of no interest or business of mine to push them on to other people.

        Like I have continually asked; why do we need the science? You believe, I believe, billions all over the world believe.

        Who do you feel you need to convince Alan? Why bring it up for debate? Why do you feel you have to prove that you are right about this?

        “He is not only able to experience all the “exotic states of consciousness” that every sect of spirituality has spoken about for thousands of years, he has spent 30 years of his life studying science so he can figure out exactly how to incorporate and express his experiences in a ‘scientific’ theory. Of course his theory is so off the wall, no one can accept it as being anywhere near the truth, but at the same time no one with openly stated scientific credibility can disprove his theories, or spend the time to study and fully comprehend his theories”

        All the exotic states of consciousness? Good grief! If you say so! Has he got a patch sewn onto his boy scout’s shirt for that accomplishment or a congratulatory telegram from Buddha himself?

        Unfortunately his conscience also permits him to lie and make money from sensationalising those lies. I’m afraid I remain deeply unimpressed.

        You would have thought that after 30 years of ‘studying science’ that Haramein would have gained some openly stated scientific credentials to his CV, yet his only discernible qualification is teaching people how to ski. Why you feel anyone is obliged to take his material seriously is beyond me.

        Haramein’s biggest debunker should be Haramein, and after 30 years of studying science I would think that salient fact would have become apparent at some point. His biased theories have in essence been disproved by the many qualified professionals with the appropriate credentials who reviewed his papers for publication in the many journals he says he submitted them to.

        So, why has Haramein never made the rejection letters from these journals public? Make his theory open source so to speak? Allow other like-minded individuals to fill in the gaps and solve the problems he can’t? And why not if it ultimately benefits all of humanity anyway?

        The truth lies in those rejection letters Alan, and that’s why you will never get to see them.

        Instead, Haramein takes rejection personally and labels mainstream science ‘the club’; a circular argument that only serves to highlight his level of professionalism and maturity.
        Being wrong is simply not in his range of cognitive thought – just like the clergy of Zammit’s estimation.

        Also, this is Quantum Physics were are discussing, remember? Everything is ‘off the wall’, so Haramein’s unconventionality quite obviously isn’t his handicap, nor does it fly with anyone who reads the news and is fairly up to date with scientific breakthroughs that occur on a regular note.

        Thanks for reposting his patents; I’m not sure if you remember when we discussed this last year when I pointed out the crassness of his kick-starter plea; demanding a $10/month subscription fee for the benefit of humanity no less.

        I also remember you saying it had been demonstrated in front of qualified professionals of some standing. Have you any further updates on that story Alan or can I safely close my mind again until he actually delivers something?

      • Alan says :

        Are you seriously justifying the clergy’s reaction to Galileo, who was simply presenting scientific evidence, by presenting the fact that the church apologized 350 years after his death? WTF! Seriously? Wow…

        If you weren’t so busy copy / pasting you may have figured out by reading my whole post (or maybe you didn’t read the whole thing) that I did address: “That is the part I have a problem with, and this is the same the part you seemingly never perused or simply declined to disclose for discussion in your reply.”


        “Nowadays, the general public (those who go through established education facilities and follow mainstream propaganda) opinion is not formed by the church anymore. It is formed by scientific publications of many different areas of research, study and experimentation. I know you already don’t like where this paragraph is going, but hang in there it is just part of my rant on this subject and I allow you to have your opinion to say what I am saying is not the truth (I accept the fact that we don’t see eye to eye). Anyways, what I was getting at is the fact that life after death is not studied, is not included in scientific theories and is not openly talked *about* in ‘science.’ You being a proponent of life after death, wouldn’t you say that there should be science behind that? I mean if it is actually happening, we should be able to write the physics, calculate the math, conduct the experiments, do whatever it takes to figure out exactly what is happening with this thing called consciousness and just get it over with, right?”


        “Haramein cannot be accused of heresy…” Yeah because if he was accused of heresy, science would be openly admitting that science is a dogmatic belief system. Why would they do that when all the faithful followers of science know that people like Haramein are called pseudoscientists. Not heretics. Explain to me, without pointing out the obvious fact that you cannot accept science as any type of religion, what the difference is. Science falls under the category of epistemology, which is not about saying what is true, it is about determining what is false to get closer to what can be considered true. That means that the “truth” is always evolving, just like everything else. So what you believe now may someday be proven false through epistemological study.

        I’ve never looked for anyone who openly posts rejection letters. Do people do that generally? All of Nassim’s papers were published in some type of journal, maybe he used the rejection letters as a way to improve his theories? Maybe they helped him filter out any inaccuracies. I don’t know, obviously. These are speculations that I again am apparently not mature enough to address because I cannot speak for why Nassim would avoid posting his rejection letters.

        I do have the pictures and signed documents from his experiments with the device. I do not know how to post them on this blog tho.

      • Anastasio says :


        “Are you seriously justifying the clergy’s reaction to Galileo, who was simply presenting scientific evidence, by presenting the fact that the church apologized 350 years after his death? WTF! Seriously? Wow… ”

        Justify? Not at all Alan. I simply used facts that are available to everyone here to make the point that the clergy of Galileo’s day wasn’t made up of closed-minded sceptics who couldn’t/wouldn’t accept change to their beliefs. Besides, the act of placing someone under house arrest for heresy in that era was entirely justifiable, in that era.

        I used this information in a contradictory fashion to effectively to explain the Galileo story a little more comprehensively than Zammit could ever hope to with his monochrome view of events. Since when did black and white thinking become the mark of an open mind?

        I don’t know how much more to the point I can be than that Alan. If you don’t understand it by now then I really don’t think there is anything else I can do to help improve your ability to think and apply reason. You have to at least apply a little effort yourself.

        Of course you would like to believe my reply can be accounted for by some inherent duty to systematically defend the Catholic Church, debunking or whatever you wish, because it implies that I would be arguing from emotion and faith, rather than logic, wouldn’t you say Alan?

        Instantly one can recognise the futility in juxtaposing two very different cultures and establishments positioned 400 years apart on the calendar with an intention to highlight similarities which did not exist in the first place.

        In fact, the act demonstrates that one would rather seek false moral superiority, rather than the particulars, and therefore an understanding, of the event.

        It’s truly disgusting that the church put Galileo under house arrest for heresy isn’t it Alan? One truly wonders why the church couldn’t have just simply skipped 300 years of evolution and just ignored him in a rather more compassionate handling of the situation?

        To summarise; I mentioned three times that the church apologised to Galileo because it shows quite clearly that Zammit’s assertion is wrong, no other reason. The ‘closed-minded clergy’ that Zammit and yourself refer to was also undeniably comprised of luminaries who agreed with, accepted and apologised to Galileo meaning that-

        ““They have changed the definition of “skeptic” from “one who doubts” to “one who will never accept”. – Zammit


        “In case you missed it once again, “the clergy” in this paragraph are the “closed-minded skeptics” also known as debunkers *glances up at title of website* Whoops! ” – You

        -are undoubtedly incorrect, ineptly argued, self-satisfying accusations that deliver nothing more than the false sense of moral superiority I mentioned before. Whoops! indeed champ.

        Of course I would agree that the actions of a small group of individuals who pressured the Pope at the time (who was fond of Galileo) into accusing Galileo of heresy could be classed as a little over the top (by today’s standards), but to compare them to the whole mainstream scientific establishment of today and, now you insist, the opinion of the general public no less, is just plain backwards Alan.

        People have never been so well-informed (or I would like to think so) thanks to the invention of the internet and the opportunities it presents to engage in dialogue with people like Haramein and the like. The world is literally at your fingertips.
        The general population is no longer held under duress to follow or practise beliefs of any kind Alan. You are free, free to believe whatever you like.

        As I understand it, Haramein teaches that the Earth does not actually revolve around the Sun anyway, so I do ultimately wonder what the ever-loving fuck you are trying to prove here with the Galileo analogy?

        You are going to have to dig a little deeper to explain the shortcomings in spiritual science than that Alan. Like I said before, crude analogies and the opinion of the general public do not affect what is observed in the laboratory.

        “Yeah because if he was accused of heresy, science would be openly admitting that science is a dogmatic belief system.”

        Do you honestly think that any scientific institution has the authority to accuse Haramein or anyone of heresy? You are so detached from reality Alan that ‘off the wall’ just doesn’t stretch far enough to define it. That’s just tit for tat arguing now. Be a man and debate like one.

        “Nowadays, the general public (those who go through established education facilities and follow mainstream propaganda)”

        My, you are cynical aren’t you Alan? What facilities and mainstream propaganda do you allude to in particular? If Haramein’s model became standard and replaced the current curriculum, would we then be allowed to view established education facilities and ‘mainstream propaganda’ as positive aspects of society, rather than the backwards, non-scientific entities they are now?

        Sure, it’s not Haramein who’s wrong, it’s everybody else, right Al?

        It’s evident you people enjoy the exclusivity and image of subscribing to an alternative theory more than actually learning about anything else. Always feeling the need to reassure yourselves that everyone else can’t think for themselves and ‘just don’t get it’ because they’re too narrow-minded and misanthropic.
        You simply can’t open your mouths without belittling the rest of humanity.

        You are one of the most intolerant people I have ever had the pleasure of conversing with Alan. And all the mediation and resonance in the world can’t fix that.

        “I do have the pictures and signed documents from his experiments with the device. I do not know how to post them on this blog tho.”

        There are multiple places where you can upload the documents and then share a link to this blog. I’d have thought this was rudimentary knowledge to a torrent user?

        While we await your link, why not name some of the peers who signed his papers and what tell us exactly what it was they observed? And also their credentials, just so we are all keeping in line with your standards.

        Bear in mind we are still waiting for the cites relating to the scientists who apparently had their lives threatened for studying the afterlife. When can we expect to see those cites Alan? Or must we take your word for everything?

        “I’ve never looked for anyone who openly posts rejection letters. Do people do that generally?”

        Who knows who posts what Alan? I’ve seen a couple yes, but my point isn’t to deduce whether it’s a popular pastime or not, but rather to know exactly why those journals refused to publish Haramein – as the details are in Haramein’s rejection letters.

        If Haramein demands on kicking up such a public shit storm about peer review then perhaps he should be man enough to tell everyone why exactly the journals rejected him. He has dedicated a whole page on his website with a means to castigate ‘the club’ and highlight the absurdity of the peer review system, yet we are at a loss to learn why they chose not to publish him.

        Kind of a one-sided argument wouldn’t you say?

        So why not put it to rest, let’s see Haramein’s rejection letters and then we will all know just what the professionals with the appropriate credentials think of his work. That’s not so unreasonable is it?

        Now before you start getting upset over my ‘cutting and pasting’ of your argument, know that this is how we retain context and allow for easy referral to the parts addressed by counterpoint. This style of formatting is standard and expected on most forums and is done purely to help the discourse flow in a more graceful fashion. I can only guess that you are novice user of technology and less experienced in making yourself vocal in the electronic world of opinions and monikers.

        You’ll get used to it in time.

  73. Curt Vasseur says :

    It’s so hard to digest all what people say. perhaps next time say it in a concise manner so people can understand all your critical points. too many words turn me off and Im sure most people are too.

  74. Mullyboggers says :

    This blogger certainly has a lot of prejudice towards Nassim. Frankly, I can’t fathom why original ideas tick off some people to the point where they feel they must go out of their way to ostracize that person. The ideas he (Nassim) puts out there are such a 180 degree reversal from the mainstream that they make you THINK. What does it matter if the theory is not 100 percent right? There are concepts in his thinking which make a lot of sense to me personally and I have had a tremendous amount of enjoyment from pursuing them. I have had absolutely no pleasure or original thought from this bloggers attempt at defaming him.

    • Anastasio says :


      “This blogger certainly has a lot of prejudice towards Nassim. Frankly, I can’t fathom why original ideas tick off some people to the point where they feel they must go out of their way to ostracize that person.”

      Haramein is ‘ostracised’ from mainstream physics about as much as any other other layman; there is nothing unusual about that.

      It’s not because his ideas are original or a reversal from the mainstream or even that they tick anyone off, but more because he is not a physicist and his ideas are not physics.

      His failure to impress his peers and those impervious to his mystique cannot be whittled down to an argument of prejudice when so many other factors can be shown to influence the argument.

      What does it matter if the theory is not 100 percent right?

      It matters because when you’re selling DVDs for $80, holding conventions and selling tickets for £200, running delegate programs for $400 and taking Skype calls for $12 a time and simultaneously shooting down anyone who dares to point out the flaws in your theory, then it vividly illustrates the extent of Haramein’s moral deficit.

      Apparently, even his associate (at that time) who helped him write the Schwarzschild Proton paper does not agree that a proton is a black hole, and still, the money continues to roll into Haramein’s coffers.

      How much more incorrect can you get?

  75. Rodney simpson says :

    Should I debunk you now ? What would be the point I can see that you don’t have any understanding in the field and haven’t read Mr haramein paper Schwarzchild proton he talks all science religion coming together think about everything you have said why would u try an debunk something that is hear to unite us my friend go and find something else to debunk

    • anticultist says :

      Trying to unite ridiculous beliefs with repeatable experiment is the thinking of a retard who doesn’t fully understand scientific principles.

      You simply can’t bring belief into the laboratory, even a junior academic student understands this simple principle, and the fact Harramein and yourself are willing to overlook something so basic to science tells everybody exactly how little you understand.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Hello so you can disregard the ancient Egyptian the sumarians about thete belief in spirituality ok more fool you science is only now discovering that ancient belief can now be scientificly proven the western way is not the only way get the full picture first and don’t disregard indigenous cultures as primitive

      • anticultist says :

        Who is disregarding ancient civilisations as primitive ? I certainly am not, in fact I give them more respect for their ingenuity and intellectual abilities than ancient astronaut believers do.

        Because i actually believe the ancient people were intellectual enough to understand how to build their pyramids and structures themselves, without the need for any intervening gods/aliens.

        Ancient alien believers on the other hand would assert that these cultures were too primitive to do it themselves without intervention from an outside source, those are the people who disrespect ancient people and cultures.

      • Wyboth says :

        I wasn’t planning on it, but yesterday my astronomy teacher showed us Ancient Aliens. I didn’t have the heart to tell her what she was doing, but few people pay attention in that class, so it was a good opportunity just to see how whack the show was.

        It was whack. Even more whack than I had imagined. First they were talking about ancient Indian cone shaped buildings, then they were talking about UFO battles between the gods, then saying it was proven, then saying even if there was a one in a million chance of it it would revolutionize society, etc. etc. Not once did they interview anyone credible, but I did see Erich von Daniken and the guy from Coast to Coast on there. Absolutely bonkers.

        TL;DR Ancient Aliens is bullshit.

  76. Rodney simpson says :

    Also you said it yourself your not a expert

  77. 3n3rt3x says :

    It’s websites like this that generate the type of thinking that has us where we are as a species. Grow up and open your eyes.

    • anticultist says :

      It’s gullible people like you who have gotten us into the situation we are by not doing enough educational research and simply believing what feels good or intuitively right to you.

      People take advantage of suckers like you every day and you don’t even have the awareness to see it.

    • Rodney simpson says :

      The snobbery in the research field is unbeliverable the day i listen to one of these tight ass fools would be a cold day in hell common sense please i grew up with text books showing the evolution of apeman to modern man with no other races in between please they dont know jack i have recived more factural information from a bum on the sreet.

      • anticultist says :

        Thanks for the admission on how under educated and happy to be dumb you are.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Listen fool educating u would be a waste of time small mindedness will get you far in life, don’t need to and I realised it was a waste of time talking to you continue with foolishness, and to make a comments about someone you know nothing about explains a lot about how messed up of an individual you must be.

      • Wyboth says :

        You read a textbook that said man evolved straight from apes and believed it?

        Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

        Phew. I could entertain a comedy club with these stories. Anyways, my advice is to actually learn who scientists are and what they do, because you obviously don’t know either.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        My friend it’s obvious you didn’t understand me the text book I read as a kid were bullshit complete utter bullshit and it obvious you don’t know much yourself I explained myself so simple even a monkey could understand, I could point you in the right direction but I won’t.

      • anticultist says :

        Watch the door doesn’t hit your back on the way out Rodney.

        Total doofus is anti academic/anti science. There isn’t anything more retarded.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Oh the monkey still talking but only verbal diarrhea coming out save your words for someone who gives a dam about your opinion, and I will say again you little prick you don’t know anything about me so continue to live up your ass and have a good life prick

      • anticultist says :

        If there were ever any reason for people to laugh at your every atom of existence, your last response literally shows how invalid you are around here.

        Don’t waste any more of my time.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Yawn yawn oh my days still chatting out your rear end baaaah baaaaah you sheep keep it coming your more than predictable

  78. Alan says :

    Since the only “mainstream” attention that Nassim gets is about his “Schwarzschild Proton” theory, people who are not familiar with his complete “Holofractographic” GUT cannot apply the concepts of the Schwarzschild Proton properly. Especially for someone with a “scientific” background, this theory would seem absolutely false (this can be attributed to the fact that there are fundamental axioms that science is built around, but do not paint an entirely complete picture of what we observe in the Universe and there are many unanswered questions due to this. The fundamental axioms are so widely accepted that you will get a big laugh if you try to question those axioms or adjust them to more accurately reflect what we observe. Instead of finding all sorts of new, unexplained phenomena, if the fundamental axioms of science were more accurate there would not be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics). But for someone who is on a more “spiritual” path in life, someone who is trying to find a deeper meaning in the more esoteric experiences in life, the theories that Nassim presents are completely valid. Of course there is no way of proving one right over the other (between scientists and spiritualists, better known as “knob heads” on this blog), it would make the most sense to collaborate the two areas of studies as many have been doing for many many years (Bruce Lipton, Elizabet Sahtouris, Peter Russell, Fritjof Capra, Elizabeth Rauscher, Michael Talbot, William Brown, Michael Hyson, and many many others). Although there is still a lot of work left… further experimentation, more thorough application to other fields of science, mass production of technologies developed from the theories, etc… people who are able to grasp this new line of thinking and find value in applying the theories to new fields and new areas of research (which is being done on a large scale all around the world and is apparent to those who have taken the time look, it is not necessarily only Nassim’s theories) will remain “unaccredited” self-proclaimed “scientists”. Not that everyone who utilizes Nassim’s theories are unaccredited, there are many people who are collaborating with Nassim who are highly acclaimed in their specific field of study, but there isn’t a way to become “accredited” in Unified Field Theory unless you first attain the many years of study it takes to understand all the present theories; then once you understand those you can start dissecting where the problems arise, where to make adjustments, etc. Not many people are willing to do this as it would mean the person would have to go back on many years of study with the notion that everything they learned is based on something that could be wrong. So how do we fix this? What needs to be done? Some would say, “Go back to school and learn something.” Others might say, “Go to a quiet space, meditate, and learn something.” I think it takes an equal share of both in order to actually progress your level of knowledge of a subject, which is something that more and research and experiments are confirming. The Transcendental Meditation area of research is one such example, Mindfulness is another, Social and Emotional Learning is another. To get back to my original point, the validity of Nassim’s theories does not rest upon the standard model axioms of science. In almost every public presentation that Nassim does, he starts with the most basic adjustment of these axioms, the axiom about dimensions and the relationship between finite structures and infinities. If someone were to dismiss this while viewing or reading the rest of his theories, obviously the viewer would not follow or understand the concepts presented in “The Schwarzschild Proton” and would lead to critics like “Bob-a-Thon” not being able to comprehend the complete picture of the “Holofractographic” GUT.

    • Rodney simpson says :

      Finally thanks for that Alan well said mate coming together is what its all about,ive just started to read the Holographic universe and im liking it

      • anticultist says :

        Figures you would side with Alan, one of the blogs crank posters.

        Like grouping with like as per usual.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Oh its you again long time how you been, it would make the most sense to collaborate the two areas of studies as many have been doing for many many years (Bruce Lipton, Elizabet Sahtouris, Peter Russell, Fritjof Capra, Elizabeth Rauscher, Michael Talbot, William Brown, Michael Hyson, and many many others) yes even you coming together is what its all about instead of shooting down forget what was said before united front

      • OzzieThinker says :

        If you were to single anyone out, I would choose Einstein who spoke about things he did not comprehend. That is why his theory of relatively is populated with zero’s where unknown or undiscovered forces should exist. That is why his theory of relativity is nonsensical stupidity. Mainstream science more or less pins all its considerations around conformation to the great God, Einstein. Therein lies the problem with science. It is and always will always be a political propaganda force in the mainstream while humanity is segregated into the “club” and “the rest”.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Yeah i hear that one ozzie you fogot one lot sheep

      • anticultist says :

        You lot don’t understand how science works, You are a total embarrassment to yourselves, and your lack of understanding only uncovers that your science level is way below college graduate.

        It’s obviously apparent not one of you fuck wits knows the fundamentals.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Hahahaha your fucking comical even when someone puts there hand out to you you slap it away what a complete and utter fool you are keep on debunking if that what gets you hard hahahah fucking joker.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        You can take your college graduate and shove it where the sun don’t shine I can find out much more from any indigenous shamans worldwide than most scientist and that’s fact western civilisation is not the be all or end all my friend ignorant thinking like that is why there are problems in the world today, I didn’t start talking down to you? I have an opinion then you’re trying to look down at me I tell it and see it how it is, I can roll with this all day long

      • Wyboth says :

        When was the last time shamans found a cure for smallpox? When was the last time shamans sent people to the moon? When was the last time shamans invented mobile phones? Never. Scientists did these things. I’d say it’s ignorant just to blow off the people who’ve changed the world so much, and hail the people who chant and bang on drums as the knowledge-bearers. If you think ancient barbaric exorcisms are more important than colonizing Mars, you really need to set your head straight.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Let me break it down to Wyboth harmonic frequency even siencetist agree that different frequecy can effect the body mind ect to go further quantum physics discribes particals as acting like waves which is frequency so alan talks the truth and you try yes try and shoot him down im hearing you brother what your saying factual and real to real for some of these people will the real people step forward

      • Wyboth says :

        Sniped me again, anticultist! Have this.

      • Alan says :

        When was the last time shamans gave unsuspecting harmless people blankets infected with smallpox? Go talk to a shaman, I’m sure they can arrange a trip to any place in the Universe you please. Ever heard of Ayahuasca? They don’t need mobile phones, mobile phones are a human invention to mimic what occurs naturally in the Universe, telepathy. Humans are god’s version of a mobile phone.

        Science works as a method to numb the masses by making them believe certain things are impossible and science is the only answer to things like smallpox or long distance communication. It’s just another hierarchy of belief that what they are doing will “save the planet” when really they are purposefully (or perhaps ignorantly and naively) creating the problems we see on the planet in the first place. Shamans knew this was coming, they have prophesized about it for thousands of years.

        Why colonize Mars? Why not figure out how to live in peace on the only planet that we know can support life first. Shamans have had the answers to that one for thousands of years as well, but by golly science is better! Let’s just inquisition our way over to Mars and figure out how to jump start their atmosphere so we can all move their once we destroy this planet. Then once we are gone for 50 years Earth will be pristine and in perfect working order once again and we can return to the ‘Garden’ and start all over again. This time maybe we should name the first man and woman Albert and Mileva.

      • anticultist says :

        Alan wants to live in the jungle or in the dark ages.

        If I had a time machine and a spare ticket I would happily send you there, but you insist on polluting modern society with your antiquated paranoia.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Wyboth you would know what real is if it came up an slapped you in the face your comical,Ancient civilization like the Egyptians didnt need computers or mobile phone i think they did pretty well without them human engineering today doesnt even come close 1000 ton obelisk they moved them around pretty easy their spiritual think was way more advanced than us today period,

      • Wyboth says :

        Looks like you’ve had one too many tokes. By your definition, hallucinations are real, am I correct? Well, by my definition, they aren’t. Hallucinations, even those caused by Ayahuasca, are caused by altering chemicals in the brain, to put it simply. It may seem very real, but it isn’t. I already anticipate that you’re going to say that’s a scientist’s lie, which is an unfalsifiable statement, assuming you haven’t taken doctorate level classes about the brain. Another thing is that telepathy is impossible, at least for humans. For it to work, a person would have to be able to read the signals in another person’s brain, copy-paste them to their own brain, and then interpret them. Humans can’t do this. But once again, you see it as a scientist’s lie, and there’s nothing I can do.

        Since you won’t acknowledge anything else, at least look at the computer you’re using right now. You have scientists to thank for that. Without our current knowledge of electricity that scientists discovered, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I also take offense when you say that scientists are destroying the planet. I strive to become a physicist one day, and I know what that involves. To say that doing that would be bad for civilization is just offensive. The mission of science is to serve mankind by unlocking the secrets of the universe and harnessing their power to benefit humans. It seems you don’t understand just how much science has influenced your life.

        For all of your evil scientist hype, even if you don’t change your beliefs, at least admit the possibility that you could be wrong. Say to yourself, “It’s possible that I could be wrong and scientists aren’t evil.” You don’t have to say that you ARE wrong, you just have to say that you COULD BE wrong. If you can’t do this, there’s no way I can help you.

        PS: Have you ever heard of Shpongle or the psytrance genre? It’s basically electronic psychedelic music. If you do actually take hallucinogenics, I’d recommend listening to this music while you take them. People who have taken LSD and DMT have reported that the music increased the quality of their hallucinations tremendously. Take a listen if you’re interested: http://youtu.be/6WTxC8wnXQo

      • anticultist says :

        Alan is a fucking victorian luddite explorer.

      • anticultist says :

        “Let me break it down to Wyboth harmonic frequency even siencetist agree that different frequecy can effect the body mind ect to go further quantum physics discribes particals as acting like waves which is frequency so alan talks the truth and you try yes try and shoot him down im hearing you brother what your saying factual and real to real for some of these people will the real people step forward”

        You wouldn’t understand that what you are saying is completely bullshit.

        Yes ultrasound, cat scans, Magnetic Response units and x rays are useful for medical observations and imaging. Aside from x rays they have no presentable effect upon the human body.

        Now you claim harmonic frequencies have an effect on the human body. Do you even understand what you just said ?

        What you said is generally considered a musical term. If you are implying human effects the human psychology and thereby through chemical release affects the physiology that would be correct, however this is hardly ground breaking knowledge.

        If you are trying to use the term to sound scientific you are failing, Harmonic frequencies are integer multipliers of fundamental frequencies, therefore if a harmonic frequency affects the human body, you have to present which specific frequency and what area you are talking about.
        Also which scientists claim these effects are occurring and where ?

        Your half assed claim means nothing to someone who actually understands frequency analysis and things like modulation like myself.

      • anticultist says :

        “Wyboth you would know what real is if it came up an slapped you in the face your comical,Ancient civilization like the Egyptians didnt need computers or mobile phone i think they did pretty well without them human engineering today doesnt even come close 1000 ton obelisk they moved them around pretty easy their spiritual think was way more advanced than us today period,”

        It’s called prioritising and need, and it is achieved via pulley systems and man power, something a cretin like you wouldn’t understand.

        There are no need in engineering by humans in the modern era to spend years crafting pieces of granite or sandstone to make a building when we can create liquid rocks using concrete mixture that soldify into the same size, minus the weight.

        In engineering terminology this is called efficiency, something a cretinous clown like you could not fathom.

        You sit there claiming they were better at engineering, yet you live in a world of kilometre high skyscrapers that are beyond belief. An ancient civilisation were it to be brought into our era of engineering would gasp at our alien world and wonder what magic we were using to achieve our products.

        Your claims are so fucking false and child like you might as well have not bothered posting.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Hahahahahahaha fucking hilarous im from an engineering background,efficiency its called know how,lots of people achieved via pulley systems and man power that is so laughable its unreal, there is no pully system that could move a thousand ton obelisk they cant even move more than 200 tons with out having to move it in pices

      • anticultist says :

        “Hahahahahahaha fucking hilarous im from an engineering background,efficiency its called know how,lots of people achieved via pulley systems and man power that is so laughable its unreal, there is no pully system that could move a thousand ton obelisk they cant even move more than 200 tons with out having to move it in pices”

        If you say so Alan.

        What with you being the engineering expert everyone goes to on the planet when it comes to moving heavy objects and techniques.

        You are a joke man, nothing you say can be taken seriously, yo have ruined your own credibility across a series of 50 or more posts, and the claim you somehow know more about engineering and transportation of heavy objects than other experts is simply beyond funny and into delusional territory.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Erm i think your a little confused must have a little cement between the ears my name isnt Alan also didnt claim to be an expert but obviously know more than you every stament you make shows how ignorant and stupid you are,and ive made 50 or more post dont think you can count anyway continue with you ignorants and tom foolery im glad im not vibrating on your level geeez thank god twat

      • Wyboth says :

        “Let me break it down to Wyboth harmonic frequency even siencetist agree that different frequecy can effect the body mind ect to go further quantum physics discribes particals as acting like waves which is frequency so alan talks the truth and you try yes try and shoot him down im hearing you brother what your saying factual and real to real for some of these people will the real people step forward”

        Good for you, you can take science words and throw them together to come up with a nonsensical conclusion. As anticultist said, harmonic frequency is a fundamental frequency (1/2 period) multiplied by an integer. So, the second harmonic would have a full cycle, the third would have 3/2 cycles, the fourth 2 cycles, etc etc. This is really only used for standing waves, not EM waves as you’re attempting to use it. Anticultist already said that the only way they could affect the body would be to be heard and be processed by the brain. You also say that some particles can act like waves. That’s true, especially for photons. But once again, since they are not standing waves, it’s useless to try and use harmonics with them. And then you say that proves Alan right? Bullshit.

        Basically, your argument simplified is: Harmonic waves affect the body, and certain subatomic particles can act as waves, so therefore scientists are evil and shamans are prophets? In what universe does that make sense? It’s just more proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And you also say that frequency is when particles act like waves. False. Frequency it the number of cycles a wave completes in one second, and is the inverse of period. You’re just throwing around science terms that you don’t know the definition of and are hoping that it makes you look smart. What a fucking joke this post is.

  79. Alan says :

    Here’s a pretty eye opening documentary made about frequency. I think it clears up a lot of this argument about frequency, science and the harm that is being done to the planet (whether naively or ignorantly):

    I am in no way ungrateful towards science, nor am I afraid to admit that I COULD BE wrong. You too should not be afraid to admit that as you too seem pretty sure of yourself (that is a good thing you are following your dreams of becoming a physicist, it’s hard work, kudos). Everything anyone has ever said could one day be proven false, that is one of the purposes of science after all. What myself and Rodney are getting at is that there is a much larger picture to the inner workings of the Universe that many ancient civilizations understood and utilized in their way of living that our current civilization (for the most part) ignores. I just started reading “Measuring the Immeasurable: The Scientific Case for Spirituality” and the first essay in that book by Peter Russell called “Exploring Deep Mind” is very fitting in this discussion. You can read it here if you want:


    Overall there are just areas that cannot be touched by science due to objective vs. subjective motives. Hallucinations are not well understood by scientists, even the smartest and most advanced ones cannot provide any evidence disproving the “existence” of them. But there sure is a lot of evidence pointing in the other direction. The active ingredient in Ayahuasca, DMT, is naturally produced in almost everything and is thought by some to be what assists in the creation of what we call reality. There were clinical tests done by Dr. Rick Strasmann at the University of New Mexico with DMT, and could be the some of the most conclusive work done on the subject of hallucinogens. I would definitely recommend his book / movie, “DMT: The Spirit Molecule.”


    Yes this research and findings were brought to us by the world by science, thus proving that there is some validity to these areas of research. I would say the same thing about you not “acknowledging anything else”, have you even tried to find an answer to these bogus claims you are making about stuff not being “real”. Do the most advanced scientists even know what “real” is? They like to think they do, but really there is no possible way to know with absolute certainty. There is even an “uncertainty principle” in physics to prove that it is not possible to truly know the absolute truth of anything.

    When I look at my computer I am looking into the brain of someone who invented it. All inventions originated as a thought, an idea to create something “new”. There are a lot of technologies that have been created in different parts of the world at the same time with no possible way of being in communication with each other. There’s even a Wiki page on this:


    If this happened once or twice, then maybe it could be coincidence. But since it has happened 100’s of times, there must be something else going on. Whether it’s telepathy, “Deep Mind”, collective consciousness, or whatever else you want to call it, there is something that is not well understood.

    Anticultist, you must be getting sleepy… Mistaken again by what I have said and acting on your negative emotions in a brash manner. Tisk tisk.

    • Rodney simpson says :

      Once again spot on i have just started to look into DMT fascinating,there does seem to be some kind of universal conciousness i will check out those links

    • Wyboth says :

      I looked at the description of the movie, and it said it was about cell phones emitting EM waves harmful to our body. I’m not going to watch it; I know exactly what it’s going to say, and I’ve been through that already. It’s going to say that cell phones cause cancer. Wrong: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now

      “Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and thereby generate mutations that lead to cancer. Electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, television and radio signals, and AC power is too weak to break those bonds, so we don’t worry about radios, televisions, microwave ovens and power outlets causing cancer.

      Where do cell phones fall on this spectrum? According to phys­i­­cist Bernard Leikind in a technical article in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 15, No. 4), known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds. Green-light photons hold 240 kJ/mole of energy, which is enough to bend (but not break) the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas that trigger our photosensitive rod cells to fire. A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays and 240,000 times weaker than green light!”

      That also disproves the “artificial frequencies” hypothesis (read that from the description also) because the cell phone frequencies are far weaker than light.

      Anyways, I’m not afraid to admit that I could be wrong as well. It’s always possible, I just don’t think it’s probable. And the mind is by no means unexplored. There are three immense scientific fields devoted to the mind: psychology, sociology, and biology. Biology deals with the physical aspects of the mind, while psychology and sociology focus more on behaviour. It’s just that psychology and sociology aren’t thought of in the traditional view of science, but they’re out there.

      I’ve heard the “DMT is everywhere” argument before, and I think you’re misunderstanding it. DMT is produced by most plants, but the quantities are so small that there’s no way that you can get high from it. As for the Pineal Gland producing DMT: “Although the necessary constituents needed to make DMT are found in the pineal gland, the enzyme’s stereospecificity only allows for the conversion of serotonin to melatonin and vice versa. Others in the field of neurochemistry have not accepted this explanation of DMT’s role in this function due to the absence of supporting evidence (i.e. a plausible synthesis mechanism or direct evidence that DMT is found in higher concentration in the body under these circumstances).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Conjecture

      Also, scientists have a pretty good idea of what “real” is and why we perceive things. Basically, reality is independent of humans, which means that everything isn’t inside our minds. Consciousness is caused by a series of chemical reactions inside the brain, and when you alter those reactions with things like hallucinogenics, you get hallucinations. It’s just happening within your brain though, so it’s not real, even though it seems like it. This means that you’re not going to uncover any cosmic truths by being a psychonaut.

      And please don’t think you can twist Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and get away with it. The principle states that for subatomic particles, you can know either the position of the particle or the momentum, but not both. It is better explained by this video: http://youtu.be/a8FTr2qMutA You were trying to make it sound like it said “You can never know anything for sure.” Not even close. Don’t think you can trick me.

      As for multiple discoveries, there’s no real evidence that telepathy exists. Although it may look convincing, nothing else suggests that telepathy can happen, and our current understanding of the brain doesn’t allow for it to exist.

      I don’t know if you heard be last time, but I suggested that you listen to Shpongle the next time you take a hallucinogenic. People who took LSD and DMT said it improved their hallucinations immensely. Take a listen if you’re interested: http://youtu.be/6WTxC8wnXQo

      Another website you may like: http://www.reddit.com/r/psychonaut

      • Alan says :

        “I’m not going to watch it; I know exactly what it’s going to say.” I would use your own argument against you and say that isn’t possible by your standard of thinking. Ignoring evidence against your own hypothesis about cell phones… sounds like you are pulling out the ‘heresy’ card on this one. That documentary provides a TON of insight into research done about frequency, resonance and the Earth/human connection. Did you know the Earth has its own frequency, the Schumann frequency? Humans also resonate at that frequency and when humans are isolated from that frequency they begin to go insane.

        I’m not going to tell you what to do, but I would highly recommend watching that documentary even if you already have such a negative attitude towards it. It’s not going to change your opinion about anything, that is something only you can do. That is your god given right. Own it.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Well said again Alan is there any other vids or pdf you would recommend about vibrations also dimentions i have some knowledge but like with anything you have to go through all the crap to get to the real stuff,

      • Wyboth says :

        I didn’t say that I was ignoring the evidence against my argument. I was saying that I’ve already heard it and thus don’t need to watch an hour and a half movie about it. The Schumann frequency is old news, and so is the conspiracy theory that goes with it. This article debunks it better than I can: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4352 In fact, it pretty much debunks the entire movie’s premise. It should only take you 5 minutes to read, so go ahead and read it.

      • Alan says :

        @ Rodney simpson – a really great website to look into (and it could take you about a week, maybe a month) is:


        Check out the ‘Media’ tab and also the ‘Resource’ tab on there. TONS of great stuff on there.

        Also Elisabet Sahtouris has a bunch of really inspirational work on her website in the ‘Articles’ and ‘Media’ tabs found here:


        One article in particular is very fitting for the overall discussion of this blog and even cites the work of Nassim. “Prologue to a New Model of a Living Universe” can be found here:

        Click to access MindBeforeMatterChapter.pdf

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Thanks Alan will give those site a look i need something to sink my teeth into

    • OzzieThinker says :

      This is correct. Hallucinations are likely evidence of something “beyond” capable scientific reality. I wonder whether those who “overdose” on drugs actually cross over dimensions permanently.

      The Ummites made the claim anything smaller than a particle was a systemic illusion conforming to a tripod structure. In this way the ‘super string’ concept is quite accurate. The key to existence seems to be an unlocking code not dissimilar to DNA, nevertheless scientists need to consider the potential that everything ultimately emanates from a single point and existence is a mapped matrix of interconnection.

      Stars are the punctuation of the network and act as portals into a central point which radiates out as if it were constructed of billions of potentially ever expanding florets. To comprehend this, the researcher must look beyond the constraints of dimension. Science is currently glued to its “reality”.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Yes that is correct Ozzie, i have wondered that also about people overdoseing on drugs like their vibrational state has been alterd ? i will check out the link

      • Wyboth says :

        Bullshit. Hallucinations exist only in the brain. They are a result of altering your brain’s normal chemical processes, which create strange sensations. They seem to be real, but they aren’t. You don’t go to any separate dimensions, you don’t go anywhere. Oh, did I mention they’re bad for you?

        The rest of your post is just pseudoscience babble that’s not worth responding to. Enjoy your delusions.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        To make a comment like what you have just made is share stupidity hallucination exist only in the brain and that its just normal chemical processes what little you know i could point you in the wright direction, how that the brain acts more like a receiver,three levels of consciousness the egyptian were far more knowledgeable than we are today

      • Alan says :

        Wyboth – Nothing happens “only in the brain”, nothing. Not even the creation of stem cells that make up the neurons in the brain. Those are made in bone marrow and continually replace old neurons, so basically your brain isn’t even the same brain it was 10 minutes ago. Consciousness is not a function of the brain, nor does it happen in the brain. The brain is more like an antenna, one that can be upgraded depending on the level of thinking it does and the subtleties it is aware of in the happenings around it.

        OzzieThinker – The concept you brought up about everything emanating from a single point and being an interconnected matrix is the crux of Nassim’s “Holofractographic” GUT. I am still unclear as to what your stance is on his theories, but it sounds like you would resonate with what he teaches.

    • ab says :

      Just dropped in and all I can say is ‘WOW’.

      @OssieThinker , Alan, and Rodney Simpson – Congratulations. All of you just proved that ‘Crank Magnetism’ does indeed exist. Enjoy your drugs.

      • Alan says :

        Because people reply in support of one claim or the other? I would think that just proves there is more than one person with the same opinion; that the author / moderators of this website did not reach the same understanding of the work of Nassim Haramein.

      • Wyboth says :

        LOL, can I use that term? It’s awesome.

      • ab says :

        Alan wrote “Because people reply in support of one claim or the other?”

        Isn’t that exactly what you are doing with Ozzie and Rodney? You’re statement is very hypocritical. Just looking at the string of posts here suggests that the three of you have created your own little support group in ‘someone else s’ blog. Go figure.

      • ab says :

        @ Wyboth – Sure, go ahead 😉 It’s a term I’ve seen floating around the net. It basically refers to cranks who manage to be drawn to each other.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Real people real thinking and dont worry theres plenty more to come mate

      • Wyboth says :

        What? Be specific, please.

      • Alan says :

        I was asking the rhetorical question because it works both ways. This blog obviously attracts other skeptics looking for an answer to whether or not to further their research on Nassim Haramein. So does this blog categorize itself as a “Closed-Minded Skeptic Magnet”? If you think this blog fully delves into the work of Nassim and actually “debunks” something, then you are closed minded. This blog does not “debunk” anything. It relies on the work of some other anonymous internet moniker (bob-a-thon) who claims to have all the answers as to why Nassim is wrong.

        Not that I am calling any one person on this website closed-minded, the nature of this website is to persuade people who subscribe to the “debunking” aspect of “science” (who really have not fully looked into the subject and decided for themselves); it acts as a support system for people who already have firm beliefs that science is doing everything it can to alleviate the suffering on this planet. Meanwhile: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ is happening so Wyboth can have his revolutionary new cell phone every year thanks to the world changing inventions of science.

      • Wyboth says :

        I was saying what to Rodney, but oh well.

        Firstly, the only person who did research on Nassim was Muertos, and that was only to find out if he’s credible or not. I don’t need to do research on him to know if he’s credible or not, all I have to do is look at his “physics” and I’m convinced.

        “Closed minded” is a glittering generality. Look up what that is if you don’t know. Also, have you read any of the other articles on this blog? It seems to me that you think this blog is all about Nassim Haramein, because you say “This blog does not ‘debunk’ anything. It relies on the work of some other anonymous internet moniker (bob-a-thon) who claims to have all the answers as to why Nassim is wrong.” You didn’t say “this article”, you said “this blog”. It’s only this article that focuses on Nassim. There’s nothing to debunk in this article. It’s just to show who Nassim is and to show that his “physics” are bullshit. Muertos only cited bob-a-thon’s blog because he’s not an expert in physics himself, so he can’t fully debunk his physics. Go read the other articles on this blog. They actually debunk things.

        Science isn’t about debunking. Debunking only happens when someone spreads pseudoscience and the experts have to come in and say “No, that’s wrong.” Without pseudoscience, there would be no need for debunking, but sadly there is pseudoscience. Also, I don’t have a “revolutionary new cell phone every year”. I have a crappy flip-phone from 2004. Nevertheless, your article proves nothing. Maybe you don’t know about the horrible labor and living conditions in China, which is probably why suicides are so common. It has nothing to do with BS frequencies interrupting the body’s energy field, which there is still no evidence for.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        If you big yourself up anymore you might just burst hahahahah,the ego has spoken he has all the answers he has all the knowledge what a joke you are

    • anticultist says :

      To be honest you both sound similar so it’s easy to confuse who I am talking with. Name aside the points I said still stand.

  80. Rodney simpson says :

    I echo your words Alan Nassim Haramein talks about everyone coming together from all fields backgrounds and united in their ideas which most these guys have missed its easy to call someone a crank crazy just labels, man has always wondered about the universe i just hope that we can get back in touch of who and what we are as one race ,

    • Wyboth says :

      Diversity doesn’t make Haramein’s theories correct. Hard proof does, and he doesn’t have a shred of it. That’s why he’s a crank, not because he likes everyone uniting their ideas. If you want to promote your theory, you should be able to prove it. He can’t, but he still promotes it.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Showing your true colours i see i will gladly have some facts for you to dismiss as you do,around and around we go the banter interest me,i may not be from an academic background nor claim to be an expert i speak with people from all walk of life yes our opinions differ and the facts you speak of sometimes are proved wrong but you wouldnt see me jumping up down gloating about it, i stumbled onto this blog for a reason im getting a very clear picture now

      • Wyboth says :

        “Showing your true colors, I see.”

        Showing my true colors? Did you JUST NOW notice that I didn’t subscribe to Nassim Harawhine’s theories? You couldn’t tell from my previous posts smacking down other pseudoscientists that I might not like Harawhine? Jeez, for all the patterns that you find, I’m surprised you didn’t see this one.

        “I’m not from an academic background, nor do I claim to be an expert.”

        The first one was obvious, but over several comments you’ve tried to convince me that every scientist in the world is wrong about frequencies and DMT. You’re trying to refute centuries of scientific study, and yet you don’t claim to be an expert in the field? Maybe you should learn more about what you’re trying to disprove.

  81. Anastasio says :

    It’s amusing just how many closet fascists get so butt-hurt when someone disagrees with their ideas. Even those who admit to not having any knowledge or experience in the field of physics rant as though theories such as Haramein’s should be accepted as blind truth, just because it parcelled along with promises of unity and rapture.

    Even avid fans such as Alan, who were duped into Haramein’s delegate programme, will stand up and defend Haramein and his questionable statements and actions that are simply, indefensible. This consummately demonstrates that the relationship Haramein’s sycophants share with Haramein, can be plumbed much deeper than a shared appreciation of his ‘physics’.

    I’ll say it again, as Haramein has made such a big deal about being shunned from a community he really has no cause for affiliation with in the first place, then why not share with us his rejection letters from the mainstream journals to which he submitted them?

    Let we, the filthy rabble, decide for ourselves whether his attack on the peer-review system is warranted. Let us see exactly what it is in Haramein’s physics that causes doors to slam in his face. It can only be a good thing, considering further help to bring his theory to completion may come from those capable of correcting his mistakes or setting him on the right path.

    But given that we have it on good word that even Elizabeth Rauscher (one of the authors of The Schwarzschild Proton) disagrees that the proton is a black hole, it’s probably more logical to wait for Margaret Thatcher to apologise to the miners of Wales.

    I’m all for peace and equality on Earth and all that jazz, and I make sure I do my bit, but is it mandatory or even necessary that I support egotistical, self-obssessed conmen to prove my value to the cause? Is it fair I am labelled narrow-minded and used as a synonym for a domesticated, ruminant mammal because my research into Haramein’s work goes a little further than what he tells me is fact?

    Not that the opinion of an armchair Mother Theresa actually means anything to me, I’d just like to know when and why did the hippies turn in to such totalitarians?

    • Rodney simpson says :

      Anastasio who are you to say who nassim affiliation should or shouldnt be what you his daddy lord give me strength arrogant geeez, Elizabeth Rauscher may disagrees that the proton is a black hole but nassim worked with her says alot about the man,im here listen to other peoples comment ideas feeling because i choose to some would say what a waste of time my choice im getting an alround picture of how strong people feel about lifes mysteries

      • Anastasio says :

        “Anastasio who are you to say who nassim affiliation should or shouldnt be what you his daddy lord give me strength arrogant geeez, Elizabeth Rauscher may disagrees that the proton is a black hole but nassim worked with her says alot about the man,im here listen to other peoples comment ideas feeling because i choose to some would say what a waste of time my choice im getting an alround picture of how strong people feel about lifes mysteries”

        Who gave the monkey acid?

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Is that it sorry i nodded off

      • anticultist says :

        Happens after psychotropics wear off Rodney.

    • Alan says :

      Are you still butt hurt over Nassim’s statement about the Vatican? So far that is the only mention of any disagreement with his “theories” I have seen you bring up (even though it isn’t really part of his GUT). It was a loose statement on his part, but the Vatican is in fact conducting solar observing as I pointed out in my previous post about this.

      I wasn’t duped into anything. Unlike you, I like to actually experience something before I form an opinion about it. If you really have more questions about Nassim’s work, if you have found something truly unsettling and unscientific, why not bring up those points instead of just attacking him as a person? He is not the only person making money by making loose statements to please an audience. Just watch the US presidential debates and compare their statements with what they actually do in office. It is a very easy way to gain momentum and collect a mob of people to support an agenda. Now this agenda totally relies on the person making the statements, in Nassim’s case I see him as wanting to make a positive change in the way things work on this planet. Apparently there are many many intelligent and rich people who agree with this type of movement as Nassim has recently received a $15 million donation to rebuild his research park.

      It’s not every day you get to converse with the enemy, I would be happy to answer or direct you to an answer if you have any questions about the work of Nassim Haramein. That is what the blog is supposed to be about, right? Or was it really intended to be a one sided argument against the man like “ab” wishes it could be.

      • anticultist says :

        “It’s not every day you get to converse with the enemy”

        Spoken like a true believing black and white thinker.None of us consider you the enemy, maybe you are just projecting your own internal dichotomies on everyone else.

        You are just considered someone who is gullible and unable to improve your intellectual understanding of scientific credibility.

      • Alan says :

        It’s a figure of speech. Why not try providing some substance to the conversation rather than talking down to everyone?

      • anticultist says :

        Nothing you provide is of substance, it’s all utter nonsense.

      • Alan says :

        I swear this blog is moderated by automated machines.

        Type in these characters to prove you are human:


      • ab says :

        Alan wrote “It’s not every day you get to converse with the enemy, I would be happy to answer or direct you to an answer if you have any questions about the work of Nassim Haramein. That is what the blog is supposed to be about, right? Or was it really intended to be a one sided argument against the man like “ab” wishes it could be.”

        You possess the same characteristics as many of the thrive supporters on this blog. If people agree with you , they are your friend. If they disagree with you, they are labeled the enemy. I’ve read many of your comments and you come off like a “Nissim Haramein” fundamentalist, preaching about how great the man is. Sorry to say, but you wont find any converts here. If you truly are interested in discussing his theory s, why not just hang out at a forum with like minded people who would share your enthusiasm. Makes logical sense to me.

      • Anastasio says :

        “Are you still butt hurt over Nassim’s statement about the Vatican? So far that is the only mention of any disagreement with his “theories” I have seen you bring up (even though it isn’t really part of his GUT). It was a loose statement on his part, but the Vatican is in fact conducting solar observing as I pointed out in my previous post about this. ”

        Butt-hurt, of course not Alan. My affiliation with the Catholic Church is borne out of mere curiosity of it’s history and culture these days. I have more-or-less complete apathy towards any religion on a personal basis, but still, I know a lie when I hear one.

        Still, even in the light of being patently wrong, you seek to defend and trivialise Haramein’s lies, as illustrated in my last comment. The difference between the Vatican ‘ conducting solar observing’ and the Vatican having ownership of almost all the solar observatories and solar probes, as according to Haramein, is a divergence on an astronomical level Alan. Why not just stop trying to defend the lie? It smacks of religious bigotry at best.

        This blog just isn’t about Haramein’s Grand Unified Theory; it clearly asks “Who is Nassim Haramein”, presumably so one might better know the man and then consequently decide whether he can be trusted or not to tell the truth.

        The Vatican’s assets and the ‘laser inscription’ at the Temple of Osiris are just two instances where trust and truth could be argued to be better placed.

        “He is not the only person making money by making loose statements to please an audience.” – Alan

        Finally, an admission of guilt from one of his delegates. That’s all I needed to hear you say, thanks Al. Hopefully now, you can begin to understand my stance against the practise telling people what they want to hear while taking their money. Even you now profess to be cognitionally aware of Haramein’s malpractice.

        To defend Haramein by using the bandwagon approach and then to paint him in the same picture as empty-promise politicians is fitting, but perhaps not the way you best intended to justify his actions. You’ve dug and hole and now seem eager to etch your own epitaph for good measure.

        “in Nassim’s case I see him as wanting to make a positive change in the way things work on this planet.”

        But surely positive change can be made without duping people Alan? By dupe I mean making ‘loose statements’ to sate an audience and relieve them of their dollars? This is boldly borrowing your own definition, but surely positive change begins with truth and transparency? That’s just my opinion of course; the definition of truth changes from person to person, obviously.

        ————————————————————————————————–“Unlike you, I like to actually experience something before I form an opinion about it.”

        Naturally you would console yourself with the notion that because I don’t agree with Haramein’s work I have not read it or do not understand it. True, my background is mechanical engineering and not quantum physics, but still I know that torque is not expressed in units of energy, I know from my experience in Helium Leak Detection that it is possible to study the properties of atoms through ionisation using a mass spectrometer; a technique used to study the proton, and I know mass spectrometry has been used to ascertain the true mass of a proton, which is a very different figure to which Haramein would have us believe.

        As I noted before, according to Hyson (co-author of The Schwarzschild Proton Paper) Haramein’s proton is hidden behind an event horizon, which conveniently disallows observation at the atomic level. Of course one must be wilfully ignorant of the circular reasoning in play here to accept this theory, and also woefully ignorant of the fact that this is not an unconfirmed hypothesis, thanks to mass spectrometry.

        Let’s not forget that Tom Mellet, a friend of Elizabeth Rauscher, also quoted her as stating that the proton is not a black hole.

        There are just far too many discrepancies to dismiss here Alan.

        “Apparently there are many many intelligent and rich people who agree with this type of movement as Nassim has recently received a $15 million donation to rebuild his research park. ”

        Rich people agree with him? Well now, scratch everything I just said!
        Honestly Alan, do you ever read some of your material back and cringe at the absurdity the semantics of your language and implications?

        If your “many intelligent and rich people” included just one physicist of note in the quantum field (who is referenced outside of Haramein’s website) then perhaps your statement might actually have some meat to it!

        Albert Einstein; changed the world before he was even half Haramein’s age, without a research park and without a $15,000,000 donation.

        Surely you must see by now that the two men are incomparable.

      • OzzieThinker says :

        As I have already pointed out, Einstein was a fraud in as much as he talked about stuff he did not understand, partially due to the limitations of science and partially because he had not been informed of ‘reality’. [I respect Einstein’s genius]]. The catholic church have bought into the solar awakening for two reasons:

        1) Their genus stems from the rebadged “sol invictus” cult when Constantine converted (sic). They know the “real” Jesus Christ was a Viracochan [Ahn-nun-aki point man].

        2) They have hedged bets on the “cosmic Christ” because they want to be a front runner in the Zion/NWO false flag “alien invasion” when (perhaps) one of the “tall white” occasional cosmic visitors to Indiana Springs, Nevada is paraded as the nouveau Messiah amid revelations “we are not alone” in the universe.

  82. Anastasio says :

    @Ozzie Thinker

    Talking about things you do not understand does not constitute fraud, at least, not in the world existing outside the frame of an LCD monitor. Perhaps ‘contemplation’ is a better suited noun for what you describe. Einstein did not profess to have all the answers, nor did he obstinately defend his theories when they were shown to be flawed i.e. The Cosmological Constant.

    Talking about things you do not understand and earning money by passing it off as substantiated fact, I agree, could be viewed as fraud (making money by making loose statements to please an audience as Alan would have it); however, I recall no such episode in Einstein’s life that was characteristic of such malpractice; at least not from the biography I have on my bookshelf.

    If you regard Einstein as a fraud, fair enough. I welcome your opinion. How it speaks to the question of Haramein’s integrity though, I leave to you to decide.

  83. Be4 says :


    the simplicity and elegance of Haramein’s explanations and the coherence of the theory he proposed astonished me.

    But the question that arised was: why aren’t we hearing about this in media? Is the paper on Schwarzschild Proton wrong?

    Long I looked for _scientific_ reviews or opinions on his theory. Well, I didn’t found any, at least from people of whom I could deduct, that have sufficient physics knowledge.

    The discussion that was started by Bobathone and his argumentation didn’t convince me, although im not physicist – but just from the logic point of view! If you read his first couple of arguments, they sound like: well our gregorian calendar says there should be an astronomic event on day x. For sure your julian calendar must be wrong! Well you need to translate them in order to compare.
    The misunderstanding IMHO comes from the fact that Bobathone is not giving Harameins geometry a chance, meaning you’d have to assume that a point has all dimensions.
    If you dont assume together AND SAME with Euclides what the concepts of ‘point’ and ‘line’ mean, you can’t really debate, can you? It’s like prooving Euclid wrong from non-euclidean point of view.

    What I also found was the argument that it would have to take very much time to review scientificly Haramein’s theory and therefore there are no scientists interested in working on something what they consider bullshit. Ok, that’s a fair explanation!

    So I guessed it leaves us, amatours, with only one possibility: wait and see if his theory will be acknowledged.

    As many noticed before, his connection to some organisations or movement might be bothering. But that cant be an argument against the theory!

    What bothered me even more was that only place where you could find his work was connected to his project or institution, except this Belgium Conference. That didn’t sound well.
    Besides, if they prized him, why would noone use even a small part of his prized work?

    Yet it seems that this is changing.
    It started from Kinemann, who I didn’t completely belive as he isn’t a physicist (http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings54th/article/viewFile/1498/511).

    But look at this: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-31-11.PDF

    Or this: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54402-Dave-LaPoint-s-Primer-Fields–was-Bizarre-Discovery-at-CERN…-Plasma-Energy-changing-the-world–

    Im sorry but that’s faaar more convincing than debating why Rauscher did what she did – as if it was going to proove or disproove the Haramein’s theory!

    And the next argument supporting that Haramein is right, are his patents:
    1) http://www.google.com/patents/US8130893?dq=nassim+haramein&ei=Bpi6T4yFB8ibiQLW7MXxBg
    2) https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20120223643.pdf

    Of course it still doesn’t proove the theory. I guess you can get a patent for something that’s not even working, as long as you wish to patent your idea, although I’m not sure about it.

    But why can’t scientist explain in simple words what’s the problem with Haramein’s theory? Well I can explain in simple words what’s wrong with the conception of flat Earth.

    The only argument that was made simple and was introduced to the public is that you can push an electron from it’s orbit with less energy that Haramein’s theory predicts.
    And here I have question. Is it taken into consideration, that you dont have to “lift” the electron and hold it or move it, you just need to push it as you push a billiards ball on the table? You don’t need to lift it from the table. According to theory (as far I understand it), you just cause inbalance and that’s what’s really changing the electrons route afterwards (after the push).
    So the force needed to cause inbalance would be far more smaller than the force that is needed to counterpoise all other forces. You dont need to counterpoise other forces. Just the opposite. They are used to push electron since the balance is lost.

    Please, explain if I’m wrong.

    • Wyboth says :

      Specifically, the first mistake Haramein makes in “The Schwarzschild Proton” is that he doesn’t use the accepted value for quantum field density. The current accepted value is 7 * 10^-27 kg / m^3, or 7 * 10^-23 cm / g^3. That’s not even close to Haramein’s 5.16 * 10^93 cm / g^3. Haramein’s number. That’s a massive difference. Specifically, Haramien’s number is:


      times larger than the accepted value. That alone should disqualify him, but there are more errors in his paper. I don’t have time to list them all now, because I have to leave in a minute. I’ll be back to explain the rest later.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Wyboth again your ego has eclipsed everything else.

      • Alan says :

        Wiki disagrees:

        “Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10−9 Joules.[1] However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.[2][3] See vacuum catastrophe.”



      • Wyboth says :

        Ego has nothing to do with it, Rodney. It’s science.

        And Alan, that number’s entirely theoretical. While it could be possible that it is 10^113 J/m^3, it’s based on the assumption that vibrational modes in our fields are harmonic oscillators and that there are no interactions between modes. This hasn’t been observed. The number I proposed, however, is based on astronomical observations by the WMAP. You can read more about the different numbers here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

      • Anastasio says :

        Note that Alan’s first link is flagged as being “in need of attention from a physicist”, and take in to account that the material it cites from e.g. Milonni’s Quantum Vacuum and de la Peña’s The Quantum Dice, is just shy of 20-years old.

        Yes, it could be possible that the guy who submitted the Wiki page is right, but personally, I’d want to see the page updated to reflect contemporary observation before citing it as an infallible go-to-source.

    • Rodney simpson says :

      Be4 thanks for the links and vids just starting to watch very interesting

    • Alan says :

      Prepare for the wrath Be4. While I wholeheartedly agree with your points about there not being sufficient ‘scientific’ analysis on Haramein’s work, this is not a place where that kind of discussion will take place; nor do any questions about his theory arise.

      I can vouch for the validity of Haramein’s developed patented technology. He is using the device to make “ARK (advanced resonance kinetics) Crystals”, which are synthetic quartz crystal tetrahedrons that literally buzz when you hold it in the palm of your hand and act as a tuning / resonating device and can also be used to structure drinking water.

      Still that doesn’t “prove” the theory either, but the validity to what Nassim is doing with his work is valid to me. Until someone with scientific credentials is willing to come out and show some type of proof that his work is invalid, then I will remain a supporter and advocate of his work.

      • a rational person says :

        alan is a conspiracy nutbag who thinks 911 was an inside job. that proves his brain doesn’t work right and he can’t understand what evidence and logic are.

        why would anyone take his word about physics or science?

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Was that it rational person so you just jump on someone if you aint got anything relevant to say then dont say anthing.

      • anticultist says :

        “Was that it rational person so you just jump on someone if you aint got anything relevant to say then dont say anthing.”

        You should take your own advice you nut bag.

        Someone pointing out the logic of not taking advice of someone who exhibits crank magnetism and credibility problems is completely logical.

        It would be nice if for fucking once, just one of you conspiracy theory nut bags actually stopped to think before opening their mouths on this blog.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Still barking maybe you should close your mouth when grown folk talk,the only nut bag is the one flapping their but cheeks

      • Rodney simpson says :

        bah you fucking sheep keep drink from that stream

      • anticultist says :

        Grown folk ? LOL

        Hilarious, and all this coming from a cretin who has made some of the most incoherent posts on the blog to date. If you had strung a full sentence together with some level of academic authenticity, or even a modicum of intellectual gravitas I might concede you are at adult level.

        There is one major problem though, you haven’t.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        academic authenticity please it gets better and better you judging me brother please that would be the day the thin air up there has effected your brain grow a set of balls first and step into the real world then we can talk.

      • a rational person says :

        rodney simpson’s a fucking nutbag too…bet he believes 911 was an inside job…probably believes in lizard people too!

        mandatory sterilization for conspiracy theorists. i wish fema camps were real so we could send these bastards there.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        sheep mentality all together now bah bah ur already brain dead.

      • anticultist says :

        Rodney, you are your own worst enemy. You are wasting your own life and you don’t even fucking know it.

        I pity you.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        fuck you and step into the real world then see who can live it puck

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Hey you haven’t brought anything to the table talk down all you won’t isn’t no thing light weight fake fool continue on your fucked up journey

      • a rational person says :

        HAHAHHAA rodney simpson…i love to laugh at conspiracy nutbags.

        so, u do believe in 911 inside job and lizard people, then?

      • Rodney simpson says :

        It is truly strange and bizarre for people to think that the movement of the stars planets and solar systems and galaxies beyond our little insignificant solar system does not affect us here on Planet Earth.
        This is equivalent to the arrogant and erroneous beliefs that the Earth is the centre of the universe or that the world is flat.
        If you are standing in a room, then ponder this, that right in front of your eyes are millions of tiny little microscopic particles of dust.
        If you have even a slight comprehension of the sheer scale of this universe then you would know that each microscopic particle of dust, in the room is the equivalent of an entire Galaxy containing millions of solar systems and planets inside them. This is how small we are in this vast Universe.

        If the heating is turned on in the room, and the room became very hot or if the windows are open so that the wind blows in or the room becomes very cold – all these actions would have immense effect on those little insignificant specs of dust.

        Our planet is a speck of dust inside the Galaxy, which is a speck of dust inside the universe. And we humans are nothing but specs of dust on this earth. Therefore it is The high point of arrogance and incredulity for one to not recognise that the movements of the stars, planets and clusters of galaxies in the universe would not have an effect on this earth and the living organisms on this planet.

        Remember afterall, that every single atom and molecule inside our body is from the universe it was created at the time of the Big Bang when this universe came into existence. Therefore what is out there is part of us and we are part of it. We are all connected, and that is why we are all affected by events and actions that take place on this earth and also in the greater universe out there.

      • Alan says :

        Systems spinning within systems – like a gyroscopic effect creating stillness within the universe – our stability is seemingly unaffected by the vastness of objects in space. What about the moon – controlling the tides and timing a woman’s monthly cycle – is that not proof that stellar objects have an effect on the living conditions of Earth? The direct correlation between reproductive cycles and the moon should be enough to make you go “hummm… I wonder why that is?” Maybe we should look to the wisdom of ancient cultures of this planet that spent thousands of years perfecting their knowledge on these subjects before writing it off as pseudoscience, symbolism, occultism, mysticism nonsense. Just because they have a different jargon does not make them primitive. Their culture valued spirituality and living in balance with nature. ‘Modern’ western culture values materialism and individualism.

        But of course your mind is set, you would not dare try to step foot in that arena. Just look at how many other people are saying how cuckoo astrology is, “I would stick out like a sore thumb if I said anything about that subject is valid.”

        There were some very interesting experiments done in the 50’s called “the Asch Experiment”:

        This of course is not specifically pointed at astrology. Wyboth admits, “muertos was the only one who did research on Nassim Haramein” and “I don’t need to watch it, I already know what it says.” Anastasio admits that he hasn’t read nor does he understand Nassim’s theories. Is it because of the social aspect of influence in human psychology? Ponder that one over and let me know what you think.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science, John Henry remarked that, “a
        number of historians of science have refused to accept that something which they see as so irrational could
        have had any impact whatsoever upon the supremely rational pursuit of science. Their arguments seem to
        be based on mere prejudice, or on a failure to understand the richness and complexity of the magical tradition.”

    • Anastasio says :

      “But look at this: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-31-11.PDF”

      Hartmut Muller you say? And just who is Hartmut Muller?

      Well, let’s have a look shall we?



      Alan definitely said it best with “He is not the only person making money by making loose statements to please an audience”.

    • Anastasio says :

      It’s interesting to note that Hartmut Muller references the work of Haramein no less than thirteen times in his four-page long paper. At Muller’s trial in Dresden, an ‘expert witness’ said of his (Muller’s) global scaling theory that “It has no scientific grounding: it’s like astrology, totally made up.”

      It makes one wonder; did Haramein give permission for his work to be referenced by Muller? If so, did he have the prudence to read Muller’s paper before it was ‘published’ and if so, does/did he agree with it?

      I dare say something will turn up sooner or later, e.g. Haramein lauding the fact that his work has been referenced by Muller (much like our friend Be4 just did!) and therein lies Haramein’s admission that his work is ‘made up’.

      Why, aren’t the Muller and Haramein stories not of a completely dissimilar narrative when you look closely? Both men putting unconfirmed theories out there like commodities, both in possession of a C.V. of little meaning, both taking money from an audience by making loose statements? I am really not holding up any hope for the next significant chapter in Haramein’s life reading as ‘The Man Who Shifted the Paradigm’.

      I sure hope the rich and ‘intelligent’ person who gave Haramein $15,000,000 got a receipt!

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Oh yeah i think $15,000,000 should go to you Anastasio oh wise and great one i finally bow to your superior knowledge and intellect.

      • anticultist says :

        “I can vouch for the validity of Haramein’s developed patented technology. He is using the device to make “ARK (advanced resonance kinetics) Crystals”, which are synthetic quartz crystal tetrahedrons that literally buzz when you hold it in the palm of your hand and act as a tuning / resonating device and can also be used to structure drinking water.”


      • Rodney simpson says :

        Anastasio so some us goverment buildings dont depicted astrology and percession totally made up right,your starting to fall flat on your face keep riding that high horse of yours

      • anticultist says :

        “Anastasio so some us goverment buildings dont depicted astrology and percession totally made up right,your starting to fall flat on your face keep riding that high horse of yours”

        Having zodiac signs on buildings does not validate the concept of astrology scientifically. However, if the signs are being utilised to validate a scientific fact such as precession, there would be no problem with this.

        It seems though that you Rodney can’t differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction, what is architectural art and what is historical documentation.

        Must be difficult to live in a world where gargoyles on buildings represent real animals that lived in the past eh Rodney ?

      • Rodney simpson says :

        I have good understanding of what is fact and what is not and dont need someone like you tell me what is scientific or not, elaborating on my explanation i dont need to do others with open minds will listen and respond accordingly, tom foolery in all your comments only adds to your lack of realness “Brother”

    • Be4 says :

      Thak you very much for all your answers! 🙂

      Wyboth, I’m sorry, but the argument about the value is too hard to understand for me as a layman. And as such it still isn’t conclusive to me, as I can argue with you how much weights my umbrella – we can only sort this out as we take umbrella compared with wet umbrella (or something else) into consideration in both our systems.

      Alan, you’re totally right, probably this is not a place where _conclusive_ discussion will take place. As for me, I need only about 85% of probability and then I can wait more patiently for some conclusive scientific evidences. 🙂

      Anastasio, thanks for taking closer look to Müller. Unfortunatelly my time is limited, therefore I leave this part for others.

      • Anastasio says :


        “Anastasio, thanks for taking closer look to Müller. Unfortunatelly my time is limited, therefore I leave this part for others.”

        Huh? Oh really? How convenient for you.

      • Be4 says :


        “Anastasio, thanks for taking closer look to Müller. Unfortunatelly my time is limited, therefore I leave this part for others.”

        Huh? Oh really? How convenient for you.

        There is no need to attack me personally. In fact, that is what convinces me that you are not a reliable source of information.

        I’ll repeat my argument: even analysing all the circumstances from someones life won’t proove or disproove the theory. Thats NOT how the science works.

        Please respect the validity of this statement or proove me wrong.

        I’m not interested in hiding any facts or bluring them or doing anything that would make us miss the truth.

        And to be fair I also want to add: as for me, he could even had stolen this theory, as there is much doubt on his math skills(!). And still it only would proove something about him, not about the theory.

        So if you’re interesting in evaluating someones life and taking it as a measurment for the validity of one’s theory, I’m sorry but I’m not going to fall for that one.
        Is it convenient? Yes. But that’s NOT the reason why I decided so.

      • Anastasio says :

        There is no need to attack me personally. In fact, that is what convinces me that you are not a reliable source of information.

        Personal attack? I merely observed the suspicious notion that you had plenty of time to research and link to Hartmut Mulller’s work, presumably to indicate some measure of Haramein’s success, and then had absolutely nothing to say (and still don’t) when I pointed out Muller is in fact a pseudo-scientist and a convicted criminal.

        His work that you linked to, as I said before, contained no less than thirteen references to Haramein’s own work, and was dismissed in court by an expert as being “made up”, like astrology.

        I just thought it slightly ignominious that you all of a sudden had ‘run out of time’ to discuss this further once I’d highlighted Muller’s villainy, and perhaps my discovery merited a little more of your time,seeing how you such a big deal of letting us know that you seek the light of truth.

        I just thought I was helping, that’s all.

        Predictably, like every other truth seeker, you only prefer to discuss matters when you are assured of the validity of your own material.
        As it stands Be4, you are not the reliable source of information, if we were to put a fine point on it. Is that a personal attack? You tell me.

        I’ll repeat my argument: even analysing all the circumstances from someones life won’t proove or disproove the theory. Thats NOT how the science works.

        But yet you profess to be a layman, which is nothing to be ashamed of by the way, so how would you know how ‘the science’ works? If you imply I seek to refute Haramein’s papers by refuting his character (Argumentum ad Hominen is the phrase you are looking for) then no, I am not guilty of this.

        My ‘analysis’ of the circumstances in Haramein’s life are not without due concern, as I have stated many, many times previous on this very page, and my issues with his work, particularity his apparent disdain of mass spectrometry, have also been stated before, as separate entities. Of course, joining the discussion at this juncture, you will come across as being a little latent in understanding.

        For you will find no instance of me proclaiming that because Haramein makes money from selling loose statements to his audience that his physics must suck as well. Not one, single, instance. Go ahead; look.

        But if you refer to my analysis of Muller’s life (your reply is somewhat ambiguous), then as documented in the news story I linked to, the man went to jail for conning people with his fictitious theory; a theory that heavily references Haramein’s own work.

        Can’t say fairer than that.

        ————————————————————————————————–Please respect the validity of this statement or proove me wrong.

        Arrogance is not such an endearing trait at the best of times.

        A logical fallacy, that is, a strawman argument, deserves no such respect Be4. Just where did you learn the art of polemics? Home schooling or the local Macdonald’s crèche?

        My contempt of Haramein’s fraudulent statements and practises and my disregard of his ‘physics’ are two completely different sentiments, and have always been expressed as such, and you are always most welcome to read through my posts and pick me up on anything you feel contradicts my objectivity.

        I’m not interested in hiding any facts or bluring them or doing anything that would make us miss the truth.

        But you are and you just did! Why would you contend that I seek to diminish Haramein’s legitimacy as a physicist by assassinating his character? Why deliberately misinterpret and disregard some of the more pertinent points put to you?

        King Solomon you most definitely are not!

        And to be fair I also want to add: as for me, he could even had stolen this theory, as there is much doubt on his math skills(!). And still it only would proove something about him, not about the theory.

        How big of you! Perhaps you are King Solomon reincarnated after all! To concede that Haramein might have stolen his theory from someone else. Well that’s a new one.

        But try something a little more characteristic of simplicity: as stated before, even Elizabeth Rauscher distanced herself from the Schwarschild Proton and claims that the proton is not a black hole, according to a friend of hers.

        What do you think that says to the proton theory? The fact that even one of the hired authors of Haramein’s paper refutes it? If you want another expert opinion, refer to the BBC news story on Hartmut, or, ask Haramein directly for his rejection letters from the mainstream journals.

        See for yourself why they won’t publish his work.

        So if you’re interesting in evaluating someones life and taking it as a measurment for the validity of one’s theory, I’m sorry but I’m not going to fall for that one.

        There you go again with your strawman, lashing out on the pell, so to speak.

        Logical fallacies do not interest me as much as you, obviously. I like to debate with observable data that can be accessed easily by protagonist, antagonist and reader alike.

        The contention lies in one’s ability to interpret said data and rationalise it to the most coherent form of argument. It’s a lot easier than people think.

        Sadly egos, fantasy and delusions obstruct the way for some.

        Is it convenient? Yes. But that’s NOT the reason why I decided so.

        But I’m still not wholly convinced Be4.

        You gleefully linked Haramein inextricably to a convicted psuedo-scientist and then back tracked out the door when I made this fact apparent to you. All the more embarrassing when you consider that (for myself anyway) Hartmut Muller’s conviction is the first story to come up on Google when searching for him by name, which of course speaks volumes about the validity of your sources and the credibility of your ‘research’.

        And no size of shit storm you can try and kick up about my alleged use of ad hominen is going to hide it.

        Now, why don’t we take to discussing Haramein’s link to a convicted pseudo-scientist, seeing how you so keenly broached the subject in the first place?

      • Be4 says :

        Hi Anastasio,

        you wrote:————————————————————————————————–
        I just thought I was helping, that’s all.
        You were, that’s why I thank you.

        the man went to jail for conning people with his fictitious theory
        And I take that fact as an argument, and very important one, the problem is it’s not conclusive.
        What I wrote could not be qualified as a strawman argument. Yet you point out my alleged arrogancy.

        I also wrote earlier:
        I’m not interested in hiding any facts or bluring them or doing anything that would make us miss the truth. You answered:
        But you are and you just did!————————————————————————————————–
        So your opinion is that I’m interested in hiding facts. Sorry to hear that, but I think I already prooved the opposite. I just thank you for prooving my argument wrong, would a person described by you do that?

        all of a sudden had ‘run out of time’ to discuss this further once I’d highlighted Muller’s villainy
        I think there is not much left to discuss since you verified him.
        By what I wrote I just expressed that I’m not willing to spend my time to investigate deeper an invalid argument, even If I made it myself.

        Maybe indeed I prefer to look for another kind of arguments than you do. We should complement and not insult each other (pun intended :).

        I fully get your point. What we do is look for facts that could support Harameins theory, and as they turn out to be invalid or even reveal something suspicious, we just trash them and look harder.

        But this is what normally both sides of discussion do! And it has been shown that our mind tend to look for sources that confirm what we already think and avoid sources, that deny our convictions.

        I’m fully aware of that. And that is exactly why I think while discussing a theory, such issues (things that don’t refer directly to the theory) should be a margin, and not the _core_ of the discussion.

        Also I’m sorry that you try to ridicule me with Solomon comparison. Please stop it.

        And please, don’t write things such as:
        Just where did you learn the art of polemics? Home schooling or the local Macdonald’s crèche?

        If you do, I won’t bother to answer you again.
        Besides where I grow up there was long time no McDonalds. 😉

      • Anastasio says :


        Just so we are clear, and to enable you to further understand the nature of my replies to you, I shall point out a couple of confusing anomalies in your post:

        What I wrote could not be qualified as a strawman argument. Yet you point out my alleged arrogancy.

        Wrong; what you wrote is THE paradigm for strawman arguments, the Mona Lisa if you will. Refer to your own quote that you repeated no less than three times so that I would understand your position on my views:

        ————————————————————————————————–“I’ll repeat my argument: even analysing all the circumstances from someones life won’t proove or disproove the theory. Thats NOT how the science works.”

        And as I explicitly stated before, this was not my objective – it was your misinterpretation of my argument that quite clearly separates Haramein from his theory. As coincidence would have it, or not, they both happen to be two sides of the same £3 coin.

        The fact that Muller’s work relies so heavily on reference from Haramein’s own, and then was dismissed as ‘made up’ by an expert in court, I would agree is not by no means conclusive, but indicative of fallacy and definitely worth a mention.

        However, my objective was not to dismiss Haramein’s theory in this way, but to show that the fact he was referenced in Muller’s paper, is meaningless at best, and incriminating at worst.

        So your prolonged strawman argument, of which you are still in denial, is characteristic of a perpetrator seeking to distort factual intercourse. Therefore, committing this fallacy and then asking me to respect a logical statement that I have by no means defiled, is, in my opinion, arrogant.

        I think there is not much left to discuss since you verified him.
        By what I wrote I just expressed that I’m not willing to spend my time to investigate deeper an invalid argument, even If I made it myself.

        This wasn’t made clear in your one sentence opinion to the matter. But I suppose the main sentiment is that we both agree there is nothing in the Haramein-Muller connection.

        High 5 time?

        But this is what normally both sides of discussion do! And it has been shown that our mind tend to look for sources that confirm what we already think and avoid sources, that deny our convictions.

        Why yes, cognitive bias is a term and phenomena that occurs quite frequently on this blog. Still, examples of knowing how to define it, and how to recognise it, especially in one’s self, is not displayed so frequently here.

        Still, it would be interesting to learn which sources would conflict with one’s bias, regarding Haramein? Presuming they exist for the conflict to be avoided?

        I’m fully aware of that. And that is exactly why I think while discussing a theory, such issues (things that don’t refer directly to the theory) should be a margin, and not the _core_ of the discussion.

        So why bring up the Muller link in the first place? And in light of your own admission that you do not understand the physics in Haramein’s work, how can you discuss and validate the ‘core’? Changing the rules of engagement half-way through a discussion does not auger well for a level playing field, or a polite narrative.

        I would therefore draw your attention to the title at the of this page: Who is Nassim Haramein? Take note that a lot more than Haramein’s physics is up for debate here, not just what you consider to be most important.

        Let’s not forget that the mass of your first post here, was constructed of nothing but allusions to the validity of Haramein’s work hanging on the idea that no expert has ever looked over it, and three tenuous links to non-physicists.

        Also I’m sorry that you try to ridicule me with Solomon comparison. Please stop it.

        I could take your take your logical fallacies and repeated acts of obstinance towards some very simple concepts as a form of ridicule, but instead I choose to reply with flippant, vacant analogies that I employ for my own self-gratification, rather than the ridicule of your character.

        I’ll stop it if you will.

        And please, don’t write things such as:
        Just where did you learn the art of polemics? Home schooling or the local Macdonald’s crèche?

        I thought it was a perfectly valid question, given that you still don’t comprehend the context, structure and etiquette of our discussion.

  84. Anastasio says :

    Rodney simpson says : April 17, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Anastasio so some us goverment buildings dont depicted astrology and percession totally made up right,your starting to fall flat on your face keep riding that high horse of yours”

    Look; it’s as if it’s trying to communicate. Fascinating.

  85. Alan says :

    Video of the ARK Crystal. You can’t really see the crystal in her palm until the end but notice the effect the crystal has on the camera. You seriously can FEEL that pulsation that shows up in the camera, it isn’t some “oh yeah man, I totally feel it” type of subtle energy, its almost like that feeling you get when you stick your tongue on a 9v battery.

    • Anastasio says :

      ——————————————————————————————————“Anastasio admits that he hasn’t read nor does he understand Nassim’s theories.” -Alan

      Presumably you refer to this quote of mine:

      “Naturally you would console yourself with the notion that because I don’t agree with Haramein’s work I have not read it or do not understand it.” – Anastasio

      Let me walk you through this in baby steps Al; what that quote actually means in plain English (like it couldn’t be any simpler), is that I propose that you have deluded yourself that people only disagree with you and Haramein because:

      A) they haven’t read his work


      B) they have and they don’t understand it.

      And thus, you have done a fantastic job of confirming my allegation. Congratulations. On the plus side, perhaps you’ll learn something from what I have demonstrated to you. Probably not, but at least you now know what my quote means.

      I have voiced several objections to Haramein’s theory, as has Wyboth (I could cite many other examples by Bobathon, several users of PhysicsForums and several user of ATS, some of whom are frequent visitors at CERN, but I’ll honour only the ones that I recognise as being incorrect), and your response to this so far has been one copy-and-paste job from a Wiki article citing theories postulated almost 20 years ago and the article itself declared by Wiki as being in need of attention from a physicist. It also rebutts Haramein’s value for vacuum density, but you forgot to mention that, didn’t you? Hardly the most eloquent of rebuttals, but then what does one expect from a man who’s no stranger to pasting over his errors with tomes of irrelevent text ripped from other websites (see your answer to the Vatican’s fictional solar assets and your tantrum about Einstein above).

      I would say that is a better example of not understanding Haramein’s work. Ironic, considering your repeated offers to answer any queries about Haramein’s papers.

      ——————————————————————————————————“What about the moon – controlling the tides and timing a woman’s monthly cycle – is that not proof that stellar objects have an effect on the living conditions of Earth”

      Holy Christ Alan, I bet your innocent ‘blonde’ moments endear you greatly to your family and friends but here they just make you come off as a sarcastic grade A asshole. I actually feel embarrased for you when you drop these delightful ‘profundities’ upon us!

      Seriously, do you genuinely believe that anyone would deny the moon physically affect the environment on Earth? Have you actually convinced yourself that The Asche Experiment accounts for only a small number of enlightened renegades breaking away from the mainstream and uncovering such esoteric knowledge that the moon affects the tides and the sun the ambient temperature?

      Seriously, who’s denying it Alan? Who exactly are you having a conversation with here? And is every woman on the planet in sync with the phases of the moon or would you like some more time to think that one through?

      Sadly your recognition of lunar tides does not confirm the validity of astrology i.e. celestial entities will affect a person’s disposition depending on what day of the year they were born. Can you prove that Alan? Can you prove how astrology can accurately predict someone’s future? Can you provide just one example of the scientific significance of the Zodiac?

      Of course you can’t. But you can tell us what everyone already knew about lunar tides. What a fricking genius…

      • Rodney simpson says :

        What a dickhead you are Anastasio ancient Egyptians gave their life’s in the studies of celestial bodies and the universe, Robert burvall work has explained this in great detail, Carl munks amazing work in explaining the mysteries of ancient Egyptian monuments and other structure worldwide has been shared with the UN,The dogon dogon tribe of Mali knew 700 years ago that the earth was round while most of Europe thought it to be flat and that the earth revolved around the sun, they knew Sirius A was a binary star system ,information impossible to obtain without the aid of telescopes (fact)not only that every 50 years sirus B would orbit Sirius A.

      • Wyboth says :

        So the Egyptians studied the sky. So what? What are you trying to prove by saying this? Pretty much every ancient civilization studied the sky, although most for astrological reasons. The Greeks were the first to really study it for scientific reasons.

        Aha, here we go again with the Dogon tribe. The Dogons originally worshipped Sirius as a god. It’s true that there’s no way they could know that it was an eclipsing binary without telescopes. So how did they know? Foreign missionaries learned that they worshipped Sirius and shared information with them about it, such as that it was an eclipsing binary. The missionaries obtained this knowledge from astronomers in their home countries. I can’t seem to find anything credible saying that they thought the Earth was round, however.

      • Alan says :

        I apologize for my loose statement regarding my faulty recalling of your statement Anastasio. I would have changed it but there isn’t an edit option (probably to preserve integrity of the author I’m presuming).

        I don’t claim to understand the mathematics of Nassim’s papers, I understand his theory and its applications toward a more holistic view of nature.

        Can you clear this up for me? All the arguments you have used are ones that are [also] presented by bob-a-thon (the circular argument) and the Wiki deletion article for Nassim Haramein (the torque / energy argument). Did you read the Schwarzschild Proton paper to come up with those or are you repeating what bob-a-thon and the wiki people said?

        I don’t have to prove anything, nor would it prove anything if I spent time talking about astrology. I find it an interesting and fascinating subject. It’s up to you to prove it to yourself whether there is any validity to it or not. I cannot interpret something into your brain for you to make sense of it in a way to make you recognize the relevance of the position of celestial bodies to what is happening in your life. It’s just a tool. It doesn’t make your future decisions for you, it allows insight into opportunities, strengths and weaknesses you hold in this game of life. I pointed out the obvious effect of the moon on Earth to demonstrate that celestial bodies do in fact play a role in life cycles. Each celestial body plays a different part. You of course do not have to acknowledge it for it to happen, it’s a given fact of nature. Similar to the idea that surveyors do not have to take into account the roundness of Earth in order to survey a project, it would be overkill to do that much calculation.

      • Anastasio says :

        What a dickhead you are Anastasio

        Being able to tell the difference between astrology and astronomy is always a good advantage to have in these debates.
        The level of education of people defending Thrive and its participants is shocking.
        For instance, I believe the IQ deficit between Rod and I increases exponentially the closer we stand together.

    • Wyboth says :

      You must be high; I didn’t feel shit.

      • Alan says :

        You need to hold the crystal in your palm to feel the pulsating. Once you are able to ‘tune’ into the crystal you can focus on the feeling and the buzzing returns without the crystal in your palm. I would love to be able to provide testing data for this phenomena but as of yet I don’t have access to it. I do have the pictures of the documents in the water structuring experiments. I still have not posted them anywhere though.

    • Anastasio says :

      “I don’t claim to understand the mathematics of Nassim’s papers, I understand his theory and its applications toward a more holistic view of nature.”

      So you admit you don’t understand the physics and you chide others for not doing so either? Fantastic double standards Alan. That will probably explain why you cited a dubious Wiki page in an attempt to refute Wyboth, and simultaneously debunked your idol.

      Haramein’s work, as you have it, speaks to you at the introspective level, therefore arguing the validity of his papers in a professional context, is clearly not your domain of authority.

      Again, more evidence that Haramein’s proponents do not actually understand the man’s physics.

      Can you clear this up for me? All the arguments you have used are ones that are [also] presented by bob-a-thon (the circular argument) and the Wiki deletion article for Nassim Haramein (the torque / energy argument).”

      Of course I can clear it up Al, no problem. As a man who has studied mechanical engineering and as a man who has actually used mass spectrometers and as someone who works out torque values for bolting flanged connections as matter of job function, you can take a fair bet that I’ll recognise certain elements of physics that fall under my discipline.

      I’ll admit that I have seen a Wiki deletion article on Haramein a while ago, but I don’t recall perusing it in it’s entirety, perhaps due in part to the cramped, unaesthetic lay out of the article. I have read it to completion now, and it’s no surprise that I should have someone agree with me.

      Of course, I cannot prove this either way, so I’ll let you have that one Al. Against my better judgement as a man who deals with torque on a regular basis, I had to peruse an obscure Wiki deletion article to know for sure that torque is not energy.

      But most importantly, what do you say to the concept of torque defined as energy?

      To your second claim I say this: as far as I have read, Bobathon’s accusation of circular reasoning arises when he draws attention to the fact that for Haramein’s theory to work, the proton has to be a black hole in the first place. It’s so far, an unobserved phenomenon so Bobathon is quite within his rights to point out the inconsistency in reasoning when B is true because A is asserted to be true. It’s a fairly unsubtle observation that requires absolutely no knowledge of physics to apprehend.

      Similarly, I pointed out another case of this well-known logical fallacy when Hyson postulates that a blackhole i.e. the Schwarschild Proton, cannot be observed because it is obscured by an event horizon.

      So yes, both Bobathon and I point out the same type of logical fallacy Al, but they both do not pertain to the exact same glitch in Haramein’s theory.

      So no Alan, you do not get that one.

      And you have also failed to address why the humble mass spectrometer is capable of analysis of matter behind an event horizon. Can you answer that?

      “I don’t have to prove anything, nor would it prove anything if I spent time talking about astrology.”

      And yet, here you are, spending time talking about it and trying to prove it by comparing it to the motion of ocean. Is it mere coincidence? What role did you think you played in this discourse if it’s not Defender of the Faith?

      I find it an interesting and fascinating subject. It’s up to you to prove it to yourself whether there is any validity to it or not. I cannot interpret something into your brain for you to make sense of it in a way to make you recognize the relevance of the position of celestial bodies to what is happening in your life. ”

      Good for you Al. And as you so clearly demonstrate, astrology is more characteristic of a religion than a science, and again, quite introspective at that. You’re arguing belief against a telling lack of proof, but then, that’s all you’ve ever done since your arrival here.

      I have experienced astrology and it does not describe my character with any degree of accuracy, nor does it advise me on my future.

      There you go, debunked.

      “It’s just a tool. It doesn’t make your future decisions for you, it allows insight into opportunities, strengths and weaknesses you hold in this game of life.”

      Astrology does indeed claim to be able to portend one’s future, which of course, it doesn’t. It’s made up. As for not making future decisions for you, I would agree.
      Again, your statement is one of your own belief, and your beliefs have shown to be flawed time and time again.

      I pointed out the obvious effect of the moon on Earth to demonstrate that celestial bodies do in fact play a role in life cycles. Each celestial body plays a different part. You of course do not have to acknowledge it for it to happen, it’s a given fact of nature.

      That by definition, for the second time, is not astrology Alan; it is physics in its broadest sense. Are you going to tell me that the sensation of radiation on my face in the morning is astrology and that I’ve been dismissing the sun’s heat all of my life too?

      And what exactly do you mean by life cycles?

      You cannot use lunar tides to help confirm that one’s disposition is affected by the date they were born and also by the influence of celestial bodies. You cannot use the unproven theory that a woman’s menstrual cycle and the moon are connected by anything other than etymology, and that unproven theory can prove that astrology “allows insight into opportunities, strengths and weaknesses you hold in this game of life.”

      You cannot tie astrology to one single fact of nature, simply because astrology is not physics; it’s a culture of beliefs and fantasy that precedes requisite for continuity and rationality in science.
      What it does for you at the personal level is of course your business, and you are welcome to it. Why not keep it that way instead of opening yourself to ridicule with your absurd analogies?

      It’s clear you tick all the boxes for conformity to belong to what ever sub-culture you would call it. Crystals, mediation, astrology; you’ve got it all going on, probably from the matted dreadlocks and the collection of signed Ozric Tentacles albums to the incense stick hanging out of your arse.

      So tell me Al, do you ever fear you might upset your peers by actually breaking the stereotype and demanding a rational explanation for some of life’s mysteries? Do you think the implications of the Asche Experiment could also apply to someone like yourself?

      Hey, just putting it out there.

    • Alan says :

      There are no legitimate responses to this video? This is technology developed by Nassim Haramein and no is refuting it or even acknowledging it. Interesting.

      It is clearly shown that ‘something’ is happening in the video. Since I have personally experienced holding one of these crystals I know there is a buzzing feeling when a person holds the crystal but is there anyone here that can explain what this effect being recorded is?

      • a rational person says :

        i hold a buzzing crystal in my palm every time i watch xtube.

        it gets messy when i have to clean up all the schwarzchild protons off my laptop keyboard when i’m done, though!

      • Wyboth says :

        Nicely done, rational.

      • ab says :

        I looked at this video. Of course you can’t see the crystal in her hand until near the very end. The camera is looking down towards her hand, at a bit of an angle while a very bright spotlight is pointed directly at her hand. It also creates a circular bright impression on her lap. Only when the camera pans level with her hand do you actually see an object ( still obscured by the bright spotlight ) in her hand. So, why the need to use a bright spotlight to obscure the crystal in her hand? This whole thing looks like it’s all ‘smoke and mirrors’, in other words staged, including the ‘so called’ beam of light.
        Only gullible people would be duped into believing something extraordinary is happening here. I give my head a shake every time I see something that is clearly being fabricated and the stupid people that fall for it.

    • a rational person says :

      u know what’s really sad? you conspiracy nutbags and woo believers live in a totally different world than real human beings. you live in some fucked up world where facts don’t matter. everybody in this world is either “good” or “bad”. its either the “red pill” or the “blue pill”. nobody ever does anything complicated. all the ideas are super simple so a fucking 3rd grader can understand them.

      this is a world where u think a couple youtube videos “proves” that 911 was an inside job or that the world is run by evil jewish bankers or whatever the hell u believe in.

      this world is so closed off from reality that you fucks are even inventing your own laws of physics. in this world a stupid clown like nassim haramein is smarter than einstein. u like him because he invents bullshit rules that don’t really exist, but u can use them to explain your shit theorys and justify you being cut off from the rest of the world.

      the fucking sad part of it is that u nutbags don’t even realize you live on a different planet than real humans do. mainly i come to this blog to laugh at u stupid fucks and shake my head about how any person can possibly fall for this stupid shit. “OMG BUZZING CRYSTALS IN YOUR PALM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!! MIND BLOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! but some times i come here and i think it’s just fucking sad.

      what a total waste to society you people are.

      fuck you.

      • Alan says :

        Its sad for you because you live in a world that runs on fear. I’m not sure why you talk about 9/11 in every one of your posts or project onto everyone your conspiracist biases, but it makes you sound arrogant and dysfunctional. Obviously that is not the topic of interest on this website, refer to google if you are confused.

      • a rational person says :

        well, alan, don’t you believe that 911 was an inside job?

        that really is the “litmus test” for all you nutbags, isn’t it? i mean, that’s the big kahuna, right? that’s the conspiracy shit that got everybody in the door because it’s what alex jones cut his teeth on and it’s what that stupid zeitgest movie and loose change were pushing. so the total world view of you people begins with 911, doesnt it?

        it used to be that conspiracy nutbags judged everyone on whether they thought there was a conspiracy to shoot jfk. now nobody cares about jfk and its all 911.

        the people that got foster gamble into conspiracy shit were 911 truthers. so none of us would be here talking about his bullshit movie if it wasn’t for 911 truthers. so i think its fair to say that 911 conspiracy theories are the root of everything you people believe in, right?

        why are u trying to dodge the question?

      • a rational person says :

        plus, one more thing…how come not a single person whose ever come to this blog to defend thrive has not been a 911 truther?

        think about it. i’ve read a couple hundred comments on this blog so far. if theres ever been anyone whose come here and said “yea i think thrive is right, but i do believe in the official story of 911” i’ve never seen it.

        one of the reasons i ask everyone who comes here whether theyre a 911 truther is because just once i wanna find someone who defends thrive but doesn’t think 911 was an inside job.

        i don’t think anybody will ever say that. i think every single person who likes thrive and is willing to defend it is a 911 truther.

        u can tell that 911 truthers are ashamed of their beliefs because they never want to answer the question whenever anyone asks them directly. after all, you keep dodging it. hmm, why is that? afraid to admit to the world what u really think?

      • Rodney simpson says :

        Why does this clown keep going on about 911? and refers to oher peoples different views as nutbags, you know what i have seen the error in my way i must come across as a right nutbag thaks for changing my mind mate.

      • anticultist says :

        No one is trying to change your mind Rodney, you are a fucking conspiracy theorist nutbag, we all have enough experience to know people like you are chock full of cognitive bias, cognitive dissonance and are unable to utilise critical thinking effectively.

        Therefore we are all aware that changing your minds is not the goal, making your claims look stupid for people who aren’t like you is the goal.

        Job done.

      • Rodney simpson says :

        You just summed me up to a T great job what other pearls of wi