Science is great for distinguishing fact from pure fiction. However, certain scientists indoctrinated into the various hierarchical trees of academia or research and development have the habit of turning a number of scientific principles, theories and tenets into ‘indisputable facts’ — in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Some of these ‘indisputable facts’ have had some serious challenges from outstanding scientists with their outside-the-box thinking.
Bringing us new ways of looking into things they have had a tough time having been met with ridicule or invalidation from the scientific establishment and its conventional science.
Don’t get me wrong, indeed there have been and still are many crackpot ideas. However, having said that, here are 7 things ridiculed by conventional science but which are said to be true.
1. Free Energy and Anti-Gravity Technology
Greatly ridiculed by conventional science is the idea of the availability and practical use of free energy. Taking the case of hidden knowledge related to Nazi anti-gravity flying saucer technology the practical use of free energy does exist.
The Nazi’s had developed antigravity flying saucer technology during World War 2. It has been said that a secret base was made in the Antarctic which housed the flying saucers.
Then in the latter part of 1945 these super weapons moved to another military base the Schwarze Sonne – Black Sun on the dark side of the moon.
Using the saucers on dark side of the moon when the time was right an Earth invasion was planned but didn’t materialize.
During the wartime a number of eyewitness accounts in London, New York and Prague reported these strange looking bell-shaped flying objects having the German military iron cross insignia… travelling at very high speeds.
An engineer named Joseph Andreas Epp claimed he had been involved in the development of the technology during the wartime and that the Schriever-Habermohl project involved some 15 different prototypes.
What happened to this technology in the years after WW2?
2. Junk DNA
According to one study it has been found that we use around 8% of our DNA (previously it was thought to be 3-5%). Thus, science spends its time looking at this 8% subset, how it encodes for proteins involved in body construction… while the rest is described as ‘junk DNA.’
However, a number of Russian researchers begged to differ with the junk DNA viewpoint, believing that nature wouldn’t be so wasteful: In biology almost every structure exists to perform a function and junk DNA should be no exception.
So the researchers set out to investigate whether or not the junk DNA was doing anything and they came up with some very interesting results. These experimental findings by Dr. Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues can be briefly summarized.
1. DNA sequencing follows the same basic rules and principles used in language formation (syntax, grammar, words and sentences…) Thus, it is not inconceivable that DNA sequencing and the ‘language of genes’ acts as a blueprint for speech development.
These findings offer an explanation as to how humans all over the world are able to develop complex language applying the same basic principles. It’s because of the arranging/rearranging of our DNA the underlying software programme for language formation.
2. Garjajev and his Russian colleagues also found that not only is language a reflection of our DNA but the reverse occurs: DNA can be affected by language.
Healing intentions, affirmations, hypnotherapy and inspirational talk etc. can all have the affect of altering our DNA. This supports the age-old tradition of wisdom that words don’t just label things; they also create our reality…
3. Words are not the only vibrations that reprogram our DNA. Other sound frequencies such as radio waves and then there’s laser light or light visualizations can also affect our bodies and behaviour through altering the DNA.
For example, Garjajev and his Russian colleagues discovered that vibrational reprogramming can be used for DNA repair.
These groundbreaking amazing experiments with world-changing implications show that language, sound and light frequencies have a far more powerful influence on our DNA than was ever imagined.
Indeed, junk DNA is not the junk it has been made out to be. For more information on this fascinating subject, go here.
Going back for hundreds of years now, without any proof, conventional science still attaches itself to the firm dogmatic belief that consciousness is a mere illusion, claiming that it’s nothing more than activity in our brains.
However, this ‘biochemical robot’ reductionist theory used to dismiss consciousness is slowly crumbling. Other explanations in support of consciousness have come into being.
For example, the excellent work of William Tiller shows that conscious intention can manifest a particular intended outcome.
He explains that the energy needed for manifesting an intended outcome can be obtained by tapping into the infinite energy found in the vacuum which, in turn, affects the quantum reality. The quantum reality is the bridge between the pure vacuum energy and the outcome reflected in the material world.
The work of physicists Kip Thorne, John Archibald and Charles Misner has supported Tiller’s findings, while Jill Balte Taylor has also shared her fascinating insights into the study of consciousness.
Consciousness has far reaching implications and is the key to world change that we as the collective human race can use for planetary transformation.
4. Morphogenetic Fields
From his research Rupert Sheldrake put forward the idea of the existence of holistic energetic fields present in living things. Each organizing morphogenetic field (energetic field) is species-specific and is formed through habit.
The related cause and effect relationship shown by living things through the morphogenetic field differs from conventional biology. It proposes that behaviour cannot be explained by genes and gene products alone.
To explain, when something happens in life it draws upon the organism’s field which holds its inherited species specific-memory on how to deal with the situation. This collective inherited species-specific memory is non-local and resonates across all its members (morphic resonance).
Now, to clarify with an example:
A particular situation occurs which causes a member of that species to react in a new way that say favours its survival. After a while, this newly ‘learnt trick’ becomes habit.
The memory for this trick can then be accessed by other members of the same species. This happens because the knowing how to do the trick has transferred to the collective species-specific memory, the morphogenetic field, habitually formed by the first species.
Thus, experiments have shown how rats all over the world learn to escape a laboratory constructed maze much quicker: That’s because the first rat has learnt how to escape the maze. The first rat, having formed the memory for this trick has made it accessible to other rats, allowing them to escape the maze quicker.
Morphogenetic fields and morphic resonance occurs in social groups; bird flocks, fish shoals and in human cultures and societies, etc., explaining how developments happen care of the organized fields and memory transmission.
Morphogenetic fields have not been well received because it proposes an idea that goes against one of mainstream science’s sacred cows: The idea that memory can be stored in a field outside of the brain.
However, the idea of morphogenetic and morphic fields is gathering more and more acceptance. I believe that human planetary transformation and awakening will happen through the knowledge shared in the morphogenetic field.
Besides consciousness it comes as no surprise that mainstream science also flatly rejects telepathy. One alternative scientist that doesn’t is biologist Rupert Sheldrake.
Sheldrake has made a number of ingenious studies on telepathy with favourable results. His conclusive studies have included telepathic relationships between close relatives, pets and their owners, those knowing when phone calls and emails will happen…
Proof of telepathy changes the subject from being a “paranormal” to “normal” phenomenon. In other words, the telepathic is just an extension of biology and how humans and animals communicate between each other.
6. The Hollow Earth Theory
It has been put forward by some that the surface crust below Earth is either partially or entirely hollow and that there exists a central sun at the middle of the core.
It has been said that below the crust surface, accessible via holes found at the North and South poles, there exists entities, advanced hi-tech civilizations, UFO’s.
For many, the hollow Earth theory is a case of merging science-fiction with science-fact. Is it a case of unravelling the mysteries to find extraordinary revelations or nothing more than finding out that the whole theory is pure fiction?
Here, then, are the pros and cons with regard to the hollow Earth theory:
Since ancient times there have been a number of corroborating accounts describing the same experiences related to the existence of a hollow Earth.
Through ancient texts, for examples, from separate accounts, Mayans, Tibetan Buddhists and Hindu-Indians proposed that there was an ancient Inner- Earth kingdom where advanced civilizations existed.
Great Scientists such as Swiss physicist/mathematician Leonhard Euler proposed that Earth was made up of concentric shells… claiming that the central sun was 600 miles in diameter. Then there were other supporting scientists including Edmond Halley.
It’s interesting to note that the said holes in the North and South Poles have been blacked out from Google Earth.
A significant number of reports document UFO sightings coming out of water. Do these UFO’s come from the hollow Earth?
Seismic activity used to measure the Earth’s interior has led to rejection of the hollow Earth theory.
However, it has been said that seismic activity is only an indirect measurement and therefore its ability to truly estimate Earth’s inner composition could be unreliable.
Gravity has been used as a firm argument against the hollow Earth theory. The formation of planets would be the result of objects clumped together and would not be likely to form a hollow from an economically energetic perspective.
Also, the further in an individual goes towards Earth’s centre the less gravitational pull there will be which would indeed create practical problems.
Mainstream science claims that the estimated mass and gravitational pull of our planet confirms enough solidity for there not to be the proposed hollow Earth.
Seismic observations have been said to not be in support of the hollow Earth.
All in all however, the intriguing hollow Earth theory will not go away!
7. Big Pharma vs. Homeopathy
The long dark and disdainful history of attack stems from opposing views between conventional medicine and homeopathy practitioners on how illness should be treated, especially when it comes to the treatment of disease.
Conventional medicine basically assumes that there is something ‘wrong’ with the patient and treat, inhibit or suppress illness symptoms by using biochemical/pharmacological intervention.
Homeopaths on the other hand focus on promoting natural healing abilities, regarding the symptoms as the body’s way of trying to heal itself.
Besides the above differences of opinion on how illness should be approached, basically, the age-old disinformation campaign still happening today against homeopathy is centred on 2 things: money and homeopathy’s threat to the current existing scientific paradigm:
On the subject of money the bottom line is that the pharmaceutical industry’s real concern about homeopathy is not its health issues but market competition.
If big pharma had genuine health concerns they would act more prudently when selling their toxic invasive drugs with harmful side-effects.
Will Big Pharma in its power to influence the corrupt FDA be enough to make tough measures, making it difficult for practising homeopaths, and thereby restrict our basic rights to freedom of choice on health matters related to homeopathy?
Remember that homeopathy is increasing in popularity.
2. Homeopathy’s threat to the current existing scientific paradigm
There are those unwilling to embrace anything outside the current existing scientific paradigm as in the case of homeopathy. Just because we don’t understand homeopathy and how it works doesn’t mean that it should be flatly dismissed.
This in effect is what certain dogmatic scientists have done. Because homeopathy falls outside of their limited viewpoint it has given them perfect leverage to try and discredit it.
Bearing this in mind there are a number of ways by which these homeopathy deniers spread disinformation and propaganda.
Consistent with corrupted corporate sponsored bad science deniers and propaganda merchants give homeopathy a bad name by cherry-picking data.
They may only select data that goes against homeopathy, possibly because the results were due to small subject numbers or anomalous circumstances… while ignoring the many quality scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals that show positive outcomes.
Another tactic to discredit homeopathy is by constantly repeating their disinformation through various outlets such as certain ‘information’ websites and discussion groups.
Without having substantial evidence these unhealthy sceptics believe their false claims through consistently and persistently repeating the related lies.
Unfortunately this repetition has an effect on the vulnerable. They may end up repeating the same disinformation lies to others unaware of the truth.
Those vulnerable such as the young science students who are indeed more malleable than most and have yet to discern the fact that they are being used by the deniers.
Steadfastly resistant or not homeopathy just won’t go away. Besides the vast number of quality scientific studies showing that homeopathy works there are also millions worldwide who will testify to its positive effect on their health.
All Things Considered
The sad thing is that many of the above subjects, if wholly embraced; such as the studies on consciousness, could produce revolutionary world-changes for humanity.
However, for a number of scientists to pursue the above subjects could mean having to give up their well-paid jobs against a backdrop of thoughtless dismissive knee-jerk reflex reactions from fellow colleagues.
That concludes my account of just a handful of the many things ridiculed by conventional science, but are said to be true. I hope it has set off the inquiries!