Archive for the ‘Anomaly-Magazine’ Category


Is Science Kind of a Scam?

November 29th, 2015

Is Science Kind of a Scam? NEW YORKER Magazine –

What makes science science? The pious answers are: its ceaseless curiosity in the face of mystery, its keen edge of experimental objectivity, its endless accumulation of new data, and the cool machines it uses. We stare, the scientists see; we gawk, they gaze. We guess; they know.

The defense of science against this claim turns out to be complicated, for the simple reason that, as a social activity, science is vulnerable to all the comedy inherent in any social activity: group thinking, self-pleasing, and running down the competition in order to get the customer’s (or, in this case, the government’s) cash. Books about the history of science should therefore be about both science and scientists, about the things they found and the way they found them. A good science writer has to show us the fallible men and women who made the theory, and then show us why, after the human foibles are boiled off, the theory remains reliable.

No well-tested scientific concept is more astonishing than the one that gives its name to a new book by the Scientific American contributing editor George Musser, “Spooky Action at a Distance” (Scientific American/Farrar, Straus & Giroux). The ostensible subject is the mechanics of quantum entanglement; the actual subject is the entanglement of its observers. Musser presents the hard-to-grasp physics of “non-locality,” and his question isn’t so much how this weird thing can be true as why, given that this weird thing had been known about for so long, so many scientists were so reluctant to confront it. What keeps a scientific truth from spreading?

The story dates to the early decades of quantum theory, in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, when Albert Einstein was holding out against the “probabilistic” views about the identity of particles and waves held by a younger generation of theoretical physicists. He created what he thought of as a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose, he said, that particles like photons and electrons really do act like waves, as the new interpretations insisted, and that, as they also insisted, their properties can be determined only as they are being measured. Then, he pointed out, something else would have to be true: particles that were part of a single wave function would be permanently “entangled,” no matter how far from each other they migrated. If you have a box full of photons governed by one wave function, and one escapes, the escapee remains entangled in the fate of the particles it left behind—like the outer edges of the ripples spreading from a pebble thrown into a pond. An entangled particle, measured here in the Milky Way, would have to show the same spin—or the opposite spin, depending—or momentum as its partner, conjoined millions of light-years away, when measured at the same time. Like Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, no matter how far they spread apart they would still be helplessly conjoined. Einstein’s point was that such a phenomenon could only mean that the particles were somehow communicating with each other instantaneously, at a speed faster than light, violating the laws of nature. This was what he condemned as “spooky action at a distance.”

John Donne, thou shouldst be living at this hour! One can only imagine what the science-loving Metaphysical poet would have made of a metaphor that had two lovers spinning in unison no matter how far apart they were. But Musser has a nice, if less exalted, analogy for the event: it is as if two magic coins, flipped at different corners of the cosmos, always came up heads or tails together. (The spooky action takes place only in the context of simultaneous measurement. The particles share states, but they don’t send signals.)

What started out as a reductio ad absurdum became proof that the cosmos is in certain ways absurd. What began as a bug became a feature and is now a fact. Musser takes us into the lab of the Colgate professor Enrique Galvez, who has constructed a simple apparatus that allows him to entangle photons and then show that “the photons are behaving like a pair of magic coins. . . .They are not in contact, and no known force links them, yet they act as one.” With near-quantum serendipity, the publication of Musser’s book has coincided with news of another breakthrough experiment, in which scientists at Delft University measured two hundred and forty-five pairs of entangled electrons and confirmed the phenomenon with greater rigor than before. The certainty that spooky action at a distance takes place, Musser says, challenges the very notion of “locality,” our intuitive sense that some stuff happens only here, and some stuff over there. What’s happening isn’t really spooky action at a distance; it’s spooky distance, revealed through an action.

Why, then, did Einstein’s question get excluded for so long from reputable theoretical physics? The reasons, unfolding through generations of physicists, have several notable social aspects, worthy of Trollope’s studies of how private feuds affect public decisions. Musser tells us that fashion, temperament, zeitgeist, and sheer tenacity affected the debate, along with evidence and argument. The “indeterminacy” of the atom was, for younger European physicists, “a lesson of modernity, an antidote to a misplaced Enlightenment trust in reason, which German intellectuals in the 1920’s widely held responsible for their country’s defeat in the First World War.” The tonal and temperamental difference between the scientists was as great as the evidence they called on.

Musser tracks the action at the “Solvay” meetings, scientific conferences held at an institute in Brussels in the twenties. (Ernest Solvay was a rich Belgian chemist with a taste for high science.) Einstein and Niels Bohr met and argued over breakfast and dinner there, talking past each other more than to each other. Musser writes, “Bohr punted on Einstein’s central concern about links between distant locations in space,” preferring to focus on the disputes about probability and randomness in nature. As Musser says, the “indeterminacy” questions of whether what you measured was actually indefinite or just unknowable until you measured it was an important point, but not this important point.

Musser explains that the big issue was settled mainly by being pushed aside. Generational imperatives trumped evidentiary ones. The things that made Einstein the lovable genius of popular imagination were also the things that made him an easy object of condescension. The hot younger theorists patronized him, one of Bohr’s colleagues sneering that if a student had raised Einstein’s objections “I would have considered him quite intelligent and promising.”

There was never a decisive debate, never a hallowed crucial experiment, never even a winning argument to settle the case, with one physicist admitting, “Most physicists (including me) accept that Bohr won the debate, although like most physicists I am hard pressed to put into words just how it was done.” Arguing about non-locality went out of fashion, in this account, almost the way “Rock Around the Clock” displaced Sinatra from the top of the charts.

The same pattern of avoidance and talking-past and taking on the temper of the times turns up in the contemporary science that has returned to the possibility of non-locality. Musser notes that Geoffrey Chew’s attack on the notion of underlying laws in physics “was radical, and radicalism went over well in ’60’s-era Berkeley.” The British mathematician Roger Penrose’s assaults on string theory in the nineties were intriguing but too intemperate and too inconclusive for the room: “Penrose didn’t help his cause with his outspoken skepticism. . . . Valid though his critiques might have been, they weren’t calculated to endear him to his colleagues.”

Indeed, Musser, though committed to empirical explanation, suggests that the revival of “non-locality” as a topic in physics may be due to our finding the metaphor of non-locality ever more palatable: “Modern communications technology may not technically be non-local but it sure feels that it is.” Living among distant connections, where what happens in Bangalore happens in Boston, we are more receptive to the idea of such a strange order in the universe. Musser sums it up in an enviable aphorism: “If poetry is emotion recollected in tranquility, then science is tranquility recollected in emotion.” The seemingly neutral order of the natural world becomes the sounding board for every passionate feeling the physicist possesses.

 

READ THE REST at the…

Source: Is Science Kind of a Scam?

Check out the original source here
ANOMALY Magazine

www.AnomalyMagazine.com

Loren Coleman – The Twilight Language of Elm Street: Mason Road of JFK/King-Kill/33

November 22nd, 2015

Loren Coleman – The Twilight Language of Elm Street: Mason Road of JFK/King-Kill/33

Dealey Plaza was the site of the first Masonic temple of Texas.
It also was the location of the killing of President John F. Kennedy.

First photo: Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the assassination of President John F.Kennedy.

Second photo: Ike Altgens of the Associated Press’ photo of Jacqueline Kennedy and Secret Service agent Clint Hill climbing onto the back of the limo, against the site today. November 22, 1963.

The street pictured is Elm Street – the Mason Road of the synchromystic seekers. I first visited the street, Dealey Plaza, and the Texas School Depository Building in 1974, a mere 11 years after the JFK assassination. I’ve been back several times, as have thousands of others.

Fifty years ago today, on November 19, 1963, The Dallas Times Herald detailed the exact route of the presidential motorcade. It showed the President would be going down Elm Street.

1, 2, 3…at 12:30 on 11.22.63.
How did synchromysticism’s Godfather view the JFK assassinaiton?

King-Kill/33: Masonic Symbolism in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by James Shelby Downard was published (after years of making the rounds in rough copies and on tape) by Adam Parfrey, in the first edition of Apocalypse Culture. The essay theorizes the Freemasons were responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Part of the theorizing considers the special location of the “ritual killing” of the “King.”

 

READ THE REST at the…

Source: Twilight Language: Elm Street: The Mason Road of JFK/King-Kill/33

Check out the original source here
ANOMALY Magazine

www.AnomalyMagazine.com

Ripper was popular singer Michael Maybrick – ‘a psychopath shielded by servants of the (Masonic) state’

November 11th, 2015

Michael Maybrick photographed in 1907  Photo: Courtesy of Fourth Estate

After 15 years of research, the director of Withnail and I believes he has cracked the most enduring mystery in British criminal history

“…the man in charge of the investigation, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren.

Jack the Ripper was not, as popular mythology would have it, a fiend or a criminal genius. ‘He was a psychopath shielded by servants of the Victorian state.’ More specifically, shielded by the fraternal bonds of Freemasonry. As much as it is about uncovering the identity of the Ripper, They All Love Jack is a scalding critique of the hypocrisy at the heart of the establishment in Victorian England, and the role played in it by Freemasonry. ‘It was endemic in the way England ran itself,’ Robinson says. ‘At the time of Jack the Ripper, there were something like 360 Tory MPs, 330 of which I can identify as Masons. The whole of the ruling class was Masonic, from the heir to the throne [Edward, Prince of Wales] down. It was part of being in the club.’

Warren was an important cog in the Masonic wheel. He was a founder member of the Quatuor Coronati lodge, and an authority on Freemasonic history and ritual. As a young man he led an expedition to the Holy Land in 1867, where he excavated under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But not only was Warren a Freemason. So too was Jack the Ripper.

Robinson’s theory, argued with a forensic attention to detail, is that all of the killings bore the unmistakable stamp of being perversions of Freemasonic ritual: the symbol of a pair of compasses, ‘the trademark of Freemasonry’, carved into the face of Catherine Eddowes; removal of meal buttons and coins from the bodies of Eddowes and Annie Chapman – ‘The removal of metal is axiomatic in Masonic ritual,’ Robinson writes, money being ‘an emblem of vice’… all of these things and more were not feverish acts of madness but carefully laid clues, the Ripper’s calling card, in what he called his ‘funny little game’ – a gruesome paperchase designed to taunt the authorities, and Charles Warren in particular. The cryptic graffiti in Goulston Street was ‘the most flagrant clue of all.’

As a Masonic scholar, Warren would have been ‘better acquainted with the story of the Three Ruffians than any other man on earth’; he would certainly have recognised that the word ‘Juwes’ was not a misspelling of ‘Jews’, but a pun on Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum. The graffiti was not anti-Semitic, but a message from the killer to Charles Warren that the Ripper was a brother Freemason.

Warren knew what Jack the Ripper was – ‘I’m 1,000 per cent certain of that,’ Robinson says – if not who he was. And others knew it too – the information shared on a ‘need-to-know basis’. The man that Warren appointed to be his ‘eyes and ears’ on the case, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, was also a Freemason. So were at least two of the coroners, Wynne Baxter and Henry Crawford, who ruled on the murders; and at least three of the police doctors who examined the bodies.

Robinson is not the first person to go down the Freemasonry road. In 1976, in his book Jack the Ripper: the Final Solution, Stephen Knight advanced the theory that Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence, an eminent Freemason, was the Ripper. Masonic historians were among the first to shoot the theory down. And Robinson agrees. Albert was a buffoon and a degenerate but he was not the Ripper. But in throwing out Albert, Robinson maintains, what he calls ‘Freemasology’ was also attempting to ‘inoculate’ against any further attempt to propose a Freemason as the Ripper – ‘the Masonic baby duly disappearing with the royal bathwater’. But the fact that the Duke of Clarence wasn’t the Ripper, doesn’t mean the Ripper wasn’t a Freemason. ‘He was,’ Robinson says.

Michael Maybrick, Robinson’s ‘candidate’  Photo: Courtesy of Fourth Estate

Michael Maybrick was a hugely popular singer and composer in the Victorian era, who is virtually forgotten today – for reasons that Robinson believes are no accident. He was particularly well known for his sentimental seafaring songs, written under the pen name Stephen Adams, among them Nancy Lee, the sheet music of which sold more than 100,000 copies in two years, and – ironically – They All Love Jack, which was written in 1887, the year before the Ripper killings began. His composition The Holy City sold more than one million copies, making it the best-selling song of the 19th century. Both Vera Lynn and Charlotte Church have recorded versions of the song.

Maybrick was close friends with Sir Arthur Sullivan and the painter Frederick Leighton, among many other prominent public figures. Both Sullivan and Leighton were Freemasons, as was Michael Maybrick. He was a member of no fewer than six Masonic lodges or chapters, and was on the Supreme Grand Council of Freemasons, whose members also included the Prince of Wales. He and Charles Warren were in different lodges, but both were members of the Savage Club. Robinson is ‘100 per cent sure’ they would have met.

Source: Jack the Ripper: has Withnail and I director Bruce Robinson solved the world’s most famous crime? – Telegraph

Check out the original source here
ANOMALY Magazine

www.AnomalyMagazine.com

Cubas Mysterious Numbers Station Is Still on the Air

September 18th, 2015

Cuba’s Mysterious ‘Numbers Station’ Is Still on the Air

Written by Joshua Kopstein / September 16, 2015

On August 18 at 22:00 UTC, I heard a government intelligence agency transferring encrypted messages to spies over the radio.

Or at least, that’s the most common explanation for what I heard.

I dialed to the correct frequency—17480 kHz—using an internet-connected radio tuner maintained by a university in the Netherlands. Suddenly, over waves of static, an eerily-robotic woman’s voice began speaking a series of five-digit number sequences in Spanish.

About three minutes later, the numbers repeated in the same order, but this time each sequence was followed by a digital bell-like tone and a harsh blast of noise, like a 56K modem trying to connect to AOL in the 90s. This continued for about 20 minutes, each sequence punctuated by the bizarre noise blasts.

Then, static.

This is HM01, sometimes called “Voce De La Chica,” a shortwave numbers station believed to be operated by the Cuban intelligence directorate, Dirección de Inteligencia (DI).

To the casual listener, numbers stations are mysterious broadcasts of voices speaking streams of numbers which, in at least some cases, are encrypted messages being sent to government spies.

They have long seemed like Cold War relics, born in a time when spying meant boots-on-the-ground and internet surveillance was impractical or irrelevant. And yet, HM01 continues to operate in what the NSA has called a “golden age” of internet-enabled signals intelligence, and despite historic progress in US-Cuba relations earlier this summer.

Source: Cubas Mysterious Numbers Station Is Still on the Air | Motherboard

Check out the original source here
ANOMALY Magazine

www.AnomalyMagazine.com

Security Theater by Emily Elizabeth Brown at The New Inquiry

September 5th, 2015

Security Theater

crisis-actors-promo-mall-shooting-demoWhat crisis actor conspiracy theorists believe to be fake implies a much more generous view of the real

During the Sandy Hook shooting, a 69 year-old retired psychologist named Gene Rosen opened his home to six terrified children immediately after the massacre. A month later, Salon magazine published an article on the kind neighbor and his continued harassment by conspiracy theorists. Members of a forum hosted on David Icke’s website (the former broadcaster who birthed the iconic “reptilian conspiracy theory”), had mixed reactions. “Some conspiracy maniacs genuinely believe that they can treat anyone as pawns on the basis that they ‘see the big picture,’” wrote one member.  “He is an actor,” wrote another member. “And not a very good one at that.”

The idea of “crisis actors” rose to popularity within conspiracy theory circles after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting on December 14, 2012. The idea appears to have originated in a post by professor James Tracy on his website memoryholeblog.org, “a forum for news, criticism and commentary on sociopolitical issues and phenomena overlooked or misreported by mainstream media.” In “The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information”—written ten days after the Sandy Hook shooting—Tracy voices his suspicions about the official narrative, specifically focusing on the “bizarre performance” of medical examiner H. Wayne Carver.

Tracy compares Carver’s “apprehensive and uncertain” behavior at a December 15 press conference to his public reputation of being “extremely self-assured” with a “swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration.” His demeanor at the conference, and apparent uncertainty when speaking about certain details of the shooting (the shooting that, at this point, only happened one day ago) are evidence, for Tracy, that the H. Wayne Carver at the podium of the press conference is not the same H. Wayne Carver who made himself known as the Connecticut chief state medical examiner.

It is true that professional actors are sometimes hired to simulate disasters; their purpose is to help large organizations run through emergency response drills in preparation for possible catastrophic events. In conspiracy theory world, crisis actors are stans and stand-ins employed by the government to carry out affective labor during false flag operations. Websites claim that the Sandy Hook shooting, along with virtually every major tragedy involving human beings on American soil since 9/11, was a false flag drill that the government decided to take live.

Tracy does not claim to have discovered the existence of crisis actors, but his status as professor did give the theory some publicity as well as the appearance of legitimacy. He is careful not to say directly that he believes the shootings never took place. He does, however, derisively mention the “alleged father” of one of the victims, whose televised reactions he calls “unusual and apparently contrived.” As his theory gained traction he began giving interviews with outlets like Infowars in which he claims that “something” did occur at Sandy Hook: children were actually killed, he says. The post received over 1,000 comments in a little over a month.

READ MORE … Source: Security Theater – The New Inquiry

Check out the original source here
ANOMALY Magazine

www.AnomalyMagazine.com