An Exercise in Examination of the History of the Human Phenomena and Associated Implications

Section 1.a A Brief History of the First History

Well lets start at the beginning shall we ? In most ancient texts I have examined, the first character is often also the most voluminous topic and the very basis for the rest of the story and existence itself. As an example I will use the generally accepted first verse of the first book most common to most cultures...

The Bible/Torah>Genesis>1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

In my understanding, this is meant to illustrate that in the beginning of everything we know or can know, God created both the seen (physical, matter, energy, etc) and the unseen (energy, quanta, information, 'spirits', etc). Therefore, as we are meant to understand it, there was some beginning and at that event 'God' created everything.

So, what is this God ? So far as we might understand this verse God is the one who created everything we know or can know. Thats a pretty tall order, but it is a valid point as a matter of language. Whatever it is we come to know as God we must accept that He (or it if you prefer) is responsible for everything we know or can know. Thusly, no matter what dalliance we employ in our interpretations we must always be cognizant of the notion that WE did not create everything, it is not ours, as it were - not exclusively at any rate. So God is the owner, the creator, the intelligent designer of everything everywhere. So far, so good?

If we cannot agree on this most basic of introductory concepts it will not likely be of much utility for you to read any further. I do not believe that everything is just 'random' and I must confess that although I could accept a theory that the universe has simply ALWAYS existed and so there is no need for a creator, in that interpretation God would still exist as we have created it and it permeates things and time in ways we cannot understand through science at present. Things like psychic phenomena, the mastery of inter-dimensional realms, etc. God would always exist even if it is only as the highest form of consciousness when we finally attain that ourselves; A collective singularity, all knowledge, all power and benevolence and reason and prime motivation will always belong to this most supreme being as long as there are entities who must toil, suffer, think and exist in a physical plane as we do - in my opinion, of course.

1.b Highly scientific Biblical notions still not completely understood, certainly not in their origins

Next in this saga of the beginnings, we are presented with the idea that there was created somehow matter and spirit, and then LIGHT was manifest to produce a sort of bridge (wavicle) between the two (the Earth from verse 1:1 seem to be taken as for granted that it existed or was the focal point of the whole exercise and its subsequent effects). Without light, we would have no perception of matter, energy, self, anything really, so light seems to be the next closest thing to creation itself or the essence of God as it were. And so, then there was light, if there is any linear progression of this manifestation from beginning to end - and though it is seldom commented upon, the veracity of this proposition still seems sensible and astounding today; If matter and energy were formed at all, light would have been one of the very first proofs or experiences of this event. Even in high-end models of the big bang theory, at a few seconds after creation there would only be extremely hot plasma or nearly pure light energy laced with intangibles like vectors, forces, etc, which would then spew out and dissipate into solid matter and various energetic forces we now take for granted today.

I would like to interject a pet point of mine here. I do not particularly subscribe to the theory that existence is hundreds of millions of years old (the relationship between carbon dating and all forms of intense radiation is, at best, lacking).I shall hope to clarify this in more detail as we go, but for now consider it thusly;

If I was to erect a boiler and insert a nuclear rod, and behold I could produce energy for a small town for many many many years at capacity above any reasonable requirement, that would be nuclear power. Fair enough ? Now what if I told you I could expend that energy in an instant and all that would remain would be somewhat intangible radiation for thousands of years ? "MADNESS!" you would cry, then BOOM, an atomic explosion... that same amount of energy that would take hundreds of years to expend would be used up in one brilliant flash lasting only a few seconds. This is the nature of cosmological phenomena when we consider a creation event, the energy would be so massive and so complex as to defy our current understandings of time and space, and it may very well be that the entire reaction took only 7 days...or our sense of time is skewed by our relative position (see general and special relativity by A. Einstein). I say only 7 days very cautiously; you will say "come now, ONLY 7 days?!!" , but I would say to you; imagine a nuclear explosion of millions of megatons that combusted and continued consistently to burn and combust for even one 24hr day straight ! This amount of energy is well beyond most of our reckoning, and it is just possible that there are nuclear, radioactive or quantum reactions that we have yet to master with our understanding of atomic physics mostly attained in the latter part of the 1800s.

Perhaps 'God' being Lord of all information and existance, is more clever than we are giving him credit for at present.

1.b2 About seperation from the pure source - the only day not deemed good by God.

But I digress ;p The next point and a very interesting one is something, again, seldom addressed in the information I am privy to,namely, the firmament. Indeed, what is it that controls surface tension of water, why is there separation between the ocean and the sky ? Is it gravity ? Certainly not exclusively! Is it thermal ? Quite possibly this is a little closer to the mark... is it chemical bonding ? What is it ? Whatever it is it is the next thing God dealt with, He created a barrier caused by density or temperature, or whatever; a sort of layering - a process of separation, as it were. Anyone with appreciation of chemistry will really take to this...if it were not for this type of density layering, nothing we know chemically would exist. Everything would have remained mono-atomic.

So here again we are presented with a highly advanced scientific concept in ancient texts that remains interesting and fundamental to early creation science (and science in general) today.

1.c Land vs. DRY Land

Next, lakes were formed, but it seems unreasonable to assume this means OCEANS in my opinion. Gathering the waters and allowing DRY land to appear sounds more like channeling through rivers and water tables as the planet absorbed fluid H20 from the sky and cooled and more water was brought down from the swirling gasses above. The reason I make this point is because in the later deluge, it would be required that the waters would have had to be pushed up all over the face of the earth again, but this does not seem sufficient to explain mass extinctions that occoured on the earth and the great expansion of the landmass (ocean floor) has surely absorbed waters far in addition to this initial provision that could be 'gathered up' to form mere lakes or seas that existed at the time.

It sounds to me like the liquid state of the atmosphere started to form all over the earth as water when cooling allowed this layering between the sky and earth, and the waters were gathered up into lakes around the globe.... we know this is more likely because the ocean bed has been proven to be quite young (70,000,000 years our of supposed 3.5 Billion of earth existance or about 0.02% of our history, which means that for the first 99.98% of our history the ocean floor did not really exist as we percieve it today (if at all) if we take the figures of 3.5 billion and 70 million seriously)...so at sometime (see Noah) the Earth was inundated with water from a new source and it adjusted to accomodate that new source after some 40 days of flooding and turmoil- which we shall examine in much more detail later on. Suffice it to say that I believe Pangea was the original crust over all the earth composed solely of the continental land masses we now see (albeit in perhaps a different distribution somewhat), and not that there was one massive landmass on the middle of one side, and then some 75% of the other side of the earth was devoid of land and covered in a massive ocean and the planet was the same size as today... if one really considers it for more than 10 minutes, this is really quite apparent (Pangea images).

In English translations these verses seem to denote that the waters may have been gathered in one place (i.e. a global ocean), but it would be more appropriate I think to say they "retreated to their place(s)" in English [not leastof which because we know waters at least collected in more than one body, not only one massive lake or ocean in the center of the map] . I.E. ;

GEN 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. ...

But from my examination of Hebrew and Greek ancient sources it seems better to read it in english as:

""After this, God commanded (or caused) that the waters, which were seperated from the sky (below the firmament), should retreat into their proper place(s) and allow dry Earth to form...."" [whereas before the whole Earth was likely a muddy, mucky, mist laden ball as the atmosphere and terrain sorted themselves out. It has even been postulated by theologic scholars that no rain had ever properly occurred before the time of Noahs flood ]

We even see that the term the text uses is seas [severeal], such large bodies as the OCEANS (or pan global ocean of Pseudo-Pangean models) may not have existed at that time, for example in most of history the SEVEN seas were commonly thought of as the Mediterranean Sea, including its marginal seas, notably the Aegean Sea.,the Adriatic Sea, the Arabian Sea (which is now part of the Indian Ocean), the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, including the closed Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee

These were the oldest classical seven seas by most accounts for many years, though the term obviously expanded or changed over time and with exploration, but the idea here is that these seas are in no way adequate for the description OCEANS and there was no name given to our present OCEANS in the ancient world (barring any mention of Atlantis, which we may address later also, but especially the Pacific).

Now there are two obvious schools of thought that must emerge from these considerations;
a) no one had explored the oceans well enough to know what to call them and the areas to the far west was just the 'great western sea' or b) the massive expanse of oceans simply did not exist at this phase of our origins/or were vastly different (smaller) that we now know them.

For one moment I would like to again digress to Pangean theories; in my studies of space and earth sciences I produced a study on glaciers. It is widely hypothesized that glaciers are solely responsible for the depositing of various soils and plant matter across continents, but I find this terribly presumptuous and ignorant of many facts. If we again consider the fact that the oceans are, even presently expanding, the conclusion if we wind the clock backwards is that many of the continents of the earth were at one time touching and perhaps also more temperate overall. Thus we see great swaths of similar tropical rainforests in south america, africa and the phillipine islands. Unless this phenomena began in South america and was carried eastward by wind and aquatic migration, these regions must reasonably have been in much closer proximity at one time (acceptable to both Pangean models). It does not take a rocket scientist to see the 'jig saw fit' between america and euro-africa, but it takes some more reckoning to see the same marriage on the far eastern side of the map (especially since the map is not usually drawn in a way that lends to the mind making such considerations). But more on this later.

1.d Well, what does it matter where we really came from anyway ? You can't know where you're going if you dont know where you've been.

So really what does all this matter anyway ? Well, it is important to the understanding of this work that there are many disputed theories on the origins or the universe, the planet, the species and God. It is interesting because for most of us, these considerations are brushed aside as being too large or somewhat irrelevant to our present undertakings, but I herein argue that these are of the paramount importance to our day to day lives. This is because if God didn't create the Earth and Universe, etc then we may somewhat more acceptibly presume that our actions need not be moral, considerate of the creator or his creation and that free will trumps all other considerations and there are really no wrong answers or actions [ in short atheism is acceptable]. However, if we come to a sensible and justifiable aceptance of Gods existence and his hand in creation of both the planet and ourselves then we might better heed His instruction on right living [and atheism becomes the very foremost 'sin' and blasphemy]. But I do not hope to promote some arbitrary super "religious" morality, this is mostly just an examination of the place and post we find all of ourselves bound to so far as we retain the mortal shell. But again, the presence or lack thereof of oceans is somewhat unimportant and merely introductory. What point I hope that a person might retain from this introductory section is that the history of the planet and our species is not as fixed in fact as we might hope. We are pitfully ignorant of all that has preceeded us and its implications on our lives today.

2.a Of Biblical and Classical histories of Origins.

"... there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals;..." An exerpt from Timaeus by Plato, A Socratic Dialogue.

This again seems to reasonably demonstrate that the Earth has at sundry times been almost completely destroyed and humanity along with it. In the Bible, we find two such accounts to my mind; Adam and Eve and the 'destruction' of Eden, and Noahs flood. Herein are represented the two modes of destruction, as well as Sodom and Gamorrah to a lesser extent.....

2.b The first warning to man and expulsion from Eden.

TO BE CONTINUED :)

The solution to global warming: nuclear winter

I've been thinking about the state of affairs of the planet lately, in a strictly environmental sense. You see I used to have a friend who told me that "one day soon, if we dont get our shit together, North America will be a desert" while I tacitly agreed at the time and could see the sense in this hypothesis, it is only lately that I've been asking myself; "so where's this desert at?" (we have NOT gotten our proverbial sh*t together in the decade since). See, at the time I was much m

ore involved in environmental issues, but it made

sense to me that given the rates of carbon- capturing emissions we were spewing out, it was a somewhat inevitable conclusion (the assumption, even then, being that there was some correlation between our abuse of exhaust fumes and the unbearable summer heat).

Back when I was involved more heavily in green movements it was widely speculated that within 10 or 20 years, given the exponential nature of our problems, that climate change would be obvious and apparent, even to the detriment of our species. Even Al Gores' later film on the topic seemed to lend credence to an assumption that were were at a sort of tipping point, that it would not be long until shorelines encroached on major population areas (a relic from the days of ship transport). But this has not happened, evn though great swaths of the ant arctic shelf have fallen away and the fact that there is nearly NO permanent ice left on the northern pole, we still have not seen these cataclysmic Earth ch

anges... thats not to say we wont someday, but the immanent threat seems greatly deminished if the planet has survived this first decade of the new era so relatively unscathed.

But, that is not to say that within 5 or 10 years we wouldn't be seeing the real results of

this dilemma... as far as I can tell from all my exhaustive research, there are two reasons we havn't and may not see these great earth changes come to pass. The first of which is the removing of millions of gallons o

f water from the Earths supply; let me explain.

As I have long stated there is a very strange phenomena afoot which is exclusive to our time in history, namely the bottling of water. While this might seem a simple extortionist business model, it is possible that we are also facilitating the rape and abuse of the planet by bottling water, even beyond the outrageous notion that a liter of water should cost more than a liter of gas (for a short while longer anyway). I have another friend who owns a small convenience store, and he tells me stories a

bout how, when the first salesmen came around, and offered him to start selling bottled water, he thought they were madmen... "who would pay for bottled water when there is perfectly good water available from the tap" ? Well, as we now know the tap water might not be the first choice of the thirsty consumer for any number of reasons, chemicals used to promote 'public health safety' not least among them. But irregardless he now makes a healt

hy margin off of Coke or Pepsi branded water. I have made a video about this before, but herein I shall again crunch some fast numbers.

Lets assume that the average bottle of water holds 500ml, or a half liter... in any given sto

re, between their refrigerated inventory and the stuff in the back there is probably 100L of water in bottles. Now let us assume that for every 1000 people there are say 2 such operations in existence... lets take the population of Canada at 30 Million souls, therefore.... about 6 million liters (or 1.5milli

on gallons) would be ensnared inside petrolium prisons... thats just Canada, in america we can safely assume 10x the amount for 11.5 Million gallons or about 50 million liters... if the average Olympic pool has 85,000 gallons that is equal to 135 olympic sized pools (about 6 feet deep and 30 across, as far as you can possibly see), which might not seem like a tremendous amount until we also consider the amount of pools, water taken for other beverage production, industrial uses, etc, etc.... and places like europe, china, south korea and japan, which would again increase our trapped water estimates by another 10 times in consideration of all its unnatural uses... what I am getting at here is that there

may be some correlation between the fact that shorelines have not been inundated with flood-waters from rising shorelines, and the amount of water which has been taken away from the natura

l cycles of the Earth. It is highly probably that my numbers here are far off but I would assume them to be lacking

and not gross exaggerations. I have no data available on how much water needs to be added or removed to affect shorelines, but suffice it to say that I feel if I was paid enough to make a serious study of these numbers the results would be shocking.... so that is part one of our considerations on the matter - we have taken millions of gallons of water OUT of the natural cycles and this may be part of why the Earth has not flooded certain low lying areas as yet in spite of massive glacial melting and whatnot caused by an increase in our global temperature. It should, however go without saying that if this is so, the removal of this amount of water, since

in nature it largely functions to cool our planet and absorb heat from the sun, is a cause for some concern when thinking of the possibility for global warming problems of today and into the future.

So on to part two of our considerations on global warming; OIL.

Lets just preface

this with my saying that I am a proponent of abiotic oil. perhaps I have spelled it wrong as it is underlined in red; basically I support the theory that the worlds supply of oil is virtually unlimited. For example, if you believe that oil is a bi product of dinosaurs, I will punch you in the face, well not really, but that isn't to say that you dont deserve it for thinking that there we 100,000,000,000 dinosaurs which have been converted to this biomass. Surely no one would argue that the Earth eats itself (duhh, why are ruins always buried?) but still, it is totally unrealistic to think that that many dinosaurs were consumed so quickly as to provide the massive pools of hydrocarbons that we have discovered in the mid-east or under the arctic shelf... basically, we have only dug a few miles into the earth... our outward exploration is always greated than our inward development (we have explored some hundreds - or hundreds of thousands if you buy the whole moon landing thing - miles upward) but we have yet to successfully examine even 10% of these distances inward to the Earths core. While I believe to some extent the theory of continental dr

ift, I also propose that there must be some sort of lubricating layer between the layers floating thusly about (oil). The

re is myriad research to support this position, albeit mostly hidden from the westward Anglo-Saxon-Royal-Deutch perspective. So that being said, our excessive and continued extraction from deeper and deeper wells ( See Deep Water Horizon) is inevitable reducing the amount of this lubricant available to natural processes. So, as with any complex mechanical system reliant on certain thermo thresholds it stands to reason that by removing this lubricant from the core-ward direction we are causing the machinery to heat up. So some of the global warming we may be experiencing might not be exclusively an atmospheric phenomena. Geo-thermal heat may indeed be on the rise somewhat in tandem from our exercises in this area. The amount of research on these postulations is so abysmally low as to lend credence to almost any such theory, but at the end of the day it seems certain that our depen

dence on 'fossil fuels

' is directly contributing to the trend of global warming, either through atmospheric polloution or through causing the machinery of tectonics to make due with a reduced supply of lubricants; or both !!

So now that we have established all this, and we conceded that there may be others with far more information on the topic; wtf does all this have to do with the title of the article ? I shall no attempt to explain.

Global warming < Nuclear Winter

So where am I going with this ? I would surmise based on my previous writings above that the global warming epidemic went nowhere. What I propose is that the planet was indeed on its way to a major meltdown, nothing seems to have gotten in its way, no one of import ratified kyoto, no major climate saving initiative has been taken up beyone the introduction of carbon taxes and the odd subsid

y to inefficent 'green' power schemes for the worlds largest corporations, so why is this summer so cool, so shrouded in overcast skies ? Because of one word... fukushima. now I know you're saying, but dennizen, surely that was an accident, no one could have predicted that and the cost to Japan has been enormous, surely no NWO loving faction would create such a catastrophe just to prolong the status quo for a few years more ! And you might be right, but lets consider a few points

-harrp is online and has the potential to cause seismic disturbances

-Japan is basically the Wests' live-action nuclear test bed, as historical precedent

-it worked (limited nuclear winter may indeed provide some relief from total catastrophic climate change)

Now I am sure you are asking yourself "is this mofo for real?!" the answer is yes. You see I remember growing up a little at the height/end of the cold war, and I remember reading books about nuclear weapons and the state of the world even back then (yes I have always been this much of a geek). There were several stark warnings about severe nuclear catastrophe. 1) acid rain. We seldom seem to recall this outcome of nuclear war, but the truth is thatsevere nuclear exposure for the planet may kill all life by altering the composition of raindrops, thereby distributing high pH and other poisons to the plant supply; then the animals (supposeing they consume some of the plants in the window between when the rain hits them and when they die), and ultimately onto us through the poisoning of our drinking water and food supplies through the aformentioned chain. 2) immediate incineration of people exposed to the epicenters of nuclear fissile events (see terminator 2) . An

d 3) Nuclear winter. yes, strange as it may sound, these towers of flaming mushrooms burning hot as the sun are only the most visible and short-term of events associated with major nuclear calamity. Once the flames and shockwaves subside, there is the eventual fallout; clouds of particles which obstruct the sky and cause a severe reduction in the amount of raysthat land on the earth and perform their natural duty of feeding life and providing safety and visibility for the portion of the Earths inhabitants not confined to nocturnal cycles.

Now to make a

brief review of my experiences since the Fukushima disaster in relation to these considerations. 1) rampant polloution is indeed well underway. As I heard one person say, the only reason people dont realize what is going on is because its not like an oil spill; you dont walk out in the morning and see your car covered in radiation... birds aren't washing up on shore covered in radiation, you dont see it in your hair, you dont smell it on your clothes.... very out of sight out of mind, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If it WAS like oil, people would be screaming in the streets. If people saw it all around them, if it was on your hair and visible floating in the air people would be up in arms! But it isn't, and now a days people are so ignorant that unless its written in a big blinking neon sign with golden arches, people just dont understand or care much. Many nations immediately banned all imports from Japan once the catastrophe broke.... animals are being born in the Fukushima area with severe deformities... no food imports are allowed out into most nations since the disaster. If it is that bad in processed and commercial foods we can safely assume that any living creatures or plants in the region are also descimated. Even though the safe levels for radioactivity has been roundly raised on this side of the ocean that doesn't mean that this disaster isn't of some global impact. It is sure that all food products all over the world have been impacted by these events though perhaps to a lesser degree.

2) while this was not a typical ICBM detonation, there have certainly been casualties... workers walking into danger zones watching their teeth fall from their heads, their hair fall out, and their bodies becomming riddled with tumors before they could walk back out of the door. These are serious problems, but with a core meltdown the damage is more seething, its more subtle, your skin doesn't blow off and burst into flames, it slowly festers inside, becomes cancerous and cells grow and rupture, there is nothing you can do but sit back and watch... it is not as horrific as instant flaming death, but it still aint good.

3) Nuclear winter. Now I cannot speak for the entire planet, but where I am we are almost on the same longitude as fukushima, and since the event I have noticed this summer to be far more overcast, far cooler and far less damaging from a strictly thermal standpoint. In spite of the fact that all the information seems to point to the idea that we should be having another record shattering summer, so far, that is just not the case. The skies are usually an even pallor of sickly grey with only occasional breaks for the sun to do its job. The temperature is on average some 5-8 degrees celsius cooler than has been for the past several years. If this isn't nuclear winter, its certainly a type of nuclear autumn by comparison. So I ask you, is it beyond the realm of possibility that these factors are all adding up to the present situation ? Was the Earth so close to falling over the edge of the irreversible climate damage tipping point that even after we have ensnared all this water away for the protection of the shorelines, that we were saved from our ultimate fate by this timely though tragic nuclear event in Japan ? I think it is both probable and likely, what scares me most, however is that I fear this may have been done TO the people of Japan as a final soiree into their reparations from WW2. What I mean here is that isn't it just a little too tragic that the only two peoples to suffer these sorts of nuclear tragities were once our sworn enemies ? If this sort of solution was mandatory for the survival of the planet where would we expect it might occour ? In China ? No that would be too detrimental to our present economic matrix. In Europe ? Not likely since they are so close to banjrupcy already that this sort of event would surely be their undoing... In Japan ? Where we have performed horrific nuclear tests before ? The only place to be struck down by atomic weapons and proved already that we could rebuild, after some time, from this type of horror ? I'm certainly not blaming any one or any group of nations if this was the case - if it had to be done, so be it, but it seems a little fishy to me. We will have to wait and see where all their money goes once the compensation legislation starts rolling out. As the man said; follow the money. A curiousity to me is to know whether there was any massive trading of puts right before this happened, like the unclaimed puts that were placed on the airlines involved in 911.

Always follow the money, numbers hardly ever lie.