Dan Johnson
24th Aug 2009
Probably the primary goal of many in Ufology and Exopolitics is to gain enough political power to bring about the full disclosure that Extraterrestrial races have been and still are active in monitoring our species. Such a goal is certainly worthy of great interest but its "pre-occupation", in my opinion, tends to somewhat overlook a far more serious concern. This concern is what I will refer to here as a Physics Truth Embargo. The hope that disclosure will help in releasing covered up technology is not a new one, but what I will be discussing here is even more disturbing if that’s possible. So, in pursuing this line of thought I would like to speculate, some, about the concept that aliens are not only monitoring us (the UFO aspect) but are also actively interacting with some of us (the exopolitics aspect of so-called secret agreements) by asking some rather provocative questions. For example:
Is it really reasonable to think that some alien races actually make secret technological agreements with us as proposed by some exopolitics researchers? Secret agreements with who? Secret agreements with governments that have allowed corrupt military and intelligence agencies to dominate them? World governments that have been complicit in looting much of the global economy? Governments, whose agents, along with their news media, would cover up the truth about destructive operations like 9/11? Governments that, through contrived foreign policies, continue in their endless wars and endless meddling in the affairs of other nations? Governments who would hide advanced physics/technology – the kind that is required for advanced propulsion and free energy systems? Does it really make any sense that advanced aliens, aliens who could probably read anyone’s thoughts, would make agreements with such governments? (Note: Obviously, such advanced technology, which we know must be out there, could be a tremendous boost for our struggling race. Why would our leaders not share such knowledge with the public sector?)
I view these questions as extremely profound, considering that we are dealing with real gatekeepers, not only below, but apparently high above if such technology agreements were indeed real. (For example, what if the only advanced technology that is allowed to filter down from such agreements are only meant to enhance the continued economic use and abuse of human race?) As I have mentioned to some people before, apparently any useful experimental input for theoretical particle physics ended over 20 years ago. How is that? Well, in an April 1988 Physics Today article, ‘Flavor SU(3) Symmetries in Particle Physics’, physicist Howard Georgi laments that the "healthy situation" of required experimental input "has changed in recent years". (Really?) Twenty years later, we find the same concern stated by Peter Woit in his 2006 book, ‘Not Even Wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law ‘. (Note: Many physicists think string theory is a waste of time and money. I think it may be something even worse – like a distraction to mislead the public that we are getting honest science.) In his book, Woit also laments the "lack of useful" experimental input and states the traditional system is now "seriously dysfunctional". Could we be talking about a physics truth embargo here anybody? But why?
Do we really need to question what kind of black hole really useful high energy experimental work might have gone into? Or, were there certain secret low energy experimental breakthroughs in the 80’s which eliminated the need for expensive, high energy experimental programs? (Recall the cancellation of the Super Conducting Super Collider.) The shutting down of cold fusion research, which was generating interesting experimental input, was and still is highly suspicious. I realize this might disturb some, but I seriously doubt if the Large Hadron Collider will produce any useful science – like the kind needed for advanced propulsion and free energy systems. Unfortunately, I think it is quite likely that we are not dealing with a full deck of cards here and our controllers have no intentions of ever showing us the missing cards. Unfortunately, few understand how and why mainstream science can shut down some interesting science research. Could it be that it threatens to reveal certain forbidden physical knowledge? (See reading suggestions reference below)
So, in this regard, might we be asking at whose "mercy", is the human race standing? Establishment controlled governments? Aliens? Both? So in vain, does the traditional system putter in futility with endless complex math – while an entrenched physics truth embargo keeps all ultra advanced physics/technology from humanity? (I can say with certainty that there are people out there – a lot smarter than I – who think so. See the link below for: M is for Messy.) Someone I know, about ten years ago, made a suggestion. It was: NEVER STOP SEEKING THE TRUTH. This is of course quite profound as we are only free, I think, in the sense of how much truth we personally find. (And it’s been increasingly clear lately that our controllers don’t want us to find too much truth about anything!) Can we ever hope to be truly free if certain science truths are hidden from humanity? Is this the ultimate "stranglehold"? A physics truth embargo stranglehold? What if disclosure doesn’t relieve the stranglehold? Would it really be all that meaningful?
True, disclosure of the 60+ year old, worldwide cover up of an alien presence, assuming the disclosure is not some contrived hoax, would be very important. But would it be huge if the aliens still maintain their distance? In fact, it might be quite anti-climatic for some if it turns out the aliens have the final say as to when, if ever, the public sector of this world sees ultra advanced propulsion and free energy physics and the associated technology.
Dan Johnson
Reading suggestions:
M is for Messy, by Martin Gardner (This is a very interesting review of two books, The Trouble With Physics, by Lee Smolin and Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit. This review pulls together a lot of similar views related to my essay. – Dan Johnson)
(Note: Thanks to Dr Paul LaViolette, I can now "let go" of the quark "bag" model and "cling" to his Turing Wave model of nucleons. This is not easy to do for many, even those who are strong critics of string theory. But for me, because of the fundamental wave nature of particles, the Turing Wave Theory seems to make the most logical description of what we observe in nature, in my opinion, at this point in time. – Dan Johnson.)
The Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern
by Paul A. LaViolette Ph.D. February 22, 2008.
