August 27, 2017 — Don Ecker with J. Randall Murphy

[technomage]

Love the 5D skyscraper example. Great visual. I've heard arguments before regarding two seemingly separate three dimensional objects connected via larger dimensions, which would allow for the conveyance of information, at least, from one to the other instantaneously from a 3D perspective. Regardless, what you boiled down nicely is that anything of a higher dimension is going to consist of the first three dimensions as well (we may have higher dimension aspects of ourselves that we are unaware of), and therefore be subject to the rules of those three dimensions. Beyond that it's just a perspective issue and still makes it highly unlikely that any such beings have found us.

Now on the otherhand with multiple universes there is one way that I would accept the concept of visitors being able to happen upon us. If the universe we exist in were something of a "holographic" fractal there could be an uncountable number of similar and yet different iterations of our little location, and if one could just bounce from iteration to iteration there is a potentially infinite number of "Earths" to explore. The farther down the chain you go the greater the potential variations until you might reach a universe very different content-wise, but still following all of the same rules of physics. ( insert "Sliders" references here.)

I think you're talking about the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which I believe is different from what the Usual Suspect was talking about. I thought he was talking about something like Asimov's "The Gods Themselves" where there were two distinct and completely different universes with different physical laws that were connected in some way and could affect each other. In M-Theory, wouldn't a similar example be two universes in branes that touch somehow?

Maybe he was talking about a Star Trek: Mirror, Mirror scenario or that episode where Worf kept flipping from reality to reality or like in Stargate where the same sort of thing occurred, but that sounds like Many Worlds again. I'm not sure, but perhaps more clarification is needed from the Usual Suspect.

 

[marduk]

Love the 5D skyscraper example. Great visual. I've heard arguments before regarding two seemingly separate three dimensional objects connected via larger dimensions, which would allow for the conveyance of information, at least, from one to the other instantaneously from a 3D perspective. Regardless, what you boiled down nicely is that anything of a higher dimension is going to consist of the first three dimensions as well (we may have higher dimension aspects of ourselves that we are unaware of), and therefore be subject to the rules of those three dimensions. Beyond that it's just a perspective issue and still makes it highly unlikely that any such beings have found us.

I don't think so. Not my domain, but I'm struggling with that.

Take a 3-d sphere. Can it exist in our 4d spacetime? It's kind of yes and no. It could exist with the time dimension being zero.

In other words, it exists for no time.

Now, you could also take the notion that it exists for an undefined time. Like a divide by zero error - what's zero divided by zero? It's undefined. It's not like 1/0 which tends towards infinity but is undefined... it's just undefined.

Would that exist in our 4d universe? I think the answer is abstractly yes, but pragmatically no for the reasons above.

So let's say a 5d entity exists with the 5th dimension being 'colour' just to use a term. It has height, depth, length, and time... plus a colour.

We would see it as a plain old 4d object. It might see us as nothing, because our 'colour' would be undefined. We would abstractly exist in it's topology in an undefined way, or a zero way, but would pragmatically probably not be noticeable. So interestingly, we could see it but it couldn't see us. It would be hard for that entity to transfer information to an object that doesn't really exist to it, just like it would be hard for us to take a sharpie and write on a sphere that exists for a zero length of time.

Now we don't see those sorts of things in the universe as far as I know - meaning objects that act like the rest of the universe doesn't exist.

Now on the otherhand with multiple universes there is one way that I would accept the concept of visitors being able to happen upon us. If the universe we exist in were something of a "holographic" fractal there could be an uncountable number of similar and yet different iterations of our little location, and if one could just bounce from iteration to iteration there is a potentially infinite number of "Earths" to explore. The farther down the chain you go the greater the potential variations until you might reach a universe very different content-wise, but still following all of the same rules of physics. ( insert "Sliders" references here.)

Absolutely true. The problem is that by definition, you can't get there from here, and if you could, it would be part of our universe because we'd be connected in our 4d topology.

The information transfer problem is a bitch. The only way it's currently maybe theoretically true is in some QM interpretations, different universes could tickle ours through quantum superposition effects - which in themselves by definition don't transfer information.

It's the same problem with quantum entanglement - you can't transfer information by that mechanism for fundamental reasons.

 

[Linton]

I don't think so. Not my domain, but I'm struggling with that.

Take a 3-d sphere. Can it exist in our 4d spacetime? It's kind of yes and no. It could exist with the time dimension being zero.

I get what you are saying but, I have always had a problem with time as a hierarchical dimension, so for me it wouldn't matter how many dimensions an object is defined by it can not exist out of time. We seem to be on the same page though regarding how higher/lower dimensional beings (shadow people anyone) would likely not even percieve us, or pay us much mind even if they could. And, again, I just can't see a scenario that diminishes the vastness of the universe.

I think you're talking about the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which I believe is different from what the Usual Suspect was talking about. I thought he was talking about something like Asimov's "The Gods Themselves" where there were two distinct and completely different universes with different physical laws that were connected in some way and could affect each other. In M-Theory, wouldn't a similar example be two universes in branes that touch somehow?

Oh ya for sure, I get that these are completely different concepts. Like I said, though, this many worlds (each a universe on to itself) is the only way I could see someone/thing (apparently I'm a speciesist) being able to find us. Were some incredibly hot nordic aliens coming from some other fully disrelated universe I would certainly hope that by some extra-cosmic coincidence that they happen to pop right into our solar system, but that just seems infinitely improbable. Maybe life itself generates some dimensionally distorting probability field that a high enough technology could hone in on, but we'll have to wait for some new age Tesla to work that out. Until then it's conjecture on par with the possibility that the manufacure of bubblegum generates a notable enough disturbance in spacetime to draw the attention of extraterrestrials.

I'm not walking away from the whole "alien" (in this case the, not-of-this-dimensional-Earth variety) explanation, I just happen to lean heavily on the side of a break-away society. Whether that society predates our species, or maybe even post-dates us, or is just the legacy of a bunch of 19th century hobbiests is an entirely different set of discussions.

Awesome thought modelling though, gentlemen!

 

[technomage]

I like the breakaway civilization idea as well. I think I would need to have an understanding of how the infrastructure would work and I'm referring to the case where the breakaway occurred within the last 150 years or so and where it's embedded within our own civilization (not the case where it's all underwater with no interaction with our society). As the Usual Suspect pointed out one time before, where is the infrastructure for this breakaway and how do we address a point that Ron Regehr made that people in the black budget world would be aware of siphoning of materials needed to create technology for this civilization? I haven't seen any evidence of this, whereas I have seen evidence presented of financial siphoning on a massive scale that would fund such a civilization.

 

[marduk]

I like the breakaway civilization idea as well. I think I would need to have an understanding of how the infrastructure would work and I'm referring to the case where the breakaway occurred within the last 150 years or so and where it's embedded within our own civilization (not the case where it's all underwater with no interaction with our society). As the Usual Suspect pointed out one time before, where is the infrastructure for this breakaway and how do we address a point that Ron Regehr made that people in the black budget world would be aware of siphoning of materials needed to create technology for this civilization? I haven't seen any evidence of this, whereas I have seen evidence presented of financial siphoning on a massive scale that would fund such a civilization.

The funding argument never made sense to me.

I mean, a breakaway civilization would have an economy of its own, right? It's not like they would roll up to an ATM to pull out money to build a base on Mars. Just go mine an asteroid or something.

Even if they did need money to buy raw materials, if they had the tech it would take to do the stuff people think they could do, they would own this economy.

They would make Apple look like chump change. Think an iPhone is cool? Here's one that uses holographic free energy technology that you can use your mind to unlock!

 

[Walter Bosley]

Catherine Austin-Fitts, Joseph Farrell and others have addressed these issues, as regards the breakaway economy and resources issues, much the same way you're saying.

 

[Randall]

Love the 5D skyscraper example. Great visual. I've heard arguments before regarding two seemingly separate three dimensional objects connected via larger dimensions, which would allow for the conveyance of information, at least, from one to the other instantaneously from a 3D perspective. Regardless, what you boiled down nicely is that anything of a higher dimension is going to consist of the first three dimensions as well (we may have higher dimension aspects of ourselves that we are unaware of), and therefore be subject to the rules of those three dimensions. Beyond that it's just a perspective issue and still makes it highly unlikely that any such beings have found us.

Now on the otherhand with multiple universes there is one way that I would accept the concept of visitors being able to happen upon us. If the universe we exist in were something of a "holographic" fractal there could be an uncountable number of similar and yet different iterations of our little location, and if one could just bounce from iteration to iteration there is a potentially infinite number of "Earths" to explore. The farther down the chain you go the greater the potential variations until you might reach a universe very different content-wise, but still following all of the same rules of physics. ( insert "Sliders" references here.)

Indeed. Cosmology as a computational theory, the idea that the reality we inhabit is some sort of construct created by a vastly powerful processing system, makes multiverses of this sort entirely possible.

 

[Randall]

Catherine Austin-Fitts, Joseph Farrell and others have addressed these issues, as regards the breakaway economy and resources issues, much the same way you're saying.

Yes. I have to admit that at least some versions of the breakaway civilization hypothesis is within the realm of possibility. I just don't think they're as reasonable as the interstellar hypothesis when it comes to some of the craft. But then again you've never ruled out the interstellar hypothesis as taking place concurrently with some sort of breakaway civilization.

So who knows for sure just what secrets some select number of humans might have been able to stash away from the rest of us? The thing is. I don't see how they can be rightly called a "civilization". If they're really part of our civilization doing stuff most of the rest of us don't know about, that's more like a secret sect. And it would have to be of limited size or it would become too hard to contain. So I think the term "civilization" is most likely exaggerated. If there was another actual "civilization" living here on Earth, it's just not reasonable to propose we wouldn't know about it by now.

 

[technomage]

Catherine Austin-Fitts, Joseph Farrell and others have addressed these issues, as regards the breakaway economy and resources issues, much the same way you're saying.

Ok, I need to find where the resource siphoning is discussed.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Ok, I need to find where the resource siphoning is discussed.

She has talked about the budget being possibly channeled through HUD, for one.

 

[Randall]

Ok, I need to find where the resource siphoning is discussed.

The problem with the monetary siphoning theory is that any so-called breakaway civilization that is dependent on the monetary system and resource gathering of a parent civilization isn't really a breakaway civilization. At best it's just a sector of the parent civilization, like the so-called black projects, Area 51, etc.

 

[marduk]

I don't get why it's something being considered a possibility. There's no compelling reason to think it's happening.

It makes a good story, though. Influx by Daniel Suarez is pretty fun.

But even then it doesn't stay hidden for long, because humans are humans and humans like power.

 

[technomage]

She has talked about the budget being possibly channeled through HUD, for one.

It's not the financial resources that I question, it's the material resources and the infrastructure of the technology that should leave a fingerprint somewhere. I haven't seen that covered, but of course I haven't read all the books.

 

[marduk]

It's not the financial resources that I question, it's the material resources and the infrastructure of the technology that should leave a fingerprint somewhere. I haven't seen that covered, but of course I haven't read all the books.

Ya, it's like the vast underground complexes that are supposed to exist.

Where does the garbage go? Where does the power go in? Why doesn't it show up on IR? How do they feed themselves?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Walter Bosley]

It's not the financial resources that I question, it's the material resources and the infrastructure of the technology that should leave a fingerprint somewhere. I haven't seen that covered, but of course I haven't read all the books.

Damn, I must correct myself: Fitts was referring to 'secret space program' black funding, not the breakaway. Mea culpa, guys.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Congratulations Randall, you shone in this episode as the voice of sound reason and fair and justifiable skepticism.

Don (and Chris) for me illustrated some cognitive dissonance because on one hand they pour scorn on people in the field who live off their anecdotes (basagio) but yet will jump to the defence of the cases of Walton and UFOs shutting down nukes which are really only supported by ....anecdotes.

Randall has found good concern vs the ufo and nukes cases, where is the direct evidence that UFOs caused the shutdown? And it's fair and reasonable to bring the Walton record into consideration. To me, Chris and Don reacted in a way that was emotional in the face of Randalls points rather than logical and evidence based.

Any case relying on anecdotes is really useless as a tool for studying a possible UFO reality. Instrumented data is needed as anything anecdotal is a potential misidentification, exaggeration, lie, misinformation etc etc

Keep it up Randall and don't be apologetic for your grounded and critical thinking

 

[Han]

Ya, it's like the vast underground complexes that are supposed to exist.

Where does the garbage go? Where does the power go in? Why doesn't it show up on IR? How do they feed themselves?

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

They seem to manage this on a Nuclear Submarine, with I would imagine much more limited space.
I think the biggest problem with being permanently underground would be a lack of natural sunlight.

I imagine that during the Nuclear standoff they investigated all contingencies, including relocating underground.
If they have developed advanced mining techniques that I have read about, then they could do all sorts of things, in much less time and with greater accuracy than is in practice in the commercial mining sector.

 

[Randall]

Congratulations Randall, you shone in this episode as the voice of sound reason and fair and justifiable skepticism.

Don (and Chris) for me illustrated some cognitive dissonance because on one hand they pour scorn on people in the field who live off their anecdotes (basagio) but yet will jump to the defence of the cases of Walton and UFOs shutting down nukes which are really only supported by ....anecdotes.

Randall has found good concern vs the ufo and nukes cases, where is the direct evidence that UFOs caused the shutdown? And it's fair and reasonable to bring the Walton record into consideration. To me, Chris and Don reacted in a way that was emotional in the face of Randalls points rather than logical and evidence based.

Any case relying on anecdotes is really useless as a tool for studying a possible UFO reality. Instrumented data is needed as anything anecdotal is a potential misidentification, exaggeration, lie, misinformation etc etc

Keep it up Randall and don't be apologetic for your grounded and critical thinking

Thanks for the positive comments! Chris and Don are powerful personalities and it can be challenge to bounce things back and forth with them, which is exactly one of the reasons I really enjoyed the show. And I like how Gene's style sets the bar to a higher standard, even if he seems to revel a bit in catching me mess up on some detail or another . I feel privileged to have been invited on as a guest with all three .

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Don (and Chris) for me illustrated some cognitive dissonance because on one hand they pour scorn on people in the field who live off their anecdotes (basagio) but yet will jump to the defence of the cases of Walton and UFOs shutting down nukes which are really only supported by ....anecdotes.

Not true. There is documentation, multiple eyewitnesses and visual evidence.

To me, Chris and Don reacted in a way that was emotional in the face of Randalls points rather than logical and evidence based.

I've known Travis for over 20 years. Do you know him? Have you met any of the other witnesses and listened to their accounts? Have you investigated the area's activity around the time of the "alleged" event? Interviewed witnesses? Gathered law enforcement reports? No, you just sit in your armchair lobbing potshots.

Instrumented data is needed as anything anecdotal is a potential misidentification, exaggeration, lie, misinformation etc etc

I agree! That's why I've spent considerable time and money attempting to install a multi-instrumented array of sensors in the San Luis Valley. What have you done? Let's critique your efforts (or lack thereof). Easy to criticize when you have nothing to bring to the table except your convenient anonymity...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And listen to Jacques Vallée on this weekend’s episode. It’s clear he fully supports what Chris is doing.