NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM APRIL 8 2011

Dr Farrell discusses the interdisiplinary nature of his work in response to a listener's request, and also comments on another listener question about future projects:

12 thoughts on “NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM APRIL 8 2011”

  1. Since english is my second language I try to condense my text.
    Yes, it is good to put ‘light’ from different angels on a subject.
    But if you apply the Mayan concept of a consciousness evolving step by step, you also have to step down with the consciousness to the right level.
    Can you fix that Dr. Farrell (suddenly we are very formal now…;).
    My short memory just can’t get me back into the very positive ambiance of 1960’s.

  2. A broader perspective always adds dimensions, shades of meaning, and a richer texture to the analysis of any data or evidence. The more knowledge from more fields one brings to the table, the richer the result.

    I would not be too concerned with what “some people” are saying about what other people said. In my experience, most people make pretty poor witnesses, and tend to hear more what they think they heard than what was actually said.

    So, should we call you “Leo,” or Mr. DaVinci……….. : )

    1. So true, Jon regarding those who “…tend to hear more what they think they heard than what was actually said”. I’ve been married for 46 years to a lovely lady who I dearly love. But, if I’ve learned nothing else, I have learned that even people you love will hear what they want to hear rather than what was said.

      Now, after sharing this, I must make sure my loving wife doesn’t see this…He He

  3. I agree that one person should bring as much to a topic to understand it as they can. Language understanding, history and on and on. A committee may brain storm and teach each other about about their expertise, but you are right they rarely accomplish anything significant “out-on-a-limb” or not. I enjoy hearing and reading your work as you can address a topic from more than one direction giving insight and function. I hope I can do the same, albeit at a different level, to those I speak with.

  4. “They were often a supporter of one emporor or another and their reports are often colored with prejudices or even hatred.”

    this is a chicken and egg thing, which comes first, the hatred or the alleged
    events? I have been flabbergasted by people who respond to a set of reasons
    why I am for or against something, by saying that I only say that because I
    support or oppose it, as if support or opposition came before the events that
    triggered the reaction. No, I oppose or support it BECAUSE of these things.

    likewise, this assessment of the Roman writers may have it backwards. The
    hatred and bias may have been triggered by the events the historian describes.

    how much refutation by a contemporary or a later writer drawing on people
    around at the time is there, in any given case? While a propaganda piece
    written at the order of an emperor might be questionable, there was often a
    lot of ferment going on.

  5. Re: Secret Space Conference: I listened to the free stream, and I don’t recall anyone suggesting you were working with Judy Wood or on 9/11. IfI recall correctly, all Richard Hoagland brought up was your research into the alternative physics that may have been used to bring the towers down, which is the same physics thought to be used in the proposed secret space program. Someone suggesting this links you to 9/11 or a current space war is a person who wasn’t understanding what Hoagland was saying.

    1. Well I didn’t listen to the stream or anything…I was only going on what was reported to me, and that I was working on a book with Mr Hoagland or Dr Wood, neither of which is true, though Mr. Hoagland and I have talked about it. So I wanted to quell the rumors

      1. I too heard the MP3 recordings of the recent Amsterdam conference, and can corroborate that there was no suggestion that you were either working directly with, or writing a book with either Dr. Wood or Mr. Hoagland.

        What does seem so be different here, however, is this: Over the past several years, Dr Wood and her research about the use of directed free energy weapons technology on 9/11/01 (available on her website since at least 2006 and then recently release in book form) have been mocked, attacked, shunned, marginalized or ignored by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, the secret space program research community, etc etc.

        To your credit, as one of the few voices willing to step into the fray, you spoke at length about the use of some kind of advanced tech directed energy weapon on 9/11, mentioned the toasted cars, etc and then gave a positive nod to the assiduous work of Dr. Judy Wood, after Henrik asked you about it in the second hour of your 11/25/10 Red Ice interview. You also were quoted about the events of 9/11 in your letter published on Enterprise Mission. And now during the Secret Space Program conference, we hear Mr. Hoagland speaking at length about Dr. Wood’s research and evidence.

        So, for a while it did seem that there was a consensus between you and Mr. Hoagland that a secret, advanced weapons technology in control of a certain faction, caused the destruction of the WTC buildings on 9/11 and that Dr. Wood’s research into the matter was pretty much spot-on.

        This is why I do not understand your denial that you are “not involved in saying things about 9/11 or space wars scenario” , after in fact saying things about just that on Red Ice and then in your letter on enterprise mission where you are quoted: “So my ‘op within an op within an op’ scenario is basically that someone, with probable access to hidden space technologies, and with all but certain access to weaponized versions of scalar-torsion technologies, brought the Twin Towers down.”

        With your 4/8/11 News and Views remarks, are you distancing yourself from your previous writings and comments about 9/11, directed free energy weapons, factions etc, and from the work of Dr. Wood and Mr Hoagland?

        1. No not at all, I am merely stressing that I am following my own conclusions and ideas, no one else’s. But I absolutely DO think the twin towers collapse was the work of exotic weaponry, not nanothermite or controlled demolitions

          1. the retention of molten level heat by steel for as long as it did,
            according to firefighters who found it in the rubble, is NOT any
            demolitions or thermite relevant behavior. It MIGHT therefore
            be a result of some weird physics thing that doubled back on
            itself in the steel – some of it – keeping the heat going.

            My own theory is, standard view plus directed energy as backup
            to make sure this worked. The Twin Towers had been designed
            with a view to surviving an accidental 707 or maybe 727 crash,
            the biggest around when it was built. But that was no guarantee
            that the bigger planes of later days would do the job.

            The collapse occurs from the impact level down. controlled demolition
            can go top down or bottom up. here is a link to an article I posted,
            there has been various agendas in play not only in standard 9-11
            theory, which denies all govt. complicity of any kind, and in the
            alternative theories. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/9af6eee3f163135f?hl=en

            even the first and best opponent to the 9-11 Commission had his
            own agenda, take the heat off the moslems. Others want to put heat
            on Mossad – I couldn’t believe the dreamland the person must live
            in, who told me that Americans wouldn’t do that to Americans.
            straight out of some patriotic rabble rousing movie out of the 1940s.
            even those had the sense to warn of the existence of traitors in our
            midst.

            all of these efforts slowly derail attention from Saudi Arabia and the
            whole corrupt parapolitical scene, now there are people who are
            claiming no planes hit the towers at all, that that was just added into
            video later. But I saw it live feed on TV when it happened, a person
            called me and said New York was being attacked, and I turned on
            the TV a few seconds before the second plane hit.

            thermite presence in the rubble could be accounted for by the
            deliberate take down of Building 7.

          2. it’s totally understandable that you choose to follow your own ideas and conclusions independently from those of other researchers.

            Have you had the opportunity to read Dr. Wood’s book yet? (Where did the Towers go?) I think it came out in February, after your Red Ice interview. Mr. Hoagland referred to it at the Amsterdam conference.

            If you have read the book, would you care to comment on any part of it from your own perspective? I ask because the information in that book is even more detailed and explanatory than the information that was available on the website at the time of your Red Ice interview. . I am wondering if the added information in the book changes your view of her research at all?

  6. I was impressed with the way you consider data associated with a study by bringing all elements into the mix. This is very important in my opinion and I salute you for it. It shows in your insightful writing.

    Along the lines of ancient texts, I would like to point out one thing. I have made a study of Roman history for most of my like. In regard to the so-called histories of writers of the time, their texts are always to be questioned.

    These men, who we call ancient historians, did not think of themselves as such. They were often a supporter of one emporor or another and their reports are often colored with prejudices or even hatred. Another problem that comes to the fore is that the concept of fact and fiction was not as developed with the ancients as it is with modern man. One needs this information to provide a balance of what we examine in so far as the contemporary texts of the ancients.

Comments are closed.