Tidbits of Conspiracy News


Everyone occasionally makes mistakes, even big ones, and especially researchers. Well, this mistake is a whopper, and it's all mine. In The Giza Death Star I used a text called Vimanika Shastra, and did so, innocently enough. Now a Facebook friend, I.S., sent me the followingWikipedia article on that text, and here it is:

Vaimānika Shāstra

A double whammy! Both "channeled" and early 20th century! Looks like I will have to get around to writing second editions (ugh), or yet another pyramid book (double ugh).So far as I can tell this article was not posted on Wikipedia when I wrote GDS, and had I known this, I certainly - if I used this text at all - would have done so much more cautiously. Thanks to I.S. for sharing this!

See you on the flip side.


  1. Enlil's a Dog

    Interesting that this Indian Government Science Portal website makes mention of the Josyer publication, yet makes no mention of the criticisms levelled at it by the author(s) of the Wikpedia article?? Strange! The source is cited as Conspiracy Journal # 205, April 2003 yet it makes its way onto a Government site? That’s even stranger 🙂

    Dr Farrell,

    perhaps you should contact one of the members of the Governing Body or the General Body listed in the “about us” section of the site before issuing a retraction.. There are many listings there in the Governing Body section that have PhD’s after their names. I am sure one of them could direct you to a reputable Indian scholarly source to discuss this further.



  2. Enlil's a Dog

    An error, perhaps, but nevertheless the flying chariot descriptions still exist in Sanskrit texts just as they do in just about every other ancient text ever found on the planet, so this certainly doesn’t mark you as a disinformationist, Dr Farrell, at least not in my opinion!!

    We just have to make sure that irritable little dogmatic buffoon, Michael Highznah doesn’t find out lol…I can see it now..

    “www.farrelliswrong.com”……….Hahaha 🙂

  3. I wouldn’t worry overly Dr Farrell, I don’t think that it detracts from your over all work. As Mary Linderman says it “Takes a big man to admit a mistake”. Not many in this field do.
    When dealing with material in this field it is like walking on tip toes through a minefield. Very few have as sure a step as you do.
    Thanks for all that you impart,
    Warmest regards,

  4. Christian de Coninck Lucas

    Wikioedia is right. It’s Channeled, probably some Blavatsky disciple 😉

  5. Joseph, don’t jump the gun on this. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, and publishes a great deal of disinformation where non-mainstream topics are concerned.

    For example, they maintain that acupuncture has been disproven scientifically, and that is an outright lie. In studies conducted by the prestigious Menninger Clinic, various adepts of qigong were able to generate as much as 240 volts from certain acupuncture points.

    I would get the opinion of someone who really knows. I know an Asian studies scholar I can ask.

    Wikipedia can be trusted only so far. I have read that Rupert Murdoch is behind some of their major funding.

    1. Robert Barricklow

      Agreed. Wikipedia is suspect in many ways.
      To take any source as gospel is, frankly, stupid.
      The truth is a work in progress.
      There is no final answer.

  6. Channeled or not, doesn’t the Vaimānika Shāstra describe a kind of ‘Mercury Vortex Engine?’ Or, is that just something that various people have read into it? If that is actually described, and not just speculation or outright fiction on the part of certain authors, that would seem to give the Vaimānika Shāstra a modicum of validity. No one to my knowledge, with the possible exception of Nikola Tesla, was talking about mercury vortices in 1923. So, unless the entire work was a fabrication by G. R. Josyer, or unless there is some older text in which Subbaraya Shastry may have read about mercury vortices (Dr. Farrell, perhaps you know of such a text) – if the Vaimānika Shāstra does indeed describe something like a ‘Mercury Vortex Engine,’ I would have to regard that as pretty impressive. Not impressive enough to validate the entire text outright, but for the time period in which it was written, still pretty impressive.

  7. The 10 commandments were channeled information Doc, from the pharaoh Akhnenaten. Actually he also stated that “God” has never revealed himself any other way. Well other than our beautiful planet and our existence in this world.

    Aten…10 is the house of life, pretty smart Ancestors we have.

      1. As I have been researching the links between
        ancient ‘myths,’ and texts acording to science, space,
        time, history and ancient history,
        I have come across many errors that do not
        generally take away the benefits of learning and
        coordinating them for more sensable truth.

        Rockets never made sense to me because a truly
        advanced “civilization” would have gone far beyond
        such things as primitive rockets, as ours already has!

        I may have mentioned this here in reference to Sitchin.

        As to your book [I read it] I likely simply dismissed it
        as you, too, Joseph [yes] can make a mistake or two
        now & then such as no apocalypse, as in no unveiling,
        no revealing [which is what it means] which usually
        brings change.

        [Oh, well, we ARE closing in…………..on something……]

      2. You’re in good company Doc (imho) and Hal…researching the ancient texts sheds light on the group aka “they”…..whom I am starting to slooowly waver over too…considering most people only use 10 percent of there brains

        1. I use fully 20% but I was told that I cheated.
          [I stuck my finger in a live light socket when I was a kid]

  8. Christian de Coninck Lucas

    Oh, I guess I would have told you if I read the Giza books. Still, better late than never and mistakes can be corrected:)

  9. I don’t really see the problem here as vimanas (spaceships) are mentioned numerous times in the Vedas (Upanishads) so it’s not like if they were somehow invented in the Vimanika Shaastra. They are also mentioned in the Mahabarata and the Ramayana et al. so you are in good company.

    “Gurkha flying in his swift and powerful Vimana hurled against the three cities of the Vrishis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousands suns, rose in all its splendour. It was the unknown weapon, the Iron Thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas.”

  10. Not a big deal……..

    Dr. Farrell have you any idea what happened to Red Ice Creations? The site is down and the message is “account suspended”.

  11. Don’t worry. You wouldn’t be the first to make the mistake of using the Vaimanika Shastra as evidence for vimanas.
    David Hatcher Childress reprints that entire text in his book Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India and Atlantis. But then Childress also used such questionable sources as Edgar Cayce’s “visions” and other unverifiable things. (NOTE: I have nothing against Childress. I actually admire his work, but feel he should be more careful about what he uses as evidence).

    If one wishes to make a case for ancient aircraft one can still do so by showing references to them in real ancient texts (e.g. the Vedas) and by showing ancient model aircraft (e.g. the Bogota jet).

  12. Dr Farrell, just preface your next book explaining the mistake. It could be worked in some way. Those who know you aren’t going to be upset and will still love ya! Good lord, I along with every other human have made mistakes, probably beyond this!


  13. Mary linderman

    Takes a big man to admit a mistake. Your writing is the work of a life time of honesty and truth. Thank you.

    1. Well said Don B. Dr. Farrell, anyone who is familiar with your work will know that it was an honest and very rare mistake. Thank you so much for all your hard work.

Comments are closed.