Guest Post


(Ms. K.M. shared this blog for this week's guest post... have fun with this one! This is a good one and raises a very interesting point!)

One of the great mysteries of our time is the deep forces driving the professions, in particular, the scientific ones, through their own massive cultural change over the last century.  On a recent visit with Richard C. Hoagland on his show, The Other Side of Midnight, Richard mentioneded that he prefers old encyclopedias and books because they have more informational value than modern ones.   I replied to the effect that "honest speculation" has been drummed out of scientific discourse.  If you look, for example, at Mars texts from the 19th century, there was a lot of speculation, much, but not all of it, lacking in data to explain the high strangeness of the Red Planet and its enigmatic moons. But a portion of it is spot on.

In modern scientific work, authors will not speculate beyond official narratives.  Scientists who do suffer a fate akin to economist Arthur Laffer, who was accused in the 1980's of making "Voodoo Economics," an ignominious gift for the scientist who broke stagflation.  For myself, I shared my work on Ceres with a respected "quantum mechanic" I know, and he gently ridiculed my article for "speculating."  When did speculation become politically incorrect in science?   We need to reestablish the culture of theoretical science.

Theoretical science is a mode of inquiry where inductive and deductive reasoning, plus human imagination and ingenuity, encourage the development of new models to explain and predict reality.  What's been culturally lost to science can only be recovered by creating a new scientific culture.    Current science stays with a model far longer than the data will support.   When physicist Arthur Michaelson, of Michaelson-Morley fame, read Einstein's work on special relativity, he made it his life's mission to disprove the theory.  But each experiment he made only showed tighter agreement with the theory.   And that's a clue as to how we can recreate a new culture for theoretical science.   If the data diverge from the core thesis then the thesis and the model underlying it is likely incorrect.

By contrast, if a model is deployed, and as new data are added, the case is strengthened, then the model is likely to be substantially correct.    We notice this with the work of Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, formerly of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington.   Dr. Van Flandern made the case in his book, Missing Planets, which was outlined in Joseph P. Farrell's The Cosmic War, that the asteroid belt and a lot of other associated data meant that it was likely that a planet was once there and it is now missing.

You might recall earlier that this author published a piece here (that blog can be found here) discussing the latest science about Ceres, in particular, some excellent scientific work MC De Sanctis and her team published in Science.

In scientific practice, if the data continue over time to tighten towards the thesis, the "data points of the histogram get closer together", then the thesis is likely correct.   Well, the theses of Farrell and Van Flandern continue to thrive. Just this past week, our friends over at published the latest story on Ceres and it's the most explicit yet.

Scientists are now actively talking about an ancient ocean.  Now, my advice, when you read articles like this, is to completely blow past any of the dates they state and stick with the data.   Often, when you see scientific writing you see phrases like "scientists believe that Mars had an ocean four billion years ago."   Whenever you see that, you are not seeing science, just scientific narrative, which is meaningless.   The metrology problems with scientific data are not well known unless you become an insider, but they are all over the place!

That said, JPL scientist Julie Castillo-Rogez and her fellow scientists have been doing a lot of interesting work.

"The Dawn team found that Ceres' crust is a mixture of ice, salts and hydrated materials that were subjected to past and possibly recent geologic activity, and that this crust represents most of that ancient ocean. The second study builds off the first and suggests there is a softer, easily deformable layer beneath Ceres' rigid surface crust, which could be the signature of residual liquid left over from the ocean, too.

"More and more, we are learning that Ceres is a complex, dynamic world that may have hosted a lot of liquid water in the past, and may still have some underground," said Julie Castillo-Rogez, Dawn project scientist and co-author of the studies, based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.

Landing on Ceres to investigate its interior would be technically challenging and would risk contaminating the dwarf planet. Instead, scientists use Dawn's observations in orbit to measure Ceres' gravity, in order to estimate its composition and interior structure.

The first of the two studies, led by Anton Ermakov, a postdoctoral researcher at JPL, used shape and gravity data measurements from the Dawn mission to determine the internal structure and composition of Ceres. The measurements came from observing the spacecraft's motions with NASA's Deep Space Network to track small changes in the spacecraft's orbit. This study is published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Ermakov and his colleagues' research supports the possibility that Ceres is geologically active—if not now, then it may have been in the recent past. Three craters—Occator, Kerwan and Yalode—and Ceres' solitary tall mountain, Ahuna Mons, are all associated with "gravity anomalies." This means discrepancies between the scientists' models of Ceres' gravity and what Dawn observed in these four locations can be associated with subsurface structures. [emphasis mine]

"Ceres has an abundance of gravity anomalies associated with outstanding geologic features," Ermakov said. In the cases of Ahuna Mons and Occator, the anomalies can be used to better understand the origin of these features, which are believed to be different expressions of cryovolcanism." [emphasis mine]

There is nothing in the recent work by frontline scientific investigators that disputes the core thesis of Drs. Farrell and Van Flandern that the asteroid belt has a missing planet.  And there is nothing in this latest work that refutes the theory this author proposed about Ceres being the remnant of the ocean of Tiamat, the Saturn-sized, oceanic world that traveled between Earth and Jupiter.   If Ceres is the remnant of the ocean floor and a portion of the water of this ocean (my calculations say less than 6%, ceterus parabus), then one would expect gravitational anomalies as the debris from the exploded planet would be uneven and chaotic, like the southern surface of Mars being 5,000 feet higher than the northern part.  My prediction is that the contents of Ceres and the debris on the southern surface of Mars will be chemically and radioactively similar to each other and different from the northern part of Mars.   Confirmation of this fact will prove that Dr. Tom was right, that the remnants of Tiamat are found in the belt and on Mars.

I find that the comment about subsurface structures particularly noteworthy, given that the solar system is filled with broken structures almost anywhere you look.  They are implying that these are 'natural structures', but are they?  They don't say.

With success under our belts, we can begin in earnest the reform movement so desperately needed in science: a return to open propositions and a true theoretical culture.  Thanks to the team at JPL for bringing our fact base a little closer to understanding.




  1. As everyone knows, there are two sacrosanct event horizons in modern science: “three to five thousand years ago,” and “about 4 billion years ago.” Apparently, nothing of any note occurred between the two.

  2. With Gaston Bachelard’s sentiment that “…..The characteristic of scientific progress is our knowing that we did not know……” in mind, how else can science escape a specious deterministic culdesac of its own design if not through speculation, rather simply following a blind drive to ‘progress’ via the already known and established.

    What if the fundamentals applying to gravitational theory, for example, which within a certain ‘orthodoxy’ are intrinsically instrumental in the process of establishing the inner composition of planetary objects, are incorrect, or only partially correct, or that they should be seriously called into question, as EU models themselves suggest.

    This questioning applies similarly to the basis upon which those experiments are formulated whose data therefore, while it conforms to parameters acceptable within and belonging to that ‘basis’, may be or in fact is nevertheless incorrect, partially or otherwise.

    The unutterable, the forbidden question that cannot be speculated upon, is ‘the validity of orthodoxy’ itself, and that of its opposing ‘heresy’, a theoretical approach to science which allows speculation to a degree that it appears to ‘depart from reality’……a closed door behind which, nevertheless, might well be found untold treasures and solutions to long held problems, if not more. Without speculation, at any level, we remain at a standstill, and even the most rigid and rigorous approach to practice cannot escape or ‘cure’ that reality, or move us forward. Otherwise, what is being progressed towards? A greater understanding? Or, a prescriptive/prescripted outcome which satisfies the orthodoxy, and all it brings in tow/imposes?

  3. Speculation leads to hypothesis and thus can lead to breakthroughs. As was once noted, only an intellectually honest individual can question ones own beliefs…….
    Here is a CERES speculation at the “interactive” level of what type of “interaction” could have left behind some visual clues as to the nuance of massive bodies of desperate charge potential interacting within the milieu of a very interconnected electrically active universe in which we live……
    The fundamental physics and phenomenology of what Hans Alvin and Christian Birkeland have espoused need be brought to the forefront of discussion perhaps once again……

  4. Oh that missing planet, and mainstream science turns their heads to the elephant in the room. I cannot imagine the HUGH BANG when Tiamat got blown up, it must have made a spectacular sight, I fell sorry for the people who were on that planet, a quick death to say the least. And then Marduk had to “remeasure the deep”, the poor old cosmos got a wake up call of immense size.

  5. Kelly Em, thank you for the impassioned plea for ‘open’ science. I am afraid you/I/we are fighting not only the PTB – who are wanting us to be mushrooms, for their personal pleasure – but deep psychological/emotional barriers.

    Two issues are relevant here: Mankind likes to think it is the ‘top predator’. There is a deep reluctance to confront the terror that we may be closer to a ‘prey’ species. Survivors. In addition, if Jung is at all right about a collective consciousness (or even past lives), any race associated with the destruction of Tiamat has the equivalent of PTSD. This would show up in the unwillingness to ascribe a civilization in the past – Earth-based or Tiamat-based. The better the data, the more the resistance. So, ‘reforming’ science may be more of an emotional-blockage issue than a speculation-allowal issue…

    For me, the evidence for ancient ‘disruption’ is well-established – whatever the exact scenario. Personally, what most excites me is whether there were any survivors. Even if the remnants ultimately devolved or went back to the stars, there should be ‘evidence’ – even ‘time capsules’ on Earth (Antarctica?) or in near-space. Maybe even a damaged starship or two…

    1. Add to PTSD the biological engineering of the species – and the quarantine around the planet – we are deep in some maze – figuring out an exit to all this is an interesting conundrum …

  6. Hopefully another nail in the coffin of information “closed systems”.
    The enclosures prevent on open society that is better for living Earth; as opposed to the current closed systems in virtually every aspect of society, including information systems.
    Open Source systems is the way forward for ALL of society;
    rather than the closed systems for the less than 1% pathologies of the few.

  7. Assuming the above is somewhat correct, that leaves us with some very interesting unanswered questions. What “natural force”, or “unnatural force”, reduces a planet to essentially a ring of pebbles in the sky while placing what remains of its ocean into a frozen moon with “structures” natural, or otherwise, embedded within it.
    Assuming the formation of the Solar system, as theorized, over billions of years, this would seem to have been a relatively recent event in its history. As a relatively recent event, it leaves us with few options such as a rogue body entering and intersecting another body, cosmic conflict on a system wide or larger scale, or the possibility that it may have been accomplished intentionally by other means for some type of “construction” purposes on a very grand scale (ie ring makers of Saturn/ringworld/Dyson sphere type technology).
    Our current civilization is not the first high technology civilization to have existed on this planet; there is ample evidence to argue that point. Given the 100,000-
    120,000+ year glaciation cycles, there may have been many.
    The more we learn, the more questions to be answered. The current state of “mainstream” science seems to have been intentionally steered into its current state of “stagnation”. One has to question why that is so.
    Very interesting essay, to say the least.

  8. Brain is not designed to expand beyond frameworks. Every train of thoughts is predictable. So we are at a loss, getting nowhere.

    Deep space in empty mind is superior position, from where the dust settles into death. That is clarity of mind in creation. Black Sun & Standing Stone.

    Seers, penetrating ocean of time, are prophets. Operator of all operators is God in analogue computer. Hakenkreuz & Pyramid.

Comments are closed.