Instantaneous communication (or travel) across the Universe

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Time magazine (for July 24, 2017) already referenced here (below) has a snippet (on Page 13) reporting that “a team of quantum researchers from the University of Science and Technology of China" had, in experiments  indicated teleportation may be (is?) possible. And that their splitting of photo pairs, in two of their experiments, had “proven” that quantum “Entanglement could lead to an instantaneous, ultra-secure Internet, in which information encoded in one set of photons would pop up instantaneously – and unhackably – in the corresponding set.”

Bell’s theory of entanglement -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem -- has been discussed here (and in other places) many times, some UFO buffs poo-pooing the idea that entanglement could be a source of communication between advanced, sentient species.

The Chinese experiments, over distances of 300 and 745 miles, confirmed “spooky action at a distance” and makes it likely that an advance ET civilization could connect with its AI (or living) travelers, in an instant.

While I loath the idea that ETs are visiting our planet in droves and have been for years, I do allow that AI probes, directed by a galactic or universe-oriented species, far away, might have stumbled upon Earth and relayed information back home, causing more, but limited, visitations by an advanced civilization.

Quantum entanglement allows for ETs to actually visit this planet, depending upon their construction, biological or technological.

It’s a speculation often offered by sci-fi writers and a few in the UFO community and now has substantiation of a scientific nature, should some wish to accept the possibility.

RR 

Listening to “the other side”

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

Time magazine for July 24, 2017, has a piece in Viewpoint by Heather Gerken speaking to the “ideals” of law schools:

“Law school conditions you to know the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness.

“… [law schools] just don’t teach … students to know the weaknesses in their own arguments. {Law schools] demand that [students] imaginatively and sympathetically reconstruct the best argument on the other side.

“The litigation system is premised on the hope that truth will emerge if we ensure that everyone has a chance to have her [or his] say.

“… we are in the midst  of a war over values. We should fight, and fight hard, for what we believe. But even as we do battle, it’s crucial to recognize the best in the other side and the worst in our own.”

I thought the article pertinent in context of Kevin Randle’s Billy Meier/Mike Horn post and responses to it, along with my view (below) that many of those responses were delusionally provided.

Kevin opens his blog door to all comers. I don’t (as many of you know and an ex-friend of mine sees as fascistic, with which I do not disagree).

For me, when a sniggerer shows up here with comments that have a psychotic aura, I eliminate his or her response (comment) post haste.

I’ll allow an imaginative, obtuse argument, as I often do with Zoam Chomsky’s null hypothesis renderings, but when I perceive a truly loopy comment offered just to incur my wrath and that of my readers, I demur.

(I had two years of law schooling from The American Institute of Banking and even then I hated the defense position, preferring the prosecutorial stance, as you can guess.)

My limited acceptance of alternate views allows me to print comments from irrational beings who truly believe in their delusion, as psychotics may have access to realities that differ from mine but may be truer than mine (or others who think they are “normal”).

However, comments from persons who push an idea or agenda that is obviously ill-thought or palpably non-intellectual get short shrift here.

While I appreciate the purposed objectivity of the Gerken/TIME viewpoint (and Kevin’s gracious open-door policy at his blog), I am disinclined to make over my approach.

I’m a bastard when it comes to idiocy (or induced delusional thinking) as expressed in UFO circles ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseam.

RR

A case study in ufological “insanity”

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

I follow Kevin Randle’s blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com], faithfully, as you know, because he imparts material that is truly germane to UFOs and the UFO community.

But he has brought upon himself a plague of UFO locusts with his Billy Meier/Michael Horn posting the other day.

Within the psychological paradigm resides the idea of suppressed “insanity” – the idea that mentally disturbed people appear normal but give away their delusional substrate in mannerisms, speech, and subtle human interactions.

You will find distinct examples in the commentary by those who have responded to Kevin’s Meier/Horn posting.

(Kevin operates democratically by not censoring comments that are obverse to his views.)

Cognitive psychologist, Gilles Fernandez could elaborate better than I could about the subliminal indications of mental derangement by some of those whom Kevin has allowed a venue where they can spout their psychotic lunacy.

But I suppose he refrains from doing so, hoping to avoid the “tar-baby” affect.

For me, the UFO topic and ufology has devolved into a quagmire of delusional thought and actions.

But you know that. And Kevin’s blog (the commentary) provides substantiation of my view.

(Image used, above, from Psypost.org)

RR