Science Was Wrong - Stanton Friedman - From Atlantis Rising Magazine

Visit Atlantis Rising Research Group at https://www.atlantisrising.com/

The history of aerospace technology is loaded with well-connected scientists who resisted change. There were prominent “experts” who thought flight was not to be. The great Lord Kelvin (1824–1907), President of the British Royal Society, in 1896 proclaimed: “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of.” Of course, the following year he also called Wilhelm Roentgen’s X‐rays an elaborate hoax. As it happens, Roentgen won the first Nobel Prize in physics in 1901 for his X‐ray discovery. The British Astronomer Royal Richard van der Riet Wooley proclaimed, when asked about space travel in January of 1956: “It’s utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing. What good would it do us? It is all rather rot.” Could World War II have been ended sooner if jet engines had been implemented earlier in England where a patent had been granted in 1930? How many lives would have been saved if space travel had been followed up sooner providing better advance information about natural disasters, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and early warning of attacks from enemies?

Communication techniques didn’t start changing until less than 200 years ago. The telegraph, telephone, television, the Internet, and cell phones were all targets for the impossibilists. Sometimes it required true persistence to overcome the inertia of the traditionalists. Why would one want to sit in front of a box watching pictures? Of what use is a telephone since there is nobody to call? How about the benefits of rapid, long distance, communication in medical situations or when ships at sea run into serious problems? Can we allow societal regulations to be established in response to pressures from people with a vested interest in continuing the status quo as opposed to recognition of the truth of the dangers?

Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts and later proposed in 36 BC. But despite observational and experimental data, it was not widely accepted until late in the nineteenth century when Louis Pasteur discovered that microorganisms, not miasma, the poisonous atmosphere arising from swamps and putrid matter, cause disease. But his discovery was not immediately accepted. Many influential opponents from the scientific establishment clung to their archaic beliefs and were not quick to acknowledge that his germ theory of disease was valid. Attempts by his predecessors to impart evidence of the transmission of microscopic organisms as a cause of disease were largely unsuccessful. Careers were ruined. Many people died because of a failure to implement new treatments and new understanding of various diseases. Experts often dismissed the dangers of new treatments long after the data was available. How many contracted HIV/AIDS because of the failure of governments to take appropriate measures? Innovative scientists had a long history of facing harsh rebukes by the medical establishment.

Highly regarded but politically influenced scientists have promoted ideas that have led to human suffering. For example, Social Darwinism fueled the Eugenics movements in America and Germany and led to sterilization and extermination programs. The dark underbelly of corruption has reared its head in environmental science and thousands have died or been maimed due to methyl mercury poisoning. Lakes and streams across the world are contaminated. Those who consume the dangerous neurotoxin that bio‐accumulates up the food chain, face health problems, such as learning disabilities, deformities, and neurological disorders. Additionally, we are faced with environmental concerns over global warming. Should hundreds of billions of dollars be spent to attack evil carbon dioxide or is this yet another example of vested interests triumphing over the real needs of society?

In our 2010 book Science Was Wrong we explored the frontiers of science, such as psychic phenomena and extraterrestrial visitation. A small group of vocal arch skeptics claims one hundred years of research has failed to produce convincing evidence for psi phenomena. Parapsychologists disagree, arguing that hundreds of scientific studies have produced evidence that some psi phenomena are real. Each group accuses the other of confirmation bias. But what is the truth? Do parapsychologists selectively report evidence that supports psi phenomena? Or do arch skeptics automatically reject statistically significant experimental replications?