VAULT DWELLERS SERVED

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Basic Precepts Of Vault-Co Epistemology

1. The evidence is that the planet may be much, much older than four billion years.

2. Homo Sapiens is merely one of countless previous hominid races that have flourished on the Earth in addition to my own, Neanderthal. Neither Sapiens nor even Neanderthal were necessarily the most advanced species that have ever existed here.

3. It is likely that both mammal and reptile species have existed as bipeds and both may have reached very high levels of intelligence.

4. Advanced civilizations have existed over and over again for at least the past 8 million years.

5. Hominids have coexisted with dinosaurs.

6. The planet routinely undergoes catastrophic cyclic events. Many hominids for this reason have favored mental states which use amnesia and denial as a coping mechanism to get on with their lives if they survive.

7. It is possible that there may be evidence on the Moon and on Mars of previous attempts at colonization by people from this planet.

8. It is possible that life originally started on Mars and then migrated here several billion years ago when that planet underwent changes that made it more inhospitable.

9. Everything you have ever been told about anthropology, evolution and human development is very likely to be absolutely wrong.

10. The single most distinctive feature of Homo Sapiens as a species is that he is a liar. He is not much good at thinking, problem solving or inference. All human progress is due to Neanderthal admixture of genes from a maternal line. Homo Sapiens in the pure, unmodified state is utterly incapable of reasoning or creativity.

11. The universe is infinite in all directions and without a beginning or an end. It is continually renewing itself with mini-bangs creating matter and energy out of nothing because it is a charged field of plasma with shifting changes in charges.

12. Life did not start on Earth, rather the entire universe is a soup of prebiotic organisms that need only fall on any planet to start life anew there. Life has arrived at least twice, maybe three times from outer space in the past four billion years and started this entire process over again.

13. Oil is abiotic and created from methane gases under pressure in the Earth's crust and from other processes involving heat and compression.

14. Nuclear war is survivable.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evidence for these slightly wild claims? Specifically planetary colonisation?

Anonymous said...

The Robert Felix work is amazing. If what he writes is true, and the data supports it in a nicely parsimonious way, we are getting ready to undergo another leap

The older I get the less I know

OhioDude

Anonymous said...

Love your blog. Love the sharp edge, the drama... even if I don't believe.

Of course today's stuff is a bit over the top. But don't mind my HO. I'm a traditionalist in the sense that I believe an opinion is best backed by at least some semblance of rational evidence or logic. No big deal though.

One area of full agreement: global warming dogma is unmitigated baloney, bs. A fabrication of the most insidious sort.

UnfortunatelyCA

Anonymous said...

not trying to be funny but if more advance humanoids have existed in the past then when we dig down deep enough why don't we find a refrigerator or something a bit more advanced than a stone axe head ?

Anonymous said...

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/04/deadly-time-vortex-appears-over-antarctica/

PS. What the heck is going on Tex? Seems that google fucked up again. Not all comments are visible.

Texas Arcane said...

You guys assume I'm like your average Nexus reader or a subscriber to Fortean Times or maybe I watched a YouTube video by David Icke. Like thousands of people you have known, you assume my mind is so open it's incapable of discriminating truth and falsehood so I end up just nodding at everything.

In reality, I'm the product of fifty years of continuous study. As Marlon Brando said in The Island of Dr. Moreau, I can't summarize decades of research and thought into a single paragraph.

Whether you realize it or not, you could find a mainstream scientist somewhere in the world who would confirm each one of my points as both valid and supported by evidence suggesting it except for Mars possibly having been colonized previously.

Texas Arcane said...

I threw a boiler out back about four years ago I can barely recognize now. It looks like a rusty stone column.

Twenty years it will start to fall apart. Fifty years it will be odd debris. In a hundred it will be little more than fragments. In five thousand years it will be a red streak in the dust.

The more advanced and synthetic the fabrications, the quicker they decay without traces.

Anonymous said...

a gold rolex watch would be a nice find, doubt that would turn to stone

j said...

It's an interesting quirk of human psychology that none of those points are any more 'crazy' than, say, belief in Allah. But if you were to go on national television and profess belief in a god, practically no one would raise an objection. Not so for saying that there may have been other creatures in the history of the planet as intelligent as Homo sapiens; even suggest such an unorthodox idea and most people will unconsciously start to edge away, as though in fear of contagion. In the back of our minds, humans never really left the Serengeti; we still believe deep down that to be different is to be an outcast, and thus to lose mating prospects and risk being taken by predators. It's probably the single biggest blind-spot humans have, endlessly capitalized on by politicians and advertisers; we want to be part of the herd.

None of these hypotheses strike me as particularly difficult to entertain, except for the one about hominids living concurrently with dinosaurs. In a million years, advanced civilizations could spring up, die, and be forgotten hundreds of times. If dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago... the mind boggles. In all that time, not a single civilization has been able to escape their extinction event and make it off world? That's difficult to fathom.

Anonymous said...

Batshit insane.

-Rzero

Texas Arcane said...

I'm pretty sure I would be the only person browsing here who is aware the orthodoxy recently conceded they have pushed back earliest evidence of men by more than 8 million years, clearly overlapping now with dinosaurs and other reptile species that are technically extinct at present.

Google.

Texas Arcane said...

I would actually describe my life as 45 years of study followed by 5 years of reconciliation. I have resolved more of my ideas in the past five years than in the previous 45. Just like Tetris, I have found a correct slot for nearly every single thing I have ever learned only in the past few years, with the help of the Internet.

Anonymous said...

You mean something like this Tex?

New Statistical Model Moves Human Evolution Back Three Million Years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101105124241.htm

quote:

The new approach to dating evolutionary history builds on earlier work by Martin and colleagues. In 2002, they published a paper in Nature that argues the last common ancestor of today's primates lived some 85 million years ago.
This implies that for 20 million years before dinosaurs became extinct, early versions of primates also lived and evolved. It challenged the accepted theory that primates and other mammals didn't really thrive on the planet until dinosaurs were gone.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you’re bat shit insane considering you’ve presented more provable points than Darwin.

Texas Arcane said...

http://www.livescience.com/9521-newfound-species-pushes-human-ape-split.html

Remember, these guys are finding teeth that are clearly molars of hominids and claiming this points to an earlier split with gorillas. They are using the assumption we must have split with gorillas earlier. What if in fact these teeth are just various hominid variations, like cro-magnon? Who is to say that other hominids were existing right alongside them as they did with cro-magnon? Cro-Magnon was a real gorilla looking creature with big teeth and molars. These teeth could have easily come from a hominid with similar traits.

Texas Arcane said...

Most of you don't know it but when you read something like this, you take the 10% new information exactly as the author tell you to. You are instructed that this is the only legitimate idea to have, even as he is conceding his ideas prior were wrong. What is it that makes Sapiens such a mindless zombie?

This happens a lot with ancient artifacts. People who discover them always declare the must prove the Earth was visited by aliens. What if in fact they are simply artifacts from another human civilization that may have been far more advanced than they are willing to admit?

Sapiens seems to suffer from real size envy. Any humans who lived previously must have had smaller penises than he does. Suggesting otherwise is as ridiculous as suggesting they might have had bigger brains or higher intelligence. It seems to send him into a fit of raging insecurity just to consider it.

Anonymous said...

"Batshit insane.

-Rzero"

Yet you keep reading.

"You are instructed that this is the only legitimate idea to have, even as he is conceding his ideas prior were wrong. What is it that makes Sapiens such a mindless zombie?"

One word could do wonders for correcting history.

That word is “recorded.”

One historian pointed out that the Romans got soap from “Roman Gaul.” This is true. They used to scrape the dirt off with volcanic rock in their Baths. But it had been used by the GAULS since time immemorial.

What is true is that soap’s first RECORDED use was in Roman Gaul.

If you read the internet, over and over someone will quote that such and such a thing was INVENTED someplace in the Middle East. The problem is that 1) the Middle East was where all the researches were since Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and 2) the Middle East is EMPTY.

History is exactly opposite from our daily experience. Usually we don’t notice something when it is in a place we never go. Archeology CONSISTS of going places you never go.

History is lost in living lands, lands where a Great Civilization didn’t die permanently, and by some strange coincidence, where the population is still white. Living lands built right over their earlier civilizations. But the Middle East is like a skeleton. Cities are abandoned, the extensive irrigation Iraq had in its white Babylonian days are gone, leaving the a land of bare bones where nothing is buried.

With carbon dating and all the other technology, we are beginning to find the true age of Stonehenge and a giant wooden bridge across the Thames near London that dates to 1500 BC. If you read standard history, the barbarians couldn’t use the opposable thumb that far back, much less have built that bridge or have had the forgotten huge traffic such a bridge would be built for.

History comes from archeology and archeology dictates the history of technology.

And it is laughably wrong. Nothing is changing faster than history.

The ridiculous excuse for a history of invention could have avoided some of this by the simple use of the word “recorded,” as in “the earliest RECORDED writing is found in Egypt.” But the archeologist insisted, EACH TIME, that whatever they found in the bare bones of Middle Eastern white civilization did not represent what they found, but what was FIRST.

Basing history on what you happen to stumble across is not an intelligent error.

Anonymous said...

We like to see ourselves being unique both as species or as individual personalities, and as such, we occupy a single niche in time. However, we find in many religions the notion of reincarnation, which is a poetic way to say that there is a historical, recurrent wind that touches everything periodically, and that we are just a stage of a general evolutionary process that escapes us because of our limited perceptual system.

Anonymous said...

Hey I love Tex. I just think he's a bit of a nutter.

-Rzero

Texas Arcane said...

What amazes me is the degree to which radical, colossal changes are made to the official orthodoxy of history one way or the other without anyone thinking "Hey, these guys are telling us something completely different from what they claimed ten years ago ... why should we still be listening to them for the conclusions we should draw?" I don't. I appreciate it when new information comes to light and I appreciate it even more when they just give us the facts. I don't read any of it for their conclusions. They discredited themselves a long time ago if anyone was paying attention.

For example, that longwinded story I linked to above has only one fact worth learning - hominid teeth have been discovered 8 million years earlier than we were supposed to have first evolved "in Africa" and these creatures had evidence they were eating an agrarian diet.

The conclusion that this means "we must have split much earlier from gorillas" is completely tacked on and offered as a fait accompli. That isn't what the facts say at all. The facts say the orthodoxy was off by 8 million years and that hominids coexisted with dinosaurs. The article reports this as if it's no big deal. In fact, this is a really, really big deal which refutes almost anything these idiots have ever told you.

kwj said...

I'm not a fan of Chomsky but "concision" is apropos. The Mars link has been conjectured since the 70's. Prehistoric civilizations also conjectured since... the ancient Greeks (even if it was in allegory). Then there's some kind of fusion glass that's 5,000 years old. Nails found in black-coal seams and axe heads in copper lodes. Concision of history is what we are seeing in the anglo-west and that means making white men the enemy. Rewriting of history to make the men, lazy, brutal, leeches off the women who did all the real work. Right... that's why men are so inferior physcially. All those generations of being lazy leeches sucking carbs from roots and berries. Concision: it'll f*** you in the head. Don't do it.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more with what Tex said.

I've had perhaps too much free time on my hands for most of my life and I've used a large part of that time in searching for answers.

The advent of the Internet was awesome, but there exists many books and articles that have been written by credible men who refute the current dogma of established archeology.

With the old school archaeologists, if the discover doesn't fit the mold of mainstream belief, then the discovery is buried, ignored.

There have been humans that looked like us on this planet for a loooong time. Many millions of years. Their artifacts turn up in some amazing places.

Some of the greatest artifacts are staring you right in the face and you don't even think too much about it. Like the Great Pyramids and stone structures around the world. How about that underwater city off the coast of Japan? Here's a link to pictures of it. Main stream archeology declares it to be a natural formation, no big deal. Yeah, right.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-sunken-city.html

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Homo Sapiens could be specifically engineered by another race (perpahs Neanderthalers?) as some kind of slave race? The evidence seems to be there and it would explain a whole lot about the average Homo Sapien's disposition. Would make the term sheeple get a whole new meaning.

Texas Arcane said...

The Epic of Gilgamesh says that very thing. It says all the races of men were imbued with critical weaknesses by Enki to see to it that they would not challenge the "gods." (I don't believe in any "gods" except one, the only one.)

Jaego said...

The oldest kinds of men found so far are hardly men at all - very small stature and craniums. Not good candidates for being the explorers of Mars.

Jaego said...

The most ultra-human type to yet live was Boskop Man of the South African coast. Not White at all but related somehow to the Bushman or even the Negro. And no doubt wiped out by his ruder relatives. As Loren Eisley put it: paleolithic Eloi murdered by paleolithic Morlocks.

Nick said...

Tex you say that hominids coexisted with dinosaurs but what dates do you put dinosaurs at? 60+ million years ago seems to still leave a pretty big gap between dinosaurs and hominids ... ?

www.000webhost.com