The Royal Society

It turns out the Royal Society, a foundation of modern science and arguably the most influential scientific body in history, was actually founded as a Rosicrucian/Freemason movement.
It started in obscurity as "the Invisible College", a term and concept used in Rosicrucian doctrine. In 1660 it renamed to the Royal Society.

Such invisible colleges were likely founded by Rosicrucians in numerous countries, England being one of them, however they were not supposed to be known openly by such a name and when it grew in membership and established a presence this prompted the renaming. It's fellowship has consistently had a high percentage of known Freemasons and because Rosicrucians cannot be identified so easily their number is unknown but is likely an even larger portion of it's fellowship.

The Royal Society has established "franchise" organisations all around the world and they too are connected with Rosicrucianism/Freemasonry. It seems that science is dominated globally by these occult invisible colleges. What is the great interest that the occult orders have in the sciences?

The exact same as their interests in banking, intelligence bureaus, the military, the justice system, government, medicine and the media - to possess influence and authority, shape beliefs and perceptions and dictate the course of the human race. Science won't go near the paranormal except to debunk it.
There are a few rare exceptions but it is consistently used to suppress the truth around concepts and phenomena the powers don't want us knowing. The UFO debunking efforts of the likes of Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox are shameless and woeful. The reasoning and explanations they cook up to refute UFO phenomena are far more preposterous, improbable and unscientific than the actual UFO claims themselves.
They claim the holy high ground of scepticism and then abandon reason and sense as unnecessary. Smiling NWO mouthpieces.
Then there's the glaring issues in human genetics that contradict the story of human evolution and migration they try to sell us. It doesn't add up. Humans have been tampered with. Probably didn't even actually originate here - a feral species.

Microwave radiation is toxic and carcinogenic and they've known it for a very long time but our streets and homes and workplaces are relentlessly being flooded with it in greater intensities. Yet scientists just keep quiet about it like good Illuminati stooges.

Thanks a lot scientists.

a reply to: StinkyFish

lol
alright.
If you look throughout history you'll find that they are basically everywhere where a push was made towards liberty, democracy, equality.
That doesn't happen if you are the one trying to do a power grab you know?

The History of Mankind is full of misunderstandings, mostly because propaganda from all sides is being played on those who can't have political arguments without their pitchforks.

So, put it down and think about it. Scientists are not all one person. You need to start assuming your own sovereignty, your own responsibility in political matters, and for that you need to first and foremost be able to differentiate. Don't do groups, do issues and take it from there.

a reply to: StinkyFish

There is a great book called "the new inquisition" from Robert Anton Wilson, co autor of "the iluminatus trilogy".

the former adresses exactly that topic and gives some very good examples, the latter is a great conspiracy minded read...

a reply to: StinkyFish

A paragraph or two might be nice StinkyFish, its just hard on my old dyslexic skyballs otherwise.

As to the radiation you are going on about that pervades just about everywhere, the majority of such is what is known as the non-ionizing sort.

Meaning it does not have the power to penetrate your cell walls, and hence is deemed to be relatively safe.

a reply to: StinkyFish

The UFO debunking efforts of the likes of Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox are shameless and woeful.

All I know is that Neil DeGrasse Tyson states he spends most of his time/life looking and scanning the cosmos and he hasn't yet seen anything of the UFO persuasion.

As for the scientists in the Royal Society they are a mix and invite non-scientists into their mix, to me that shows a desire for greater learning to understand and they will all admit everything is theory and their sciences just don't solve or answer those hard questions.

a reply to: quintessentone

They have behaved in many ways like the churchs inquisition when theories didn't fit their current schism.

They are less trigger happy but there is conservatism too.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

They have behaved in many ways like the churchs inquisition when theories didn't fit their current schism.

They are less trigger happy but there is conservatism too.

Yes, there are those types of scientists who abandon or do not back up other scientists' theories where those theories leave God out of the equation.

a reply to: quintessentone

For the time being the existence of God is a topic that goes beyond the scope of what science can directly address.

But that may not always be the case depending on what we learn in the future.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: StinkyFish

A paragraph or two might be nice StinkyFish, its just hard on my old dyslexic skyballs otherwise.

As to the radiation you are going on about that pervades just about everywhere, the majority of such is what is known as the non-ionizing sort.

Meaning it does not have the power to penetrate your cell walls, and hence is deemed to be relatively safe.

The non-ionizing argument is the very deception used. Just because human science does not understand a pathology other than that of breaking molecular bonds (aka ionization), that does mean that such a pathology doesn't exist and that such radiation is not harmful. Also, non-ionizing has nothing to do with penetration of cellular walls but rather whether it can eject a bound electron from an atom. Microwave frequencies certainly can penetrate cell walls. There are other effects besides ionization and thermal, some we know of such as calcium gate opening but others we don't yet. What we do know is that they are harmful on many levels. But it is being deliberately suppressed and downplayed.

Here is one example among multitudes:

"March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors."

It does increase the rate of DNA single and double breakages, by mechanisms not well understood. It also interferes with neurochemistry and neuro-modulation in a significant and detrimental way that we have barely had time to understand yet.

a reply to: StinkyFish

And what other science is there aside from Human science?

Again non-ionizing radiation cannot hurt you or penetrate your cells, hence cannot damage them.

I canny teach pork through StinkyFish, so if you wish to believe the Qanonacrap and nonsensical nonsense that surrounds our communication technologies and the garbage associated with the likes of 5G, never mind every previous iteration of our mobile communications medium, thats up to you.

Yes microwaves do indeed have the potential to damage human tissue, but as long as you are not hugging the directional antenna of a communications mast for an extended period of time you are apt to be just fine just like the rest of us.

Just a thought but the technology you are most likely using to communicate on this thread right now has all those fictitious nasty bells and whistles attached which you appear to fear and apparently are willing to place stock in.

So on that note, i shall simply thank you for the paragraphs and wish you a fair morning.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: quintessentone

There is/was ridicule when individual accounts can't be explained by the standard model...

Individual accounts are/were discarded, and if you insisted you'd be ridiculed by the scientific societies.

I see this changing now, as scientists have become aware that subjective reality might interlock with the objective one.

Especially in fields like psychology we are becoming increasingly aware that subjective reality can't be discarded inorder to Form a holistic idea...

Quantum theories are also putting back subjective reality as an important part to objective reality.

Thise are rather recent findings up until now uf subjective reality was to deviant from objective reality, it just got discarded as a mental disorder...

Truth is stranger than fiction

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

There is/was ridicule when individual accounts can't be explained by the standard model...

Individual accounts are/were discarded, and if you insisted you'd be ridiculed by the scientific societies.

I see this changing now, as scientists have become aware that subjective reality might interlock with the objective one.

Especially in fields like psychology we are becoming increasingly aware that subjective reality can't be discarded inorder to Form a holistic idea...

Quantum theories are also putting back subjective reality as an important part to objective reality.

Thise are rather recent findings up until now uf subjective reality was to deviant from objective reality, it just got discarded as a mental disorder...

Truth is stranger than fiction

Interesting concepts from you as usual Terpene.

Where do you see this acceptance in the realm of psychology?

a reply to: Terpene

Probably seen it before but this video is rather informative as to what we imagine constitutes reality and raises some rather interesting conundrums.

The guy was a member here at ATS at one point.

a reply to: andy06shake

If objective reality is not real than anything goes. lol

a reply to: quintessentone

And in an infinite universe(possibly multiverse), with infinite diversity, in infinite combinations, that may very well be the case.

Our perspective does not exactly let us see all the players on the board, or even the majority of the board for that matter.

After all, everything we can directly see, observe, and measure, constitutes only a small fraction of the universe's total content, or about 5% or thereabouts.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

And in an infinite universe(possibly multiverse), with infinite diversity, in infinite combinations, that may very well be the case.

Our perspective does not exactly let us see all the players on the board, or even the majority of the board for that matter.

After all, everything we can directly see, observe, and measure, constitutes only a small fraction of the universe's total content, or about 5% or thereabouts.

Mind blowing, love it.

a reply to: quintessentone

many once considered mental disorders, have become a legitimate state of consciousness...

I see that where psychology has to accept the subjective truth as an integer part, I guess the most prominent is the whole trans debate, gay went that way too...

a reply to: Terpene

Is there an illegitimate state of consciousness?

Consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses our awareness of ourselves, our thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and the world around us, in essence, our very being.

Just because a person happens to suffer from mental afflictions they are still just as conscious as anyone else.

Sometimes more the pity for the poor souls.

a reply to: andy06shake

My thinking exactly...

You would have to take up that discussion with the royal society... And especially the psychology branch...

Many similar stories from many people around the world are brushed of as psychotic phase, there is lot of subjective accounts that overlap this should be enough to take it as a phenomenon that has objective truth but might only have subjective implications.