- Keys Writings 2014, Part 1
- Noah, The Movie
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 2
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 3
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 4
- Global Warming
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 5
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 6
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 7
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 8
- The Beast of Revelation
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 9
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 10
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 11
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 12
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 13
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 14
- The Grand Tour
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 15
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 16
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 17
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 18
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 19
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 20
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 21
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 22
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 23
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 24
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 25
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 26
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 27
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 28
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 29
June 5, 2014
Another Radio Show
I was on the air again with Dr Lorraine Hurley Wednesday morning. Here are the links if you want to listen.
June 6, 2014
Looks like they are finally doing a long overdo study on fasting. Check it out.
June 7, 2014
Introduction to the Molecular Relationship
Stephen has been putting together a couple web pages as kind of an introduction to the Molecular Relationship. He’s been running everything by me for approval and doing his best to put together materials that will help the new seeker.
Take a look at his pages and let us know if you think thee are things that should be covered that isn’t or improvements that would help.
June 8, 2014
More on Global Warming
It is difficult to arrange my thoughts within the 200 word limit but here they are for the next Statesman Letter.
The thinking of global warming alarmism is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.
There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the plant fertilizer – CO2.
Here are some.
(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race.
(2) A solar flare. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. We are totally unprepared for another event like this which would create chaos and destruction.
(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation would produce similar results.
(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by a missile defense envisioned by Reagan.
Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle Ages will look pretty good.
J.J. every item on your real threat list is likely to happen. The only question is in what order?
Statistically the asteroid would be number four in order. We are not likely to have a major threat from one for thousands of years though one could show up next week. We just had a close flyby of one large enough to destroy New York City.
A nuclear attack is not a sure thing but a solar flare is and we are overdue for another one. We could avoid disaster by burying our cables underground – a thing which some other nations have done.
“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Wrong. Most researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was warmer. In addition we had a period of about 1000 years with a midpoint in 1100 BC which was much warmer.
Take a look at this chart:
“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I’ve responded to this numerous times but it must have went over your head. The 97% answered a couple very nebulous questions – so much so that I would answer with the 97% and cannot understand why even 3% of the scientists answered to the contrary. The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence on the climate but there are no specifics on how much that influence is. Within the 97% the guesses (and they are guesses) range from 1% to 120%. You ought to read the convoluted reasoning as to how humans could be responsible for 120% of global warming.
“Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability
First of all you are referencing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which places emphasis on ocean studies. You also need to check data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT and then compare then to get a good feel of the overall picture.
So, if global warming is due mainly to humans activities then what has caused the non global warming, or the pause, in the last 18 years? Have humans ceased doing anything?
And how about the global cooling from 1940-1978? Did humans cause that also?
Overall we had global cooling from 1940-1978, global warming from 1979-1998 and then a pause from 1998 to the present. Did humans cause all these or just the warming from 1979-1998? Some basic common sense is needed here and many scientists lack this trait.
And if humans did not exist would climate change just cease to be? Using the logic of many of the alarmists that is the conclusion one would have to reach, which is ridiculous. Before humans arrived there were occasions where there was greater climate change in a week than the past 100 years.
You just can’t take in all that the beast of authority doles out to you or you will be deceived every time. You must look at the facts and put the together for yourself relying on your inner authority for the final conclusion. That is the path to be delivered from the mark of the beast in the forehead.
June 9, 2014
Faster Than Light?
Physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva announced in September that
they had detected a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light, a
finding that violated Einstein’s venerable theory of special relativity.
They retested the speed of the neutrinos and concluded they were not traveling faster than light after all. Overall Einstein was pretty accurate though even he admitted he made mistakes. He rejected the Big Bang at first and later accepted it calling his steady state theory his biggest mistake though his cosmological constant that seemed to be a mistake is being examined again to explain dark energy.
Failed Global Warming Predictions
I’m tabulating some failed predictions from global warming scientists and supporters.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. This did not happen. It would be difficult to find a dozen such refugees caused by global warming.
They have attempted to erase that prediction from the web but are now claiming that it will be further into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (Made Jan 8, 2007)
Prediction made in 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013
But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.
Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.
May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”
They were off about 400%
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972
“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”
ABC, The Miracle Planet, April 22, 1990
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Here’s a clincher:
95% of the climate models made by the scientists the left trusts so much are wrong.
Would you trust a wild eyed religious guru if his predictions were wrong 95% of the time? if not, why trust wild eyed Al Gore and his supporting band of U.N. scientists?
Conclusion: this teaches us to not trust the authorities of the world just because they say a thing is true. Look into it for yourself and then decide.
The New Key
Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.
You have mentioned the Key word which is “Glory.” Now the real question is what is the principle behind it and how does it work?
This is as far as I want to go in giving hints before the gathering. In the meantime the group can attempt to solve the key, and we’ll see who comes closest to the truth. We’ll talk about it shortly after the gathering.
June 10, 2014
Did you just say that NASA is wrong and you are right?
It’s not just me who has an issue with NASA switching from concentrating on space to global warming. 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists had enough and wrote a letter protesting NASA’s dive into propaganda.
None of the current NASA employees had the guts to sign it because they were worried about losing their jobs.
Global warming activism at NASA comes mostly from James Hansen, a leftist and ideologue. Back in the Seventies he tried to start a campaign against global cooling but then switched to global warming when it became politically expedient. So, I guess NASA was wrong even from your view when Hansen warned of global cooling.
You misread. The text says “proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years”. Your graph only shows a sudden rise in temperatures only for our current period of time. The medieval warm period had a much more slower heat increase rate. What caused this sudden increase? Maybe humans?
Even interpreting this literally it is still wrong. In this current time frame – that is the last 18 years – warming has pretty much flatlined. 2013 was cooler than 1998 so you can’t say that in the present time warming is proceeding an unprecedented rate.
From 1880 to 2012 the planet warmed a mere .85 degrees C which is not alarming at all and has made the earth greener and more productive. LINK We do not have complete records of the Medieval Warm Period but it is quite possible they had a similar rise in that length of time. It is guessing to say otherwise. Geologists tell us that the earth has had some quick temperature changes in the past.
Human caused CO2 has undoubtedly caused some warming, but the effect has probably been less than 20% of the whole.
The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence
Did you just say again that NASA lied? The text reads “97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”. I’ll go with NASA on this one too.
I wouldn’t use the word lie, but I would use the word “distort.” They present the idea that 97% of the scientists surveyed support the idea that warming is “due to human activities.” (And the survey was not done by NASA) They present it as an all or nothing thing which is absolutely false. The question is not whether humans are a warming factor. Instead, the question is HOW MUCH? If humans did not exist there would still be warming and cooling and this survey makes it sound like all warming is 100% due to humans.
Just about all scientists agree that CO2 is a warming factor but disagree on how much. The guesses range from less than 1% to 120%.
The reason, of course, they were not specific in their survey is that almost all scientists believe that human released CO2 does have a warming effect so if the answer can only be yes or no they will admit that humans do have an effect. I also claim they have an effect so I am with the 97%
I have shown you that concerning the war in Iraq you where fabricating historical data to be in accordance with your view.
Your fantasies are getting out of hand here.
June 11, 2014
You totally missed Tyson’s point JJ because, like you accuse of Tyson, you have the agenda of the global warming “skeptic.” Tyson did not deny that Venus being closer to the sun doesn’t contribute to its increased heat. Tyson was implying that a large portion of the increased heat is due to the CO2 content, which is absolutely true.
Here are Tyson’s actual words.
“The surface is hotter than a broiling oven, hot enough to melt lead.
“Why? You might think it’s because Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but that’s not the reason.”
It sure sounds like he is discounting the fact that Venus being closer to the sun is part of the reason Venus is hotter. And he didn’t say that CO2 was a “portion” of the reason for the extra heat. He left the unscientific viewers with the impression that it was the total reason. And I think he made this distortion in an attempt to scare us into thinking the earth may become like Venus if we do not fall in line with Climate Change Agenda.
Like I said he would have been correct if he had said. “that’s not the total reason.”
The truth here is so obvious, I’m surprised you are trying to argue with it.
Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury, so how could Venus be slightly hotter? Perhaps it has something to do with, oh I don’t know, lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere?
You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Venus. There is also the effect of the high pressure of the atmosphere being 90 times that of earth which also creates some heat. My point was that Mercury is closer to the sun and has a surface of about 800 degrees, which is very hot and the heat is only due to the sun illustrating that being closer to the sun does cause a planet to take in extra heat. This point should be beyond any argument yet Tyson made it sound like Venus being closer to the sun than the Earth made no difference in temperature.
But if we go upward about 30 miles we would arrive at an atmospheric density similar to that of the Earth, and get this. The temperature is no longer boiling hot but actually a lot like of our planet.
How can this be when the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Looks like we have the opposite of a greenhouse effect with CO2 there experiencing more earthlike conditions.
Are you being serious right now JJ? Have you ever been up a mountain and have gotten that sensation of pressure in your ears? That’s because the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher up. Everyone knows this. The same is true on Venus, so therefore even if the atmosphere is still 96.5% CO2, there is still much less of it and therefore much less greenhouse effect.
You missed my point completely. Of course all atmospheres get thinner as you go higher. That was what I was saying yet you are using it as a point of argument. That is very strange.
When you ascend on Venus until you get to the same atmospheric pressure as the Earth’s surface atmosphere the amount of CO2 is still 2400 times more in quantity than on the earth, yet the temperature is fairly cool like earth. So we have an example of an area (Venus’ upper atmosphere) where CO2 in an atmospheric pressure as on earth is fairly cool even though the concentration of CO2 is 2400 times as much as exists here. You’d think that with the extra solar radiation and the high concentration of CO2 that it would be a lot warmer, but it’s not. This indicates that scientists may be giving too much weight to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Brat’s Amazing Victory
Here is an interesting piece of data concerning the election upset:
“Cantor’s office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat’s office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.”
I’d say that if Cantor unsuccessfully spends $5 million to defeat an unknown candidate who only spends $100,000 that he needs to go.
June 13, 2014
The Fifth Key
We’ve just had a couple stabs at the principle behind the Key since I acknowledged the Key word is “Glory.”
Here are three members going the right direction:
I see two aspects to the word “Glory”. One is, giving credit where credit’s due. The other is, a sending up of energy.
The Principle would have to be something along the lines of “Acknowledgement”..
Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.
These are all effects of the principle but not the principle itself.
The name of the Key is
“The Principle of Glory.”
There is a principle that brings glory. What is it?
Wind No More
Looks like the environmentalists will soon be protesting wind power as it is causing a huge disturbance in the animal kingdom.
Then solar power is also frying some birds that fly to close so if they get their way we’ll eventually be left with our own body eat as the only desirable source of energy.
No I’m afraid not JJ. There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.
I was speaking of the future, but it is already happening and will just get worse.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.
Here are three other links of environmentalists protesting wind power.
Here are three links concerning protests of solar power. The last one takes place way over in China.
Nathan: “You are not referencing mainstream environmentalists.”
Wow, you are really a moving target You said nothing about mainstream environmentalists, but said: “There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.”
On the other hand, you cannot get any more mainstream than Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most famous environmentalists in history suing to stop production of wind power..
If you Google it you can find dozens of stories of environmentalists unhappy or protesting with aspects of wind and solar. I gave seven and that should have done the trick. One link was bad. Here it is again LINK
Nathan: “The only exception was with the one in China which protested a factory of solar panels, not solar power itself.”
That is like saying that people are not unhappy with oil itself, but the byproducts of oil. The manufacturing of solar panels is part of the whole package. No one protests energy itself, but many are upset at the processes that bring it to us including wind and solar.
June 14, 2014
Re: Wind No More
I answered Nathan’s letter last night but it seems to have disappeared into the ethers. I’ll briefly answer it again.
Nathan claims that I am painting all environmentalists with a broad brush saying that all, including RFK, are against wind and solar.
Nothing could be further from the truth and not sure where he is finding this in anything I have said.
He gives an incomplete quote from Kennedy. Let me repeat what I actually said.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.”
Now did I say there he is against all wind? No. He is against wind in his own backyard while claiming to support it. He compares putting the wind farm out at sea so far that you need binoculars to se it as the same thing as putting a wind farm in Yellowstone. That is a ridiculous hypocritical comparison. Wind farms at sea create a lot less distraction than many I have seen in California as I have driven though those distractions from nature.
It is an ironclad truth that some (not all) environmentalists are protesting some wind and solar production. This is not because they claim to be against wind and solar in principle but they are increasingly finding details with which they disagree that make it difficult to produce energy from these sources.
(1) They are growing concerned about, pollution during the manufacturing process
(2) They are concerned about wind and solar disturbing the environment, insects, birds, animals etc at planned locations.
(3) Windmills killing birds that fly into them and solar plants frying birds that fly into the hot zone.
(4) As we increase production, wind and solar becomes an eyesore on the natural environment. This causes an increase of concern not only to the environmentalists, but the general public.
My point which Nathan did not seem to understand is that environmentalists concern over the impact of wind and solar will only increase as the years go by. Even if breakthroughs are made in the technology and it appears that we can have unlimited energy from them I suspect that this will not make them happy and they will increasingly find reasons why more wind and solar cannot be installed just as they did with nuclear and hydro – the two cleanest, as far as release of CO2 goes.
I don’t know why that one link did not work. Here is the actual address. It works when I cut and paste.
June 15, 2014
So did the Jew laggards lose the game in the previous universe, and now the game is harder for them in this universe, to learn from, of course.
In each round you lose some and you win some depending on where we put our attention. In the last solar system (according to DK) those who are now incarnated as Jews concentrated too much on the material aspect and not the spiritual and had come to earth at this time to learn additional spiritual lessons.
In many ways life is easier for them because they have, as a race, a lot of material savvy under their belts. That is why they have always been good at accumulating money and possessions – until their neighbors become jealous. Because they are old souls many of them have excelled at whatever they attempted because they have more experience than most other humans.
Re: The Fifth Key
The group has posted some good insights related to the Fifth Key but no one has enunciated the principle.. When you discover it you will see that it is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.
I don’t want to reveal it here before the gathering but I will give these additional hints in questions.
If one expects to receive glory what must he not do, and what must he do? What must he receive from his associates and why?
Are we a talking about Glory as Praise or Glory as Light?
We are not talking about brightness or shining light and neither does praise always produce glory. Obama has received tons of praise from the media but will go down in history with very little glory.
We are talking about recognition of true achievement.
The group keeps naming good qualities that the person receiving glory should have. Yes, good qualities are important to good achievements but has little or nothing to do with how the principle works. A person can be trustworthy, honest, kind, loving etc and complete screw up the Principle of Glory because he does not understand it and has the wrong focus.
Larry Woods is dancing around the edges of the principle but no one
has stated it. It is like it is neatly tucked away in a box and
everyone is looking outside the box. Larry’s post looked at the edges
of the box.
Good comments from all but we are looking for the principle not definitions. We are not looking for the leaves of the tree but that which gives the tree life. Think. What is the principle that determines whether man, angel or God receives glory for his work? It is very simple but no teacher I know of has taught it in fulness.
I do not want to give out a lot more here as I do not want to acknowledge what the principle is until the gathering. So far only the edges of the box has been approached.
John Crane brought us closer to looking into the box in one of his posts. I can’t give many more hints without telling the group the key outright. Think again. What needs to happen before a person receives glory and what would be the sentence that encapsulates the principle?
June 18, 2014
Re: The Fifth Key
The group says some good things but no one has moved any closer to the principle since John Crane posted.
Here is a huge hint for you that illustrates the principle.
When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honour, he spoke to them in a parable : ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding-feast, do not sit down in the place of honour. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited ; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow-guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’ Luke 14:7-11 New English
Someone is opening the box and coming very close. I’m not going to say much more in the way of hints till after the gathering. I will give one more tonight. I will say this. The principle is hiding in plain site in the parable.
This must be it, start at the bottom and work your way up. The same applies for each new incarnation. Then the achievements are plainly seen for what they are, in time, and the respect that comes with them. Again this forms a chain moving ever higher.
Great discernment, Johann. That is not the principle of Glory but worthy of further contemplation.
That is the irony here. Individuals are looking for the truth in various directions and hence are finding truth; so even if you are not the first to discover the Principle of Glory you are likely to find something interesting.
Because you are looking.
Seek not for glory, follow the highest you can perceive, and glory will find you.
That’s not the Principle of Glory, but a great statement of truth. It could be in the famous quotations section someday.
June 19, 2014
The Key is hidden in plain site in these scriptures.
John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory:
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
But we can’t guess the key before you have given it out at the Gathering……….?
Two or three words fit in here, but I am sure someone else might find the exact key word…….so I will add these in, because it is something along these lines…..
Sure you can guess it. That’s what the group is trying to do. If someone gets it I may not fully acknowledge it until after the gathering, but no one has got it yet though one has come close. You already have the key word which is glory. The challenge now is to explain the principle in a way that shows you understand it. In the past day the group has been saying some good things, but drifting away from the box.
June 20, 2014
Thanks for your effort in attempting to grasp the understanding of the Principle of Glory. The group continues to make good observations but has come no closer despite the powerful hints. Some wonder how in the world can the principle be lying there in plain sight in several scriptures and hints and not be able to see them.
It’s a little like the story of Columbus and the egg.
After discovering the New World, a dinner was held in his honor. Afterwards they were talking and one of the guests stated something like this:
“Columbus, what you did was really no big deal. Since you have sailed to the new world, many others have done the same thing. What makes you think you have done anything great since others are now doing the same thing you did.”
To this challenge, Columbus took an egg off his plate and handed it to the heckler and said: “Take this egg my friend and see if you can make it stand on its end.”
The man looked at the egg and said: “It’s impossible.”
But Columbus urged him on: “You’re wrong. It is possible. Go ahead and try.”
The man tried several times and each time the egg rolled over on its side. After he failed several others tried it with the same results. Finally the frustrated audience handed the egg back to Columbus and said: “We do not think that such a feat is possible, but if you really believe that it can be done please show us how.”
Columbus then took the egg back and smashed it on its bottom end on the table. The bottom of the egg was crushed into flatness and the group stared at the egg doing the impossible – standing on its end. Then Columbus taught them an important lesson. “Now I’ve shown you how to do it, the easiest thing in the world is to follow.”
He was right. A minute before no one could make an egg stand on its end. A minute afterwards everyone could.
Similarly, there are many great principles hidden in the words of the masters and the prophets and we do not see them. I have had various scriptures memorized for maybe 30 years and then just driving down the road with my mind blank the scripture comes into my mind bearing a new meaning that I had never seen before. When this happens I almost feel like slapping myself for after such an event the meaning seems so obvious.
Even so it is with the Principle of Glory. The principle is very simple, more simple than some of the explanations that have been given here. It will seem obvious after I give it out. I’ll give it out to the group here shortly after the gathering.
One last hint.
Do not look for definitions or concern yourself with what glory is. We all have the general idea. Look for the principle that creates glory.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE