Posted on

Can Compassionate Transmutation Transform a Paradigm?

The good news is that the accepted “laws of physics” do change over time. Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions shows that throughout history they change after anomalies—discoveries that don’t fit into the official theories of that time—have piled up too high to hide any more.

The evidence for a mysterious source of excess energy that shows up in certain types of experiments has piled fairly high right now. Other findings by maverick scientists point to the need for new theories about basics, such as atoms. This month’s column contains clues from a systems engineer and big-picture thinker, about why mainstream science is resisting such changes. It appears that physics might need rebuilding, from a new foundation.

Transmutation of chemical elements is one of the anomalies that mainstream Western physics tries to ignore, but that too could change. Yasuhiro Iwamura of the Advanced Technology Research Center at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan made a groundbreaking announcement this year at a conference at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His LENR (the research category formerly called cold fusion or, in Japan, New Hydrogen Technology) process has transmuted radioactive cesium into praseodymium. Praseodymium is a useful rare-earth element; for instance, it helps make high-strength metal for aircraft engines.

Claims of transmutation are also coming from outside academia. My friend Martin Burger with his usual chutzpah founded a venture called the Blue Eagle Alchemical Gold Making Project. Although they’ve made tiny amounts of gold while using crushed beer bottles to start the process, the project needs funding. Burger is trying for crowd funding for a small pilot plant that would produce synthetic ores.

The description of Blue Eagle’s future potential sounds like science fiction. Imagine a dial-a-frequency technology that makes precious metals on demand, cheaper than mining them. Burger says this possibility can lead to “where we can finally quit drilling and blasting huge holes in planet Earth.”

Why haven’t more Western scientists (with rare exceptions such as former Los Alamos scientist John Milewski—see my previous column this spring) ventured into transmutation experiments? Burger says with some sarcasm that mainstream scientists stay away because “everyone already knew, from the so-called Big Bang Theory, that all the elements in the universe were created in a singularity Disney-cartoon event some sixteen billion years ago.”

Burger on the other hand says nature creates elements continuously, and the Blue Eagle project mimics nature.

Burger’s mentor Dr. Milewski was set to give a talk at the July 30-August 3, 2014, Extraordinary Technology Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. His purpose: to define zero-point energy so that experimenters can capture and work with it.

At that conference, systems engineer Moray King was to talk about plasma-based energy research. Earlier this year he was a guest on Gary Hendershot’s online program Smart Scarecrow, and I wish everyone mired in angry “paradigm wars” had listened. That show titled Paradigm Shifts has been shortened and the edited version posted on line: just search online for “Moray paradigm YouTube.” The following summarizes what King had to say.


Russians Accept New Science

In Russia, recognition of the reality of transmutation has changed the physics paradigm. A paradigm is a widely accepted way of thinking, so it is created by influential people holding onto similar fundamental beliefs regarding what is real. Nucleosynthesis (creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing protons and neutrons) is a real anomaly to scientists, King reports. It’s not just moving one atom over in the periodic table.

Every year, Russian salaried professors have a conference on it, called Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning, at which they try to come up with new theories of the nucleus to explain the effects seen.

“This is completely accepted in Russia,” King reports. But in the West, Nobel prizes are given for certain theory about the atomic nucleus, and any experiment that violates the accepted theory is treated as if it cannot exist. “Western science completely ignores it. And we understand why—paradigm shifts are too disturbing emotionally.”

American research engineer and founder of NanoSpire, Inc., Mark LeClair, is one of those doing paradigm-busting work. As previously reported in this column, at the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement conference last year, LeClair announced that he could create transmutation effects with collapsing bubbles of water. He sees the new isotopes (versions of elements) accumulate on a plate and later sends the substances to an independent laboratory to be analyzed. It turns out that NanoSpire’s process created rare isotopes that don’t occur in nature.

Since LeClair made that announcement, there’s been some preliminary replication by others, including a group out of Austria. Online blogging by others, however, incites conservative scientists to chime in, “It can’t be.”

What can an inventor do? King in his January presentation gave insights on what to do when critics of a disruptive experiment say, “It violates the laws of physics! It must be a fraud, it must be a mistake.” He suggests asking the critic which paradigm they personally are on. Calmly recognizing that we hold different personal paradigms is more productive than having arguments, King points out.

He briefly outlined the belief systems held today by scientists and engineers:

    Classical Physics is the standard paradigm for engineers. Its beliefs include a fixed background in space and time, one fixed future and all systems evolving like a perfect machine.

Einstein’s Relativity Theory was the next paradigm in the twentieth century; it dismissed ether because of a flawed experiment.

Quantum Mechanics brought in items such as “nonlocal entanglement” that would have Einstein rolling in his grave, and zero-point fluctuations.

    Quantum Gravity vs. String/Brane Theory is the current hot debate, which King explains, but I won’t attempt to.

    Consciousness Transformation is where King hopes it’s all leading.

“We’re in the midst of a paradigm war right now,” says King. “What’s starting to emerge from that is the true existence of a fourth dimension of space… Further out are new paradigms of what is consciousness.”

Typically somebody from an earlier paradigm—such as classical physics or relativity—looks at someone who starts to believe in an advanced worldview, such as consciousness transformation, as a kook. The so-called kook, on the other hand, looks back at those holding the older viewpoints and sees them as out-dated flat-earthers who don’t understand a higher dimension.

Since most engineers are in the standard, classical worldview, there’s very little in today’s technology designed to exploit relativity concepts, for instance. As a result of quantum mechanics we have solid-state technologies, but zero-point energy is typically not believed to be a reality for engineers.

Even among scientists who recognize the term “zero-point energy” there’s disagreement about what it is. I believe that definitions matter if we’re talking about whether something can be harnessed for clean energy technologies. King listed current paradigm-choices for zero-point energy:

• It doesn’t really exist; it’s just a virtual, theoretical thing.

• It propagates throughout space like heat.

• It exists only in three-dimensional space and arises from nowhere. “When you’re saying that, you’re violating Conservation of Energy,” King points out.

• “Or you can choose to interpret it that it enters from an actual physically-real higher dimension of space. This is where the paradigm of zero-point energy is leading us to as we apply more advanced physics to what is going on…”

King has for more than 30 years been studying peer-reviewed science papers about zero-point energy, as well as investigating claims by inventors around the world who say they are tapping into a new energy source. As a systems engineer he sees common threads and has insights for explaining how those inventions may be working.

With his eye on the big picture of what the world needs technologically—low-cost nonpolluting energy—he’s dismayed to watch the quantum-gravity people fighting wars with the string-theory people and treating each other like angry monkeys would.

Further, “It’s this thing of ‘if you’re right then I’m wrong, and I can’t be wrong. I’ve got to know it all’…that’s the source of the emotion behind it. Personal paradigm change is an emotional event.”

Why do genius-level physicists get so emotional over whether to allow zero-point fluctuations from a higher dimension to enter their quantum gravity theories—is it just their needing to know-it-all?

There’s a more practical reason. King explains that they’re tied to using the “computational machinery” that takes so many years to learn. In other words, it’s about the math! Bringing in those fluctuations from outside the box makes it impossible to do the calculations that physicists are trained to do.

Theorists who describe vacuum fluctuations popping in and out, without describing a model of where those fluctuations come from, have a violation of the physics law Conservation of Energy on their hands, whether they admit it or not.


‘Physics Would Have To Start Over’

Quantum mechanics had removed the vacuum fluctuations by a trick called “renormalization”—a way to eradicate those troublesome “higher-order terms that would be infinities” in mathematics. If the vacuum fluctuations were allowed, King points out, physics would have to start over.

“This is the primary objection, why we can’t allow the vacuum fluctuations to enter the system. It would cause basically a paradigm shift.”

Paradigm wars get vicious. When the results of someone’s experiment violates “accepted laws,” the community that believed in the violated paradigm throws out the scientific method, notes King. “Instead, scientists act like people, human beings. The new claim is ignored, ridiculed, and rejected. They will not change their minds.”

Eventually the resistance literally dies out, and a new generation takes over.

Talking about a paradigm violation becomes serious when a claim is declared a fraud. I’m thinking about court cases that ruled against the late Stanley Meyer and against others who were promoting technologies that court-appointed experts said were impossible.

To keep such discussions more rational, King categorized types of so-called fraud:

Type 1  An intentional scam

Type 2  Mistaken measurements

Type 3  A true energetic anomaly was measured, but (a) the person has poor business practices, typical with what King calls an esoteric inventor, lacking enough funds to complete the invention. Or (b) the explanation could be incorrect. “Of course you’re going to have a wrong explanation, because when you have this energy anomaly nobody understands where it’s coming from.”

Summing up important messages Moray King gave for online chat rooms:

• When you call someone a fraud, name the type of fraud you think they’re perpetrating.

• Understand the paradigm you’re in, so when you say “disobeyed the laws of physics” you know which paradigm those laws are in. “That’ll create mutual understanding as to where everybody’s coming from, and allow us to be open-minded to each other’s ideas because we’re not busy defending ourselves or feeling threatened by an idea that’s coming from a different paradigm.”

• “Build the energy machine that changes the world.” (For what it takes to make a self-organizing system, see King’s online presentations.)


Closing Note:

This could be the final column in my ten years of this Report From The Front series, because other projects are needing my time. It’s been a privilege working with Atlantis Rising magazine publisher Doug Kenyon, and I’ve encountered his magazine’s readers in many corners of the world.

I’ll close with words I had printed on a banner for the book Breakthrough Power: How Quantum-leap New Energy Inventions Can Transform Our World. “The energy revolution and the shift to higher awareness must come hand-in-hand.”


Jeane Manning is co-author of Breakthrough Power: How Quantum-leap New Inventions Can Transform Our World. The book is available through Amazon and Atlantis Rising and as an e-book at

Jeane Manning

Sept/Oct 2014 – #107

Posted on

The Mystery of Ancient Lenses and Glass

Ancient high technology is an interesting topic in forbidden archaeology. In this column, I will consider three examples having to do with lenses and glass: (1) the Nimrud lens from Assyria, (2) the advanced lenses in the eyes of Egyptian statues, and (3) and the huge slab of glass found in Galilee.


The Nimrud Lens

Sir Austen Henry Layard (1817-1894) was a British explorer, archaeologist, politician, and diplomat. In the 1840s, he excavated the ruins of the ancient Assyrian cities of Nimrud and Nineveh, in what is now northern Iraq. When I visited the British Museum in 2007, I saw some of the iconic stone statues and relief panels Layard shipped to London in the nineteenth century, such as the two, huge statues of winged lions that guarded the entrance to the palace of King Ashurnasirpal II in Nimrud. At that time, I was not aware of a smaller, but more interesting, discovery made by Layard at Nimrud—the Nimrud lens. So I did not notice it, although it was on display in room 55 of the British Museum, in case 9 in the Lower Mesopotamian Gallery.

Layard found the lens in a chamber of the North West Palace. The chamber contained hundreds of utensils made of bronze, iron, glass, and ivory. The lens was lying near some glass bowls. Layard wrote in his book, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853, p. 167): “With the glass bowls was discovered a rock crystal lens with opposite convex and plane faces. Its properties could scarcely have been unknown to the Assyrians, and we have consequently the earliest specimen of a magnifying and burning glass.”

At the request of Layard, physicist Sir David Brewster examined the lens and reported (Layard 1853, p. 167): “This lens is plano-convex and of a slightly oval form its length being 1.6 inch, and its breadth 1.4 inch. It is about .2 inch thick, and a little thicker at one side than the other. Its plane surface is pretty even, though ill polished and scratched. . . .  The convex side is tolerably well polished, and though uneven from the mode in which it has been ground, it gives a tolerably distinct focus at the distance of 4.5 inches from the plane side.” Brewster concluded, “It is obvious . . . that it could not have been intended as an ornament; we are entitled, therefore, to consider it as intended to be used as a lens, either for magnifying, or for concentrating the rays of the sun” (Layard 1853, p. 167).

According to a report by Dr. David Whitehouse  (“World’s Oldest Telescope?,” BBC News Online, July 1, 1999),  an Italian Assyriologist, Dr. Giuseppe Pettinato of the University of Rome, suggested that the lens was part of a telescope. Pettinato said this would explain why the Assyrians depicted Saturn with a ring of serpents. The rings of Saturn are not visible to the human eye except through a telescope. Normally, historians say the telescope was invented in Europe during the sixteenth century AD. But according to the British Museum, the Nimrud lens dates back to 710-750 BC, which would make it about 2,750 years old. The Nimrud lens could therefore be evidence for advanced high technology.


Eye Lenses of Egypt

Another amazing kind of lens comes from Egypt. It was described in a paper by Dr. Jay M. Enoch (“New Discovery of a Rare Ancient Egyptian Lens,” Atti Della Fondazione Giorgio Ronchi vol. 62, no. 3, 2007, pp. 417-429). On October 9, 2004, Enoch, of the School of Optometry of the University of California at Berkeley, was visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. He was looking at a face from an Egyptian mummy case and noticed that its eye appeared to be following him as he walked by. This face sculpture dated to the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, about 2,500 to 3,000 years ago. Earlier examples also exist, such as the rock crystal eyes in the statues of Prince RaHotep and his wife Nofert, now in the Louvre in Paris, France. These statues, which are about 4,500 years old, are from the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom. They were discovered at Maydum in the Nile Delta region. When the chamber containing the statues was first excavated, one of the Egyptian workmen, after seeing the lifelike eyes, became so frightened he ran outside (Enoch 2007, p. 422).

The illusion of eye motion, technically called motion parallax, is produced by a finely engineered transparent lens, made of rock crystal, or, in the later versions, glass. The outer surface of the lens is convex and represents the cornea, the clear outer covering of the eyeball.  The back surface of the lens is flat, representing the iris, the colored part of the eye. The detail that gives the effect of movement is a small depression in the middle of the flat back surface of the lens. This concavity creates the impression of a dark pupil in the middle of the iris. But when you look at the eye, there is a separation in distance between the apparent location of the pupil and the apparent location of the iris. The convex outer surface of the lens magnifies, which has the effect of moving the plane of the iris closer to the viewer. The concave surface that produces the pupil reduces it, which has the optical effect of placing the plane of the pupil behind the plane of the iris. Because the plane of the pupil image is behind the plane of the iris image, when an observer moves, the pupil appears to move in the same direction of the observer, relative to the iris.

Enoch gives a simple way to see how this works. Close one eye. Now hold, vertically, the index finger of one hand close to the open eye. Hold the index finger of your other hand further from the eye. Now turn your head. The furthest finger will appear to move in the same direction you are turning your head, just as the pupil in the crystal eye of the Egyptian statue appears to move in your direction as you walk by it. When the pupil moves, the whole eye appears to move.

Enoch (p. 419) wrote, “The Egyptian lens designers mastered control of magnification such that the displacements perceived by the observer resulted in apparent rotation [of the pupil] equal to the rotation of the observer! When this desirable feature was achieved in both eyes, the two eyes seem to follow the observer equally. This was an outstanding achievement!”

In the Maydum statues, the illusion is more perfect than in the later face image in the Boston museum. To Enoch this suggested that the technological skills that produced the lenses were far older than the oldest examples that we now have.


The Galilee Glass Slab

Beth She’arim is a sacred site in the Galilee region of Israel, where tombs were cut into the side of a limestone hill from the second century AD through the fourth century AD. In 1956, authorities decided to clear a natural cave to make it into a small museum. A bulldozer encountered a rectangular slab of what appeared to be stone. It was too big to move, so it was left in place. In 1963 a team of researchers from the Corning Museum of Glass and the University of Missouri was investigating ancient glassmaking in the region. Someone suggested that the slab in the cave was actually glass. A report on the website of the Corning Museum of Glass ( states: “The suggestion was greeted with skepticism—indeed, one member of the team volunteered that if the slab was made of glass, he would eat it. A chemical analysis, though, confirmed that it was, in fact, made of glass.” Because the slab was not transparent (it was a very dark purple color), it was not easy to recognize it as glass. The slab of glass was about 11 feet long, 6.5 feet wide, and 18 inches thick. Its top surface was perfectly level.

The report from the Corning Museum of Glass states: “There are two truly astounding things about the slab. First its sheer size: remember it measures 6.5 x 11 feet. That means it weighs about 9 tons—18,000 pounds. When discovered, it was the third largest piece of man-made glass in the world and it was made centuries ago. Its size is still rivaled only by the giant telescope mirrors of the 20th century. More astonishing still are the conditions under which it was made. It is estimated that about 11 tons of raw materials had to be heated to 1100°C (around 2000°F), and held at that temperature for perhaps 5–10 days.”

How old is the slab? Archaeologists excavated beneath the slab and found pieces of pottery indicating that the slab had been lying there since the end of the fourth century AD. Even today it is difficult to manufacture such huge pieces of glass.


Michael A. Cremo is the author, with Richard Thompson, of the underground classic Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of Human Race. He has also written Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory. (See

Michael Cremo

Sept/Oct 2014 – #107