Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to know. M Hello,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the show. My name is Matt, my
Speaker 1: name is Noel. They call me Ben. We are joined
Speaker 1: with our super producer, Paul Mission controlled decade. Most importantly,
Speaker 1: you are you. You are here that makes this stuff
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know. Longtime listeners, you'll you'll
Speaker 1: note that recently we have been exploring some things that
Speaker 1: are more of the modern world. Corporate cover ups, ongoing
Speaker 1: investigations into hidden burial places, and things of that nature,
Speaker 1: many of which do point to genuine conspiracies, not conspiracy eeries,
Speaker 1: but genuine conspiracies. Today we are delving into something a
Speaker 1: little bit different. We're delving into a realm of spirituality,
Speaker 1: a realm of allegedly magic, and the area wherein science,
Speaker 1: magic and linguistics are said to converge. Let's start with
Speaker 1: angels today. Angels, at least in the Western world, have
Speaker 1: a pretty solidified image. You know, most most people in
Speaker 1: the West if you ask them just immediately to describe
Speaker 1: what an angel looks like, unless they've done some further reading.
Speaker 1: They're going to picture a humanoid being, probably in a
Speaker 1: flowing robe or maybe nude, but androgynous and shining brightly.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of white involved, pair of large feathered wings,
Speaker 1: maybe multiple pairs, sprouting from the back. And sometimes the
Speaker 1: angel will also have a a halo or a herp,
Speaker 1: a halo being a circle of light, sometimes depicted as
Speaker 1: a band of some shiny golden metal above their head.
Speaker 1: This of course, does not match one to one with
Speaker 1: many biblical descriptions of angels, which this this is something
Speaker 1: you'll appreciate, Matt. From the X Files, there is a
Speaker 1: fantastic depiction of an angel in an episode on the
Speaker 1: nephel Um. Do you remember that one with the Sickly children. Yeah? Man,
Speaker 1: it's a little hazy for me, but that sounds familiar.
Speaker 1: Are they were the sickly children the Nephelum? They were
Speaker 1: like children or they were actually Nephelum they spoiler alert, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were actually Nephelum and they had these mysterious genetic disorders.
Speaker 1: But they were being murdered one by one by a
Speaker 1: divine agent, which was an angel, and towards the very
Speaker 1: end spoiler alert. Here's your chance to turn back. Now.
Speaker 1: Three to one spoilers the towards the end of the episode,
Speaker 1: where you actually see this creature attacking someone, It's faces
Speaker 1: shift because in some biblical descriptions of angels they have
Speaker 1: multiple faces. And of course there are many, many different
Speaker 1: types of angels, depending on which civilization or culture you
Speaker 1: are investigating. Man, I was certain you were going to
Speaker 1: say it was the chupacabra all along. There is a
Speaker 1: chupacabra episode of X Files, and I believe in that
Speaker 1: episode three to one spoilers is a It is a
Speaker 1: fungal agent, an infection creates chabra. I believe someone that
Speaker 1: that may be a different show, but there's so many
Speaker 1: X Files episodes I have to say. Nephelim sounds like
Speaker 1: a great name for a metal band doesn't exist, and
Speaker 1: the Sickly Children great name for an album by sad
Speaker 1: metal band. Neilham is a band. Yeah, yes, of course
Speaker 1: I believe that episode of Exiles we're referencing was called
Speaker 1: All Souls, and yes I do remember that episode. And
Speaker 1: they're not as good as the writers of X Files
Speaker 1: are at this time. They are not making this up
Speaker 1: out of whole cloth, as the item goes. Instead, they
Speaker 1: are cribbing from beliefs of ancient civilizations far older, by
Speaker 1: the way, than the religions of the book, far older
Speaker 1: than Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. In fact, most ancient civilizations
Speaker 1: in the world believed in this concept of angels or
Speaker 1: something very much like them, benevolent spirits representing a more
Speaker 1: powerful deity. So they were almost like minor deities. They
Speaker 1: could do little miracles. They were not as powerful as God,
Speaker 1: or not as powerful as whatever the supreme uh you know,
Speaker 1: final boss deity was in a belief system, but they
Speaker 1: had a heck of a lot more agency in power
Speaker 1: than mortals. Well, maybe agency is a tough word. There's
Speaker 1: huge argument about angels and free will that dates back
Speaker 1: to the beginning of a lot of myths. So it's
Speaker 1: important to note here that not all angels are necessarily good.
Speaker 1: We're gonna bust an angel stereotype today. We'll get to
Speaker 1: that later on in today's episode. And here's this is fascinating.
Speaker 1: So while the belief in angels or something like these
Speaker 1: benevolent intercessing spirits, maybe ancient, it persists in the modern
Speaker 1: day and the statistics may surprise some of us listening.
Speaker 1: According to a two thousand eleven poll that was published
Speaker 1: by CBS, seventy seven percent of adults in the United
Speaker 1: States believe angels are real. This is usually, of course,
Speaker 1: tied to religion. Eight percent of people identifying as Christian
Speaker 1: and people identifying as Evangelical Christians, along with nine of
Speaker 1: people who attend weekly religious services of some sort, say
Speaker 1: yes they believe in angels. And a pause here, because
Speaker 1: that's a that's a tricky question. That statistic is worth challenge, Gene,
Speaker 1: because it all depends upon how the question is asked,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Like if you simply say, hey,
Speaker 1: do you if you're catching people right outside of a
Speaker 1: church service as they're on their way out, and they say,
Speaker 1: do you believe in angels, it's safe to say just
Speaker 1: based on how human psychology works, they're very much they're
Speaker 1: much more likely to say yes. There's all there's social
Speaker 1: pressure in that environment. If you did it that way,
Speaker 1: that's true, I agree and say yes, yes, of course
Speaker 1: I do. And there so often seems to be such
Speaker 1: an all or nothing approach to that flavor of religion. Sorry,
Speaker 1: flavor is a weird choice of words, but you know
Speaker 1: what I mean like it. It certainly feels like people
Speaker 1: would be encouraged to not just take the bits they like,
Speaker 1: but you have to believe in all of the lore
Speaker 1: and every part of what's in the Bible as being
Speaker 1: the truth, or at least say you do, because let's
Speaker 1: not forget there's a lot of cherry picking um from
Speaker 1: various religions, I mean, tail as old as time. But
Speaker 1: one of my favorite examples is, uh, this author who
Speaker 1: wrote a book called Living Biblically. Have you guys heard
Speaker 1: of this book? I have not? Oh wait, is this
Speaker 1: the one where he lives according to the teachings of
Speaker 1: the Bible for a period of time? And like, where's
Speaker 1: his beard long? And all of that stuff? What's the
Speaker 1: guy's name? H? A J. J. J. J. Jacobs. He
Speaker 1: was on Part Time Genius talking about this The Year
Speaker 1: of Living Biblically, one man's humble quest to follow the
Speaker 1: Bible as literally as possible. He runs into a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that was treated with great import you know,
Speaker 1: but is generally not followed in today's modern age by
Speaker 1: most people who would consider themselves practitioners of the of
Speaker 1: Christianity or practitioners of a faith of the Book of
Speaker 1: the Abramaic variety he he ran into one are the
Speaker 1: ones that was the most surprising to me was when
Speaker 1: he ran into the band against wearing two different types
Speaker 1: of fabric. That was a big deal. You were not
Speaker 1: supposed us to do that. And so often, even people
Speaker 1: who feel that they are following the letter and the
Speaker 1: spirit of the law as determined by these religious works,
Speaker 1: they'll skip some stuff, you know what I mean, They'll
Speaker 1: have some some polyester, I'll have some nylon or whatever
Speaker 1: the band fabrics are. But you gotta do what you
Speaker 1: gotta do what you gotta do. But it may well
Speaker 1: surprise a lot of people to find that, at least
Speaker 1: according to this study, the belief in angels is so
Speaker 1: prevalent even in this increasingly secular world. So we have
Speaker 1: to ask ourselves what is it about angels that so
Speaker 1: captures human imagination even now in nine And to answer
Speaker 1: that question, we have to continue Maybe busting myths is
Speaker 1: is not a good choice words here, but we we
Speaker 1: have to continue clarifying what angels were historically and how
Speaker 1: they became um so closely as asociated with that cultural
Speaker 1: icon of the flowing robes and the harp and the halo,
Speaker 1: which again, just it reminds me of how Coca Cola
Speaker 1: managed to codify the appearance of Santa Claus. Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's true. It's true story. But but here's the fact. So,
Speaker 1: first off, where does the name angel come from. Well,
Speaker 1: the word itself is derived from the Greek word angelos,
Speaker 1: which means messenger Molak, the Hebrew word for angel, also
Speaker 1: means messenger. In both words quite neatly fit in with
Speaker 1: the Persian word for angel, which is a garos, similarly
Speaker 1: meaning a courier. Mm hmmm. So this so we know
Speaker 1: now that all of the earlier uses of this concept
Speaker 1: meant someone who brings a message, right, Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: servant or child or you know, any of these other
Speaker 1: things that you kind of sometimes are scribed to angels,
Speaker 1: like the children of God in some way in the
Speaker 1: offspring of God, the servants of God. Now, these are
Speaker 1: messengers of God. And the various similarities between these preceding
Speaker 1: words and phrases has led some researchers to speculate that
Speaker 1: the earliest form of what we would call angel comes
Speaker 1: from a Sentian linear b script a kai row and
Speaker 1: this leads us to one of the most important crucial
Speaker 1: things we have to establish here. If we haven't, if
Speaker 1: we haven't clearly said it already, the belief in angels
Speaker 1: or beings like them is in no way restricted to
Speaker 1: the Abramaic religions. We just tend to hear about this viewpoint,
Speaker 1: at least the four of us. Matt Noel palm myself,
Speaker 1: because we live in the United States. We are in
Speaker 1: and of the Western world, which means that most people
Speaker 1: are going to share even if even if they do
Speaker 1: not ascribe to a specific um Abramaic religion, they're going
Speaker 1: to share that cultural view of what an angel is.
Speaker 1: You know. But this um this is not a purely Christian,
Speaker 1: Judaic or Muslim thing. The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism has
Speaker 1: beings very very similar to angels, and Zoroastrianism is its
Speaker 1: own fascinating religion that we could do a do a
Speaker 1: different episode on. We really should, because I want to
Speaker 1: dive deeper into that. It's the source of the name
Speaker 1: Mazda and cars. Actually, that's wonderful. It's it's fascinating for sure.
Speaker 1: In Abrameric religions, angels are often depicted as these benevolent
Speaker 1: celestial beings and their intermediaries between we mud walkers and God.
Speaker 1: And this makes sense right because they said earlier know them.
Speaker 1: They're primarily depicted as messengers, but they have other roles
Speaker 1: to they do other stuff. Oh yeah, sometimes they will
Speaker 1: pop down to protect someone, maybe impregnate someone. I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: that was God, right, that wasn't an angel or a dude.
Speaker 1: They also will smite people. Oh yeah, definitely. The archangels
Speaker 1: will come down and and take you out if you're
Speaker 1: doing the wrong thing. But see, it's so it's so
Speaker 1: interesting with some of the tales and philosophies behind intervention
Speaker 1: between heaven and Earth and all of these things. Ah,
Speaker 1: I love these topics so much. But yeah, so they'll
Speaker 1: protect you, they'll smite you, they might impregnate you. Um,
Speaker 1: but they're what that's about it. They'll do little tasks.
Speaker 1: Sometimes task is signed by God, so that could be
Speaker 1: anything from conveying a message to perhaps delivering someone from peril. Right,
Speaker 1: they pray to God and God sends someone. It's interesting
Speaker 1: because in some of the earlier appearances in the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: for instance, God is is a hands on manager. God
Speaker 1: shows up and specifically talks to people God will, God
Speaker 1: will directly intervene, and as the story continues, God seems
Speaker 1: to be increasingly communicating through intermediaries and the Christian faith.
Speaker 1: It's through Jesus Christ for instance, right, and the yeah,
Speaker 1: the priest if it's Catholic, Yeah, yes, spot on. And
Speaker 1: so what we see is that the concept of what
Speaker 1: an angel is and what an angel does evolved along
Speaker 1: with the commonly agreed upon understanding of the nature of God.
Speaker 1: And within these abramaic religions, angels are organized into hierarchies.
Speaker 1: This happens another religions too, but the specifics of the
Speaker 1: hierarchy may differ across various belief systems. And that leads
Speaker 1: us to angels today. Right, So fast forward thousands of
Speaker 1: years of history. We did a very quick and dirt
Speaker 1: the summary of it. Yeah, the angels got in the outfield.
Speaker 1: The angels, uh when in the airwaves? We said, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was you know, Tom Delongs angels. You know, the
Speaker 1: angels definitely did other things. They show up in the
Speaker 1: Twilight Zone. There's a lovely inept guardian angel attempting to
Speaker 1: earn its wings. That's a really sweet episode. That's one
Speaker 1: of the not depressing Twilight Zones, and that's one of
Speaker 1: the I think that's one of the only recurrent characters
Speaker 1: in the Twilight Zone universe other than you know, my
Speaker 1: boy Rod Serling. You know what I think of when
Speaker 1: I think of angels, which as far as the depiction
Speaker 1: is the depiction of angels in Dogma by Kevin Smith,
Speaker 1: where they had no genitals. Yeah, angels have been depicted
Speaker 1: as androgynous beans at time, which is strange because it
Speaker 1: doesn't really jibe with some of the ancient angel stories,
Speaker 1: which will we'll get to right And for the true believers,
Speaker 1: angels in the modern day largely function as they did
Speaker 1: in the past, more directly. They're bringing messages from a
Speaker 1: deity and accomplishing earthly task for that power, perhaps specifically
Speaker 1: focusing on one person. The belief in a guardian angel
Speaker 1: that looks after you as an individual and your individual
Speaker 1: soul is still very much in play in the world today.
Speaker 1: And this leads us to another question, which is a
Speaker 1: question we do not mean in an offensive way at all.
Speaker 1: Your personal beliefs are your own. It's a question that
Speaker 1: the world has still grappled with, which is this, Where
Speaker 1: is the proof we we have, we have compelling evidence
Speaker 1: that more than half, well more than half of uh
Speaker 1: people in the United States claim to believe in some
Speaker 1: sort of thing like this. But at this point, there
Speaker 1: has been no confirmed discovery of any physical leaving that
Speaker 1: would inarguably indicate the presence of something matching the various
Speaker 1: descriptions of an angel. There have been many alleged relics
Speaker 1: right there, not only depictions and art, but also feathers
Speaker 1: or ectoplasm that purportedly manifested during a divine sighting, interaction
Speaker 1: and situation. For lack of a better phrase, and the
Speaker 1: overwhelming mass of what people interpret as proof of angels
Speaker 1: up to this point has unfortunately been based on anecdotes,
Speaker 1: personal belief and faith. Again, this is not to deride
Speaker 1: anybody who believes in these entities, nor is it meant
Speaker 1: to dismiss your personal views. It's it's best to call
Speaker 1: it unfortunate simply because without physical, verifiable evidence, most people
Speaker 1: who do not believe in these sorts of creatures will
Speaker 1: never see a reason to change their minds. Otherwise they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: you have a story right where let's say you had
Speaker 1: a near death experience and you spoke with something that
Speaker 1: you perceived be an angel that told you you still
Speaker 1: had work to do, and then you woke up in
Speaker 1: the hospital right miraculously recovering. You have been dead for
Speaker 1: anywhere from two to thirteen minutes or something like that,
Speaker 1: your heart wasn't beating. That's that's a very common story.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, I would be surprised if
Speaker 1: some of us listening today have not had a near
Speaker 1: death experience or know someone who has. However, that story
Speaker 1: is not going to convince someone who says, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe they say I'm an atheist, or maybe they say
Speaker 1: I'm a spiritual person, but I don't believe in this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. I think it's tradition. I think it's
Speaker 1: more folklore than fact, unless there were some sort of
Speaker 1: physical evidence, because you see, there may be one more
Speaker 1: piece of proof, something that true believers feel is all
Speaker 1: too often ignored. What if, in a way, the things
Speaker 1: people call angels have left a trace on the waking world.
Speaker 1: And what if it wasn't um, you know, bones hollowed
Speaker 1: out somewhere between bird bones and human bones. What if
Speaker 1: it wasn't a massive feathers uh secreted away in some
Speaker 1: reliquary right. What if it wasn't ectoplasm in a hundreds
Speaker 1: year old vial. What if it was something a little
Speaker 1: more sophisticated, like a language. Okay, I'm in and let's
Speaker 1: learn about it. Back, let's learn about it after a
Speaker 1: quick break from from this, because we're gonna hear from
Speaker 1: our sponsor and we're back. It appears that we have
Speaker 1: not been smited yet. So here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 1: Language a language of angels. The concept of angelic script
Speaker 1: sounds pretty bizarre at first blush right, But for centuries
Speaker 1: people have treated this concept with solemnity and seriousness. It
Speaker 1: is called Enochian script after the Biblical character Enoch. And
Speaker 1: it all originates, I mean, at least on this earthly
Speaker 1: playing with a guy named John d d e E.
Speaker 1: He'll be familiar to some of us and others might
Speaker 1: just be a vague name. So who is this guy?
Speaker 1: And he was real familiar to some from our alchemy episode. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's correct, So Mr John d uh he is welcomed
Speaker 1: into this world. Way back in fifteen seven in London.
Speaker 1: He was an English mathematician and a natural philosopher, which
Speaker 1: at the time is I guess as close as you
Speaker 1: could get to being a scientist or what would become scientists,
Speaker 1: um and the predacensor. Really, he was also a student
Speaker 1: of the occult, as we mentioned, as you might imagine
Speaker 1: knowing that he's involved in alchemy at some point in
Speaker 1: his life. But this dude was, I don't know how
Speaker 1: to put it. He was crazy educated, oh man, and
Speaker 1: at a time when very few people went to school
Speaker 1: and a literacy was rampant, because you know, honestly, many
Speaker 1: people would live their lives from cradle to grave without
Speaker 1: really needing to know how to read. He entered St
Speaker 1: John's College, Cambridge in fifteen forty two. I got a
Speaker 1: bachelor's degree there and then a master's degree. He became
Speaker 1: a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge when it was founded
Speaker 1: in fifteen forty six. This guy's old school and influential.
Speaker 1: Then he traveled to Europe, or as they would say
Speaker 1: in British parlance, to the continent, and in fifteen forty
Speaker 1: sevent he made a short visit. Then he stayed from
Speaker 1: forty eight to fifteen fifty one studying under mathematician cartographers,
Speaker 1: people like Pedro Nounez Gama, Frisius Abraham or Tellius and
Speaker 1: Mercatur of the Mercader projection, and he also did self
Speaker 1: directed study in Paris a few other places that have
Speaker 1: been lost to history. He started turning down opportunities. The
Speaker 1: University of Paris offered him a professorship in mathematics and
Speaker 1: fifteen fifty one, and then University of Oxford offered him
Speaker 1: essentially the same thing in fifteen fifty four, but he said, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be an academic locked in some
Speaker 1: ivory tower. I have higher aims. I have political aims. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wanna be a part of not royalty necessarily, but
Speaker 1: I want to be a part of the people that
Speaker 1: actually make the decisions. I'm gonna parlay this big noggat
Speaker 1: of mine some power. I could see him as both
Speaker 1: a protagonist and an antagonist in some movie where he's
Speaker 1: the extremely intelligent guy on the side, like the Jaffar
Speaker 1: figure or a resputant type figure. But yeah, but he
Speaker 1: seems to be like at least well intentioned to our
Speaker 1: to our knowledge, and he was a huge icon fairly
Speaker 1: early on in the pop culture at the time. The
Speaker 1: character of Prospero and the Tempest is based on him.
Speaker 1: It's like quote unquote widely thought to be the case.
Speaker 1: It's true. It's based on him one guy's opinion. That's
Speaker 1: just my opinion. But the evidence is there. So yeah.
Speaker 1: So he decides that he's going to join the court.
Speaker 1: He's gonna work in service of the English crown. This
Speaker 1: plan is successful. He returns to England and he becomes
Speaker 1: a member of the court because he offers to teach
Speaker 1: mathematics to courtiers and to navigators, and eventually he becomes
Speaker 1: a consultant and astrologer to Queen Mary one. And this
Speaker 1: is at this level of political power. This is similar
Speaker 1: to being both on the cabinet of the president and
Speaker 1: the astrologer, kind of like how Ronald Reagan had an astrologer.
Speaker 1: That's true, you can look it up. It's true. This
Speaker 1: this is a dream job, right, this is what he wanted.
Speaker 1: It landed him in jail in fifteen fifty five. He
Speaker 1: was charged with being a conjurer. As it happens, it
Speaker 1: let him out a little later, but but it is
Speaker 1: on the books. So this is the first time he
Speaker 1: gets a criminal record. I wonder what he conjured to
Speaker 1: get that sentence, or was accused of conjuring. I didn't.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that anywhere. Maybe it's just a tiny
Speaker 1: little imp that he was gonna have assist him in
Speaker 1: his work. What what conjuring a small homunculusus and you
Speaker 1: know whatever, Maybe it was just a small black cat.
Speaker 1: Is a homunculus like inherently have a hunch? Doesn't it
Speaker 1: doesn't homunculus have a hunch, doesn't have to, It doesn't
Speaker 1: have to have What is it? What is it? What
Speaker 1: is a homunculus? That it is a It is almost
Speaker 1: like a familiar depenion on the stories, but it's it's
Speaker 1: created life, made by an alchemist, usually with some combination
Speaker 1: of a bodily fluid like blood seamen, or you're in
Speaker 1: certain types of canations, certain types of mud and herbs.
Speaker 1: So it could it be a mud person or like
Speaker 1: a rock creature of some kind of given life. It's
Speaker 1: closer to a golem. Ah, you guys, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to me. And I've always heard that term. I've always
Speaker 1: associated it with like an igor or like some sort
Speaker 1: of grotesque, you know, disfigured um sidekick. They are usually
Speaker 1: they are usually supposed to be um. I don't know
Speaker 1: when they're depicted. They're they're typically going to be depicted
Speaker 1: as deformed in some way or imperfect, because only in
Speaker 1: this environment, only God can create a truly perfect being. Right,
Speaker 1: so I have a I have a recipe to build
Speaker 1: a homoculous attributed to Paracelsis from his book day naturnoum
Speaker 1: in seven. If you want to hear it, can we can?
Speaker 1: We try it right now? Um, probably don't have the materials. Well,
Speaker 1: we do, but it's not safe for work. That's fair,
Speaker 1: thank you. Let's give it up. Let's just hear it.
Speaker 1: That the sperm of a man be putrified by itself
Speaker 1: in a sealed cucurbit for forty days, and the highest
Speaker 1: degree of putrification in a horse's womb, or at least
Speaker 1: so long that it comes to life and moves itself
Speaker 1: and stirs, which is easily observed. After this time it
Speaker 1: will look somewhat like a man, but transparent without a body.
Speaker 1: If after this it be fed wisely with the arcanem
Speaker 1: of human blood and be nurished for up to forty
Speaker 1: weeks and be kept in the even heat of the
Speaker 1: horse's womb, a living child grows therefrom with all its
Speaker 1: members like another child which is born of a woman,
Speaker 1: but much smaller. I have questions, does this involve having
Speaker 1: sex with a horse. No, but it says the sperm
Speaker 1: has to putrefy in the horse's womb. That's right, But
Speaker 1: it doesn't say anything about the horse being alive. So
Speaker 1: does this have Does this involve having sex with a
Speaker 1: dead horse? I don't think it has to it. That's
Speaker 1: really you know, this is the wild West of alchemy
Speaker 1: at this point. Man. Uh, that's really If that's how
Speaker 1: you want to attempt you are homoculous, then just don't
Speaker 1: tell me about it. I also heard I also heard
Speaker 1: an alternative. The horse was just an option, right that
Speaker 1: you said you could also do it in age it.
Speaker 1: When I want to hear putrefy, I'm hearing like ferment, right?
Speaker 1: Is that was that? That was how you would maybe
Speaker 1: interpret that word aging the sperm. You could do it
Speaker 1: in some kind of stone vessel. I feel like for
Speaker 1: for this guy, and did the toum the the the
Speaker 1: horse's womb is tantamount? Yeah? Well, there was a YouTube
Speaker 1: series of homuncular where this one dude was attempting to
Speaker 1: make homunculous or homuncular, and I'm pretty sure it must
Speaker 1: have been fake because of the nasty puppetry that I
Speaker 1: believe he was doing was just disgusting to look at,
Speaker 1: and the processes that he was describing and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: It was back in the day and I couldn't find
Speaker 1: it just now trying to look it up. But does
Speaker 1: anyone else recall seeing that in searching on YouTube, perhaps
Speaker 1: of a guy trying to make AMUNCULI I've seen some
Speaker 1: stuff like it, and it was I was inclined to
Speaker 1: believe it was a bit or performance art, but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, Sometimes it could be tough to
Speaker 1: tell when people are being sincere on the internet and
Speaker 1: when they're having a go, when they're having a laugh.
Speaker 1: It was Oh no, I found it. It It was a
Speaker 1: Russian YouTuber. I can't find the original one. It's a
Speaker 1: bunch of re uploads the Russian gentleman. Well sir, if
Speaker 1: you are listening, we hope you were doing well and
Speaker 1: we look forward to hearing how your experiments have worked out.
Speaker 1: And just a little plug, our buddies Joe and Robert
Speaker 1: over stuff to blow your mind, have a whole episode
Speaker 1: on how to make a homunculus and other horrors. Oh, oh, horrors.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's a that's a little bit editorializing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but so aby, how are the John Yes, So he
Speaker 1: also had this interest in the occult. Clearly he's an astrologer.
Speaker 1: This is the time when natural philosophy represents both a
Speaker 1: mixture of what we would recognize the science today and
Speaker 1: what we would recognize as magic or the belief and such.
Speaker 1: He published something called the monas Hieroglyphica, the Hieroglyphic Monad
Speaker 1: in fifteen sixty four, and he made it through a
Speaker 1: secession of power. When Elizabeth the First descended to the
Speaker 1: throne in fifteen fifty eight, he became one of her
Speaker 1: scientific and medical advisors. And then he was bawling so
Speaker 1: hard that sometime during the mid fifteen sixties he built
Speaker 1: his own laboratory in Mortlake, which was an area near London.
Speaker 1: He amassed the largest private library in the country, had
Speaker 1: over four thousand books in manuscripts. This is in the
Speaker 1: fifteen sixties. You know how long it took to make
Speaker 1: a book in the fifteen hundreds, and just to get
Speaker 1: that many books from all across the world probably, And
Speaker 1: he continued like, let's look at his scientific pursuit. So
Speaker 1: he worked extensively with cartographers, navigators, people that he considered
Speaker 1: intellectual peers, or even people that he thought were just
Speaker 1: asking interesting questions. Because he was a one man library,
Speaker 1: he would loan out these books, he would have people
Speaker 1: over to read his books and his works. He published
Speaker 1: widely across various disciplines. Uh, stuff like the Banger Hit
Speaker 1: General and rare Memorials pertaining to the Perfect Art of
Speaker 1: Navigation in fifteen seventy seven. Uh. And then he published
Speaker 1: stuff like an Aphoristic Introduction his views on natural philosophy
Speaker 1: and Astrology in fifteen fifty eight. And this is pretty cool.
Speaker 1: He actually edited the first version of Euclid's Elements into English,
Speaker 1: which is was extremely helpful. Thank you for doing that
Speaker 1: to all people that came after you, John. That was
Speaker 1: in fifteen seventy And he also had this this I mean,
Speaker 1: we kind of talked about it already, but he was
Speaker 1: so into the occult. And I think it's because it's
Speaker 1: that thing that we discussed on this show all the time,
Speaker 1: that line right between magic and science, and he's already
Speaker 1: kind of writing that line a little bit throughout his
Speaker 1: his spiritual pursuits as well as a scientific pursuits, and
Speaker 1: he just thought the occult was the coolest thing, and
Speaker 1: it grew and grew and grew his interest in this
Speaker 1: and um that thing that we talked about, the hiero
Speaker 1: glyphic monad that we um just mentioned up top, because
Speaker 1: in that he proposed this single mathematical symbol, magical symbol
Speaker 1: that was the key to unlocking basically everything. It was
Speaker 1: like the one the one solution to the unity of
Speaker 1: all things in nature. Yeah, the as above so below. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's true. And it's strange because his interest in
Speaker 1: the occult seems to grow step with his frustration at
Speaker 1: scientific pursuit. He felt that there was a veil between
Speaker 1: him and in the true nature of reality. And it's
Speaker 1: so interesting to me how in these days that whole
Speaker 1: pursuit of scientific um knowledge was very much intertwined in general,
Speaker 1: more more, much more so than today when the world
Speaker 1: seems so separate. Man of science, man of God and
Speaker 1: all that, and a lot of the things that he
Speaker 1: that you know, we look at as being um, mystical
Speaker 1: sort of or a little bit more occult kind of
Speaker 1: got broken off. The whole idea of the monad and
Speaker 1: all that into philosophy. So that's it's almost like create
Speaker 1: birth the whole another pursuit kind of if you think,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's interesting. Yeah, yeah, in the same
Speaker 1: way that alchemy lead to chemistry. Right, this is so far.
Speaker 1: Let's call him the Daytime John d. Right, he's good,
Speaker 1: he's brilliant. He's got a centric interest in the occult.
Speaker 1: But how far did it go? What does he have
Speaker 1: to do with angels? Let's get to them after a
Speaker 1: word from our sponsor. So here we have John D's
Speaker 1: in the halls of power. He is considered a world
Speaker 1: class authority on all manner of scientific pursuits and disciplines
Speaker 1: and exercises and philosophy. He's also an unhappy dude. He's
Speaker 1: getting increasingly frustrated because he wants to build a comprehensive
Speaker 1: understanding of the natural world. And so, in let's say,
Speaker 1: maybe desperation or just in the next step of his
Speaker 1: continuing quest, he began seeking supernatural or divine assistance. He
Speaker 1: attempted to speak with angels in the hundreds. By the way,
Speaker 1: you ran a a severely high risk of death or
Speaker 1: dismemberment by saying that you didn't believe in angels, So
Speaker 1: anyone who doesn't count yourself lucky today right in Fife specifically,
Speaker 1: he began performing a long series of magical research projects.
Speaker 1: Earlier that year, when he was around fifty four, he
Speaker 1: had written in his journal that God had sent quote
Speaker 1: good angels to communicate directly with human beings, and so
Speaker 1: he had set himself up to make contact with these angels.
Speaker 1: But he had a problem. You see, he was not
Speaker 1: a medium. He had attempted to scry and found that
Speaker 1: he had no ability to see the other side or
Speaker 1: interact with it. Scrying is the act of a meditative
Speaker 1: divinatory act, wherein you might stare into a crystal ball,
Speaker 1: for instance, or in some cultures an obsidian mirror or
Speaker 1: a container of water. I always thought is when you
Speaker 1: look at top card of your library and you decided
Speaker 1: to put it either on the back, on the top
Speaker 1: or on the bottom of your library. But that's what
Speaker 1: That's a cool move in magic? Are you still playing magic?
Speaker 1: What I'm talking about? Scrying? Bro real magic? All right? Okay,
Speaker 1: that's right. Matt does scry with a deck of cards.
Speaker 1: He let me look at this. What is that? Terror? Okay? Oh?
Speaker 1: I thought you can say seven of clubs. But that
Speaker 1: is not your card. So those are the kind of
Speaker 1: results that John D was having. He just he couldn't
Speaker 1: he couldn't divine this stuff, and he was honest enough
Speaker 1: with himself is very important. He was honest stuff with
Speaker 1: himself to say, well, I'm not doing it. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to delude myself. I am certain that this talent exists,
Speaker 1: but I am likewise certain that either I had do
Speaker 1: not have it, or I don't have a strong enough
Speaker 1: capacity to learn it. So eventually he did find a medium,
Speaker 1: or at least he thought he did. He had old
Speaker 1: numerous seances in England and other European countries across the continent,
Speaker 1: in the company of his hired medium fellow named Edward Kelly,
Speaker 1: who will get to in a moment, but it's very
Speaker 1: important in this story. In his attempt to contact angels,
Speaker 1: D was seeking that universal language of creation. He thought
Speaker 1: it would bring about a pre apocalyptic unity of human kind.
Speaker 1: He thought that everyone, despite their differences, knowing this language
Speaker 1: would discover some sort of um tangible and supernatural and
Speaker 1: philosophical truth about the nature of the universe and Earth
Speaker 1: and humanity's place in it, and that this would promote peace,
Speaker 1: this would stop pointless wars. Someone like a somewhat utopian, right.
Speaker 1: I can totally see where he could get that belief.
Speaker 1: It sounds very similar to some of the stuff we've
Speaker 1: been discussing earlier with the whole Watchman AUSI mandious thing
Speaker 1: like if we all had that one connection for sure,
Speaker 1: for certain that makes the world bigger than us, then
Speaker 1: maybe we would all get along. Yeah, we have a
Speaker 1: we have a lot of them. One stop shoppery in
Speaker 1: in in the story of Human Aims. Right. The guy
Speaker 1: who who created Esperanto also thought that it would help
Speaker 1: end the war because everyone would speak the same language. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Esperanto is a great language, by the way, very few
Speaker 1: people speak it, but it's a great language. I just
Speaker 1: remember like researching it back in the day for the
Speaker 1: old website and learning about William Shatner's wonderful film. Well, well,
Speaker 1: let's so John d He totally thinks that's gonna happen, right,
Speaker 1: and he goes to some pretty extensive lengths to try
Speaker 1: and make it happen, to to try and prove that
Speaker 1: it's true. Yeah, they have He and Edward Kelly have
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of sessions from eighty two until fifty seven,
Speaker 1: and and during these sessions they come to believe that
Speaker 1: they are communicating regularly with actual angels, and they each
Speaker 1: have their role to play. They're they're like a two
Speaker 1: man band. So D will be the orator and the supplicants,
Speaker 1: so he will be asking these questions. He will ask
Speaker 1: them often by directing prayers to God and God's arcangicles,
Speaker 1: and then he would invoke them to manifest themselves in
Speaker 1: his scrying stone. For him, it was a black obsidian mirror.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you guys have seen those in person,
Speaker 1: but they look really cool. It kind of gives you
Speaker 1: like a sort of a blurred kind of reflection, right,
Speaker 1: black mirror esque. Yeah, and Kelly would act as the
Speaker 1: ski er. So SOD is invoking these powers and asking
Speaker 1: them things, and Kelly is watching for their reactions. He
Speaker 1: would see visions rejected in this mirror and he would
Speaker 1: describe them to D and then D would write them down.
Speaker 1: So cool, and everything picks up steam around the year
Speaker 1: fifteen eighty two or fifteen eighty three. Yeah, that's when
Speaker 1: John d and Edward Kelly claimed to have received communication
Speaker 1: directly from the angels. Who supposedly allegedly provided them with
Speaker 1: the foundations of this language which can be used to
Speaker 1: communicate with the other side. Um. This angelic language had
Speaker 1: its own alphabet, syntax, grammar, all of which they wrote
Speaker 1: down in their journals, and they dubbed this new language Enochian,
Speaker 1: which of course sprang from D's idea that the biblical
Speaker 1: patriarch Enoch, sort of a Methusilah esque figure in the Bible,
Speaker 1: was the last human to know this language, and D
Speaker 1: in common conversation, preferred to call this language angelical or
Speaker 1: the celestial speech. He also called it the first language
Speaker 1: of God Christ and particularly it was fond of calling
Speaker 1: it ademical like Adam Keel, because he claimed it was
Speaker 1: the language spoken by Adam, the biblical Adam and the
Speaker 1: Garden of Eden during the naming of all of God's creatures,
Speaker 1: walk the earth, swim the sea, fly in the air.
Speaker 1: That's that's an interesting concept that Adam somehow spoke the
Speaker 1: same language as all of the angels. Yeah, well way,
Speaker 1: oh is he going to speak Esperanto? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's so make It makes so much sense though, if
Speaker 1: you're you're coming from heaven, where all the angels already exist,
Speaker 1: and you're going to bestow life upon this creature in
Speaker 1: this new world, in this new place. Yeah, you teach
Speaker 1: him the like what do you know that? Wow? And
Speaker 1: it's interesting because for d at this time, this is
Speaker 1: not a crazy assumption. This is barely an assumption. He
Speaker 1: had not conceived of a world in which people could
Speaker 1: exist without language, you know what I mean, Like at
Speaker 1: this time, in the fifteen hundreds, there's not going to
Speaker 1: be anyone arguing for the slow evolution of primates right
Speaker 1: from an arboreal species to two legged people walking and
Speaker 1: and working out or accelerating their differences through a series
Speaker 1: of a series of organized noises. What what you're talking about? So,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I say is people were created
Speaker 1: according to the story that he had heard, and that uh,
Speaker 1: people would literally be killed for disagreeing with right at
Speaker 1: this time, so of course there had to be some
Speaker 1: sort of speech. How else would one communicate? Well, it
Speaker 1: could be in the form of dance, like in the
Speaker 1: Netflix show The o A. Oh. Yeah, that was the
Speaker 1: like the Angel language, only I think there was an alphabet.
Speaker 1: There was some written versions of it in that show,
Speaker 1: but it was largely it was largely communicated through these
Speaker 1: amazing dance moves. I watched that so long ago, although
Speaker 1: it wasn't that longer. Remember the dancing when a sixteen,
Speaker 1: It feels like a lifetime ago, like we're due for
Speaker 1: another season and that I'm pretty sure it got green lamp. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they just had the one season so far. I think
Speaker 1: it did get renewed, but I don't know when it's
Speaker 1: going to come out. It would be nice because maybe
Speaker 1: they could answer even one of the questions to post
Speaker 1: in season one. But but at least Punish your two
Speaker 1: is out right now. Yeah, really only not doing very well.
Speaker 1: I don't care. It's so good. I enjoyed it. I
Speaker 1: feel like I get it. You know, he gets me,
Speaker 1: so so Punisher aside, these beans with whom d and
Speaker 1: Kelly were in communication told them that being able to
Speaker 1: speak this language, being able to speak this ancient pre
Speaker 1: human anachi and tongue, would unlock the doors to unlimited knowledge, wisdom,
Speaker 1: and power. So let's let's get away from those claims.
Speaker 1: Let's look at what what it actually is. You can
Speaker 1: go online as you're listening to this episode, and you
Speaker 1: can scroll through different analyzes and interpretations of versions of
Speaker 1: this alphabet. It is composed of a twenty one letter alphabet.
Speaker 1: It was written from right to left, unlike English. There
Speaker 1: are two different versions. The first is in the manuscript
Speaker 1: that d created called the First Five Books of the Mysteries.
Speaker 1: The second, which is a more widely accepted version today,
Speaker 1: comes from a book called liber Loge, which is allegedly
Speaker 1: based on Kelly's original drawings. It's got forty nine great
Speaker 1: letter tables or squares that are made up of forty
Speaker 1: nine by forty nine letters, and it's said to be
Speaker 1: the first corpus of text in this purportedly angelic language.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, Dean Kelly said, the angels never
Speaker 1: translated the text in that book. However, a year later
Speaker 1: there were some texts that emerged that did come with
Speaker 1: English translations, and therefore we see this as providing the
Speaker 1: basis for anachi in vocabulary. The texts have poetic verses,
Speaker 1: their forty eight of them. D in his Manuscripts calls
Speaker 1: them the Angelic keys, and each key is assigned a
Speaker 1: specific function within this magical system. D you see, was
Speaker 1: planning to use them to open the forty nine gates
Speaker 1: of wisdom or understanding represented by the forty nine magic
Speaker 1: squares in in this pre existing book. So that's the
Speaker 1: that's long and short, but surprise, it gets complicated. I mean,
Speaker 1: just what am I doing with my life if I
Speaker 1: if I can't have a goal like unlocking the forty nine,
Speaker 1: the forty nine Gates of Wisdom, you just don't have
Speaker 1: magic squares. That's just so cool, isn't it. If Like,
Speaker 1: if I go, I'm going every day I'm toiling in
Speaker 1: the basement somewhere trying to It's really important not to
Speaker 1: compare yourselves to others. That's what social media is. It's
Speaker 1: causing us to do. When I was in UM, when
Speaker 1: I was carded off to this smart kids camp in
Speaker 1: a different lifetime, one of the things that they made
Speaker 1: us swear to do they were pretty lax on everything,
Speaker 1: but one of the things they made us do was
Speaker 1: swear not to leave a place they called the Magic Square.
Speaker 1: And one of the other kids that was there with
Speaker 1: me was convinced that that it was evidence of some
Speaker 1: sort of devious arcane Shenanigan. WHOA, I think it was
Speaker 1: just the name. Yeah, it wasn't salt or anything. You're sure, well,
Speaker 1: I mean no, but seriously, unlocking the forty nine Gates
Speaker 1: of Wisdom is like the best quest that you could
Speaker 1: ever find in a video game. That sounds incredible, But
Speaker 1: he John D. Was trying to do that. I r
Speaker 1: L Yes, yeah, And that leads us to a question,
Speaker 1: did he succeed? What a great question. Because of the
Speaker 1: loss of parts of his original manuscripts, there are multi
Speaker 1: double at times conflicting interpretations regarding the meaning, validity, or
Speaker 1: authenticity of this language. Almost immediately after it was first published,
Speaker 1: the language was met with suspicion, skepticism, and not a
Speaker 1: small dose of hostility, because by the sixteenth and seventeen centuries,
Speaker 1: this enoch In script was considered legitimate proof of communication
Speaker 1: with other worldlier supernatural beings. Not angels, however, demons. That
Speaker 1: makes so much sense to me, just the idea that
Speaker 1: a human could never reach the heights of the heaven too,
Speaker 1: of heaven the heavens to communicate with God. But if
Speaker 1: you are attempting communication like that, a treacherous demon from
Speaker 1: down below is going to intercede and then give you lies,
Speaker 1: essentially on purpose, the corruption yep, to mislead you, right
Speaker 1: to put you in rebellion against the true powers that be,
Speaker 1: and the whole time you'd think that you're in communication
Speaker 1: with angels. One of the supporting platforms for that argument
Speaker 1: would be the idea that the devil and infernal forces
Speaker 1: typically used deception and trickery right to lead people away
Speaker 1: from the light. They also be angels or supernatural entities
Speaker 1: that created this language or communicated in it. Were said
Speaker 1: to have discredited the existence of the Holy Ghost. These
Speaker 1: kind of claims the the idea that you shouldn't pray
Speaker 1: to or through Jesus Christ, or that the Holy Ghost
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. They directly attack the foundations of Christianity, and
Speaker 1: this caused people to conclude that the quote unquote good
Speaker 1: angels that d and Kelly contacted were actually demons. Demons
Speaker 1: in this sense could be a reference to fallen angels,
Speaker 1: the formerly divine creatures that rebelled against God, prompting a
Speaker 1: war in heaven and were cast down into the pit
Speaker 1: or escaped to the earth, or you know, it could
Speaker 1: be h could be a reference to the watchers and
Speaker 1: also occur in the Book of Enoch, right, the angels
Speaker 1: that were supposed to keep an eye on mankind, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. The babysitters more or less, but
Speaker 1: then lost their way, slept with the daughters of men
Speaker 1: and created Nefilim. Weren't those the big rock monsters from
Speaker 1: the Darren Aronofsky and Noah movie. Yes, they were. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the coolest part about that movie. But but but very
Speaker 1: out of left field. It kind of like threw me
Speaker 1: for a loop. Hold on. Yeah, but again, we were
Speaker 1: talking about skepticism at the time and everything, and you know,
Speaker 1: I can hear some of you out there. Um, I
Speaker 1: can hear the skepticism in my headphones from the future.
Speaker 1: I can just hear it. I'm listening to it. I
Speaker 1: can hear it because it's happening within me. Um. Up
Speaker 1: there it is. Again, it's just kind of a general stress. Um.
Speaker 1: But but that knock, I'm not sure what it was, um,
Speaker 1: but it's I guess it's just you. You kind of
Speaker 1: have to put yourself in them and really in the mindset.
Speaker 1: And that's what we've been trying to do in building
Speaker 1: up to this. You know, where we are giving you
Speaker 1: the history and the kind of the background of this stuff.
Speaker 1: You just have to put your mind yourself in the
Speaker 1: mindset of somebody in the Freds that truly, truly believes
Speaker 1: these things. And this is your This is um the
Speaker 1: concrete upon which your entire you know, world is built.
Speaker 1: So just remember that and don't scoff at it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: don't be I mean, don't be dismissive. Look, there were
Speaker 1: people who lived, you know, five hundred or two thousands
Speaker 1: something years ago. Nowadays, it's it's alarmingly easy for people
Speaker 1: the modern age to dismiss those folks and say, oh,
Speaker 1: that was that was so uneducated, or how could you
Speaker 1: believe this kind of thing, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: But we are benefiting from centuries and millennia of progress
Speaker 1: that none of us living had anything to do with.
Speaker 1: We are standing on the shoulders of giants, and we
Speaker 1: are ourselves making assumptions that will look cartoonish to people
Speaker 1: even twenty years from now. And we say all of
Speaker 1: that because it wasn't necessarily in any way the spiritual
Speaker 1: nature of the claims. That were the things that seemed
Speaker 1: that that people were most skeptical of. Yes, okay, So
Speaker 1: for the people who outright said this is flynn flammery,
Speaker 1: this is malarkey, this is balder dash. There were two
Speaker 1: primary factors that indicated to them, this whole thing was
Speaker 1: a fraud. First, Edward Kelly, who mentioned Edward Kelly Alchemists
Speaker 1: self described to medium partner in this X spluration with
Speaker 1: John D. He had another life before his foray into
Speaker 1: the spiritual frontier. He was a known counterfeitter. He had
Speaker 1: been arrested for forgery, he had been pilloried, he had
Speaker 1: been to the dogs and back. So that makes him,
Speaker 1: you know, a person of questionable character. Secondly, the prophecies
Speaker 1: mentioned in the Enochian communications don't actually come true, even
Speaker 1: relatively mundane and specific ones, Like there was a claim
Speaker 1: that D would one day be tried for treason. It
Speaker 1: was not. So maybe they're misreading the timeline. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: a syntax error and translation. But still, if you're not
Speaker 1: getting things right and you're working with somebody that already
Speaker 1: has a reputation as a John D, you know, it
Speaker 1: really does kind of make you question why he's choosing
Speaker 1: to go this route. True, that's a good point, but
Speaker 1: we can see how there was already a contingent of
Speaker 1: people that said, all right, everyone, I know this sounds
Speaker 1: really cool, but we have to checker sources. Right, let's
Speaker 1: go to the modern day. This language, the script is
Speaker 1: still around, and now our species has vastly more sophisticated tools, techniques,
Speaker 1: and in a more profound understanding of how language in
Speaker 1: general is created, composed, and continues to evolve. We now
Speaker 1: have people who travel around the world just to find
Speaker 1: dying languages or just to find new languages that are
Speaker 1: that are blossoming across the planet. So for true believers
Speaker 1: in the modern day, this stuff is the real deal.
Speaker 1: Maybe not specifically angels. Maybe d and Kelly didn't know
Speaker 1: exactly what they were talking to, like those old warnings
Speaker 1: against wigia boards, but regardless, people who consider themselves practicing
Speaker 1: magicians will often say this is a proto language, arguably
Speaker 1: one of the first languages, and as such it has
Speaker 1: incredible mystical power. Speaking things like this, declaring them alters reality,
Speaker 1: very very very potent stuff. But for linguists and for skeptics,
Speaker 1: the structure of the language just does not match up
Speaker 1: with what we know about every other human language. One
Speaker 1: of the primary critics of this is a guy from Australia.
Speaker 1: His name is Donald Lake, and he argues that the
Speaker 1: phonetic features of this language anachi in or ademical script,
Speaker 1: indicate that it was a form of gloss alalia, which
Speaker 1: is speaking in tongues, which we have still somehow not
Speaker 1: done an episode about, which is fine because when you
Speaker 1: say gloss al yeah, it sounds like speaking in tongues.
Speaker 1: This picture like la la la la la la lada.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a Cerros song to me. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: that's totally what they do, right, Isn't that like made
Speaker 1: making up a language like on the Fly's kind of
Speaker 1: I believe at least one album had featured that heavily.
Speaker 1: I thought that was their whole thing, was they have
Speaker 1: a language that vaguely sound Icelandic, but it's actually kind
Speaker 1: of their own thing. It's like a hagan dahs. Good lord,
Speaker 1: that would that would blow my mind. I thought it
Speaker 1: was just that one concept album that they did that.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe you might be right. I'm not like a
Speaker 1: super fan. I like their music, but I always heard
Speaker 1: that that was a thing. Maybe maybe I was hearing
Speaker 1: that specifically about one one record. Let us know, folks,
Speaker 1: what languages Cigar Rose speaking? Save us the Google search,
Speaker 1: So he doesn't end there. Donald also argues that the
Speaker 1: syntax of a Nachian is almost identical with that of English,
Speaker 1: rather than Semitic languages like Arabic or Hebrew, which declaimed
Speaker 1: we're direct degraded descendants of a Nachian. And now most
Speaker 1: linguists are clearly going to agree that this is not
Speaker 1: the secret language of angels? But is it an actual language?
Speaker 1: If it was a fraudulent enterprise, was decomplicit in the deception?
Speaker 1: Was he in on the joke? Was he an accomplice
Speaker 1: or a victim? Yeah? And how much money did he make? Really?
Speaker 1: In the end, how much money do these guys make
Speaker 1: talking about their angelic language. I'm interested. I'm gonna look
Speaker 1: it up, but I don't I haven't seen an actually
Speaker 1: any of the actual numbers there. And again, how much
Speaker 1: was like hidden if there? If money was made, I
Speaker 1: in my for my money, I would say that just
Speaker 1: this is my opinion. D would probably believed it, just
Speaker 1: from what I know about him and what I've learned
Speaker 1: about him and how intelligent he was, unless he was
Speaker 1: just trying to find, uh, you know, a quick fix
Speaker 1: for money, But it doesn't seem like he would need that.
Speaker 1: It seems like he truly believed it, and maybe he
Speaker 1: got duped by Kelly. That's what it feels like to me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's I think that this is a viewpoint. A lot
Speaker 1: of people would agree with Matt because in he his
Speaker 1: work on the subject, Donald Lacook is clearly impressed by
Speaker 1: the consistency of the system of of the language of
Speaker 1: the script at least, and he notes that it exhibits
Speaker 1: a deeper understanding of the Kabbala, specifically than he would
Speaker 1: assume someone like Edward Kelly possessed. But he still believes
Speaker 1: this is a fraud. He does not believe this is
Speaker 1: an otherworldly dictation or an exercise and automatic writing. He
Speaker 1: thinks that Kelly most likely engineered this in pursuit of
Speaker 1: a quick quid, and that D was a sincere partner
Speaker 1: who was unaware of the deception. In his mind, Kelly
Speaker 1: was surreptitiously looking through the works of John d or
Speaker 1: his papers and cribbing that so that he could build
Speaker 1: something that looked convincing to someone who would have D's knowledge.
Speaker 1: And you can do that without understanding what you're mimicking, right,
Speaker 1: that's terrifying concept. I mean, it happens, uh. And Donald
Speaker 1: also believes there's evidence that Kelly he was working off
Speaker 1: of small notes in his sessions. It's interesting in Kelly's
Speaker 1: book on the subject, you can see specific times where
Speaker 1: in the communications with the angels became garbled, and eventually
Speaker 1: Donald Lake can just concludes that Kelly literally got his
Speaker 1: notes in the wrong order, and that's why things didn't
Speaker 1: seem to make sense. Dude. Yeah. Moreover, he notes how
Speaker 1: the language this is interesting. It seems to evolve over
Speaker 1: a short period of time from when they began collecting
Speaker 1: the notes to when they're really hitting their stride. And
Speaker 1: in one passage he specifically asked a great question, it's
Speaker 1: this we have a quotation? Can Kelly have got better
Speaker 1: at producing what was required of him as time went on?
Speaker 1: He must have learned a great deal from living in
Speaker 1: close contact with D, and D's credulity would blind him
Speaker 1: to slight internal contradictions. Interesting, so would have been able
Speaker 1: to present D's knowledge back to him in a way
Speaker 1: that confirmed what D was already certain of it? And
Speaker 1: if so, after D d entered the sunk cost fallacy
Speaker 1: of investing so much belief in time in this, would
Speaker 1: he have just maybe subconsciously ignored things that were clear contradictions.
Speaker 1: There are a couple of times where D does note
Speaker 1: an inconsistency, but there are a lot of times where
Speaker 1: he lets stuff slide. So at this point is where
Speaker 1: it leaves us. People who do not believe in the
Speaker 1: existence of supernatural beings, especially angels, probably will not see
Speaker 1: the Anochian language as any solid proof. There's not we're
Speaker 1: we're not really changing any minds here. But people who
Speaker 1: do believe in in this sort of stuff, in the
Speaker 1: existence of angelic forces or even divine or infernal forces
Speaker 1: that are intangible and usually imperceivable to humans, uh, they
Speaker 1: probably won't see the indication of fraud in the Anachian
Speaker 1: language as an overall refutation of angels entire. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like saying that Australia doesn't exist because
Speaker 1: drop bears are not real? Are you saying drop bears
Speaker 1: aren't real? You're stating that saying it's I mean, send
Speaker 1: me some evidence. I don't think anyone who's ever come
Speaker 1: across the drop bear has lived to tell the tale,
Speaker 1: so I am holding off. Then how do we have
Speaker 1: stories about drop bears? Uh? Obsidian mirror? Okay, well played,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm back in. But it's true. One thing
Speaker 1: being false doesn't invalidate everything associated with it, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. No, that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like it's kind of like saying, well,
Speaker 1: if Tuesday's real, why isn't it tuesday? Now? You know
Speaker 1: what I mean. That's not a very perfect I just
Speaker 1: want to have my best comparison. I just want to
Speaker 1: have that kind of argument all day long. If USB
Speaker 1: is the standard, then why isn't that USB? That's not
Speaker 1: the same. So that's that's totally right. Yeah, he's got
Speaker 1: no no, no, I'm just I'm just some guy who
Speaker 1: doesn't speak knocky and not yet, not yet. We want
Speaker 1: to hear from you, however, Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: checking out today's episode. Uh, first things first, and this
Speaker 1: may be a personal question for some of us. Do
Speaker 1: you feel that it is possible to communicate with things
Speaker 1: that are perhaps beyond the pale um, something from another dimension,
Speaker 1: something from a higher plane of existence. Let's get Graham
Speaker 1: Hancock with it. Let's see what happens when you speak
Speaker 1: directly to your d n A on a d M
Speaker 1: T trip. Right. Oh man, Yeah, that sentence was great.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's not me, that's Graham Hancock. That's
Speaker 1: what he believes. The machine els and stuff. Oh sure, sure,
Speaker 1: but just to put those words right next to each
Speaker 1: other to get a nice ring to it. The DM,
Speaker 1: what do you think that this is a case of
Speaker 1: historical fraud? Do you think there's something else to the story? Um?
Speaker 1: And if so, what or what are some other examples
Speaker 1: of strange languages that you have encountered. You know, we're
Speaker 1: fans of the Voyage manuscript over here, which I think
Speaker 1: someone recently claimed to have decoded it again, but that
Speaker 1: happens every few years, right. You can let us know
Speaker 1: about this through any number of ways. If you do
Speaker 1: not happen to have a black of Citian mirror with
Speaker 1: you at this time, or if you feel your scrying
Speaker 1: skills are a bit rusty and don't want to be mistranslated,
Speaker 1: you can always contact us via the internet. We are
Speaker 1: on Instagram, We're on Facebook, We're on Twitter. Talk to
Speaker 1: the best part of the show, your fellow listeners on
Speaker 1: our Facebook community page. Here's where it gets crazy. You
Speaker 1: can follow me directly on Instagram where I am at
Speaker 1: ben Bolan, I am at Embryonic insider Um. Not available.
Speaker 1: You are so available. You've been there for me and
Speaker 1: then for years now. You're the most emotionally available person
Speaker 1: I had know, if not social medialy available. I just
Speaker 1: like stalking you guys. I saw that great picture from
Speaker 1: the holiday party that we had, the like the super
Speaker 1: late January holiday party. Yeah, somebody nagged me really hard
Speaker 1: on that because Ben said, we, uh, look, we really
Speaker 1: do know how to clean up. And someone says, I
Speaker 1: didn't know a gene jacket was cleaning up and now,
Speaker 1: but the rest of me was cleaned up. Jet, you
Speaker 1: know what you're doing. You're doing. You're doing the thing
Speaker 1: the in cells do where you're just seeing that one negative.
Speaker 1: It was the only content and it was the only
Speaker 1: comment on the There are a ton of comments on
Speaker 1: the picture I saw unless you gotten to it early.
Speaker 1: It was very kind human beings. I think we looked good.
Speaker 1: The only thing that would have made that picture better
Speaker 1: is if our mysterious and enigmatic super producer Paul Mission
Speaker 1: Controlled Decade would have deigned to make an appearance. Oh no,
Speaker 1: he We can't reveal Paul Mission Control if he doesn't
Speaker 1: have that airror of mystery about him, Like what is
Speaker 1: this is basically over for people don't even understand how
Speaker 1: his last name is spelled. I'm not gonna break that
Speaker 1: illusion either. No, no, no, Omerta. Hey, just I gotta
Speaker 1: stop saying, Amerta. This is like the third episode in
Speaker 1: a row where I've just said that as a non sequity.
Speaker 1: What were you going to say? Nothing? I was just
Speaker 1: gonna say, send me your thoughts through your black ob
Speaker 1: city and mirror, because now I'm thinking we need to
Speaker 1: install one here somewhere in the office where we can,
Speaker 1: I don't know, try and communicate or send things through.
Speaker 1: Ben doesn't have a smartphone. Ben exclusively communicates via black
Speaker 1: obsidian mirror. Oh my god, look at your phones right now?
Speaker 1: Would that black mirror idea? I know we're joking, but
Speaker 1: just that concept of the black ob citian mirror, I've
Speaker 1: never actually made that connection. Nice, you're scrying. Oh god, Well,
Speaker 1: if you speaking of phones, if you prefer to communicate
Speaker 1: to a phone, you can't of us a call. We
Speaker 1: have our very own number. It is one eight three
Speaker 1: three S C D W y T K. Yes, give
Speaker 1: us a call, leave us a message, and we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens from there. It's gonna be cool no matter
Speaker 1: what it is. By the way, by calling and leaving
Speaker 1: a message, you give us permission to use your voice
Speaker 1: in the podcast, or or this is a Facebook announcement
Speaker 1: for twenty bucks or something extra, will wire tap your phone.
Speaker 1: Don't about this, Okay, I don't want to keep us
Speaker 1: going too long, but neither, but this is important. It's
Speaker 1: important for anybody who is a teen or has a
Speaker 1: teenager who's using Facebook. I think they cut it short
Speaker 1: because lawmakers became furious with this. But Facebook was offering
Speaker 1: teenagers a nominal fee for complete access to everything they
Speaker 1: do on their phone. Whoa, it was a Facebook research product.
Speaker 1: They would have teenagers install a VPN that let the
Speaker 1: company see everything they did there. And this this story
Speaker 1: just broke as we were going into the into the booth.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, So I'm gonna look at that now.
Speaker 1: Some of those kids are his young a thirteen. Anyway,
Speaker 1: let us know what you think. If none of that
Speaker 1: quite bags your badgers, you can send us your suggestions
Speaker 1: for future episodes, your feedback on this episode, your beliefs
Speaker 1: about big data, big foot skepticism, and everything in between.
Speaker 1: We are conspiracy at how stuff Works dot com