The following is a sneak-peak at a new chapter to my book: The Book of Aquarius. It's still a draft and may need to be rephrased somewhat. Please
give your opinions, arguments and constructive criticism.
How to Tell a Truth
In this chapter I will discuss several factors to look for in order to make an educated guess as to whether something someone has said or written is
true or false, or at least, whether it is reasonably believable or not. I'm adding this chapter five months after the initial publication of this
book, because it has come to my attention that the majority of people are not able to determine the difference between this book and the piles of
misinformation and general airy-fairy nonsense published about alchemy and other esoteric subjects. Because of this, many people tend to either be
skeptical of everything, ignoring the evidence, or else they believe everything they hear, without considering the evidence. Most people fit into one
of these two categories, and both are serious inhibitors to personal growth.
First I will give a short outline concerning the theory of truth and belief.
Believe it or not (pun intended), belief is the dominating factor to something being true. We live in a universe which is created and manipulated by
the beliefs of the beings which are in it. This is the theory, but in practice the world does not directly reflect our own beliefs in the sense that
if you believe the sky is yellow it will become so. The reason for this being that there is a structure to the universal belief system which is
maintained by everyone in it - you would have to convince all the animals, plants, rocks and every atom to also believe the same, as their beliefs are
also a factor. Or, your belief would have to be stronger than the beliefs of all the other consciousnesses in the universe. On a more personal level
though, our beliefs, although they might not affect the outer world, certainly affect our own interpretation of reality, and we do all live in our own
self-created worlds, seeings only what we pay attention to and after it has been filtered through our pre-existing beliefs to ensure it is in
accordance with them.
Take one of Jesus' miracles of turning water into wine: water is not that different from wine. They are both liquid and have more or less the same
consistency. The main differences from our perspective are the color, smell, taste, and the aftereffects of the alcohol. When Jesus turned water into
wine he did so by pouring, from a non-transparent jug. You can see how the belief comes into play, and the level of belief required. The difference
between the two are only subtle, and no one could actually see the water change - the jug was filled with water, but wine poured out, so no one had to
witness the actual transmutation. Jesus' belief then, that he could change the water into wine, was not that advanced. Certainly it is still very
difficult, requiring a magnificent level of awareness, willpower and self-control which few people have ever mastered - but it is much easier than
turning water in a transparent glass into wine, or turning the entire glass and water into a chicken. There are different levels of belief, and they
all have power in themselves.
There is also a fundamental truth, which applies in every situation, because it is part of the underlying structure - it comes from the set of
starting beliefs that must exist for this universe to come into existence. These could be changed in theory, but that would be unpractical, as if you
could do this your belief would be as powerful as God's, and you may as well create your own universe. In this manner there is no "real" absolute
truth, but a fundamental truth may be considered absolute for all purposes, while we are here.
So that was a quick philosophical overview of what truth is, and how it connects to belief. Now we will discuss specifically how to tell if what
someone says is true or false.
Sometimes we come across someone who is telling an outright lie, and other times the writer believes what they are saying to be true when it is not,
and they may even think they are trying to help us (to give themselves a sense of self-worth), or they may be trying to help themselves.
Interestingly, all of these people write in the same manner. The same telling signs which apply to people who are deliberately lying are also used by
those who believe in what they are saying but are actually giving out false information. This is because those people who are spreading an untruth
without knowing believe in facts presented to them in non-reasonable contexts, and so they can only pass this information on in a non-reasonable
context also. Luckily for us, this means we can make a good educated guess as to the validity of the "fact" by actively considering a series of
telling signs about the presented statements.
If you are to believe in something, it should not have reasonable suspicion of doubt, and it should have reasonable evidence for belief.
One particularly troublesome kind of lie is known as Bull# (BS). These are unnecessary deceptions, committed in the gray area between polite white
lies and complete malicious fabrications. BS is usually defined as inventions made in ignorance of the facts, where the primary goal is to protect
oneself. The aim of BS isn’t to harm another person, although that often happens collaterally.
[...] People lie for three reasons; the first is to protect themselves. They may wish to protect something they want or need, a concept they cherish,
or to prevent something they fear, like confrontation. There is often a clear psychological need motivating every lie.
[...] It’s far more dangerous to assume people know what they’re talking about, than it is to assume they don’t and let them prove you wrong.
Be like Socrates: assume people are unaware of their own ignorance (including yourself) and politely, warmly, probe to sort out the
How to Detect Bull#, by Scott Berkun
Quickly I will just outline some bad reasons for believing something (including negative beliefs, i.e. believing something is not true), which many
people use to form new beliefs:
1. Someone told you so.
2. Many people believe the same thing.
3. The belief supports or contradicts another belief you already hold.
(1) and (2) above are obviously bad reasons for believing something, since time and time again the world finds that something everyone believed in is
not true at all (e.g. the Earth is the center of the universe, Newtonian physics explains the universe, etc.), yet the majority of the population
still uses these two unconsciously to form most of their beliefs. (3) is a little more complicated, it is the danger of closing your mind because you
have already formulated a complete belief system which you are comfortable with - this is why it is difficult for older people to believe something
new, whereas younger people (who have still not formed a complete belief system) find it easier to keep an open mind. Up to this point you will have
thousands of beliefs already established, some of which will be incorrect, no matter how intelligent you are, many from childhood which now form a
central set of rules for what you consider to be possible. You have likely never questioned the validy of these beliefs, or you uphold them based on
(1) and (2), which feels right, but we know consciously that they are not valid reasons for believing something. This means that you will never reach
the truth if you always require new beliefs to fit into your current belief system. The only way to reach the truth is to actively consider the
validity of each presented "fact" without discarding it just because you already believe the thing to not be possible.
The following are telling signs for either reasonable suspicion of doubt or reasonable evidence for belief, then I will discuss each in detail.
1. Too much detail in non-relevant areas.
2. Too little detail in relevant areas.
3. Unnatural insistence that you must believe it.
4. Some form of gain for the giver of the information if you believe it.
5. Quantity of direct or cross correlations.
6. Quality/trustworthiness of the original and secondary sources.
8. Style of writing.
9. Use of unnecessarily complicated language.
10. Is it the simplest answer?
The first telling sign is a level of detail in specific areas which are irrelevant to the main point. If the person provides too much detail, not
directly relevant to the message they are supposed to be portraying, then you should be suspicious. Take these two real-life examples which I copied
from an Internet forum:
It was a Tuesday, just before dusk; my best friend George and I were relaxing in my backyard as we usually do at this time. Suddenly, without
warning, a great flash of white light jumped across my vision, and a booming voice spoke "You saw nothing, everything is normal!" I jumped up,
George did the same, and we both said at the same time "did you hear that!?"
I was in my backyard and there was this white flash, then this voice actually said to me "You saw nothing, everything is normal!" At first I
thought I just went crazy, but my friend was there and he saw and heard exactly the same thing! Weird! I don't know what to think!
The difference between these two paragraph should be evident: the first contains unnecessary detail. It's a story. Memory doesn't work like a story,
we remember only significant details, whereas insignificant details quickly fade into fuzziness. It makes no sense for the writer of the first
paragraph to include such a level of detail in areas not relevant to the point of the message, it just doesn't make sense that a person would speak
of the incident described in this manner. The second paragraph is more in line with how our memory would recall an incident such as this, it's very
first-person (as we experience the world) and includes only relevant detail, along with the feelings experienced during the incident.
I lied that those two examples were real, I just made them up on the spot. Consider whether you believed me that I found them on an Internet forum and
Reasons you might have believed the examples were real: (1) Someone said so, (2) They are written in a book, (3) Specifically I said so, and you trust
Reasons you might not have believed the examples were real: (i) There are 2 of them written in different styles which perfectly illustrate my point,
(ii) You have never heard of anyone else having a similar experience.
Reason (3) is a reasonable reason to believe the above examples were really from an Internet forum. Reasons (1) and (2) are not good reasons. Reasons
(i) and (ii) are solid reasons for believing I made up the examples.
If you considered reasons (i) and (ii) but then trusted what I said because you have come to trust me, then that is reasonable belief. If you
considered (i) and (ii) and chose not to believe me, that is also reasonable. If you did not consider any of these things, but just accepted that the
examples were from an Internet forum without question, then you need to break out of this habit if you want to find the truth. Always question the
reasoning behind your belief.
Another telling sign is a suspicious lack of detail about the fact itself. For example (a real example this time), take wayseermanifesto.com. Notice
anything suspicious about this web site and the associated YouTube video?
The web site is specifically marketed to people who fit into one of the following categories, as mentioned at the top of the web site: free-spirits,
misfits, rebels, visionaries and pioneers. That includes everyone who is under 35, and half of people older than 35. Membership costs $9 per month
($108 per year) and according to the site, this is what you are paying for: "a powerful and dynamic community of fellow Wayseers. Connecting with
other Wayseers will help you express yourself like never before, pursue your visions with a level of confidence hard to reach without fellow Wayseers.
You'll meet people who truly get you, and you'll form real, lasting bonds." That's about all the information you get before joining. So what
is it? Some magical place where all your dreams come true?
In this example you are withheld from information about what you are paying for, or more specifically, it implies that you get something special
without telling where it comes from or what it is. The idea here is to force you to judge the book by its cover, and you get to design the cover too!
This is particulaly suspicious because there is no genuine reason for keeping the information from you if the information/product is what you want,
the only reason to mislead you would be if you are more likely to agree if you don't understand what you are getting. It is never in your advantage
to be restricted access to information if the giver is being entirely honest, it only shows that the giver of the information does not want you to
know everything for some reason. So in this example it reveals that the intention of the site is to make money. (If you're curious, it's a social
network, like Facebook, except it costs money and is for gullible people to meet other gullible people.)
So a lack of relevant detail, which then demands that you agree before you truly understand what you are agreeing to, is a form of dishonestly. This
method relies upon your unquestioning trust, and it attempts to limit the questions you could ask in order to confuse you into believing without
having asked to many questions.
In old alchemical writings, the situation is a little more complicated. The old alchemists didn't want you to believe what they were saying, which is
why they restricted access to their information about alchemy. The rule still holds true in this case: the alchemical writings were a test, only those
who understood were allowed to partake of the reward which shows that the intention of the old alchemists was not genuine concern for the having the
So if you are being restricted access to information, you must consider the reason why this is the case as it shows that you are being manipulated in
some form which is not to your benefit.
Similarly, the following is a paraphrase of a post I saw from a topic about alchemy on an Internet forum: "I know some guys who are serious
alchemists, but they don't talk about it ... I think the people who keep quiet are the real deal." This is a good example of a unreasonable belief.
It's a belief which is founded on a prior belief that people who possess true knowledge keep quiet about it combined with a lack of relevant detail,
which makes it difficult to further question the belief. Even if we were to assume that this were true, it would not directly lead to the concept that
someone who doesn't talk about something might know about it. If I say I am an expert on evolutionary biology but then refuse to talk about it, I
have no more proven that I am an expert than any other person you walk past on the street and have never spoken to. Just because some people might be
keeping quiet, does not mean that you can make guesses about who these people are, in fact it means that they would not give any indication that they
know anything about it, so you would never be able to guess who they are. In which case, those who told you they knew something, but then did not tell
you what it was are only proving themselves to be liars - since this act is of advantage to them only if they don't possess the knowledge, and not of
advantage to you whether they do or not.
Even removing the assumption, there is not any real evidence that people who possess true knowledge keep quiet about it anyway. This is an assumption
which comes specifically from the idea that alchemists do not talk about alchemy, but that idea is not strictly true - there is plenty of evidence, as
written in the alchemy books (and from common sense), that the alchemists would willingly talk about alchemy and give direct hints to people who
personally and privately asked specific questions. Their privacy was not because they wanted to always keep it a complete secret, but rather to keep
themselves safe and not let an average person discover the secret without any work on their part.
So you would usually never know who is a true secret keeper, but if you did find them out somehow, you would be able to ask them specific questions to
which they would answer. But they certainly would not tell you they knew something and then refuse to talk further, as this would be of no advantage
to you and only an advantage to them in looking cool and mystical.
Be wary of people who insist you must believe something, it means that your belief is to their advantage in some way. For example, it is my experience
that people who go to lengths to tell everyone how much of a trustworthy person they are is not a trustworthy. Whereas a person who never mentions the
subject of trust is much more likely to actually be trustworthy.
Although the insisting person may wish to take advantage of you, it is also possible that their insistence comes from their own insecurity about the
belief (they feel that if you believe it too then it means they are right and makes them more secure), or a psychological need for other people to
think them intelligent or important.
Sometimes writers make claims so outlandish and extreme, so far removed from what most people already believe, and with such confidence, that
there is a temptation to say, ‘well, if only half of this is true, then I’m convinced’. This is weak logic, don’t let wild accusations and
claims move you half-way to acceptance when none of it is backed up.
How to Spot Bull#, by Shane Levy, 2010
This one is very obvious, yet again so many people ignore it: if the giver of the information is asking for something in exchange, then they are not
trying to help you, they are trying to help themselves (at least in part.)
Especially the two big warning signs to particularly look out for is if the giver is asking for money in exchange for the information, or if they
actively associate their name with the information (which means they are looking for a form of fame, an ego boost - you are giving them the feeling of
The rule here is simple: if you are restricted access to X, until you do Y, it means that the supplier cares about Y more than X. So if X is
information, and Y is giving them money, it means that they care more about the money than they do about the product. To put it in plain language: if
someone is selling something it's because they care about money more than they care about sharing the information. In some cases this is perfectly
acceptable (a fair business transaction), but the bottom line is that the person is doing it for their own benefit.
Alchemy is absolutely invaluable, which is why the information can only be given for free, a gift. Furthermore, true alchemy promises infinite wealth
and health, so who would sell it? All of the money in the world would not be enough for it. Someone who truely understands alchemy does not care about
money, so anyone who does care about money has by this act proven that they don't understand alchemy, and so they can't teach you how to do it. You
cannot pay for real alchemical knowledge. Therefore, even a book that must be purchased on alchemy, instead of accessed for free, cannot be the real
thing (this book is available as a physical book, but I did not publish it, I just allow anyone to do so and I make nothing from it). This is not to
say that people who publish books on alchemy are doing it only for selfish reasons, but it does show that they do not understand the Art in full, as
they are still chasing after money and/or fame. They may well need to feed themselves and their family, but my point is still valid because this still
means that they do not understand true alchemy. Also if you have to pay for access to an alchemy forum (e.g. alchemy-illuminated.com), that also
proves that the person who is being paid does not understand alchemy and has selfish motives.
The bottom line here is that due to the nature of alchemy (it being infintely valuable), money would be meaningless to anyone who possesses the
knowledge, and fame (associating your real name with it) would be both unnecessary (of no advantage to anyone with good intentions) and highly
dangerous. Free and anonymous is the only way to go, and the way of all the true alchemists throughout history.
The quantity of direct and cross correlations means the number of other sources of information which say the same thing, or something which supports
the same (e.g. a report that apples fall from trees supports the existence of gravity.)
This does not mean that many people having the same belief counts as a quantity of sources. In theory, each individual source should also be assessed
itself for signs of validity and reasonable belief, but in most cases it's generally acceptable to take a short cut here and just check that a good
proportion of them are in some ways valid. Especially the quality of the sources (see next sign) should be considered along with the quantity of
Do not assume that sources actually support the point without verifying this for yourself. Do not assume that quotations actually exist in the source
or are taken in the correct context. You must verify that the sources support the belief. Also be careful of statements like "it's obvious that he
meant ABC when he said XYZ" That statement may or may not be true, and you have no reason to believe it is true since no evidence is given. I say
this type of thing myself sometimes, and the real meaning is: "I expect that you'll see the same if you check the facts for yourself". So check the
Be cautious of claims made with confidence but without evidence. Some writers will try to lend their views credibility by referring vaguely to
science or research, or by quoting unreferenced statistics.
How to Spot Bull#, by Shane Levy, 2010
True things are consistent, and this is what you are looking for by verifying the quantity of sources. If apples fell from trees, but pears flew
upwards, then these reports provide an inconsistency which should cause us to question the existence of gravity. Likewise, if one person sees a ghost
that is not a good reason for believing in ghosts unless the quality of the source is very high. But if one hundred different people who don't all
know each other see the same ghost at the same time then it would be absolutely reasonable to believe in ghosts (or at least, the existence of
something which fit the description of a ghost, perhaps requiring further study).
If the evidence does not fit into your pre-existing beliefs, that is not a good reason for discounting the evidence. In this case the reason for your
pre-existing belief should be evaluated along with the reasons for the new belief, and if both appear to have equally reasonable evidence then you
should keep an open mind about the subject until further evidence comes your way.
In general, the majority of the population often rejects apparent facts which have a great quantity of sources, in favor of keeping their pre-existing
beliefs. If you find yourself doing this be warned that it will surely restrict your development towards finding the truth. This is not to say that
you should throw away your pre-existing beliefs whenever something contradicts them, but that you should always evaluate both beliefs to see which is
most reasonable, then choose to keep one over the other, or else choose to be undecided and keep an open mind.
The quality and trustworthiness of the source is often ignored, again, in favor of pre-existing beliefs, but it should be considered with much
If the information comes from someone who you personally know to be a very reliable, intelligent and trustworthy person, then this alone is reasonable
evidence for a belief.
This is not to say that you should believe what a trustworthy person believes, because they likely have unreasonable beliefs as do we all. This only
counts for a direct experience of that person - a fact. So if a trustworthy person tells you that they believe in ghosts, that is not a good reason to
also believe in ghosts. But if a trustworthy person tells you that they are certain that they saw a ghost, then that is a good reason to believe
The problem here is only whether you can truely consider the other to be trustworthy. Many people don't fully trust anyone, sometimes not even
themselves. If you are unsure whether someone is trustworthy then it would not be wise to believe what they say on this point alone. However, if this
is someone who you have complete respect and trust for, who has no reason to lie or twist the truth, then their personal experiences are reasonable
for you to use as a basis for your own beliefs.
It is also difficult to know whether to trust someone who you have not personally known for a long time and physically spent time with. It's not
usually a good idea to trust somebody who you only know through the Internet. Some people are naturally trusting, and these people should be careful
about who they trust - for these people it might be worth actively making an effort to not believe what apparently trustworthy people say, especially
since if you are labelled as "gullible" even trustworthy people might find it amusing to tell you lies, without understanding the damage they are
Trustworthiness is a very good reason to believe what another tells you, but only if you are absolutely confident that this person can be trusted in
all circumstances and there is no selfish motive on their part (including laughing at your expense.)
Understandibility is whether the information you are assessing makes logical sense, has a logical structure and attempts to explain the how and why.
All truths are explainable, and you should strive to understand where your beliefs come from and why they are the case.
Understandibility should be one of your prime considerations, especially because it is not always possible to assess every statement using all of the
possible signs. For example, I have not provided any evidence for the previous sentence, because to do so would be both tedious to research and
tedious to read, and it should not be necessary because I believe the point is self-evident. As long as the point is self-evident and understandable,
you can choose to accept it at face value. This applies especially to unimportant statements, but if the statement is contravertial then of course you
should insist on verifying the statement against the other signs even if it appears to make logical sense - but if it doesn't make sense it can be
Example of understandable (logical) information:
Grass is green because it absorbs the red frequency of light while reflecting the blue and yellow frequencies of light, which together are what we
interpret as the color green.
Example of non-understandable (illogical) information:
Grass is green because the pagans considered green to be the most sacred color and this intention became manifested into reality through
Hopefully upon reading the first example your mind analyzed the logic like this:
"Yes, grass is green. If it absorbs red, why does it look green? OK, it's because if it absorbs red you must be left with blue and yellow, and if
these are mixed together you get green. Makes sense."
Upon reading the second example, your thought process should have been along these lines:
"Yes, grass is green. How did we get to pagans? What are pagans anyway? How do we know they considered it sacred? Even if they did, how would it
make grass green? So what color was grass before that? What, so every conscious being in the world was a pagan and they all decided to change the
color of grass because it's supposed to be sacred? Why would it be sacred anyway? I'm confused."
Follow the logic; if you can't follow the logic or it contains gaps then this means that the logic is flawed and the statement is most likely false.
Do not blame your own inability to make sense of it. It is the writers responsibility to make their arguments clear, which almost always means that
the statement is untrue if there are gaps in the logic.
Some people have become accustomed to accepting supposed "facts" without question, perhaps due to the incompetence of the education systems in its
teaching us to believe facts without teaching us why or what they are for. You should not believe something you do not understand. Something you
don't understand would not be advantageous for you to believe anyway, since if you didn't understand the information then it is likely useless to
It’s far more dangerous to assume people know what they’re talking about, than it is to assume they don’t and let them prove you wrong. Be
like Socrates: assume people are unaware of their own ignorance (including yourself) and politely, warmly, probe to sort out the difference.
[...] How do you know what you know? Throw this phrase down when someone force feeds you an idea, an argument, a reference to a study or
over-confidently suggests a course of action. People so rarely have their claims challenged, that asking someone to explain how they know sheds light
on whatever ignorance they’re hiding. It instantly diminishes the force of a BS [bull#] driven opinion.
[...] someone who is bull#ting you won’t have researched or thought through anything: they’re making things up.
How to Detect Bull#, by Scott Berkun
If you read something in which the logical is difficult to follow, the tendency of the majority of the population is to pretend to understand it,
since they figure that it must be something very complicated and important, or "mystical". Often they convince themselves that they do understand
it, using a form of denial. This turns into a sort of Emporer's New Clothes, with everyone pretending to understand something that nobody really
does. A belief formed in this manner, which the person does not actually understand the reasons for, is easy to detect as the person responds to any
contradicting information by flatly ignoring it, and often by being agressive towards the contradicting information or the information giver.
The style of writing is also a consideration. Someone who has bad spelling and grammar immediately shows themselves as either uneducated and/or
demonstrates their lack of attention to detail. If they are unwilling or unable to communicate properly then they are almost always unwilling or
unable to research their information properly (or they are still in school and have not yet learned these things.)
The information giver should also present their findings in an easy-to-read manner. If you find that their style of writings is too cryptic or
difficult to follow, then they are not being genuine, or they are not intelligent enough to make themselves understood (and therefore unlikely to have
anything interesting to say.)
You can also tell whether a peice of literature is from a specific author or specific period in time by first reading and considering the writing of
other literature which you are certain is from the real author or time period. The styles of writing should be similar. I'm mentioning this because
there are many alchemical books which have been falsely attributed to certain authors, or said to be older than they are. The difference is obvious,
just be on your guard and use some common sense; Romeo did not say: "hey Juliet, how you doin'?"
Some people think it makes them sound more intelligent if they use overly technical or scientific language when this is not necessary. They are right,
most people do think them more intelligent, even though no one understands what they are talking about. The fact is that if you don't understand
something, it does not mean that you are not intelligent enough to understand it, it only means that the information giver is a bad communicator or
they're just talking nonsense.
Especially in business and technology, jargon and obfuscation hide huge quantities of BS. Inflated language is a technique of intimidation. The
bet is that if you don’t understand what they’re talking about, you’ll feel stupid, or distracted, and give in to the appearance of their
superior knowledge. This is, of course, entirely bull#. To withstand BS you have to have an inner core of self-reliance, holding on to your doubts
longer than the BS’er holds onto their charade.
Our dynamic flow capacity matrix has unprecedented downtime resistance protocols.
If you don’t understand what the hell this means, err on your own side. Don’t assume you’re missing something: assume they are. They’re
either hiding something, communicating poorly, or don’t themselves understand what they’re talking about.
How to Detect Bull#, by Scott Berkun
A similar trick is done with "mystical" as well as technical language. Especially in esoteric circles, it is common for childish people to think it
makes them sound knowledgeable if they say things that other people can't understand. This is what the real alchemists refer to as
"pseudo-philosophical jargon". It either doesn't mean anything, or if it does mean something the speaker is using a nonsense word in replacement of
the real word for no good reason. Again it shows either bad communication or nonsense. Most likely the person is pretending to sound like they are
more knowledgable than they are for some kind of ego-trip.
Using oldy-worldy language ("my good sir, how art thou?") is also a telling sign that the speaker is attempting to manipulate us into subconsciously
giving them the respect that we may give to historical literature. Don't fall for it, there is no good reason for them to speak like this. Language
has since evolved; the old alchemists would speak like us if they were alive today, so anyone speaking like them now is being dishonest.
According to Occam's Razor: the simplest answer with the the most accurate explanation is most likely to be true. As I have said before: the truth is
simple, logical and easy to understand.
For example, the outer world can be explained with the existence of matter and energy, or it can be explained just as well (if not better) with the
existence of energy only. So it makes sense that the energy only theory is more likely to be true. (It would be even simpler, and make even more sense
if energy also doesn't exist and the universe is a dream.)
Try these examples of possible reasons why your keys are missing:
1. I misplaced my keys.
2. Aliens stole my keys.
3. I accidentally ate my keys.
All of these are theoretically possible, but it would make the most sense to put our faith in the simplest explanation which still fully explains the
mystery of the missing keys: (1).
1. Aliens came to Earth with alien technology, said they were gods, and mated with wild humans.
2. A different race of humans developed technology, said they were gods, and mated with wild humans.
3. All ancient historian were liars and part of a global conspiracy to record history incorrectly when they wrote about strange men coming with flying
chariots, declaring themselves as gods, and mating with wild humans.
The simplest explanation is clearly (2). (1) is tempting, but unneccesarily complicated. (3) is just a form of denial.
As a final note, I want you to consider how you and others selectively ignore evidence which goes against your pre-existing beliefs, and I want to
ask: why do you this? How is it benefical to you? Yes, you may have to rethink your life, but the question is: would you rather live in the search for
truth that requires you to sometimes keep an open mind and experience things that you never imagined, or would you rather be smugly arrogant in your
own boring little world?
More specific to this book: everything is in here for you to understand the truth of alchemy. Consider this: if you had never heard of alchemy before
you read this book then you would not be so quick to dismiss the claims without considering the evidence. It is because alchemy has a presence in
mythology and fiction that people are so quick to dismiss it - since they heard the stories as children and were told by adults that it was only a
story, and because we were burned and became distrusting of myths when we found out that Santa wasn't real. This is nothing but a pre-existing
cultural belief, based on an incorrect assumption that myths must be false or else they wouldn't be myths. It makes no sense to dismiss something
because it has been an mythical aspect in the culture of every civilization. On the contrary, this actually supports the existence of a basis in fact
(even St. Nick really was really known for giving gifts when he was alive.)