The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Contrathetic Impasse – Key Sign of Heavy-Handed Agency at Play

A mystery, replete with dozens of viable alternatives – all falsified. An entire culture of pseudo-experts wallowing in its aftermath. Skeptics regularly flashing their smarter-than-thou canned wisdom and disdain for the entire subject. This is the contrathetic impasse. Never wallow in such a mystery. If it cannot be solved, either add value or maintain epoché, step away and say ‘I don’t know’. Never pretend, as that is the habit of your foe. Instead, watch him and learn to spot his tradecraft.

February 2nd 1959, nine hikers led by 23-year-old ski hiker Igor Alekseievich Dyatlov died in the snowy wilderness of the Kholat Syakhl slopes, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The circumstances around their deaths involve some murky details accompanied by moderately well documented states of the bodies which were not found until 26 February, when a search party finally encountered the group’s abandoned and badly damaged tent. Six of the group members died of hypothermia and three of fatal injuries. All of them perished along or at the end of a trail of barefoot or semi-clad footprints which they left behind in an obvious sudden rush to flee from their tent. The three who died of fatal injuries, died from forced blunt head or body cavity compression trauma exceeding that which can be delivered by a human being.1 I assembled the map to the right because I could not find a resource which both outlined the detailed circumstances of the case, but as well appropriately understood topographical maps and how to determine slope grade, in order to to assess this case in a more objective fashion.

The various theories which have been foisted to explain the odd circumstances inside what is known now as ‘The Dyatlov Pass Incident’ include some of the ones I have cited below – classed into categories familiar inside ethical skepticism. I am not here to suggest of course any solution to the mystery nor foist one explanation as ‘being scientific’; nor virtue signal about my superior doubt and objectivity skills, nor bitch about names of people who need to be visibly condemned for considering forbidden alternatives. All such activity is foolishness. I utilize this mystery simply to highlight the signs to watch for, in order to determine that agency has its hands inside a paradox. The skeptics are haplessly providing the same predictable impact that intelligence groups reliably desire. Tools. This mystery, even with its crazy alternatives, is purposeful in other words. For what purpose, we may well never know. But we as ethical skeptics can know the minds of the mystery spinners themselves.

Perceiving the Mind of Agency

To date, fatal information has been produced for each of the potential explanations proffered below. This condition, one of every known viable alternative having been falsified, in itself stands as a clue. Please note that very familiar mechanisms (see: The Tower of Wrong: The Art of the Professional Lie) exist inside the Dyatlov Pass alternative grouping, as they do in many controversial mysteries. They are

Einfach Mechanism (Omega Hypothesis – HΩ) – the null hypothesis which is enforced as the go-to answer, however has not attained that status through reasonable qualification by science. These bear a bit more evidential base or reason based upon the evidence, and tend to survive despite existing falsifying evidence to the contrary. One may be forced as the ‘consensus’ answer without merit. Anachronistic explanations, or explanations used to promote the core thesis of a current popular researcher are often thrust into the Einfach Mechanism group.

•  Low-grade slope slab avalanche (Omega/Null Hypothesis – HΩ)
•  Soviet military parachute mine, radiological or gas weapon testing
•  Panic attack from wind or snow vibratory infrasound (Fad/Anachronistic Hypothesis)
•  Local Mansi raiding party/Lone wolf attacker
•  Hypothermia induced ‘paradoxical undressing’ (Fad Researcher Hypothesis)

Imposterlösung Mechanism – an incoherent or ridiculous contention which is assumed as a potential null hypothesis simply because it sounds good enough for public consumption. These alternatives pass muster with the general public, but are easily falsified after about 4 minutes of real research. Despite this, most people hold them in mind simply because of their repetition. This fake hypothesis circumstance is common inside an argument which is unduly influenced by agency. They are often padded into skeptical analyses, to feign an attempt at appearing to be comprehensive, balanced, or ‘considering all the alternatives’.

•  Bear-Moose-Elk wildlife attack (Simple Construct)
•  High winds blowing a member away – ensuing rescue
•  Misinterpreting the Aurora Bourealis and ensuing panic
•  American CIA information exchange meet up gone bad
•  Went out to take a piss, drunk and got lost. Others went to search
•  Inexperience/Misadventure

Ad hoc Alternatives/Pseudo-Theory – can’t be fully falsified nor studied, and can probably never be addressed or can be proposed in almost any circumstance of mystery. These ideas will be thrown out for decades. They can always be thrown out. They will always be thrown out.

•  Love triangle gone bad
•  Drug abuse/Bad drugs/Alcohol
•  Horrible fight/Crazy party member
•  Drug deal gone bad
•  MiHoDeAL theories – Misidentification, Hoaxes, Delusions Anecdote and Lies (MiHoDeAL Construct)

Poison Pill Hypothesis (Embargo Hypothesis – Hξ) – the hypothesis which will never be allowed to be studied, through pejorative classification in advance of study. Ironically the very people who decry these alternatives are the very ones who keep bringing them up. Note that, in absence of any kind of evidence, these are often ad hoc as well. Their broach is NOT to introduce the idea, nor provide clarity or diligence, nor are they many times introduced by paranormal researchers at all. Rather they are entered into the mix in order to create a negative perception influence and attract skeptic patrols to enforce that influence. If you dissent, you are no longer legitimate – then you might just be a ‘believer’ (see Witch Hunt Methodology):

•  Yeti (Almas-Menk) attack (Embargo Hypothesis – Hξ)
•  Skinwalker/Panic inducing interdimensional phenomena
•  UFO/Lights in the sky panic

When fringe or paranormal theories are touted in scorn, yet ironically are raised repeatedly by skeptics in each and every survey of alternatives,
such idea stickiness is generated to a large degree by skeptics and not paranormal buffs.
In such an affair, know that incentive is being introduced for you to adhere to another (in reality, false) alternative.

I have never even met a single person who claims that ‘aliens built The Pyramids’.
The habitual highlighting and accusation of ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘racism’ is another key sign of agency at play.

So many of these ideas regarding the Dyatlov Pass Incident are simple in their falsification, yet still they persist. Why? In reality as well, there exists falsifying evidence, or at least a complete lack of any evidence, for every single one of these explanations above. This is one of the first indicators that a contrathetic impasse is at play. Such familiar conundrum is not mere benign happenstance by any stretch. It is our vociferous desire to oust disdained alternatives, which produces the circumstance serving as fertile ground for the contrathetic impasse.

How the Contrathetic Impasse Originates – Fake Skepticism and Dark Agency

Contrathetic simply means ‘the evidence points both ways for multiple hypotheses’. Moreover, any time you observe the rich presence of these mechanisms: Einfach, Imposterlösung, anachronsitic, MiHoDeAL, ad hoc, enforced simple/provisional, and Embargo hypotheses – be cognizant that agency has tampered heavily with the evidence and the post research discourse around the issue under consideration. Whenever you observe such pontifications being pushed en masse inside the media, those of the dilettante, malicious and idiots among us pretending that solutions to things they read about while dwelling in their parents’ basement are ‘obvious’ (as is done inside this trash piece of journalism by Jake Slocum at Cracked) – moreover, passing themselves off as ‘researchers’, ‘critical thinkers’, ‘skeptics’, or possessing superior grasp of the obvious (an oxymoron and fallacy), regarding things about which in reality they know nothing – know that social skepticism is at play. Another factor in this play was the obfuscating presence of state intelligence agency, who shut down the site for three days and kept many details secret for decades. Both fake skepticism and state intelligence agency are the same genre of impacting factor. Their detriment happens through a process called the exoentropy of normatives, an offshoot of the law of unintended consequences as it applies to dogmatic or obfuscating activities.

Exoentropy of Normatives

/philosophy : consequentialism : pseudo-skepticism/ : the effort to enforce order inside a controlled subsystem, inevitably and ironically serves to increase the level of disorder or entropy surrounding it. Moreover, systemic dynamics can serve to impart unethical consequentialist outcomes which arrive as a result solely and wholly from individual efforts to maintain normatives of propriety or the appearance of such propriety; especially when coupled with the gaming and exploitation potential therein.

A great example of such influence can be found in the poor but insistent effort contributed by social skeptic Benjamin Radford in his hack job for the Center for Inquiry. Possessing such a mad rush to debunk some TV show, personality and idea over which he was frothing at the mouth, and to get an article out with the least effort possible, he subsequently rushes past details about the state in which the tent was found, then conflates pictures of the uninjured hikers with the trauma reports of the three injured ones, straw manning: “The photographs are crystal clear: the bodies were not “mutilated” at all.”. “They were cold and lay together to conserve heat, as any novice hiker is taught to do.” exclaims Radford, fully ignorant of the fact that none of the hikers were found in a warmth conservation huddle at all. Save for two bodies which were beside each other and separated by 1 or 2 feet, their bodies were spread out all over an area of about 700 meters along a gradient well below the tent downhill (see graphic at top). A full kilometer from any possible snow slide area. Four had run away from the fire which was their only chance to survive and into a creek bed. They were running in such a panic that one of them discarded their working flashlight along the way, well out of any avalanche potential danger area. Dubinina, who lost her tongue, ‘lost it while she was still alive’ according to the medical examiner’s report, her stomach containing 7 ounces of blood from the tongue removal injury. This small sample of the details would have taken maybe 8 minutes of research to determine. Unfortunately Radford did not have 8 minutes to spare.

It is not that Ben is wrong in his conclusion – it is that his methods are wrong.
He is obsessing over a show, an embargoed idea and a person. This activity has nothing at all to do with science nor skepticism.
And the fact that he could be right in this circumstance, is simply accidental.
Wrong methods cannot be presumed to be beneficial simply because they have served to produce compliant answers in the past.

This is called the exoentropy of normatives. The contrathetic impasse is the result of such philosophical misadventure.

His fixation on the ridiculous served to compromise the integrity of his work. ‘Henceforth man now knows that the snowmen exist. They can be encountered in the Northern Urals, adjacent to Otorten mountain.’ read a scrawling by one of the party on a brochure the group held. This was not an entry into one of their at times farcical diaries, as goes the spin. The statement is odd yes, however one can do nothing with it. Nonetheless, the scrawling served to cause an avalanche in Radford’s mindset, rendering him utterly useless as a researcher. As a skeptic you cannot afford to froth over such statements. If they do not add value, table them. Ignore them until they do support a schema – which they may never do. To obsess over their presence is to introduce not just bias, but agency into your repertoire. This is a mistake of tumbling into a mindset of religious negative reactance. It is fake skepticism.

Thereafter, Radford implies that the post mortems were done by ‘mountaineers and not doctors’ (which is complete horse shit), ignores a good 80% of the case details, save for those which were useful in the 20 minute total effort he put into this typical skeptic piece of garbage. It is one thing to credulously swallow fantastical creature tales, but it is another thing altogether to be so disdainful of that idea, and so motivated to impress your ‘colleagues’ for club rank, that one commits the same fallacies or worse in the process of running away from it. I don’t believe in Yeti’s, but I believe even less in stupidity and propaganda being passed off as scientific thinking. Taking risk, thinking and knowing you are gonna catch hell for your research avenue, takes a lot more effort and courage than does throwing shit at people while ensconced inside the safety of your high-school-mentality clique.

“We all fantasize about infallibility, and that’s the point. Total jerks aren’t just fantasizing. They take their dreams of infallibility out into the real world. Self love is great, but, like they say to lovers, get a room. Be an infallibilist in your own fantasies and fight for fallibility in reality.”  ~ Jeremy Sherman, Ambigamy

The incentive is high to tap into the limelight that childish denial tricks can afford bad wanna-be journalists. This perspective involving the specter of surreptitious hand tempts me toward favoring the Soviet Military explanations. There is no more heavy handed a dark agency than the old Soviet mafia and KGB. Well, global socialists (Globzi’s) have topped them as of late – but we’ll save that discussion for another blog article. Shallow press, such as in the two examples cited above, is one of the chief mechanisms of such agency.

They key for ethical skepticism, is to go and look for yourself – research your alternatives – don’t just shoot at people and ideas you don’t like. That is not skepticism. All you do with that self aggrandizing exercise is provide an environment where people are afraid to think differently or to speak up against oppression.

I Doubt My Own Favored Alternative

The low-grade slope slab avalanche is strong and naturalistic in terms of its explanatory potential. As well, it had snowed heavily all that fateful day of February 1, 1959. The sheets of ice which form on top of an underlayment of snow could account for the broken rib injuries as well as the penetrating head wound. Plus the grade immediately above the tent, towards the Kholat Syakhl peak, did broach the 13 – 15 degree threshold (my graphic at the top of this article shows an average 14 degree slope on the critical fall line in question), well below the typical minimum for an avalanche to occur – but I suppose not impossible. This form of avalanche theory is my a priori favored hypothesis. It bears the most explanatory power. Save for the tree climbing and 8 photographs (their last ones taken that night) of the lights in the sky and curious random shots into the night horizon/snow. Anyway, that means that I now look for a means to kill my favorite alternative – not kill everyone who thinks differently (as Radford exemplifies above).

The box niche they had dug into the hillside of snow for the tent was done with protection from a slab avalanche (and the wind) in mind in the first place. It’s placement, cut into the snow bank could have explained why the tent and belongings were not swept away with the avalanche mass. As you can see on the chart to the right, this would place any avalanche, at the very 0.1 percentile in chance. Below a p-value threshold certainly. However incline is just one of the elements of the Avalanche Triangle, which includes type of terrain (not just angle of incline), snow-pack, and weather as well.2 Alternating ice and snow layers  tend to cake and form like a frozen lasagna on the leeward/south side of a mountain – as was the condition of the slope just above their camp. Melting in the sun during the day and freezing back to hard layers overnight. That may well have been what happened here. Especially given that, on the leeward side of a mountain in particular, land grade does not always equal snow grade either.3

However this alternative still features some critical path elements which not only do not bear soundness, but are falsifying in their deductive impact. In other words, elements which are imminently fatal to the alternative as being comprehensively explanatory.

  • First, you have to stack multiple risky conjecture upon conjecture in order to assemble a slab avalanche scenario which explains even 40% of the observation set. This introduces plurality. Is it necessary? I do not know. If it explained 90% of the observations, then perhaps. But the alternative does not do this.
  • Second, where did the avalanche snow go? Temperatures never rose to such a sufficient point during the 3 weeks of winter, so as to melt it away before the tent was found.
  • Not just a part of the tent, but a standing tent pole and fully intact tent attached to it (impossible in any avalanche) was found sticking up out of relatively shallow and precipitation-accumulated snow cover.
  • As well, why flee a full 1.5 kilometers away from the shallow avalanche footprint and more importantly your supplies, boots and clothes?
  • How do you leave a working flashlight laying on top of the tent as you flee, and further then another working one laying on the ground 300 meters down the hill, well away from the avalanche slide zone? You need those flashlights, why were they discarded so quickly?
  • Why climb a tree at night in -14ºC limited visibility, when you had just built a fire to keep from dying? Climbing a tree in such a circumstance equates to a mindset of ‘I want to die’, or ‘I am about to die’.
  • Why split up before anyone died and while two had a fire? Have everyone huddled in a warm circle and use the only pair of boots to have one person gather wood.
  • Why would an avalanche break ribs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in bilateral symmetry for two individuals and not harm anyone lying right next to them in the same orientation in some kind of similar fashion, not even touching other body parts or members?
  • Why would experienced, level 2 snow survivalists, simply abandon their only source of hope, the tent – which they would have already been inside of by the way? The protocol would have been to dig straight up and then re-excavate the camp for clothing first. If you can all flee quick semi-clothed then you can also quickly dig back down and get boots and jackets and tools, at the very least – before you choose to abandon camp.
  • Their bare footprint tracks were depressed initially departing right nearby the tent – so any avalanche was not very deep nor extensive at all; certainly not the avalanche which you see in movies. This renders the paradoxical undressing alternative impossible as well (at least as being reason why the whole event began).
  • Why were the most severely injured individuals (per hoc aditum, from the avalanche) given the extra clothing, sent the farthest most arduous path, and were in the end the ones to have survived the longest? Yet they too ran 75 yards away from the fire.
  • Why change minds and try to go back after having fled 1.4 kilometers? And by leaving your fire?
  • This flight involved a level of panic and events far in excess of that which level 2 ski hikers are trained to survive under (which includes low grade slab avalanches).

No, these victims were traumatized a second time during this cascade of events. They panic fled their tent, then they panic fled their last hope, the fire, as well. No, this alternative, just like all the others, is a fatally flawed answer incentivized as truth. It too, unfortunately and despite my favor for it, is an Omega Hypothesis.

Contrathetic Impasse = Cultivated Ignorance

In the end, none of these explanations stand in any way tantamount to a satisfactory provisional explanation. Their flaws are not mere ‘gaps’, they are fatal flaws – and an intelligence specialist understands the difference. I am not chalking this case up to ‘solved by barstool critical thinking’. So, given this state of epoché, let’s instead use the case to examine the circumstance involved here, that of the contrathetic impasse.

An intelligence agent, is nothing but a conspiracy theorist who has kept you alive.

“One does not conduct deception for the sake of deception itself. It is always conducted as part of a conflict or in a competitive context, intended to support some overarching plan or objectives of a participant.” ~Robert Mitchell and William Mitchell, Intelligence Specialists 4

The contrathetic impasse is a lens tool used by intelligence agents to spot agency at play. Agency which believes that it has gone undetected, will eventually become abusively habitual both in regard to self and target.5

Contrathetic Impasse

/philosophy : hypothesis reduction : paradox-paralysis/ : a paradoxical condition wherein multiple competing hypotheses and/or ad hoc plausible explanations bear credible inductive evidence and research case history – yet each/all hypotheses or explanations have been falsified/eliminated as being sufficiently explanatory for more than a minor portion of a defined causal domain or observation set. For instance, the MiHoDeAL explanation contains 5 very credible possible explanations for challenging phenomena. However, the sum total of those 5 explanations often only amounts to explaining maybe 5 – 15% of many persistent paranormal phenomena. The presumption that one of those explanations is comprehensively explanatory, is a trick of pseudoscience. Another new hypothesis is therefore demanded in the circumstance of a contrathetic impasse paradox.

Causes or influences which contribute to a contrathetic impasse:*

1.  Foundational assumptions/investigation are flawed or have been tampered with.
2.  Agency has worked to fabricate and promote falsifying or miscrafted information as standard background material.
3.  Agency has worked to craft an Einfach Mechanism (Omega Hypothesis) from an invalid null hypothesis.
4.  Agency has worked to promote science of psychology, new popular theory or anachronistic interpretation spins on the old mystery.
5.  SSkeptics have worked to craft and promote simple, provisional and Occam’s Razor compliant conclusions.
6.  Agency has worked to foist ridiculous Imposterlösung constructs in the media.
7.  Agency has worked to foist shallow unchallenged ad hoc explanations in the media.
8.  SSkeptics seem to have organized to promote MiHoDeAL constructs in the media.
9.  There exist a set of repeatedly emphasized and/or ridiculously framed Embargo Hypotheses.
10.  Agency has worked to promote conspiracy theory, lob & slam Embargo Hypotheses as an obsession target to distract or attract attack-minded skeptics to the mystery. The reason this is done is not the confusion it provides, rather the disincentive which patrolling skeptics place on the shoulders of the genuine skilled researcher. These forbidden alternatives may be ridiculous or indeed ad hoc themselves – but the reason they are raised is to act as a warning to talented researchers that ‘you might be tagged as supporting one of these crazy ideas’ if you step out of line regarding the Omega Hypothesis.

A great example of number 10 above is the skeptic community tagging of anyone who considers the idea that the Khufu pyramid might have not been built by Pharaoh Khufu in 2450 bce, as supporting ancient aliens as the builders – or being racist against Arabs who now are the genetic group which swept though modern Egypt three thousand years after Khufu’s reign. Heavy-handed agency at play.

* Please note that these six action steps constitute a typical counter-intelligence operations plan. All six are typically used.

The contrathetic impasse. A sign that heavy handed influence is at play. It is what senior intelligence officials use to spot counter-espionage. You are not gonna solve the mystery – just step back and watch the players involved instead. Examine and ponder their proclivities and behavior. The fakers will begin to bear consistent habits. Never wallow in such a mystery. Either solve it and add value, or maintain epoché, step away and say ‘I don’t know.’ Never pretend, as that is the habit of your foe. Watch him and learn to spot his group and their handiwork.

This is what ethical skeptics do.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Contrathetic Impasse – Key Sign that Ockham’s Plurality is Necessary” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Nov 2018; Web,

November 17, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , , | Leave a comment

Exotic Nature of FRB 121102 Burst Congeries

It is clear from the data that a MIGO grouping exists inside the 93 bursts of FRB 121102, representing a consistent and distinct profile from their comparable Primary grouping burst twins in terms of frequency, signal duration and overall resulting Planck dilation – yet in stark contrast, featuring negligible impact in terms of signal arrival timing relative to c.
These fast radio bursts appear to bear the profile of the collision of two very massive objects. The smaller object moving rapidly as a percentage of the speed of light around the larger  – signalling the universe in desperation as it descends hopelessly into the dark Schwarzschild sea. Two black holes tripping the light fantastic among the stars.

Now I am not a physicist, nor an astrophysicist. I want to make that clear. I do not claim the moniker of scientist. Although I have been president of a research lab, and led it through the process of groundbreaking scientific discovery, and although I have employed or had in my reporting structure many scientists and engineers, I myself cannot claim such a title. Despite involvement inside complex decisions of science and technology on a daily basis, I have not earned the hash marks, degrees and dissertation necessary in passing industry qualification as a scientist. This was purposeful. I am a business man, economist, analyst, designer, technologist, strategist, leader and advocate for those who suffer at the hands of poorly developed science. Therefore I am technically only a skeptic. I critique the philosophy, structure and meta-application of science – flagging the circumstance wherein its deployment serves to negatively impact its stakeholders. I write technical reports and specifications for the employment of technology, and determine for its stakeholders, how the technology or science involved will serve to impact their lives. Now this is a profession inside which I am enormously qualified and maintain an arduous decades-long track record of qualification and success.

But during my youth I was a scientist at heart. I devoured every Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov non-fiction book which my small town library was able to get. In my free time I studied the sky with my Meade telescope and dabbled in my Gilbert Chemcraft junior chemistry lab. I burned, dissolved and emergency-buried a lot of volatile stuff. A freshly bottom-lit (not top-lit) Bunsen Burner will fire a penny through a ceiling tile at 1/4 the muzzle velocity of a .22 caliber standard load round. Many exciting things can be done with potassium. After my instructors realized that I was not stupid, rather just bored, and saw that my science aptitude scores were at a college level, while in the 5th Grade, I was advanced two years early through my science and math curricula; earning a top award for a science paper my senior year of high school. I entered a nationally ranked top-3 nuclear science undergraduate program, but was swayed in my career when the Dean of my school awarded me an A+++ on my paper on Ethics of Technology and Science, the highest grade he had ever given.  It was then that I knew there was more to science than simply donning a lab coat, initiating exoentropy and taking the measurements. The question was not one of how to do science, but what one could do with it. Or should do with it. For benefit or for harm, and how to discern the magnitude and difference.

As a skeptic, never rest on your laurels and self-congratulate over your callow wielding of doubt.
As a skeptic, you must go and actually look. You must think incrementally, eschew pat answers, ask probative questions and then risk hard work.
Anything short of this is worse than the process of never having doubted to begin with.

Throughout the time since I have maintained a fascination with astrophysics. I have read Kip S. Thorne’s, Black Holes & Time Warps, probably 3 to 8 times. I am a regular consuming fan of Deutsch, Tippler, Wolfram, and Greene.  Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science and Thorne’s Black Holes & Time Warps reside in my library on the quick-reference shelf along with the Webster’s Dictionary, Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Science, Newton’s The Principia, Lewin’s Genes IX, The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Whitman’s Leaves of Grass and the New American Standard Bible. My thirst for clues which nature offers us through the wisdom of astrophysics, has never been slaked.

Fast Radio Burst 121102

So when science first started detecting Fast Radio Bursts (the subtle grey curved line inside the graphic to the right), this was a subject which fascinated me no end. Not in the sense that an extraterrestrial civilization might be the source of such quirky electromagnetic chirps (so far they bear a number of ‘natural’ profiles to be sure), but rather a fascination toward the clues which the phenomenon could serve to offer regarding the nature and structure of our cosmos. As a quick summary, a Fast Radio Burst is a very short (20 to 100 milliseconds ‘long’ in dispersion arc and .75 to 3.5 millisecond barycentric duration pulse) and narrow band (3 GigaHertz ‘tall’) flash of electromagnetic C-Band microwave energy. It is akin to a bird chirping a short and very precise musical note, or the emanation a bat might make in order to echo-locate. The key interesting feature of such a short duration burst of electromagnetic energy resides in its characteristic ‘dispersion’. Dispersion is the difference between the attenuation of the higher frequencies of EM energy in the signal and that of its lower frequencies. In our cosmos, lower frequency radiation is attenuated more readily and arrives at its destination somewhat after the higher frequencies inside the same exact signal. The lower frequencies lose the race against the higher ones. In the graphic to the right, one can observe that the higher frequencies at the top of the graph, say in the 7.5 GHz range, arrive first (motion of the EM signal is right to left) before do the lower frequencies inside the single FRB burst – despite both frequency sets having originated at the same exact instant, far far away. The magnitude of this dispersion allows an astrophysicist to estimate how far that signal has traveled through space-time (or gravity), through measuring the separation between the arrival of the higher and lower frequencies inside a fast radio burst.1

What results is an arc, characteristic of a warped electromagnetic signal. On a graph indexing an ordinate of signal frequency (GHz) against an abscissa of time (seconds), the result is an exponential relationship.  Inside the graphic immediately below in red field background, one can observe (again, pretend that the EM signal is moving from right to left) the higher 7.8 GHz EM C-band microwave radiation (at the top of the figure) to arrive at the receiver on Earth, sooner than do the 5.4 GHz frequencies (at the bottom of the figure), and by a simple square in acceleration of effect on the lower frequencies toward the bottom of the graph (which is why the signal is curved in its dispersion differential). The rate of dispersion shown in the graphics above and below equate to around 2.5 billion light years of travel through space-time and/or gravitational fields. The arc immediately below in particular was extracted from the FRB 121102 fusillade; marked as FRB 121102-1.

Problem Statement

But there were two peculiarities regarding FRB 121102 which piqued my interest above and beyond the media generated discourse around the other several dozen individual FRB’s we have found scattered around the cosmos. First, in contrast with the other FRB’s we have detected, this FRB burst comprised a fusillade of 93 individual signals which arrived in quick succession (seconds to hours apart). Second, the signals arrived in an array of differing dispersion and frequency profiles. Of course, obtaining a repeating FRB source was unprecedented to begin with and of key interest in its own right; however, the fact that all of FRB 121102’s dispersion and frequency profiles did not match, was a mystery of even greater proportion. You see, if the signals all emanated from the same source; and given their rapid fire and common location in another dwarf galaxy 2.5 billion light years away, they should be assumed to originate from a common source, then all of the signals should bear the same frequency and dispersion profiles (within a given measurement error precision and accuracy). This was not the case with the FRB 121102 signal burst group.


FRB 121102 burst signals featured significantly varying frequency and dispersion profiles, despite having emanated from the same source and having traversed the same exact space-time conditions, all at the same time.

So I set about the task of examining this odd stream of signals, in order to hypothesize a mechanism which potentially could impart such a characteristic pattern. The study from which I drew my data was a paper submitted on 9 Sep 2018 by Zhang, et. al., entitled Fast Radio Burst 121102 Pulse Detection and Periodicity: A Machine Learning Approach.2 The two graphics to the right (labeled 1* and 1) were extracted from the study, representing burst number 1, which was the signature burst for the group. It bore the strongest flux amplitude, as well as the signature duration of 1.57 milliseconds barycentric width and dispersion of .21 ∂v/∂t.  The study was a report on the detection of 93 total pulses “from the repeating fast radio burst FRB 121102 in Breakthrough Listen C-band (4-8 GHz) observations at the Green Bank Telescope. The pulses [last 72 of them] were found with a convolutional neural network in data taken on August 26, 2017, where 21 bursts had been previously detected.”3

The study did not offer up its database of signals, so I downloaded the imagery for each of the 93 signals and conducted measures of each signal’s frequency band and time dilation directly from the signal itself. I assembled a database (see bottom of article) of start time, end time, time measure, graph time, pulse width, signal to noise, v-peak, v-min, ∂v in GHz, ∂t in seconds, and then finally the dispersion measure ∂v/∂t (= ∂GHz/∂ms), signal flux in milli-Janskys and barycentric pulse width. I then conducted analytics and intelligence development upon the array of data which resulted. What followed stands not as a dilettante ‘proof’, rather an observation-intelligence-necessity petition for plurality or assistance in hypothesis mechanism development (Steps 1 thru 5 of the Scientific Method).

Observation Reduction and Methodology

Discrete Integrity of Signal

Intelligence 1 – The signals exhibited discrete frequency banding with a v-max beginning at 7.8 GHz and ranging all the way to 5.0 GHz.
Intelligence 2 – The single trend in relationship of v-max to v-min suggests with high confidence that the original signal was emitted from a single source.
Intelligence 3 – A single influencing factor served to additionally alter v-max and v-min by lowering them both in about half the signals, but not disturbing this 1:1 relationship.
Intelligence 4 – The source of the v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, appears to suggest the intervention of a discrete, powerful and singular gravitational influence nearby the source of the signal – either through direct Schwarzschild time dilation or by inducing an orbit in the emission body featuring an exotically large speed.

The bursts exhibited direct proportional and 1:1 consistency in the level of frequency relationship between each v-max and v-min measure, confirming that the signal was of a discrete-banding nature and not a broad-band radio burst (such as might be emitted by a quasar). This is not an occurrence often seen in nature and I personally cannot fathom a physical circumstance, even under the high gravity or energy physics of a black hole event horizon, in which such a discrete duration (1 ms) and frequency band (2.5 GHz) of energy could be generated by a natural phenomenon. But neither am I the fount of all knowledge. This, while odd, is certainly not enough to start adding more exotic explanations into the fray just yet (Ockham’s Razor plurality). It merely suggests there is an area of exotic physics in which we have some discoveries yet to make. It inductively weakens our confidence in our standing related provisional explanations.

In the graphic to the right, the v-max index is along the abscissa and the v-min measurement is along the ordinate axis (y-axis). The 45 degree trend line suggests a direct and 1 to 1 relationship between the two, indicating a fixed interval from top frequency to bottom frequency. The dispersion of the scatter plot down and to the right most likely comprises imprecision in measurement along with the degradation of the signal to noise ratio as many of the pulses trended into lower frequencies – thereby making the lower end (most attenuated) of the pulse much harder to measure as compared to the higher end. Nonetheless, a terminal high and low end frequency was able to be established as a characteristic profile, confirmed by the group’s signature signal #1 (121102-1 was the strongest and most coherent of the fusillade) = 7.8 – 5.3 GHz.

Of added note is the fact that this one-to-one simple relationship between the v-max and v-min extremes indicates strongly that all 93 signals were emitted by the same source. This was corroborated later in examining the arrival time curve, which appears to exhibit a consistent one-factor logarithmic-formulaic pattern. In addition, lower and lower v-max frequencies were detected in the grouping, which appeared to either be a characteristic of the emitting source, or some kind of influencing or intervening source of gravity. This influence is substantiated by the linear trend discipline which exists, even in the case where v-max is altered significantly (the lower left end of the graph). This added dispersion or red shift, could be the results of a gravitational body or a high speed orbit. Both of these will be evaluate herein. Given that the attenuation patterns of both the lower and higher v-max emissions were similar – this suggests that the influencing factor was not a gas cloud – which would have caused enormous chaos in both the v-max and v-min patterns, causing a more circular scatter plot in the above graphic. In addition, a gas/lone plasma cloud could not, and exclusively would not have been able to serve to introduce this observed dispersion distortion, one mimicking in the .32 ∂v/∂t group (below) of signals an added 1.5 billion light years of travel for the lower v-max signals (when we know they were emitted at the same time from the same source). This scatter plot and dispersion profile is in no way compatible with the intervention of a gas cloud, or large bank of stars for that matter. The source of the v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, appears to suggest the intervention of a discrete, powerful and singular gravitational influence nearby the source of the signal – a gravitational body which is directly dilating the EM emission, or is causing an orbiting body emitting the bursts to move alternately toward and away from us as the observer.

Natural Log Decay Timing Profile and Gapping

Intelligence 5 – The arrival timing of each burst fell cleanly into a formulaic pattern of a y = ln x natural logarithmic basis with no characteristic Shapiro time delay observed. This corroborates the linear v-max/v-min relationship above, and supports the hypothesis that the signals all emanated from a single, natural source. As well the peak signal flux amplitudes decayed by a logarithmic function, however sustained a base rate which persisted until the signal stopped.
Intelligence 6 – The single source which imbued the characteristic v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, did not appreciably alter the speed of the signals themselves relative to space-time or c. So each of those data points was kept as original signal data.

The bursts appeared to take a confirmatory time of arrival (TOA in the chart at the bottom), arrival distribution conforming to a natural logarithm curve y = ln x. A classic textbook natural log curve is overlain across the time of arrival plot for the 93 burst group, in purple in the chart to the right. The logarithm trend line is placed only to highlight the circumstance that this burst progression indeed follows a natural log distribution in time. The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e, where e is the irrational constant 2.7182819… ad infinitum. This does not mean that aliens have sent us the precise constant e as a message, rather this pattern occurs in a number of systems observed in nature, especially where the decay rate of energy is involved. For instance say, the decay of a radioactive isotope. This is a very large hint here that the source of fast radio bursts is a natural source.

In addition, the conformance discipline of this curve (with some exceptions to be examined below) hint that all the observations, despite their degraded signal to noise ratio in many cases, are valid observations of confirmed signal. None should be ‘tossed out’ as discrete entities. However this does not preclude our ability to group and profile the burst arrivals. This conclusion was essential to this analysis.

Of primary importance however, is the inference which can be drawn from this curve, in that the single source which imbued the characteristic v-max cascading and mimicked dispersion of the .32 ∂v/∂t group, did not appreciably alter the speed of the signals themselves relative to space-time nor c. This is addressed again later in Intelligence 10 inside this article. It is an important observation – as one must grapple in this circumstance with the power/energy of an intervening body which can cause 1.5 billion light years worth of pseudo-dispersion in an electromagnetic wave, yet not alter its speed in the least.

Apparent Burst Cluster Scatter Plot Groupings

Intelligence 7 – The bust fusillade bore more diversity in dispersion than anticipated, but appeared to exhibit a Poisson μ at .21 ∂v/∂t.

The peak of dispersion occurrence rate versus the signal to noise ratio of the 93 measures, resided at a dispersion of .21 ∂v/∂t. This measure was both the most commonly featured dispersion measure in the group, and as well was the dispersion measure for the strongest signal to noise ratio signals of the group. For instance FRB121102-1 cited earlier in this article, featured a .21 ∂v/∂t as well as a very high signal to noise ratio. It was the first signal detected and stands as the signature burst of the group. The cluster of 93 signals skewed to longer dispersion tails upon an apparent Poisson distribution, where the accuracy of measurement of the signals themselves imparted a +/- 10% measurement tolerance. Two suppositions came from this data: 1. That lower dispersion measures, which were fewer in number, were the result of antenna detection errors primarily, and 2. That a characteristic dispersion for the entire group, given a single common source and instance of signal, could be assigned at .21 ∂v/∂t.

Suggested Intervention of a MIGO Body

Intelligence 8 – Dispersion measures were chaotic, however exhibited a two-cluster profiling around .21 and .32 ∂v/∂t. Variation which was not stochastic in origin and exhibited bilateral symmetry between the two groups, as if bearing the gradient dynamics of an orbit pathway – approaching and regressing cyclically.

There appeared inside the data, a clustering of two distinct dispersion profiles, which exceeded significantly both the database detection sensitivity and the measurement error tolerance. These profiles clustered around .21 ∂v/∂t and .32 ∂v/∂t. The bursts which composed the .32 ∂v/∂t grouping tended to

• be slightly delayed in arrival time (see graph to right),
• be weaker in signal to noise ratio (.34 versus .22), and
• feature greater Poisson degrees of freedom as compared to, the .21 ∂v/∂t group.

This second grouping of bursts appeared to me to be a kind of weakened version of the bursts (or maybe an echo?). But given the y = ln x conformance – this is not likely), or perhaps delayed-warped-duplicate of what I call the ‘Primary Cluster’ bursts (in blue), perhaps the type of bent EM signal whose trajectory was impacted by an intervening large gravitational mass; perhaps a black hole. Very much like a refracted lensing which occurs in visual astronomy, this EM light appeared to be a replications of the Primary Cluster signals – red shifted – a separate vector of EM energy which was diverted from its original path by a Massive Intervening Gravitational Object (MIGO), and now toward the Earth, to join alongside their Primary and direct-path signal twins (orange versus their blue twins in the graphic to the right). It is not that each signal arrived at Earth twice – rather, there were two types of signal in general – Primary and MIGO. These MIGO bursts are flagged by orange color in the graphic to the right. They feature a consistent enough pattern to ascribe some characteristic measures to the group as a whole, which can be contrasted with the Primary Cluster equivalents. In this analysis we examine both the constructs the the MIGO object is directly Schwarzschild time dilating the MIGO signal group – OR – alternately is causing a high speed orbit in a second body, which would explain both the Primary and MIGO clusters as well.

However, even at this early point in our study, the bilateral symmetry and even balance and consistency between the two burst classes hints strongly at an orbiting body approaching and regressing, and exhibiting the incumbent Doppler effect differential.

FRB Source Orbiting the MIGO?

Intelligence 9 – MIGO Cluster bursts featured consistent differentiation from the Primary Cluster bursts – and both appear to alternate in contiguous groupings as if produced as a signature of an body in orbit around another.
Intelligence 10 – The Planck based red shift and time-width displacement (Schwarzschild time dilation in both observations) far exceeded the displacement of the twin signals in relative elapsed time of arrival (Shapiro time delay, a measure which was almost negligible) – This clue is critical in deducing a solution to the source of the signal, at the end of this article.

So I took a representative – not average, rather good signal to noise and parametrizing measured – signal from both the MIGO and Primary burst cluster groups and developed a consistent profile for each EM signal group, which removed the effect of antenna detection and measurement errors. Those two consistent EM burst profiles are depicted in the graphic to the right. The blue curve represents the dispersion, in the same format as FRB 121102-1 is depicted above, characteristic of the Primary Cluster of bursts. The orange curve represents the dispersion characteristic of the MIGO Cluster of bursts. It is clear from the data that the MIGO Cluster of bursts represent a consistent and distinct profile from the Primary Cluster burst group in terms of the following:

  • reduced v-peak from v 7.8 to 6.5 GHz
  • reduced v-min from 5.3 GHz to 4.8 GHz
  • reduce ∂v from 2.5 GHz-band to 1.7 GHz-band
  • increased signal duration ∂t from 60 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds
  • imbued Planck dilation red shift contrast on the order of .32 .21 ∂v/∂t
  • the relative arrival time ΔT differential was on the order of


Please note that it is possible that the MIGO is part of the formula as to how a fast radio burst is generated in the first place. In other words, two black holes.

The MIGO Exotic Profile – Two Massive Object Dynamics

Intelligence 11 – There exist 16 discrete gaps and 17 ‘orbits’ in the decay rate of the FRB source as compared to a y = ln x analog. These appear to be introduced by the influence of a massive external body to the source of the bursts.
Intelligence 12 – The burst .32 and .21 ∂v/∂t groups and burst trends appear to feature a positional relationship with these intervals of minor occulting, as if a lensing or possibly rotational effect was being imbued by an orbiting mass. Both will be examined.

In the analysis to the right, we examine further then a magnified view of the y = ln x arrival timing curve (arrivals 1 – 48) identified in Intelligence 5 above. Of significance in the time series of this set of early arrivals are the presences of static gaps in progression – flatter periods in the chart to the right, of which there are 7 shown here, and 16 or so of them in the overall 93 burst data set. The first four gaps are highlighted by a horizontal orange bar in the chart. The gaps of arrivals are in seconds of arrival observation. The strongest signals in the .21 ∂v/∂t group tend to appear just before the first occulting. However this relationship decays after burst 25 or so. Of interest is to note that one quadruple/triplicate burst occurred right at the inception of occulting number 3; an occulting of which then lasted for 121 seconds. These decay gaps tended to trend actual burst timing as distended slightly versus that of a true natural logarithmic y = ln x curve (in purple above and in Intelligences 13 thru 16 below). This flat-decay-gapping is highlighted by a 57 minute gap in the arrivals between bursts 82 and 83 (denoted in orange in both graphic above – also see TOA in chart at the bottom of this article).

It is also of interest to compare that exception to the natural logarithmic discipline of the purple curve above occurs only as a result of, and commensurate with each occulting – as if the occulting member is actually momentarily delaying the decay of the emanation source (an orbit artifact in this case?) in some fashion during the short perisingular (nee perigee) pass – thereafter the decay source briefly resuming its natural decay rate after a 119 to 198 second break early – and much longer breaks as the process moved on. I am establishing mechanism here, projecting that during perisingular pass between two objects, a state of connection is established such that the bursts are quenched in some fashion. Of course once the merge is complete, the bursts would then be quenched in finality.

Given that it is doubtful that during aposingular orbit progression (or possibly the entire early orbit even to the intersection of event horizons), that the Roche limit is surpassed for these two bodies – it is possible that some artifact is created between them, which only exists at a given/formulaic proportion of the Roche limit, distance and the two masses.

Examine if you will, the first three cycles of the orbiting body in the chart above, which occur over about 1100 seconds. If we use the assumption of a 1,000,000 mile average elliptical orbit radius, this equates to a speed of 17,100 miles per second, or 9.2% of the speed of light. Some kind of relativistic energy shedding may be at play in genesis of these bursts.

This same occult influence repeating can be observed in the larger scale time of arrival curve below (Intelligence 13 thru 16); wherein the 57 minute delay induced a complete cessation of the decay of the emanating source of the later group of FRB signals. This is highly exotic and suggests both a rapid orbit as well as an elliptic eccentricity inside such an orbit, culminating in a final merge of the two bodies.

Orbital Decay and Merge Dynamics

Intelligence 13 – The burst times of arrival appear to be occulted on a semi-regular basis (16 times).
Intelligence 14 – The only exception to the natural logarithmic discipline of this curve occurs with each occulting – as if the occulting member is actually momentarily delaying the natural log decay of the emanation source in some fashion.
Intelligence 15 – Because of the high speed and elliptical nature of the suggested object orbits, this set of curve metrics suggests that both the emanation source, as well as the intervening gravitational source, are massive large gravitational bodies.
Intelligence 16 – The decay gapping appears to exhibit an early elliptical orbit profile, and then progress steadily into a faster and faster orbit, then mass merge profile, over the period of 5 to 7 hours. It appears as if the emanation source itself is the smaller of the two bodies.

As we saw in Intelligences 11 and 12 above, buried within this curve are several interventions in the rate of decay in the arrival timing, highlighted by the 16 horizontal orange markings in the chart to the right. One can observe that the actual decay took longer than its natural logarithm analog in purple. This suggests an occulting by a larger body of some type repeatedly moving in front of the burst source and then possibly merging with it briefly during the cessations (actually as you will notice they are ‘suspensions in decay’ technically) in burst activity, and then finally permanently at the end of the curve.

The distention of the continued logarithmic curve thereafter in time, suggests a body which is so close to the source that it is altering the very decay physics of the emanation source itself, such as in the case of the consumption of maybe a neutron star or denser by a black hole. However, this is very preliminary and only mildly inductive. The occurrence of the 57 minute break runs in contrast with the breaks/gaps in decay which occur earlier in the burst decay process. These appeared to be more orbit related – however as the orbit of the smaller FRB source body decays over time, you can see the gapping getting more and more frequent until the burst 82 (57 minute) merge event. Thereafter, bursts became less and less common until there are none at all. What is depicted inside the graphic to the right in black are three concept orbit states which relate to the various burst signatures along the 5 hour decay log.

This suggests that a repeating FRB is only therefore a ‘multiple FRB’; not sustainable in reality, and not ‘repeating’ in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) sense. My projection is that we will hear no more noise from FRB 121102 in the future.

The occultings suggested by the data are complex, but not so complex as to be outside the possible range of Relativistic or even classic orbital dynamics. The relatively level state of the decay process during the gaps (flat orange lines in the graph to the right) could stem from a contribution of exotic material mass between the MIGO and emanating body, or as well be simply the result of a delay in the arrival of those bursts by their having to be refracted around the occulting MIGO body as it passes in front of the emanation source. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that the latter explanation here fits the data well, as indeed it appears to do inside bursts 1 – 48. However, as seen in the curve above, a later 57 minute gap in burst activity results in a depression of the decay rate for a substantial period of time, lending more to the mass contribution explanation than the occult-refractory explanation. Overall, a disintegrating orbit scenario, with Doppler effect constituting the main mechanism underlying the differential red shift in the MIGO group, is a superior explanation.

The Implications of This Observation Set

Objective Implication

The exotic profiling of the MIGO cluster along with the arrival gapping in energetic decay appears to have been generated by the orbit of the FRB 121102 emission source around a massive intervening gravitational object. The MIGO suggested above would have had to be very close to the radio burst emission point in space and very tight along the line of sight with Earth during occultations. This because the ΔT(2) to ΔT(1) differential in the above equation proved to be very slight to nothing on the epochal scale of time involved. The images to the right and below are speculative, but portray a highly eccentric orbit dynamic between two black holes which have just initiated collision. Such a collision would be necessary to account for the high speed orbital occulting displayed in the Intelligence 13 – 16 graphic.

This inductively inferred scenario would account for the three critical path intelligence components:

  1.  Erratic occult gapping of bursts
  2.  Added Planck dilation of .32 ∂v/∂t refracted bursts
  3.  The monumental delay in the natural decay of the emanation source during occult gaps.

But it would not account for the lack of a Shapiro time delay observation (Intelligence 5). This is deductive in its critical path inference.

The burst dynamics, as well as the origin of FRB’s themselves, could be the result of the collision of two black holes – wherein a special condition exists which creates in the smaller (orbiting body) of the two, or in an intermediate exotic plasma or yet unidentified space-time condition, a brilliant 1 millisecond burst of narrow-band decay energy (say the momentary collapse or appearance of a neutron body releasing its quark binding force). In the case of FRB 121102, that special condition existed long enough to exhibit a natural energy decay profile, momentarily and erratically interrupted by the intervention of the MIGO black hole (most likely an occulting). I have developed a concept illustration above in an attempt to depict this dance between two black holes.

It is very possible that both scenarios are occurring – wherein there is an alternation between exotic elliptical gapping and mass merges at play. In fact, as you observe the gapping inside the arrival profile versus a pure logarithmic decay curve, you will notice increasingly large gaps in the decay time, which shift from Doppler red/blue shift dynamics and into mass contribution dynamics in their nature.

This suggests an artifact of the elliptical orbital collision and then mass merging of two gigantic massive bodies over a 5 – 7 hour period, as the genesis of Fast Radio Burst 121102.

Regardless, what this intelligence also suggests is that both the emanation source AND the intervening body are BOTH of a massive nature. And the ensuing dance energy is stimulating repeated brief 1 ms eruptions of electromagnetic energy, sparkling like a strobe in an erstwhile disco of black holes tripping the light fantastic.

Deductive Inference: We Found Schwarzschild but Not Shapiro – And You Need Both

Finally, a deductive inference regarding the FRB emission structure can be discerned by examining the implications of the General Theory of Relativity on this intelligence set – the problem with Intelligence 10 above is that it violates my understanding of electromagnetic energy propagation and Planck red shift. The Planck dilation of the MIGO .32 ∂v/∂t bursts featured an enormous impact in terms of such dilation – 2.5 GHz and 20 milliseconds, roughly equal in magnitude to each other, resulting in an overall .11 ∂v/∂t additional Planck dilation. This equates to an added 1.5 billion years of light travel imbued into only a subset (half?) of these signals. Signals which we know emanated from the same source at the same time. However the delay in time of arrival was essentially negligible – on the order of an estimated 120 seconds at most, over a base of 2.5 billion years (1/(7.9 x 10^16)). This is essentially a zero impact on the speed of this signal’s propagation versus the speed of light, c. In a Newtonian sense, the negligible delay or decay gaps might be explainable simply by the longer physical path that particular light vector took relative to a line of sight path to Earth. The problem is that this negligible difference violates the Shapiro time delay which should have been embedded into the .32 ∂v/∂t group of bursts, according to the formula4

A case where M is rather large. The conflict resides in reconciling the rather null presence of any observed Shapiro time delay, with the observed monumental effect of the ostensible Schwarzschild time dilation metric in the .32 ∂v/∂t group, which is governed by the formula5

M is exceedingly large in both cases. So what gives?

There should have been both a Shapiro time delay and a Schwarzschild time dilation inside the signals – and we apparently only got one of them at best. Therefore the lensing explanation for the MIGO Cluster group fails. We are left with a Relativistic Doppler red/blue shift as the remaining mechanism.

High Speed Orbital Doppler Red/Blue Shift Differential – We Got Bursts Coming and Going

Another possibility resides however, and potentially resolves this paradox, in that both signals possibly already do reflect the Shapiro time delay, and there is in actuality also no differential Schwarzschild time dilation as this factor is also equal in both the Primary and MIGO burst groups; however, the MIGO group red shifted profile was simply generated by a relativistic Doppler shift derived from the speed of the source away from us, relative to the speed of light.  In other words the source was alternating in its motion toward and away from Earth as it emitted this series of bursts.  This would be according to the formula6

Where v would be the velocity of the emitting body away from Earth during the red shifted emissions affecting both t – waveduration and f – wavefrequency. To the credit of this idea, the emissions did come in profile contiguous groups early in the series (Intelligence 12), as this construct might suggest. As well, the two sets of burst groupings exhibited bilateral symmetry around their common average. This is what one would expect in orbit cycle Doppler dynamics. But, as well, the emitting body would have had to be traveling around its gravitational host (which would be required in this case as well to allow for alterations between the Primary and MIGO blue/red shift profiles) at a significant fraction of the speed of light. So let’s examine this alternative then. Relatively, we observed 17 orbits (16 occultations) in about 5 hours. At a radius of 1 million miles between the black holes, this would represent an orbital velocity given by

or 5934 miles per second. Where C is the number of cycles undergone 17, and P is the duration of the merge. That equates to a v of 3.2% of the speed of light on average for the 17 cycles. Enough to do the job on the Hubble (λ) differential required, especially given that we must divide the .11 ∂v/∂t by a factor of two, since we are receding in one burst group and approaching in the other. Principally, once noise and error are removed, we arguably are left with only these two distinct red and blue shifted burst profiles.

So it is very possible to likely that the orbital velocity of the smaller black hole (the emission source) orbiting at ~1 to 4% of the speed of light, around a larger black hole, could explain the differential red shift between the Primary and MIGO fast radio burst groups, while at the same time allowing the FRB bursts to arrive in a clean natural log time distribution.

What remains to be explained is the mechanism inside the smaller black hole (or between it and the MIGO body) which allows for a natural logarithmic decaying multiple set of 2.5 GHz narrow band and discrete 1 ms time truncated electromagnetic frequency emissions.

It is possible, that the very act of accelerating to a fraction of the speed of light, on the part of a smaller black hole approaching a larger one, serves to produce disruptions in relativistic physics such that discrete quanta of spacetime are ejected from the smaller black hole at the signature frequency of that hole. In a direct collision, this only happens once. In an indirect collision, we now know it can happen 93 times.

Mystery Solved?

Finally, an intervening plasma or gas cloud could not have possibly caused this particular set of observations either. So if the blue/red shift orbit explanation above is not valid, then a dilemma exists, to my understanding, in that a Planck dilation of extraordinary magnitude in impact to a burst signal, was matched to a rather non-remarkable impact to the speed of that electromagnetic signal on the part of the same intervening massive object(s), over the same time and space vectoring. And if valid in structure and my understanding, this bears profound implications to our current paradigm of inflationary theory. Essentially, if an electromagnetic signal can be red shifted through the presence of gravity-time alone (Schwarzschild time dilation) in this manner and not be simply dispersed in its lower frequencies, yet its speed relative to c not be appreciably altered (no Shapiro time delay), then there is no need for galaxies to be ‘hurtling apart on a galactic scale’ (actually space-time itself inflating) to stand as the explanatory mechanism for an observable red shift in EM energy transiting our universe. The red shift per hoc aditum being simply an artifact of EM energy having traversed time and gravitational fields. In other words, a 2 dimensional Planck dilation (G,t), as opposed to a 3 dimensional space inflation (l,w,h). In other words, space is not inflating (Scale Invariant Cosmological Model) – rather gravity is serving to dilate time (t). Under this line of reasoning, a gravity-time dilation alone causing the red shift differential between these two sets of signals.

To be fair, such an alternative (time dilation) model of the red shifted universe has been proposed recently by University of Paris astrophysicist Jean-Pierre Petit. But so far has not received much ear from the scientific community at large. Time dilation models more than adequately explain the Hubble red shift, and in some circumstance, do a better job at explaining it.7 Does the FRB 121102 data support the Scale Invariant Cosmological model?

However, Ockham’s Razor suggests that since we have a less feature-stacked mechanism viable now and inside a classic and well supported model, there is not need to introduce the Scale Invariant Cosmological Model explanation just yet. Although there is inductive support for such an idea, the current model carries with it an explanation sufficient to reject pursuing it at this moment.

Unless I am mistaken in all of this of course. One of the tenets of ethical skepticism is to ask the question ‘If I was mistaken, would I even know?’ And in this case, I would not know, and accordingly should ask for help. Any physicists out there who understand this better than do I, and can provide me with the understanding of such a mechanism which serves to reconcile this observation back into alignment with standing universe inflation and red shift theory – please drop me a note and correct or enlighten me. It would be much appreciated.

The database I assembled and used for this analysis resides below. Click on the image to expand it to full size or save it. The Primary Cluster leading signals are in green shading, while the MIGO Cluster signals are shaded in orange.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Exotic Nature of FRB 121102 Burst Congery” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 9 Nov 2018; Web,

November 9, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Spectrum of Evidence Manipulation

Unconscious bias occurs with everyone and inside most deliberation. Such innocent manifestation of bias, while important in focus, is not the First Duty of the ethical skeptic. The list of fallacies and crooked thinking below outline something beyond just simple bias – something we call agency. The tricks of obfuscation of evidence for which ethical skeptics keep vigilant watch.

Michael Shermer has outlined in his November 2018 editorial for Scientific American, a new fallacy of data which he calls the ‘Fallacy of Excluded Exceptions’. In this informal fallacy, evidence which does not serve to confirm one’s a priori conclusion is systematically eliminated or ignored, despite its potentially robust import. This is a form of, not unconscious bias, but a more prevalent and dangerous mode of corrupted thinking which we at The Ethical Skeptic call ‘agency’. The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism is to oppose agency (not simply bias).

Fallacy of Excluded Exceptions

/philosophy : pseudoscience : data manipulation/ : a form of data skulpting in which a proponent bases a claim on an apparently compelling set of confirming observations to an idea, yet chooses to ignore an also robust set of examples of a disconfirming nature. One chisels away at, disqualifies or ignores large sets of observation which are not advantageous to the cause, resulting only seeing what one sought to see to begin with.

“Excluded exceptions test the rule. Without them, science reverts to subjective speculation.” ~ Michael Shermer 1

Despite his long career inside skepticism, Michael is sadly far behind most ethical skeptics in his progression in understanding the tricks of fake epistemology and agency. That is because of his anchoring bias in that – he regards today’s ‘skepticism’ as representative of science and the scientific method, as well as all that is good in data reduction and syllogism. He is blinded by the old influences of bandwagon hype. Influences as master which he must still serve today, and which serve to agency-imbue his opinions. The celebrity conflict of interest.

Agency and bias are two different things.
Ironically, agency can even tender the appearance of mitigating bias, as a method of its very insistence.

Well we at The Ethical Skeptic have been examining tricks of data manipulation and agency for decades, and already possessed a name for this fallacy Michael has been compelled to create from necessity on his own – precisely because it is a very common trick we have observed on the part of fake skeptics to begin with. Michael’s entrenchment inside social skepticism is the very reason why he could not see this fallacy until now – he is undergoing skeptive dissonance and is beginning to spot fallacies of agency his cronies have been committing for decades. Fallacies which he perceives to be ‘new’. Congratulations Michael, you are repenting. The next step is to go out and assist those your cronies and sycophants have harmed in the past through fake skepticism.  Help them develop their immature constructs into hypotheses with mechanism, help them with the scientific method, help them with the standards of how to collect and reduce data and argument. Drop the shtick of a priori declarations of ‘ you are full of baloney’ and help them go and find that out for themselves. Maybe. 2

Bias is the Titanic’s habit of failing to examine its ice berg alerts.
Agency is the Titanic telling the ship issuing ice berg alerts to ‘shut up’.

If all we suffered from was mere bias, things might even work out fine.
But reality is that we are victims of agency, not bias.

Just maybe as well, embarking upon such a journey you will find as I did – that you really did not understand the world all that well, nor have things as figured out as you had assumed. Your club might have served as a bit of a cocoon, if you will. Maybe in this journey you have so flippantly stumbled upon, you will observe as ‘new’ a fallacy that ethical skeptics have identified for a long time now; one which your cabal has routinely ignored.

Evidence Sculpting (Cherry Sorting)

/philosophy : pseudoscience : data manipulation/ : has more evidence been culled from the field of consideration for this idea, than has been retained? Has the evidence been sculpted to fit the idea, rather than the converse?

Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Your next assignment Michael, should you choose to accept it, is to learn about how agency promotes specific hypotheses through the targeting of all others (from The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying):

Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ)

/philosophy : pseudoskepticism/ : was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’? Is there enormous social pressure to not even ask questions inside the subject? Is mocking and derision high – curiously in excess of what the subject should merit?

Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’ and all opposing ideas, anti-science, credulity and pseudoscience.

But Michael, as you begin to spot agency inside purported processes of epistemology, we have to warn you, there is more – oh, so much more which you do not know. Let’s take a brief look shall we?

Agency as it Pertains to Evidence and Data Integrity

So, in an effort to accelerate Michael’s walk through the magical wonderland of social skepticism, and how it skillfully enforces conformance upon us all, let us examine the following. The fallacies, modes of agency and methods of crooked thinking below relate to manipulations of data which are prejudices, and not mere unconscious biases – such as in the case of anchoring bias, wherein one adopts a position which is overly influenced by their starting point or the first information which arrived. They may hold a bias, but at least it is somewhat innocent in its genesis, i.e. not introduced by agency. Prejudicial actions in the handling and reduction of evidence and data, are the preeminent hint of the presence of agency, and the first things which the ethical skeptic should look out for inside a claim, denial, mocking or argument.

Unconscious bias happens with everyone, but the list of fallacies and crooked thinking below, outline something more than simple bias. They involve processes of pseudo-induction, panduction, abduction and pseudo-deduction, along with the desire to dissemble the contribution of agency. You can find this, along with agency-independent and unconscious biases, all defined at The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Evidence or Data

And of course, all of these fallacies, biases, modes of agency and crooked thinking can be found and defined here:

And as well, more modes of agency can be found at The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation itself.

The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation

A compendium of fallacy and corrupted thought commonly employed inside Social Skepticism



epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Spectrum of Evidence Manipulation” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 2 Nov 2018; Web,

November 2, 2018 Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: