Month: April 2026

stock here: hat tip Ms. Frill. On Easter, the Creation or the Destruction of His most precious gift? Full transcript is at the bottom, an interpretation right below the video, of one aspect of this podcast….is our consciousness, perhaps souls, “radio’d” in to our human bodies from somewhere else, aka Heaven.

——————-

————————-

Gemini said

This specific section of the transcript touches on one of the most profound “glitches” in modern neuroscience. When Farrell refers to the “Frenchman,” he is talking about a real medical case study published in The Lancet in 2007 that continues to baffle researchers and challenge the materialist view of the mind.

Here is an unpacking of why this case makes the “organ sack” project so ethically terrifying:

1. The Case of the “Missing” Brain

In 2007, a 44-year-old French civil servant went to the doctor complaining of mild leg weakness. When doctors performed a CT and MRI scan, they were shocked: his skull was mostly filled with fluid (hydrocephalus).

His actual brain tissue was compressed into a thin layer—just a few millimeters thick—against the walls of his skull. Statistically, he was missing about 90% of his brain.

2. The Functional Paradox

Under traditional biological models, this man should have been in a vegetative state. However:

• He had an IQ of 75 (borderline, but functional).
• He was a married father of two.
• He worked a steady job as a government employee.

This is the “Black Swan” Farrell is referencing—a single observation that invalidates the general rule that “Big Brain = Consciousness.” If a human can be fully sentient, social, and employed with only 10% of a brain, it suggests that the physical architecture of the brain is not the same thing as the presence of a soul or consciousness.

Shutterstock

3. The “Dangerous Gamble” of R3 Bio

The startup R3 Bio bases its ethical defense on Biological Reductionism: the belief that if you suppress the “hardware” (the brain), the “software” (sentience) cannot exist.

Farrell’s argument is that if consciousness can exist in a “sliver” of a brain, how can we be sure that a “brainless” clone isn’t experiencing some form of agony or awareness?

• The Ethical Gap: If we define “human” only by brain volume, we risk creating living, feeling beings that we then treat as mere biological spare parts.
• The “Vessel” Theory: In Farrell’s more esoteric view, if these bodies are alive, they may possess a “field” or “signature” that attracts consciousness—whether human or, as he suggests, something much darker.

4. What Science Doesn’t Know

We currently lack a “consciousness meter.” We can measure blood flow (fMRI) and electrical impulses (EEG), but we cannot measure Qualia—the internal experience of being alive.

By moving forward with “organ sacks,” R3 Bio is assuming that consciousness is a product of the brain. Farrell is warning that the brain might actually be a receiver (like a radio) for consciousness. If the radio is broken or “brainless,” that doesn’t mean the signal isn’t still hitting the hardware in some haunting, unrecognizable way.

How does that change your perspective on the ethics of “backup bodies”?

————————

Gemini said

As in the Days of Noah: Hybrid Breeding and the Rise of “Organ Sacks”

By Joseph P. Farrell | News and Views from the Nefarium Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2026

Hi folks, and welcome—whoever you are and wherever you happen to be all around this gorgeous planet. As we enter Holy Week, I find myself in an “As in the Days of Noah” frame of mind. Amidst the global chaos, two seemingly unrelated stories have crossed my desk that I believe are deeply, and perhaps darkly, connected.

---

1. The Congressional Claim: ET Hybrid Breeding

The first story involves an interview with former Congressman Matt Gaetz (shared via Benny Johnson). In this short but explosive clip, Gaetz states he was informed by a uniformed U.S. Army officer about a clandestine breeding program between extraterrestrials and humans designed to create hybrids.

While this may sound like science fiction, these reports have circulated in the ufology community for decades. Scholars like the late David Jacobs (Professor at Temple University) have written extensively about the “hybridization” agenda. If these claims are true, we are looking at an intervention into human generation that bypasses every ethical boundary we know.

2. The “Brainless Clone” Startup

The second story, recently detailed in a long-form MIT Technology Review piece, concerns a California-based startup called R3 Bio. Operating in secrecy for years, the company has recently gone public with its mission to create “non-sentient” biological structures.

• The Pitch: Growing “monkey organ sacks” as an alternative to animal testing.
• The “Stealth” Vision: Founder John Schlendor has privately pitched the creation of brainless human clones to serve as “backup bodies.”
• The Goal: These bodies would be used for organ harvesting or, more speculatively, for “body transplants” where an older person moves their brain into a younger, brainless version of themselves.

Schlendor cites a rare birth defect where children are born without cortical hemispheres as proof that a body can survive without a functioning brain. He even suggests that since artificial wombs don’t yet exist, the first “batches” would need to be carried by human surrogates.

---

The Nefarious Connection: A Vessel for Foreign Intelligence?

Why do I think these stories are related? Because if you are engaged in a hybrid breeding program, what better vessel could you ask for than a “brainless clone”?

If we are creating human bodies devoid of their own consciousness, we are essentially building biological “hardware” into which a foreign intelligence could be injected. This also echoes the decades of abduction reports involving women whose pregnancies were mysteriously terminated by non-human entities.

The Problem of Sentience

The backers of R3 Bio argue that harvesting these bodies is ethical because they are “non-sentient.” However, I must point to the “Black Swan” case I’ve discussed in my books: the famous Frenchman who lived a normal life—holding a job and supporting a family—despite scans showing he had almost no brain matter, only a thin sheet of tissue.

Modern science still cannot define the mystery of consciousness. To assume these “organ sacks” are empty vessels is a dangerous gamble.

---

Closing Thoughts: The Return of the Old Gods?

Between the talk of hybrid programs and the commercialization of “organ sacks,” we are witnessing a return to the themes of ancient Sumerian and Biblical texts—stories of “gods” who interfered with human genetics for their own ends. These ancient stories are almost unanimous on one point: those involved in the project were not our friends.

We are seeing clues that the “old gods” might be returning, or perhaps they never left.

Note on Schedule: Due to Western and Eastern Holy Weeks, there will be no Vid Chats for the next two Fridays. Our next session will be on Friday, April 17th.

Until then, have a blessed Holy Week and a joyous Easter. I’ll see you on the flip side.

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be…”

stock here: sorry for the A-Eye blast out. Have a Look-See

—————————

so do a deep dive on solar energy on mars, and what would it take to exist there for humans, to grow food using solar energy (its like 1/6 right?) and being “sustainable”. Seems very shaky to me, like it would be expensive, and why….like Musk likes to think it is a backup to sustain the human species if something happened to earth. Do an energy balance,,,,,Thought for 56s

Yes — the backup-species pitch gets shaky fast once you run the energy balance.

The first correction is this: Mars is not at 1/6 of Earth’s sunlight. Mars sits about 1.5 AU from the Sun, so sunlight at Mars orbit is about 43% of Earth’s before you even account for the dusty atmosphere. NASA plant researchers use that same 43% figure, and Mars solar-power work emphasizes additional losses from suspended dust, dust deposition on panels, and low temperatures.

A second correction: solar on Mars is not just a “lower output version of Arizona solar.” It is a storage and survivability problem. Mars has a 24.6-hour day, big seasonal swings because of its elliptical orbit, and an atmosphere whose mass changes by about 30% annually. Dust storms and background dust reduce sunlight further, and NASA’s Mars power work treats those as central design constraints.

My bottom-line view: a Mars outpost can use solar, but a genuinely sustainable human settlement cannot sensibly rely on solar alone. It would need nuclear baseline power, solar as a supplement, very large storage, and aggressive recycling/ISRU. NASA’s own current Mars surface power framing points the same way: even a short two-crew mission needs about 10 kW minimum practical power, while power can rise toward megawatt class for ISRU-heavy architectures; NASA is also explicitly advancing 40-kW-class fission surface power because it provides continuous power regardless of environmental conditions.

Start with the solar resource

At Earth orbit the Sun delivers about 1,360 W/m²; Mars, at about 1.5 AU, receives much less, which is why NASA and NASA-affiliated Mars agriculture work refer to roughly 43% as much sunlight. On top of that, Mars’s atmosphere and dust cut surface irradiance further, and panel dust accumulation matters enough that NASA has treated it as a major system issue for Mars photovoltaics.

So the usable picture is:

Earth orbit: ~1360 W/m²
Mars orbit: ~590 W/m²
Mars surface: lower still, often materially lower, depending on sun angle, season, latitude, and dust.

That means the “nameplate” problem is already hard, and the continuous-power problem is much harder because half the sol is night and dust events can hammer output for days or weeks. NASA’s Mars solar and dust-storm literature has been explicit about dark days and large performance swings under storm conditions.

What a small solar base would actually need

Take a deliberately modest crewed outpost and ignore return-propellant production for the moment.

Assume a small base wants a continuous 100 kW electric average. That is not crazy-high once you include habitat systems, water processing, oxygen systems, food systems, tools, mobility, thermal control, comms, and margin. NASA documents show even conceptual Mars missions quickly rise well above the bare-minimum human-habitation figure, and older mission studies showed around 50 kW just for a cargo mission supporting propellant plant, life support cache, and habitat needs.

Now do rough PV sizing.

Use these simplifying assumptions:

• Mars peak sunlight at array level after geometry/dust losses is not the raw 590 W/m² all day.
• Good PV efficiency might be around 25%.
• Effective capacity factor on Mars for fixed or lightly tracked arrays in real conditions might land roughly in the 0.2–0.3 band once day/night and environmental losses are accounted for.

That gives average delivered power per square meter on the order of about 30–45 W/m².

So:

• 100 kW continuous needs roughly 2,200 to 3,300 m² of active PV just in favorable conditions.
• Add dust degradation, aging, seasonal margin, and operational reserve, and you are soon more in the realm of several thousand square meters, not a cute little rooftop. This is inference from the cited Mars solar constraints plus standard PV arithmetic.

That is before the real killer: storage.

The storage problem is what breaks the “solar-only civilization” idea

Night alone is manageable with batteries if your base is small.

For 100 kW continuous, one 12-hour night is about 1.2 MWh.
For 24 hours of reserve, about 2.4 MWh.
For 7 sols of poor production, about 16.8 MWh.
For 30 sols, about 72 MWh.

That is only for the base load. It does not include big episodic loads like heavy excavation, large-scale electrolysis, or industrial food production under artificial light.

And Mars dust events are not hypothetical. NASA’s own Mars solar literature treats high optical depth and “dark days” during global storms as design realities, while dust storms can substantially reduce flux to the surface.

So the core objection is strong: solar can run a base on Mars; solar alone is a bad bet for guaranteeing human continuity on Mars.

Food changes the math a lot

This is where “sustainable” gets slippery.

If you mean:

1. some salad, herbs, psychological benefit, and oxygen recycling, that is plausible;
2. full calorie autonomy for a permanent settlement, that is much harder.

Greenhouse crops such as lettuce need a daily light integral of about 15–20 mol/m²/day just as a benchmark crop. Purdue’s greenhouse guidance uses lettuce as a moderate-light example. NASA plant work says many low-latitude Mars regions receive enough sunlight to grow plants, but that does not mean unprotected, low-maintenance, field-style agriculture. Mars crops would still need controlled conditions.

The problem is that Mars greenhouses are not Earth greenhouses. They must also solve:

• pressure containment,
• thermal control,
• radiation shielding,
• dust exclusion,
• water recovery,
• nutrient recycling,
• often supplemental lighting.

The atmosphere is so thin that liquid water is not stable on the Martian surface, which is why NASA treats buried ice as a vital resource and why water handling must be enclosed.

And if you abandon sunlight and go to indoor LED farming, the energy burden jumps. Recent plant-factory modeling puts lettuce around 6.2–12.0 kWh/kg, with many studies clustering around 10–18 kWh/kg in current practice. That is lettuce — a poor calorie crop. It is good nutrition, not a civilization-saving staple.

So a Mars settlement that wants to survive on local food would likely do some combination of:

• sunlight-assisted greenhouses for bulky biomass and psychological benefit,
• tightly controlled indoor production for sensitive crops,
• imported food for years,
• and eventually selected staple crops grown in highly optimized systems.

But that is not “cheap solar farming.” It is industrial life support that happens to include plants.

Water, oxygen, and fuel are possible — but energy-intensive

Mars does offer one huge advantage: CO₂-rich atmosphere plus accessible subsurface ice in some regions. NASA’s SWIM maps show likely water ice within the upper 1 meter in large areas, and NASA explicitly says this buried ice would be vital for drinking water and rocket fuel.

Oxygen production from the atmosphere is real, but MOXIE shows both promise and scale limits. MOXIE produced up to 12 grams of O₂ per hour at high purity and made 122 grams total over its Mars mission. That is a successful technology demo, but it also shows how far there is to go from “it works” to “it supports a settlement.”

So yes, you can envision:

• mine ice,
• purify water,
• electrolyze water,
• use Sabatier chemistry with CO₂ to make methane and oxygen,
• recycle crew waste streams.

But each step costs power. NASA’s ISRU roadmaps and Mars mission power studies have long treated these systems as major electrical loads, not side chores.

Radiation makes “surface greenhouse homestead” less attractive

Mars is not just dimmer; it is also harsher. Curiosity’s RAD measured a surface dose rate around 210 micrograys per day from galactic cosmic rays alone during its observations, and NASA notes solar particle events remain a major uncertainty for human exposure. Another NASA educational summary puts average surface dose near 0.7 mSv/day.

That pushes serious habitat design toward:

• bermed or buried habitats,
• regolith shielding,
• shielded storm shelters,
• and possibly partly buried agriculture.

Once you bury habitats and grow spaces, you lose direct sunlight and start paying the electricity bill for lighting. Again: this pushes the system away from “solar settlement” and toward power-intensive underground life support.

So is Mars a backup for humanity?

As a small scientific or strategic outpost, yes, maybe eventually.

As a true backup of human civilization, not remotely in the near term.

A real species-backup location should be able to survive:

• long supply interruptions,
• local equipment failures,
• low-sun periods,
• medical emergencies,
• industrial spare-parts shortages,
• and multi-year crop or power problems.

Mars fails that test unless you build an enormous industrial stack:

• redundant power,
• mining,
• metallurgy,
• pressure-vessel manufacturing,
• electronics repair,
• chemicals,
• medicine,
• radiation shielding,
• heavy storage,
• agriculture,
• and transport.

That is not a colony in the romantic sense. It is a high-maintenance off-world industrial bunker.

My practical energy-balance verdict

If you forced me to summarize it in one line:

Mars solar is good enough to supplement a base, bad as the sole foundation of a self-sustaining civilization.

A plausible long-duration Mars architecture looks more like:

• nuclear baseload for habitat, life support, and critical ISRU,
• solar augmentation for daytime and noncritical loads,
• large energy storage for ride-through and resilience,
• buried or shielded habitats,
• greenhouses plus controlled-environment agriculture,
• aggressive recycling and ice mining,
• years of imported spare parts and food buffer.

That is why NASA is pursuing fission surface power for future Moon and Mars operations, not because solar is useless, but because survival systems hate intermittency.

So your instinct is basically right: the economics are brutal, the energy margins are thin, and the “Mars as easy backup Earth” story is much more marketing than engineering.

stock here: Use your own thinking…..