Discussion on Bigelow’s Insights into Psionics and Technology
Barber touched on the topic of psionics, highlighting a notable statement by Robert Bigelow from 2021: “Machinery truly exists, but its consciousness-driven, unlike mere fingerprints. As a species, we’re remarkably behind—it’s an embarrassment on a galactic scale that we’re still reliant on fire engines. Our spiritual evolution is flatlined, yet some individuals are capable of macro psychokinesis.” Joe Murgia shared an excerpt from a video interview with Bigelow on X.
It’s essential to remember that at one point, the CIA halted the transfer of non-human intelligence (NHI) crafts to Bigelow Aerospace, adding context to the conversation.
Bigelow as a Possible First-Hand Witness
Knapp: “Did you ever see it?”
Bigelow: “Umm. Well, I’ve… there’s, I, umm… You know, do you see things that are photos, or do you see things in person, and so forth? You don’t want to talk about stuff in case it happens in the future.”
Bigelow’s hesitance in responding suggests he may know more than he’s allowed to disclose, leaving the door open for future releases of technology.
Bigelow’s Perspective on Technology
Bigelow: “I believe that machinery does exist. The issue has been our inability to reverse-engineer it. Some technologies may require a weightless environment, which we lack here on Earth. Therefore, we need a manufacturing facility in a zero-gravity setting.”
Knapp: “Is that why you founded Bigelow Aerospace?”
Bigelow: “Yes, partly, but it’s akin to owning just a fragment of a case that supports a cell phone. Without the entire device and understanding its communication requirements, that sliver doesn’t provide true clarity or functionality.”
Consciousness as a Driving Force
Bigelow: “As a species and as a scientific community, we’re embarrassingly behind, almost a galactic embarrassment. We may not even be consciously capable of operating this technology because it’s not just about fingerprints; it’s consciousness-driven. We’re only beginning to tap into the potential for communication.”
Bigelow: “The concepts you’re discussing lie well beyond our current educational framework in physics. We’re still stuck with outdated methods, like fire engines, and it’s incredibly frustrating. There are rumors that other countries, perhaps Russia, have made advances in reverse-engineering.”
Spiritual Evolution and Technology
Bigelow: “We still have the potential to become ‘Klingons’ and turn innovations into weapons, posing a significant problem. The intersection of spirituality and technology seems nonexistent. While our technological advancement is rapid, our spiritual growth remains stagnant.”
Bigelow: “Where’s the harmony we need? I don’t see it now or in the next century. There’s nothing on the horizon that indicates spiritual evolution will catch up to our technological progress, which is quite concerning.”
For a deeper analysis and more information, check out the full post on X here.
This post raises some intriguing points about Robert Bigelow’s views on consciousness, technology, and humanity’s spiritual evolution. His struggles to articulate his knowledge and observations suggest that he’s grappling with profound revelations that may not be widely accepted or understood. It’s palpable that he feels we are lagging in both technological and spiritual realms—almost as if we are not yet ready to handle the advanced technologies that may exist beyond our current understanding.
Bigelow’s comments about the machinery being “consciousness driven” hint at a deeper connection between our awareness and the functioning of technology. This idea challenges conventional perspectives on how we understand both consciousness and technology’s role in our evolution.
Additionally, Bigelow appears to express frustration regarding the lack of harmony between technological advancement and spiritual growth. He sees a troubling disconnect that could lead to negative consequences if not addressed. His mention of a “galactic embarrassment” is a stark reminder of the responsibility we have to grow both scientifically and spiritually.
Overall, the discussion around Bigelow’s insights opens up broader conversations about the need for balance and integration in our pursuit of knowledge, especially as we explore potentially transformative technologies. It seems clear that without a conscious approach to our technological advancements, we risk further alienating ourselves from the very essence of what it means to be human. It will be interesting to see how these ideas develop in discussions within the fields of science and philosophy.