I met some amazing people making the film and saw first hand some very strange results. Of course, the most extraordinary single fact that emerged from that journey is that I now seem to posses the knowledge of how to make gold. That means that low energy atomic transformation is possible, that we can change the constituent parts of an atom and so create and manipulate the elements. And if that’s true then I image there’s a lot more out there that isn’t as cut and dried as we imagine.
I also came across a lot of information that was related but couldn’t be squeezed into the film. And I continue to be amazed by some of the stories that swirl around the interwebs. You don’t need to go making things up to find wonderful stories that show the sheer beauty of the universe. But people do and it’s incredible the mess they get into and the trouble they cause for everyone. Sometime it’s just poor quality research, sometimes it is deliberate misrepresentation of facts but at the heart of the problem is a misunderstanding of what good scientific principals are.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge should be enough to keep things clean and simple but it isn’t because everything we do is wrapped up in the politics of life. The age of enlightenment was an attempt to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith with knowledge that had been secured using the scientific method. A simple concept in reality that shouldn’t need arguing for; that knowledge should be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to the specific principals of reasoning. But It is amazing how little progress we have made in the following 200 years to get rid of superstition and intolerance out of mainstream debate.
“In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” Bertrand Russell
And so I am using ormus research and alchemy in general as a kind of wedge to drive into the dogmas that have evolved around science. It may be that the science of alchemy is as redundant as the mainstream would have us believe, but that isn’t the point. The point is to challenge the the idea that science has the answers already; that all we really need to do now is refine what we already know.
Materialism, the idea that everything is made of matter, and that all phenomena are the result of interaction between physical things, seems to have taken hold as an accepted fact. According to Richard Dawkins, “We are just lumbering robots,” and our consciousness nothing more than an artefact of those physical interactions. In reality materialism is just a theory and we would do well to remember that. Actually, We would do well to
So that is what this blog is about, it is a place to question the dogmas that have become entrenched. Questioning quite simply for the sake of questioning. And what better wedge to use than the study of alchemy? So thoroughly discredited and yet there is enough evidence that the question should be asked. After all, I can make gold.
The facts surrounding ormus are very far from being uncontroversial yet that doesn’t seem to stop people repeating the same tidbits of information that have been floating around for years. The real issue here is that there comes a point when these theories have transmuted themselves into facts simply because their providence ceases to be questioned.
In reality virtually all of information that is passed around the ormus community as fact comes from the work of David Hudson; Hudson, who has repeatedly claimed that eating ormus will lead to total spiritual enlightenment, conversations with angels and longevity and who claims to be personally referenced in biblical prophesies. I have seen very few people who promote the ideas of monatomic elements seriously question the man’s motivations or the truth of his words. Most of the people involved in the discussions have a vested interest to promote the qualities of ormus as most of them produce and sell it. For lack of other factual content to share, most people will refer back directly to the work of Hudson in order to promote the subject.
No one as far as I am aware actually knows what M-state elements really are. Hudson’s Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements theory may well have legs but my guess is there’s a lot more to it. Certainly, inferring from historical texts, the process of making the edible stuff didn’t just involve dropping a bit of sodium hydroxide into sea water. Yet everyone seems to be happily promoting the idea of munching this stuff till their feet leave the ground. It is very important to keep questioning. Without that attitude you are in danger of swallowing whatever truth may be fed to you.
So, here are what I would consider the ten most commonly recycled facts that need to be explored a bit. The list is for now a work in progress.
1 Ormus is invisible to modern scientific analysis. Which sounds like a huge ‘get out of jail free’ card. If ormus (also know as monatomic elements or M-state elements) are invisible to modern scientific analysis how are we even going to have a discussion about it? Well, that’s exactly the whole problem with this topic so to understand the statement you have to understand a bit of the science behind it, about atomic theory and spectral analysis. Since the decoding of the elements by their atomic structure into the Periodic table of the elements, the assumptions of modern chemical analysis has been that each elemental atom can only exist in one basic pattern or structural formation… Read more Below
2 The Ancient Egyptians knew about ormus …and so did Moses, Jesus and the Knights Templar. Yet another seemingly extravagant claim but there is some interesting if rather controversial evidence. I don’t want to go into a detailed forensic examination of the evidence as that is just way too complicated but you can use this article as a launch pad if this is something you find interesting. Revisionist historians tend to be pretty controversial and as a result will end up getting a bad name for themselves. Specifically I am thinking of the likes of Immanuel Velikovsky, David Rohl and Laurence Gardner who… Read more Below
3 Ormus is the Philosopher’s Stone Even if you believe there is such a substance as the Philosopher’s Stone, ormus it isn’t it. So first of all what is the Philosophers Stone? In simple terms it is a substance that can be used to turn lead into metal, it is the ultimate prize of the alchemists. It is also claimed to cure all illnesses and to be an elixir of life that would lead to rejuvenation and possibly eternal life. Pretty groovy stuff. You would be in relatively good company if you chose to begin a study of alchemy. Luminous names such as Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Paracelcus, Pope John XXII, Roger Bacon and the mysterious John Dee… Read more below
4 Ormus can be turned into gold… Coming soon
5 Ormus causes brain hemisphere synchronisation… Coming soon
6 Ormus is a cancer cure and a universal medicine… Coming soon
7 Ormus can regenerate body parts… Coming soon
8 Ormus can levitate and is a superconductor… Coming soon
9 Eating ormus will lead to spiritual enlightenment… Coming soon
10 It creates coincidences and serendipity … Coming soon
Even if you believe there is such a substance as the Philosopher’s Stone, ormus it isn’t it. Of that I am quite sure. In case you are new to this subject lets define some terms. Here is a link that will give you a primer in ormus, otherwise known as monatomic elements or M-state matter. Read on for the Philosopher’s Stone…
According to the mysterious and illusive author Robert E. Cox, ormus is indeed an ingredient of the Stone. In his imaginatively titled book, ‘The Elixir of Immortality: A Modern-Day Alchemist’s Discovery of the Philosopher’s Stone’ he sets out to discover the secret ingredients and the method to concoct your very own philosopher’s stone. It is an intriguing investigative tale, seemingly well researched but he admits he has not attempted to test his own method. So in reality his thesis is pure speculation. So far I have heard indirectly of only one person who has tried to perform the process set out by Cox – Thomas Geckler who organised the ormus conference where I wasn’t allowed to film David Hudson. Apparently it exploded and ruined his lab and as far as I am aware Geckler hasn’t tried again. I tried to get in touch with Cox but the only contact I could find was his publishers. And they had no idea where he was. The obvious guess would be to assume he successfully made the stone and has since assumed a new identity to avoid the endless gold diggers. Perhaps he has become immortal too. I’d imagine his new name would be something meaningful and latin.
History is peppered with accounts of individuals either making or witnessing the effects of the Philosopher’s Stone. One of the most colorful is the story told by by John Fredrick Schweitzer in his book Vitelus Aurelius (the Golden Calf). The original is in German but here is a beautiful recounting of the tale by Professor Edward Elric. Perhaps the most famous and compelling historical account is that of the Frenchman Nicholas Flamel, a beguiling story drawn from his own writings and other’s anecdotes but amazingly backed up by municipals records too.
Flamel was born in Paris in1330 of
Flamel returned to Paris with the new knowledge and after three more years of obsessive toil he reported that he had transmuted half a pound of mercury into the very purest gold. This unassuming scribe suddenly became the wealthy benefactor of a number of religious and charitable institutions. He and his wife founded and endowed fourteen hospitals, three chapels and seven churches in Paris alone.
Don Nance is a real alchemist who taught me how to make gold for the documentary ‘All The Gold You Can Eat.’
Material verses Spiritual Claims.
…and…3…2…1… you are back in the room. We already know that it is possible to alter the constituent parts of atoms to make new elements, it is just that the means we have to do that require a vast amount of energy; either a nuclear reaction or a collision of atoms at immense speeds. From that starting point though, it is not impossible to imagine that there might be a way to change the structure of atoms using more basic chemistry, it is after all just a question of degrees. In fact, recent and ongoing research into ‘cold fusion,’ otherwise known as Low Energy Nuclear Change (LENC), is precisely that. Given the almost complete lack of media reports you may be surprised to learn that there is a lot of experimental data to support the principals. From my own experiments carried out whilst making the film ‘All The Gold You Can Eat’ I am pretty convinced that there are many more mechanism to alter atomic structure than the mainstream scientific community is willing to accept. What is particularly interesting about the material that I created under the tutelage of Don Nance is that the concentrations of metals continues to change over time. That implies there is some kind residual of energy driving the process. However, I don’t know whether is it simply a continued switch of elements from their ‘monatomic’ state back to the recognized metallic state or actual transmutation of one element into another.
So given that I have seen reactions that are not so dissimilar to the kinds ascribed to the philosopher’s stone I am personally willing to accept that there might in fact be a substance that can, under simple, almost kitchen like conditions transform lead into gold. But, and this is a big but, it is the other claims of the elixir of life that seem to come bundled with the stories of the philosopher’s stone that I have both mechanistic and fundamental philosophical problems with.
Transmutation of the Soul.
My personal belief is that tales of the ‘elixir of life’ are little more than centuries old mythologies, perhaps born out of the apparent miraculous transformation of base metals into gold by priest or alchemists who, like all the best conmen use a new truth as the basis of a con. The third article in this series of controversial facts about ormus briefly presents the theory of the alchemical origins of Judaism speculating that perhaps Jesus was privy to the secret art of alchemy; that he may have been an alchemist. I’m not saying Jesus himself was a charlatan but the miracles of transformation he performed are strangely analogous to ‘alchemy.‘ These alchemical demonstrations that Jesus may have performed to indicate the interconnectedness of all things, the underlying metaphysical message of his teachings, could later have been subverted into the ‘miracles’ of the bible. Such proof of divine heritage would have been key in creating the holy trinity narrative when his teachings were codified into the Christian orthodoxy at meetings such as the Councils of Carthage. It’s just a thought by the way so don’t get mad at me if you disagree.
Aaaanyway… it’s interesting to me that David Hudson has continued that fine tradition, first presenting the science, then once he has his audience sufficiently convinced of his singular abilities he goes on to make the more incredible claims, including those of his Davidic heritage and of a personal mention in a biblical prophesy. Hudson has claimed on many occasions that taking ormus will allow you to converse with the angels, that you will be able to heal sick children by simply picking them up and of course that you will be able to communicate telepathically. I think it is of very great relevance that Hudson has admitted to never having eaten any ormus. his wife won’t allow it apparently. Yet the ormus community have amalgamated largely on the premise that there is some transcendental benefit to taking ormus that goes beyond the bounds of health nutrition. There is a quiet acceptance of Hudson’s spiritual claims as truths. After all, who wouldn’t like to believe that enlightenment now comes in an easy to swallow pill?
David Hudson and Thomas Geckler at the ormus conference in 2012
A Back of a Napkin Treatise on the Philosophy of Enlightenment
So lets pause and consider the possibility of orally administered wisdom. What possible mechanism could deliver enlightenment? Science (or rather the current orthodoxy) has settled on a mechanistic approach to describing matter and life. As Richard Dawkins would have us believe, we are nothing more than lumbering robots. Information can only be passed through social interactions.
Monist, the paradigm of the materialist such as Dawkins, believe that consciousness is simply an illusion that can and will be explained in terms of the biochemical interactions of neurons and synapses. Memories are somehow stored physically in the brain and perception of the external environment lies within the confines of your skull. Upon death all memories are lost and that is the end of the story. One of the many stumbling blocks with this theory is that it has been shown over and over again that memories are not stored physically. There are countless grizzly experiments that have shown that cutting away the brains of live animals until virtually nothing is left have little effect on the recollection learned skills such as maze navigation. There is also the tricky issue of how a recall mechanism of chemically stored data would work. There would need to be some kind of memory that would tell the mind where the actual memory it is recalling was stored…
On the other hand dualism takes the view that matter and mind (sprit) are separate systems. Matter we can understand through reductionist experimentation but mind can only be known through philosophical discourse. Other than being infuriatingly untestable no one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of how matter and mind interact.
So to consider the possibility of a subjectively administered enlightenment you have to believe that memories at the very least are not stored in the brain. This goes back to the age old question of where in fact is the mind? I am presuming that if you have read this far you are at least open to the possibility that there is more to this existence than the likes of Dawkins would have you believe. Yet to consider the possibility that knowledge, enlightenment, truth, whatever you want to call it can be somehow be transmitted outside of social interaction we have to believe that information and memories are stored somewhere outside of the mind. David Bohm and Karl Pribram developed the holographic theory of reality which Rupert Sheldrake has taken and formed into what I believe to be a very satisfactory and conceptually quite simple theory that provides a possible answer to these issues. Sheldrake uses the concept of morphic resonance which he describes in his excellent book, ‘The Science Delusion’
Once we are happy to accept that memories are perhaps stored outside of the mind as some kind of energy it is indeed possible to postulate a mechanism by which memories and information are passed from environment to mind. However, and this is a big however… that is of course quite different from believing in a material substance that will elevate your spiritual consciousness. So the philosophical question that never seems to be asked by those seeking the elixir of life is what could this knowledge look like and how might it help create an enlightened being?
Does enlightenment entail the sudden receiving of the knowledge of everything? Every event past, present and future? In the entire universe? I find that rather unlikely as that’s an awful lot of data to download. So if it is the accessing of information we must presuppose that enlightenment needs to be some kind of selective process. So what would be relevant knowledge and more intriguingly, who choses what would be that relevant knowledge? On the other hand, could it be simply an understanding of what reality is; a look at the inner workings of quantum events, a fundamental understanding of the ‘laws’ that govern the universe? Perhaps I am being glib but I’m pretty sure that you could be given that information and still be capable of acting like a complete arse. You see, enlightenment implies some kind of increased philosophical understanding, some means by which we would know how to make better choices that would benefit ourselves, human kind, the planet, and well, everything.
As anyone who has prevaricated over a decision by gathering endless data on the subject will be aware there comes a point when too much information is a bad thing. At some point you just have to take your best guess. Could enlightenment help you guess? Simply knowing more facts won’t necessarily help, that data still has to be crunched. What could make decision making easier? Seeing into the future! Of course! But how far into the future would be enough to make the perfect decision? All the way? That’s a lot of permutations and consequences to consider. One day? Well, that leaves nearly as many unknowns as not knowing what will happen at all. Once again, there has to be some kind of selective process. And who decides?
If enlightenment exists at all it is a process; a gathering and ordering of thoughts into a synthesis by which one can chose to live their life. We are defined by our actions not our thoughts. Hitler was a vegetarian and loved his dogs but… you know the how it goes. And judging from my interactions with those who have munched ormus for years I can categorically say there are proportionality about as many arses amongst them as would be statistically expected. Enlightenment in a pill? I don’t buy it.
For amusements but also for serious consideration I have embedded below a video of a peculiar Russian techno-freak alchemist who seems to be actually making the Philosophers Stone. 30 seconds into his renaissance rave masterpiece you’ll see one of the ingredients that looks suspiciously like ormus. Then at 8 minutes he wraps up his concoction in a wax pellet before dropping it into a crucible of lead. Just like the Helvetius story. ‘Hmmm, Interesting…’ as my dad would say.
ORMUS IS INVISIBLE TO MODERN SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
Which sounds like a huge ‘get out of jail free’ card. If ormus (also know as monatomic elements or M-state elements) are invisible to modern scientific analysis how are we even going to have a discussion about it? Well, that’s exactly the whole problem with this topic so to understand the statement you have to understand a bit of the science behind it, about atomic theory and spectral analysis. There is a summary here
Since the decoding of the elements by their atomic structure into the Periodic table of the elements, the assumptions of modern chemical analysis has been that each elemental atom can only exist in one basic pattern or structural formation; essentially, electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus of protons and neutrons in patterns set out by their position on the periodic table of the elements. It is the behaviour of that physical structure that we analyse, not the constituent parts themselves. If somehow the atom could exists in a different structural form with all its constituent parts present but in a different physical formation, it would behave differently and that atom would in fact be invisible to a mass spectrometer.
Calling ormus a new class of elements that are invisible to science is a bit misleading. They are not new elements but rather elements of a certain group in the periodic table that seem to exist in a different physical state. What it really means is that if the theory of monatomic elements is correct our current methods of quantitive analysis, namely the different types of spectral analysis such as ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) do not and probably would not work on these materials.
How spectroscopy works
ICP-MS works by ionizing the sample in a plasma arc at around 10,000˚C. Ionization is what happens when an atom or molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons. in the case of ICP-MS the plasma arc causes the sample to vaporize and then break down into atoms. At those temperatures a significant proportion of the atoms of many chemical elements are ionized, each atom losing its most loosely bound electron to form a singly charged ion, an ion being a charged atom. Since the atoms now have a charge, an electric field can accelerate a narrow beam of the ions (the charged atoms) past a magnetic field which deflects them proportionally according them how heavy they are. The detector collects the ions and measures the different mass to charge ratios which are then identified by correlating to known standards.
In terms of the problems with analysing M-state materials, an analogy might be to say that scrambled eggs don’t exist because we can’t see the egg shapes in there. So it seems a not entirely unreasonable proposition that it is precisely because of our reliance on modern chemistry techniques that developed out of the specific codification of the periodic table that we have become blind to the existence of a substance that has been known about for millennia.
…AND SO DID MOSES, JESUS AND THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR. Yet another seemingly extravagant claim but there is some interesting if rather controversial evidence. I don’t want to go into a detailed forensic examination of the evidence as that is just way too complicated but you can use this article as a launch pad if this is something you find interesting.
Revisionist historians tend to be pretty controversial and
A Bit of Alchemical Background
It is very interesting that all the major ancient civilizations were as fascinated with gold as we are today and employed a wide variety of techniques in order to extract, convert and manipulate it. For some reason humans have always had a very strong affinity to the shiny yellow metal and the practice of alchemy is also at least as old as recorded history.
It is impossible to give a potted history of alchemy as it covers a such a wide range of philosophical traditions spanning at least four millennia and at least three continents. There are however some underlying principals: the creation of the fabled philosopher’s stone; the ability to transform base metals into the noble metals (gold or silver); and development of an elixir of life, which would confer youth and longevity. Alchemy is not merely about transmutation of metals however, it is about transforming elements into their higher states, and matter into spirit. Whether this involves turning base metal into gold or finding an elixir of life, the regeneration of the soul or the secret of human immortality, the term implies an altered, divine state. Thus, the very heart of alchemy is spiritual, which is why so much of the history of alchemy seems to be steeped in esoteric law, ritual, and magic.
I have not even begun to look at the possible connections between Monatomic elements and ancient Indian and Chinese alchemy that have such rich traditions in the arts of metal transformation. I have looked a bit into the connections with ancient Egyptian alchemy though. To say that the Egyptians were ‘known’ to practice alchemy is probably untrue in so much as the mainstream view is that alchemy doesn’t work. What is true is that gold in various forms was very much a part of their religious practices.
Ormus in Ancient Egypt
The inscription at the bottom reads “The Majesty of this god sent the careful god’s treasurer Sebekhotep to bring the precious stone for [his] majesty “
Specifically in terms of the Monatomic connection, there is a triangular motif (outlined in red in the above image), some kind of offering that is fairly common in Egyptian art. These have been translated as being ceremonial bread cakes that were given to the Pharaohs and as offerings to their gods. But they are also referred to in the hieroglyph texts as the ‘the precious stone.’
According to Laurence Gardner, the bread was made from a powder that the Egyptians called. Mfktz. Translated originally as turquoise Gardner thinks this is incorrect. Certainly the Egyptians knew it was no ordinary mineral. Mfktz means ‘what is it,’ but literally translated the hieroglyphs reads ‘spirit fire stone.’ part magic, part precious mineral. I’m no Egyptologist but I managed to find the hieroglyph for Mfktz and decoded it a bit by comparing the individual glyphs and their usage in other words. The results are pretty interesting and show the potent properties the substance was thought to have.
It’s also worth noting that the Ankh and the pyramidal loaf of Bread are synonymous symbols, indicating the gift of Life. The symbol of the White Bread was also used in the hieroglyph that meant “Peace, Contentment, Offering”. It was represented by a cup that contained the sacred Bread placed on a reed mat. This constituted the hieroglyph “Hotep”, which can be found as an inscription over every tomb in ancient Egypt.
Shewbread and the isrealietes
There is little debate that there was something special about the bread cakes that were prepared for a special table and always present as an offering to God in the Temple of Jerusalem and the tabernacle built by Moses. These special loaves, called shewbread, literally translated from the Hebrew לחם הפנים as ‘Bread of the Presence,’ are mentioned on numerous occasions – Kings 7:48, Exodus 25:30, Matthew 12:4, etc
Hudson was very keen to make the connection between shewbread and the white powder of gold claiming Moses’ Grand nephew Bezalel, a great metal craftsman was responsible for making the bread but this doesn’t seem to be true. Bezalel was given the job of building the arc of the covenant (Exodus 31:1 – 31:11), however as the great grandson of Kohath, Bezalel would have been one of the the Kohathite clan who according to the Book of Chronicles, (chronicles 9:32)were in charge of making the shewbread suggesting that there were secret extra requirements in preparing the bread, known only to the Kohathites. This link starts becoming much more interesting when you consider the alternative identity of Moses put forth by the likes of Velikovsky, Rohl and Gardner.
Moses was an Egyptian Pharaoh
if you remember, Moses, according to the unlikely bible story, was found in the rushes by the Pharaoh’s daughter. He had been placed there by his mother in an attempt to keep him alive after the Pharaoh had decreed that all Hebrew babies be killed at birth. As the story goes, the baby in his reed basket floats away and winds up in the middle of a bathing party of the Pharaoh’s daughter. Moses’ older sister is watching this from the distance.
Exodus 2 5 Then Pharaoh’s daughterwent down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the riverbank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her female slave to get it. 6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. “This is one of the Hebrew babies,” she said. 7 Then his sister asked Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?”8 “Yes, go,” she answered. So the girl went and got the baby’s mother. 9 Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.” So the woman took the baby and nursed him. 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”
Not only is this the entirety of Biblical references to Moses’ early life, one of the bible’s most influential characters, it is an understated series of extraordinary coincidence or totally irrational behavior. Firstly, the mother placing her Hebrew baby into the river Nile at the place where the Pharaoh’s daughter bathes. Secondly, the daughter paying a hebrew woman to bring up a child she knows to be a Hebrew right after her father has decreed they should all be killed. And finally, the Pharaoh’s daughter then adopts this child right into middle of the Egyptian ruling family.
So here we have an Israelite that has grown up to learn all the secrets of the priests and pharaohs, a man would have known about the bread of life made from the white powder of gold. Moses, who is known in the bible for taking the Israelites out into the desert around 1400BC and teaching them to worship a single god, who banned idolatry and who oversaw the construction of the arc of the covenant.
In fact Moses, rather than appearing so miraculously from nowhere is perhaps more likely to be the part Israelite pharaoh Akhenaten, grandson of Tuthmose IV. Mose is a common Egyptian name meaning ‘son of’ or ‘born of.’ Akhenaten was himself banished to the Sinai around around 1400BC for trying to ban the worship of idols and who developed the notion of a single faceless god named Aten. Sound familiar?
Then there is another interesting link; In 1904, British archeologist Sir Flinders Petrie stumbled across a hidden temple on Mt Serabit Serabit El Khadim in the middle of the Sinai desert. Inside the temple he found huge quantities of an unknown white powder that resembled ash yet strangely he found no evidence of the fires. Petrie assumed the powder to be ash from animal sacrifices but he himself admits there was no bone fragments what-so-ever or any evidence of sacrifice. He simply didn’t know what the white powder was.
Gardner has suggested rather(Exodus 16) God provided the Israelites with a mysterious substance each morning that he commanded them to make into bread. This was the manna from the heavens that formed each morning on the ground and sustained them during their long stay in the dessert. What is really interesting is that Manna in hebrew, like the Egyptian work Mfktz is also translated as ‘what is it.’
Does this possible connection to monatomic minerals also shed light on the strange story in exodus when Moses, furious that he found his people were worshiping an idol of golden calf; (Exodus 32:20)
“And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.”
Moses was also instructed to build the arc of the covenant which had all sorts of miraculous powers and amazingly enough was where Moses had been instructed by God to keep a pot of Manna. Rather interestingly, the very specific instructions God gave Moses on how to build the arc meant that the the volume or cubic capacity of the arc is exactly the same volume as the Coffer in the King’s chamber in the great pyramid at Giza.
So was knowledge of the secret arts of alchemy what the Hebrews had been chosen for? Did Jesus know about these processes? Was he an alchemist? And his alleged progeny, the Knights Templar, famed for their secrecy and political power, who created the first international banking system, who amassed more money than the king of France and who claimed to be the guardians of the Ark of the Covenant; was their secret actually the knowledge of alchemy?’
This is precisely why no one takes alchemy seriously anymore and it is why they persist and insist on calling it alchemy. They want the differentiation to be apparent, to be marked as somehow special and above the common or garden mainstream scientist. They may of course be right, that a philosophical understanding of science and morality should be the bed rock of any inquiry and actually I fully support that position. The problem comes with the secrecy that then surrounds the physical work. It puts the discipline into conflict with the basic principals of good scientific methods.
Ironically this is as dogmatic a position as that which most alchemists will claim to be opposing, namely the entrenched views of mainstream science. They are perpetuating the stigma and making it much harder for this science to be funded. If alchemy is real, in other words, if it is possible to change atomic structure at low temperature there is no need to mark this out as a separate science. And if you can perform low energy atomic transmutation there is no need to mark yourself out as different from any other materials scientists.
But to the alchemist, the word alchemy represents an indivisible link between science and spiritual ascension; that to understand the former you must have mastery of the latter. In an ideal world, a utopian fiction, every child would have grown up learning philosophy, morality and science in equal measures and every scientists would be funded by society for the sake of knowledge acquisition alone. But we don’t live in that reality, we live in a world where scientists must carve out their living from the limited grants, work for intuitions that seek to monetize their investments, live by the sword of peer review journals. Scientists are not special, not elevated by what they do above the folly of human behavior. Nor are alchemists.
Don Nance is an alchemist but I can’t grumble about him. After all, he taught me how to make gold.
The secrecy amongst alchemists is due to a firmly held belief that a general release of their secret metallurgic knowledge will result in everyone wanting to make gold. The combined effect will be that each new artificer will add more gold to system than can be absorbed by the gold market thus flooding the market and ultimately destroying the financial system. The fundamental conceit of the alchemist is that without first teaching their philosophical beliefs to the uninitiated, anyone who learns how to make gold will immediately become greedy and evil.
On the other side of the coin is the lamentable fact that philosophy, and in this case specifically the philosophy of science, is no longer taught in schools and rarely in universities. We do as a society all too easily charge head long into reductionist scientific inquiry and have taken for granted as fact the mechanistic theories that explain life. The paradox here is that as inquiry becomes more and more reductionist, more isolated from related or comparable fields, each study gradually evolves down to the atomic behaviours that govern the macro interactions. There is all too much misinterpretation of what quantum level physics means but it is the case that at this level the mechanistic rules that we use to explain the models of the universe behave quite differently. A greater understanding of the philosophy of science, of how the questions should be asked would be so helpful in bridging the gap between the wooly new age believers and the hardened skeptic scientists.
“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the curiosity of inquiry.” Albert Einstein.
This simple issues represent to me what I think is wrong with the battle that wages between the scientist and the alchemists or perhaps between the skeptics and the pseudoscientist; that each side has attached itself to dogma above a genuine adherence to proper scientific methods. Beliefs become personal and entrenched and as a result the debates become acrimonious. There is good science and there is bad science, but fundamentally there are no absolutely right or wrong answers. Everything we have to explain the world around us is a model, more often than not based on an easy to understand mechanistic analogy.
We are all conceited at some level, attached to our own beliefs. Having built our lives on certain ideas we of course find it difficult to confront change. There is a parallel here with the quote attributed to Bertrand Russell by Sam Harris, (although I have never bee able to find the original)
‘Even if we could be certain that one of the world’s religions was perfectly true, given the sheer number of conflicting faiths on offer, every believer should expect damnation purely as a matter of probability. (The Moral Landscape p.78)
What he is saying is that most of us have at least one belief structure that is patently absurd and unscientific. Yet we cling to these vestiges of socio-political mythology as if our lives depended on them. Ironically the violent, dogmatic intolerance of countless thousands or millions of believers have actually made belief in their mythologies a matter of life and death.
CORROBORATING DAVID HUDSON’S RESEARCH ON ORMUS
The truth is that Hudson conducted very little research himself although he did facilitate it. But he also never really presented his research in a way that others could repeat it and he was never very clear about who worked with him either. It took me a long time to piece together the actual names of the people involved by cross referencing different interviews and lectures but I think i now have a fairly good list. I have also tried to track down copies of the original data that Hudson refers to in his lectures but unfortunately the best i can find are illegible, pixilated images that appear for a moment over the Enota video. For reason that I will never really understand I wasn’t allowed to film that presentation
The real point though isn’t that I have made a nuisance of my self and irritated them all to the point that they don’t talk to me any more, it’s much deeper than that. It is that this information just isn’t freely available. For all the talk of a world changing discovery, the majority of the people involved in this story remain very secretive with any information related to converting ormus into metal. They seem to have a firmly held belief that the world isn’t yet ready to hear the truth, or that they can be told the stories but cannot be trusted with the technology. In truth I have some sympathy with the reticence to divulge everything. I myself still haven’t decided if I should reveal the method that was taught to me by Don Nance. Or rather, I promised Don that I wouldn’t reveal the method in ‘All The Gold You Can Eat‘ but he was always OK with the idea of repeating the experiment in the presence of corroborating scientists.
It is a dilemma I haven’t yet come to terms with although at heart my purpose is to try to promote the very basic notions of good scientific principals, of sharing information so that others can repeat and test hypotheses. Once I find that, once iI find some learned chums who can guide the work in a philosophically and scientifically sound forum I think things may more forward a bit. Anyway, back to Hudson’s lecture notes.
Hudson mentioned various other scientist who helped him carry out the analytical work that he refers to during his lectures. At the Enota lectures, for the first time he was fairly forthright about the identities of these people. Until then he had always be very evasive and had never actually given any names. Of course 20 years on it is now much harder to make contact, especially as a number of them are no longer with us.
I have been able to find no listings anywhere yet of Siegfried Brimmer (SP) who conducted the early spectroscopy work. He apparently worked for Martin Marietta materials and was supervising spectrochemist W. Kramer & Co from 1966 – 68. He passed away not so long ago according to Hudson.
Tony LaConti did the work on the fuel cells at General Electric and then at his own company Giner inc. Hudson’s claim is that he was sent monatomic rhodium (ormus rhodium), basically a white powder that analyzed to contain no rhodium. This was then mounted on carbon and placed in a fuel cell and then proceeded to behave as only rhodium would. After the test the ‘ormus’ coated carbon plates were reanalyzed and found to now contain 8% rhodium. Sadly Tony died in september 2011 and I haven’t been able to track down anyone else who worked on the experiments.
During the patent application process Hudson was asked to provide various bits of evidential information. One of those was to obtain an affidavit from an independent lab who had repeated the work of converting pure gold into the monatomic form.
Roger Poeppel was head of ceramics and superconductivity at Argonne National Laboratories when he was asked by Hudson to carry out that process but Agonne labs couldn’t do the work for remit reasons. Poepple recommended Prof Stephen Danyluk from the Iniversity of Illinois. He was busy and in turn passed the work to Prof Michael J Mcnallan, also from the University of Illinois. He apparently successfully made white powdered gold from pure electronic grade gold and signed and affidavit to send to patent office to that effect.
Of the scientists that he mentioned in his talks there is only one that I have been able to contact so far. John Sickafoose is the Ph.D that conducted the testing in Phoenix, Arizona that after two years of testing according to the stories said ‘Dave, I can, without equivalence, I can tell you that it is not any of the other elements on the Periodic Table – What we have here is something that I know is pure rhodium and yet none of these spectroscopic analyzes are saying it’s rhodium.’
I wrote to John to try and interview him for the film but he very politely declined. He did however provide the following insight:
“Joe, There are a few comments I will add. All the technical work done by me and in my laboratory was correctly done, reported and provided hard technically correct data. Ambiguous data, not repeatable was never reported over my signature and stamp. The alchemy part, health effects and ORMs never came from nor was ever supported by me. How it was portrayed and morphed into a religious experience for raising money was totally the realm of David Hudson.
The funding to do the research on the project was not all (perhaps little) from your subject. As the old saying goes, follow the money back to Canada and to the UK. That is an even more interesting story.”
I haven’t yet had any success on following those leads yet but I have a suspicion it is a reference to the connection between Legal and General and Joe Champion. Clayton Stokes, a South African business man had been securing large amounts of money from Peter Simmons at Legal and General (a UK insurance firm) to invest in various gold mining schemes. One of those was an investment with Joe Champion that John Sickafoose had been analyzing. He told Hudson that the results seemed very similar to his and that they should probably connect and work together. All the investments driven by Stokes collapsed. L&G wanted to at least write up the work that Hudson had done to show their shareholders that they had something tangible and interesting but Hudson refused to allow them to release the data.
Hudson concluded his final Enota lecture by passing the hat around again. This time he said it was to conduct more testing and set up an independent set of international standards by which monatomic elements could be analyzed. It just seemed too much a repeat of the last round to be believable especially after his proclamations of magical healing, spiritual ascension and biblical prophesies.
It is tempting to keep digging at these leads but in reality I am not sure there is much point anymore. I genuinely believe the scientific data that Hudson presented and I’m not sure what there would be to gain from contacting those that worked with him 20 odd years ago. What would of course be more useful would be to repeat as much of the work as possible. What baffles me is why it seems no one has done that.
WHAT IS ORMUS?
One of the underlying questions that appears throughout the film All The Gold You Can Eat is deceptively simple: What is ORMUS?
ORMUS is the name given to the mysterious white powder discovered by David Hudson in the late 1970’s, which he subsequently devoted his life, and many millions of dollars trying to research and market. During his research he discovered that the power he found whilst prospecting for gold had some very strange anomalous properties, not the least of which was the fact that it appeared to be invisible to all forms of modern analysis. In effect he seemed to have discovered an entirely new class of mineral. But Hudson went further and began drawing parallels with his powder and the work of the ancient alchemists. He believed that this exotic substance was the legendary Philosophers Stone, the mythical prize of alchemical enquiry that could turn base metals into gold, cure any illness, and elevate the soul of man to enlightenment.
So what is it? Well, everything you will hear
Ormus (otherwise known as monatomic metals, white powdered gold, M-state materials) then appears to be a group of metals that can exist in an energetic state that defies conventional atomic theory. The name ORMUS is derived from the acronym for Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements, or ORME’s. Hudson believed that there were twelve elements within the platinum group of metals whose atomic structure had the potential to mutate, causing the nucleus of the atom to deform which in turn would cause the electrons surrounding the nucleus to orbit in an irregular manner. The theory suggests that under these specific conditions, these irregular atoms are unable to successfully bond to each other as regular atoms do to form conventional molecules of matter.
In this way, the ORMUS elements, whilst indistinguishable from their elemental counterparts in terms of atomic constituent parts (they have the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons) are thought to behave very differently whilst in this altered state. As they don’t bond with each other they would appear to exist in a non metallic, lose affiliated state such as a powder or ceramic.
This apparent discovery of a new class of element is extraordinary enough but those who have followed Hudson’s work are, by and large, convinced that they also posses remarkable bioactive and quantum level properties. Some of the alleged properties of ormus elements are, if true, nothing short of extraordinary. These include assertions that it:
- was used by the ancient egyptians
- can be turned into gold
- causes brain hemisphere synchronisation
- is a cancer cure and a universal medicine, it will keep you looking young
- can regenerate body parts
- can levitate and it is a superconductor
- will lead to spiritual enlightenment
- creates coincidences and serendipity
- is the philosophers stone
The fact that most of these properties have never been properly investigated is what drove me to make the documentary. Mostly they are repeated in the form of an anecdotes or as reference to Hudson’s original research and over the years have taken on the status of fact simply because of repetition on the internet. Infuriatingly, many of the stories are never accredited to actual people and as will most bad science citations and references are rarely if ever given. However, there is enough research being done on the agricultural sector as a live stock feed supplement and as a general crop additive to demonstrate some remarkable bioactive results. And from my personal research as documented in the film ‘All The Gold You Can Eat’ it is possible to take a sample of ormus elements and increase the gold content 2000 fold by a relatively simple procedure. At this stage though, the truth is that no one really knows what ormus is.
THE ALCHEMY OF MATTER
The periodic table of the elements arranges the elemental atoms according to their atomic number, the number of protons in the nuclei. On the whole this will also be the number of electrons in the electron cloud, as the negatively charged electrons will balance the positive charge of the protons. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe has the atomic number one. It has one proton, no neutrons and a single electron. Gold has the atomic number 79. It has 79 protons, 79 electrons and 118 neutrons. Next along is mercury. Mercury, atomic number 80 has 80 protons, 80 electrons and 121 neutrons. To make mercury into gold all you have to do is subtract one proton, one electron and three neutrons. To transmute lead (atomic number 82) into gold takes the removal of 3 protons, 3 electrons and 7 neutrons. It can be done. It has been done but so far as we know for sure only in a particle collider or a nuclear reaction.
In 1901 when Ernst Rutherford and Frederick Soddy discovered that radioactive thorium was converting itself into radium, Soddy later recalled shouting out to Rutherford “Rutherford, this is transmutation!” Rutherford Snapped back, “For Christ’s sake, Soddy, don’t call it transmutation. They’ll have our heads off as alchemists.”