Turning the Desert Green with Water: A Long-Standing Idea Revisited

For over a century, engineers and visionaries have imagined flooding parts of Australia’s vast interior—turning dry desert land into a massive inland sea. Early plans, dating back to the early 1900s, envisioned building canals or lakes within desert areas, potentially costing up to $200 billion. These ideas were framed as a solution to drought and heat, aiming to bring water, life, and new economic opportunities to Australia's arid interior.

Such proposals remain speculative, and none have moved beyond planning or concept phases. While they capture the imagination, they also raise significant concerns about environmental impact, scale, and sustainability. For now, these grand visions of an inland sea remain part of Australia's imaginative future—not official policy or active development.

Real-life events, however, have shown what water can do—even in deserts. In early 2025, parts of Australia’s Outback were hit with a sudden, massive flood.

In certain areas of Queensland, more than a year’s worth of rain fell in just one week. That caused water to surge through Cooper Creek and its surroundings, spreading across dry landscapes and even reaching Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre. The temporary water transformed barren land into green, life-filled areas—though only for a short time.

These natural events show how rare but powerful waterflows can reshape the desert—creating temporary wetlands, boosting plant life, and attracting wildlife. But unlike engineered plans, they are unpredictable, limited in scale, and tied to weather patterns rather than deliberate human action.

A Balanced Viewpoint

On the one hand, the idea of artificially flooding deserts into inland seas taps into human ambition and the desire to reshape nature. It suggests an opportunity to bring water, ecosystems, and new possibilities to uninhabited lands. On the other, real floods, though natural, remind us that water’s power is immense and often uncontrollable—emerging briefly, then receding.

No grand plan currently exists to create an inland sea in Australia's desert. Meanwhile, when water does arrive naturally, it brings clear, visible changes—and also highlights how ephemeral and delicate those changes can be.

References

• Historical concepts of flooding Australia's desert and proposed $200 billion idea ([YouTube—“Australia's $200 Billion Plan…” etc.]) 

• Reddit discussion on creating a giant lake in central Australia (~1,000 km diameter, 100 m depth) 

• NASA Earth Observatory report on 2025 flooding in Outback—desert greened near Lake Eyre, Channel Country

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Aug 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Time crystals were first proposed in 2012 by physicist Frank Wilczek as a remarkable idea: a crystal that repeats its structure in time, not just space. 

Google's Time Machine

When Frank Wilczek first introduced the concept of time crystals in 2012, many thought it was pure science fiction—a material that could tick like a clock forever, without using any energy. But this idea wasn't just about breaking physical norms; it quietly questioned our entire understanding of time.

Unlike normal matter that eventually settles into stillness, time crystals stay in motion at their most “restful” state. That behavior hints at deeper, unseen forces at play in the quantum world—systems that seem to remember motion even when everything else says they should be still. The implications stretch far beyond materials science: if nature allows this kind of persistent rhythm, it opens doors to new technologies—and maybe even raises questions about how time really flows.

The first real demonstrations came in 2016, when labs at Harvard and the University of Maryland observed discrete time crystals in driven quantum systems—chains of ions and diamond with nitrogen-vacancy centers. These systems showed motion at a steady rhythm, unaffected by minor disturbances.

In 2016, the once-theoretical idea of time crystals suddenly became real when physicists at Harvard and the University of Maryland created them in lab conditions. By using controlled quantum systems—such as chains of charged atoms or diamonds with tiny defects—they were able to produce a repeating motion that didn’t fade over time, even when the system should’ve gone still. This wasn’t just movement—it was a defiant pulse, like a heartbeat in matter itself, immune to the normal decay that governs all energy. Some researchers quietly wondered if they had uncovered a “loophole” in physical law, a way for systems to retain memory, rhythm, and coordination at the quantum level that standard physics never accounted for. If this kind of behavior exists in nature, it raises bigger questions: is there an unseen architecture to time? And are we only now learning how to detect it?

In 2025, WashU physicists created the first time quasicrystal—not periodic like normal time crystals, but still repetitive in time in a more complex pattern. They used microwave lasers on a diamond, producing a new phase of matter that defies traditional definitions of rhythm.

In 2025, scientists at Washington University went even further by creating a time quasicrystal, a new form of matter that repeats in time—but not in any simple, predictable way. Using microwave lasers to manipulate defects inside a diamond, they observed a rhythm that didn’t follow standard time intervals but still maintained a structured pattern. Think of it like a heartbeat that never skips but also never repeats the same timing twice—order without uniformity. This kind of behavior doesn’t fit into classical definitions of crystals or clocks. Some researchers believe these strange temporal patterns might mimic processes seen in biological systems or even hint at natural systems that exist outside our understanding of time altogether. The more they look, the more it seems that time might not be linear, and the universe could be pulsing in ways we’re only beginning to notice.

Meanwhile, researchers at TU Dortmund made a time crystal from semiconductor materials using lasers, which lasted for around 40 minutes—nearly ten million times longer than earlier versions of these systems.

At TU Dortmund, scientists achieved something remarkable: they built a time crystal using standard semiconductor materials and pulsed lasers, and it held its strange rhythmic state for 40 minutes straight. To the casual observer, that might not sound like much, but in the world of quantum systems—where states typically collapse in milliseconds—it’s nearly eternal. This breakthrough lasted millions of times longer than any previous attempt and pushed the boundaries of what we thought was stable in the quantum world. Researchers are now quietly asking if this stability could be harnessed for more than just theoretical experiments—perhaps to build next-generation computing systems, or even to probe whether time itself is more malleable than we’ve believed. If a time crystal can hum along in defiance of entropy for nearly an hour, what else might be able to echo outside the usual decay of time?

A recent 2025 experiment also demonstrated a phononic time crystal, where researchers built an acoustic waveguide that modulates over time. It creates momentum “k-gaps” showing time-crystal behavior using sound waves in a metamaterial.

Aphononic time crystal—a structure that manipulates sound waves in a way that repeats over time. The experiment involved a waveguide that changed its properties rhythmically, producing a measurable effect called a “momentum gap,” or k-gap, which confirmed that the system was behaving like a time crystal. What makes this so unusual is that it used vibrations—something we associate with touch and hearing—to mimic the same elusive time-looping behaviors seen in quantum systems. It opens the door to ideas that time-crystal phenomena might exist in the mechanical world, not just the microscopic one. Could Earth’s own resonances, or even the way biological systems use rhythm, be part of a deeper connection to this time-bending effect?

Why is this exciting? Beyond being a physics oddity, time crystals could revolutionize quantum computing, sensors, and ultra-precise clocks. For instance, scientists in China used time crystals to stabilize fragile quantum states—showing early practical uses in quantum processors.

Although time crystals don’t violate thermodynamics—they don't produce energy—they challenge our basic idea of how time works. A system that ticks forever, immune to entropy, pushes the boundaries of what we consider possible in nature.

The real excitement around time crystals goes far beyond academic curiosity—they may be the key to unlocking technologies once thought impossible. In China, researchers have already used time crystals to stabilize quantum states that normally collapse in an instant. That’s a huge deal for quantum computing, where keeping information stable is one of the biggest challenges. Imagine processors that run on rhythms of nature, not just electricity—able to store and transfer data with near-perfect precision. Even though time crystals don’t break the laws of energy or create perpetual motion machines, their ability to “tick” endlessly without draining power forces us to rethink the rules of time and entropy. It’s like discovering that the universe has a secret metronome beating beneath the surface—and we’re just learning how to listen.

References:

• Wikipedia: Time crystal; Time‑translation symmetry

• Stanford News: Time crystals in quantum computing

• ScienceAlert: Time quasicrystal inside a diamond

• Washington University in St. Louis: Crystallizing time article

• SciTechDaily: Acoustical time crystal research

• arXiv: Phononic time crystal study (May 2025)

• The Quantum Insider / New Scientist: Time crystal application in quantum computers

• APS Physics: New time crystal designs (March 2025)

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

The Brutal Truth July 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

In recent years, “fake meat” products – ranging from plant-based burgers to lab-grown meat – have become more common. Many people are excited about these new meat alternatives, but there are also worries and rumors about their safety. Some concerns are backed by science (like questions about nutritional value or additives), while others are wild conspiracy theories (such as the false claim that food companies use human flesh in meat products). 

What fake meat is, how safe it is according to studies and regulators, how it differs nutritionally from real meat, and the truth behind viral rumors. All information is supported by sources like scientific studies, health organizations, and fact-checkers.

Lab-grown meat is on the rise — here's how it is made

What Are Fake Meats and 3D-Printed Meats?

Fake meats (also called meat alternatives) are foods made to mimic real meat but are not taken from slaughtered animals. One common type is plant-based meat, such as the Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger. These products are usually made from plant proteins (for example, soy, pea, or wheat protein) and other ingredients that are processed together to look and taste like meat georgeinstitute.org. They often even “bleed” or brown like real beef – for instance, the Impossible Burger uses a soy leghemoglobin (a plant-derived heme protein) to give a red, meaty color and flavor. Another type of fake meat is cultured meat (also called lab-grown meat or cultivated meat), which is actual animal meat grown from a small sample of animal cells in a lab. Scientists take a tiny bit of muscle cells from a living animal and grow those cells in a warm, nutrient-rich solution until they multiply into muscle tissue hindustantimes.comhindustantimes.com. The growing happens in bioreactors (tanks that provide the right conditions), and the cells can form muscle fibers and fat similar to those in a real animal. This way, you get real meat without needing to raise and slaughter an animal. A newer technology in this field is 3D-printed meat, where either plant-based ingredients or cultured animal cells are formed into the shape and texture of meat using a specialized 3D printer builtin.com. The printer layers the materials to create items like steak or chicken fillets. In some cases, cultured meat cells are bioprinted into a desired structure, then further grown or cooked to resemble a normal cut of meat builtin.com.

An Impossible Burger (plant-based) served as a slider. Plant-based meat alternatives are made from proteins like soy or pea, crafted to look and taste like real meat georgeinstitute.org.

Cultivated “lab-grown” meat can also be prepared as food. This bowl contains cultured pork belly bites, grown from animal cells in a lab (produced by a food tech company) instead of farm-raised pork.

People are interested in fake meats for a few reasons. One is health and the environment: plant-based and lab-grown meats aim to reduce the negative impacts of traditional livestock farming (such as high greenhouse gas emissions and land use) while providing a protein alternative. Another reason is animal welfare: lab-grown meat, for example, does not require killing animals, and plant-based meats are completely vegetarian/vegan. At the same time, these products are very new and high-tech, which makes some people uneasy. Some skeptics nicknamed lab-grown meat “Frankenmeat” and worry that meat grown in a tank or printed by a machine is too unnatural hindustantimes.com. Overall, fake meat can refer to a spectrum from veggie burgers to bio-printed steaks – all meant to replace or imitate traditional meat.

Health and Safety of Lab-Grown & 3D-Printed Meat

A key question is whether these new meats are safe to eat. Lab-grown (cultured) meat has undergone review by food safety regulators in the U.S. and elsewhere. In late 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated a cultured chicken product (from a company called Upside Foods) and stated it had “no further questions” about the company’s safety conclusion fda.gov. In other words, the FDA found nothing unsafe about it, effectively giving a green light for consumption. By 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also approved two cultivated chicken products for sale after inspecting the production process, meaning for the first time lab-grown meat was authorized to be served to customers (initially in a few restaurants) dw.com. Singapore was actually the first country to approve a lab-grown meat (chicken bites) back in 2020, and a few other countries are evaluating these products as well dw.com. All these approvals followed thorough checks to ensure the meat was produced in clean, sterile conditions and did not contain any harmful substances. Regulators require that companies prove the cultured cells are grown without contamination and that the final food meets the same safety standards as regular meat.

One myth that spread online is that lab-grown meat is made of “cancer cells.” This is false. The FDA and scientists have explicitly debunked this claim hindustantimes.com. 

While it’s true that the cell lines used to start a cultured meat batch can continuously grow (they are often called “immortalized” cells), (claims) that does not mean they are cancerous or harmful hindustantimes.comhindustantimes.com. In fact, the cells used come from healthy animal tissue (like a muscle stem cell or similar), and they are chosen for their ability to grow well in a bioreactor, not for any ability to form tumors hindustantimes.com. The FDA told reporters that “the claim that cancer or pre-cancerous cells are used in the process of cell-cultivated food is false,” and that the cells are not able to form tumors hindustantimes.com. Moreover, even if some abnormal cells were present (which can even happen in conventional meat sometimes), they would be destroyed by cooking and digestion and would not cause cancer in someone who eats the meat hindustantimes.com. So, lab-grown meat is not “made of cancer” – it’s made of normal animal muscle cells grown in a controlled way. Health authorities like the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have reported that current scientific knowledge finds no evidence (yet) that eating cultured meat would pose unique cancer risks or other health hazards to humans hindustantimes.com.

3D-printed meat (which can be either plant-based or cell-based) is also considered safe to eat as long as it’s produced and handled properly builtin.com. Food experts note that printing meat doesn’t introduce any magical danger – it still needs to follow normal food safety rules. For example, if the “ink” is a paste made of meat or plant protein, it must be kept free of harmful bacteria and then cooked to safe temperatures, just like regular meat. A tech publication explains that yes, 3D-printed meat is safe to eat under the same conditions that make traditional meat safe (proper cooking, sanitation, and regulatory oversight) builtin.com. In production, companies must ensure the printers and feed materials are clean because meat substances can spoil or grow bacteria if not handled carefully. In fact, one challenge noted in developing 3D-printed meat is making sure it’s done in a hygienic way at scale – meat is perishable, so any advanced method of preparing it must guard against contamination builtin.com. This is similar to how factories that make hot dogs or chicken nuggets must be very careful to prevent germs like Listeria or Salmonella from getting in. So far, no unique new safety issues have been found with the concept of printing meat structures; it’s mainly about enforcing existing food safety practices with the new technology.

Overall, early scientific assessments indicate that fake meats can be produced safely. The FDA has a cooperation agreement with USDA to jointly oversee cell-cultured meat production, ensuring that from the cell-growing phase (FDA’s part) to the harvesting and packaging phase (USDA’s part), all safety regulations are met fda.govfda.gov. Manufacturers have to operate in sterile environments and use food-grade ingredients. Cultured meat companies also point out some potential safety advantages: since the meat is grown in a controlled lab, there are no intestines or slaughter process, which greatly reduces the risk of bacterial contamination from things like E. coli that can occur in a slaughterhouse hindustantimes.com. No antibiotics are needed in a pristine lab environment (farm animals are often given antibiotics, which can leave residues or contribute to resistance). And there’s no chance of transmitting animal diseases. Of course, as these products become more common, regulators will keep monitoring their safety. But so far, official statements from agencies have been reassuring. For example, the FDA stated in 2023 that it “is committed to supporting innovation in food technologies while ensuring safe food”, and that it is confident cultured meat can be made as safe as conventional meat under proper oversight fda.govfda.gov. Scientists also emphasize that there’s nothing spooky about the cells used – they’re ordinary animal cells given nutrients to grow, very much like how cells grow inside an animal’s body dw.comdw.com.

Lab-grown meat: Why are countries banning it? - The Global Story podcast, BBC World Service - YouTube

Even if the overall concept of fake meat is deemed safe, some specific ingredients and processes have drawn concern from the public or watchdog groups. One widely discussed example is the soy leghemoglobin used in the Impossible Burger (sometimes just called “heme”). This is the ingredient that makes the plant-based burger appear to “bleed” like real meat and taste iron-rich. Impossible Foods produces it by genetically engineering yeast to create the heme protein.

In 2019, the FDA approved soy leghemoglobin as a safe color additive in plant-based meat after reviewing safety tests fda.govfda.gov. However, organizations like the Center for Food Safety (CFS) were initially uneasy with this “novel” ingredient. CFS petitioned and even sued, arguing that because this specific heme had never been in the human diet before, the FDA should have required more rigorous long-term testing to absolutely confirm it causes no allergies or other issues fooddive.comfooddive.com. In their lawsuit, they claimed the FDA’s approval was “premature” without multi-year studies fooddive.com. This raised a general public worry: Are we sure new lab-made additives are safe to eat?

The case went through the courts, and in 2021 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA had followed proper procedures and that the approval of Impossible’s heme was valid ooddive.comfooddive.com. In fact, Impossible Foods had already provided extensive test data to the FDA, and the product had “GRAS” (Generally Recognized As Safe) status even before the formal color additive approval fooddive.com. Impossible Foods maintains that its products are very well tested and safe, calling some of the activist claims “patently false” fooddive.comfooddive.com. The company even points out that the heme molecule it uses is similar to the natural heme found in many foods (including meat itself) – it’s just made via fermentation in a factory instead of taken from an animal fooddive.com. Nonetheless, the use of GMO (genetically modified) ingredients in plant-based meat has made some consumers uncomfortable. Impossible Foods was one of the first to label its product as “Bioengineered” on the package (as per new rules) and be open about its genetically engineered content fooddive.com. This transparency is good, but it also means people who are suspicious of GMOs might be wary of the Impossible Burger. It’s worth noting that most scientists and regulators consider approved GMO food ingredients to be safe – and in this case the courts upheld that the soy heme posed no harm fooddive.com. Still, this remains a controversial ingredient in the public eye, with some natural-food advocates urging more studies.

Beyond specific additives, another concern is how processed these products are. Many fake meats (especially plant-based burgers, nuggets, etc.) are classified as ultra-processed foods. This means they go through multiple processing steps and contain numerous ingredients, some of which are additives, binders, or flavorings. Dietitians point out that both plant-based meats and regular processed meats fall into the ultra-processed category, which isn’t ideal for health if eaten in large quantities georgeinstitute.org. For example, a veggie burger might contain things like methylcellulose (a plant fiber used as a binder), modified starches, flavor compounds, and added salt – making it far from a whole natural food. Some critics argue that just because a burger is plant-based doesn’t automatically make it healthy, especially if it’s loaded with sodium or saturated fat from added coconut oil. In fact, a study of products in Australian supermarkets found plant-based meats could be higher in sodium or added sugar compared to their meat equivalents (though overall they tended to have a healthier nutrient profile) georgeinstitute.org. The public has voiced worries that “fake meat is full of chemicals” or unfamiliar ingredients. While it’s true these products have a lot of additives, every ingredient does have to be food-grade and approved for use. There is nothing like “human DNA” or weird secret ingredients in them – those notions are unfounded rumors. But from a health perspective, eating highly processed food (whether vegan or not) in excess is generally seen as a negative, so nutritionists recommend moderation until we know more about long-term impacts georgeinstitute.orggeorgeinstitute.org.

In the case of lab-grown meat, the “ingredients” are the nutrients and growth factors used to feed the cells. Early cultured meat research often used something called fetal bovine serum (from blood) to grow cells, which raised ethical and safety questions, but companies are now developing synthetic or plant-based nutrient broths to replace that. Regulators like FDA examine all components used in cell culture to ensure they are safe and do not remain as harmful residues in the final meat fda.gov. Any scaffold or edible gel used to shape the meat must also be a safe, approved substance (like edible collagen or plant gel). So far, no regulators have flagged specific dangers with the inputs of cultured meat, but since production is still small-scale, oversight is ongoing.

When it comes to processed meats (like deli ham, bacon, sausages), the concerns center on certain preservatives and byproducts of processing. For instance, nitrates and nitrites are commonly used in cured meats to prevent bacterial growth and give meat its pink color. These chemicals themselves aren’t acutely toxic, but during cooking or in the stomach they can form N-nitroso compounds (nitrosamines) which are carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Smoking meats can deposit polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), another class of carcinogens, on the food ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. These are naturally occurring issues whenever you cure or smoke meat. That’s why health authorities have long questioned processed meats’ safety – not because you’ll get sick immediately, but because over years, the additives and chemicals formed might raise your risk for diseases like cancer. In response to these worries, there have been efforts to find more natural curing methods or to limit nitrite levels, but processed meats by definition undergo treatments that can create compounds our bodies aren’t used to in large amounts. We’ll discuss the health findings on processed meat in the next section.

Nutritional Differences from Traditional Meat

Another important aspect is how fake meats and processed meats differ nutritionally from fresh, traditional meat. If someone swaps a beef burger for a plant-based burger, or eats lab-grown chicken instead of farm-raised chicken, what changes for their health?

Plant-Based vs. Real Meat: Generally, plant-based meat alternatives are designed to have comparable amounts of protein to real meat, since one main goal is to replace the protein source. For example, a Beyond Burger patty has about 20g of protein, similar to a beef patty. However, the protein in many plant meats comes from soy, peas, or other plants, so its amino acid profile might be slightly less optimized for human needs than animal protein (animal proteins are “complete” with all essential amino acids in ideal proportions). Manufacturers often mix plant proteins or add amino acids to make them complete. According to research from the George Institute, the protein content in plant meat and real meat was about the same on average across many products georgeinstitute.org. But there are other differences: plant-based meats usually contain zero cholesterol (since cholesterol only comes from animal products) and they often have less saturated fat than equivalent animal meat georgeinstitute.org. For instance, many veggie burgers use coconut or sunflower oil for fat, which can still have saturated fat but usually less than the fat in a beef patty. The same study found plant analogues had significantly less saturated fat on average, and also more fiber (since they are made from plants and sometimes have added fibers) georgeinstitute.org. Indeed, fiber is completely absent in animal flesh, so getting some fiber is an advantage of plant-based meats. Furthermore, plant meats have no heme iron – the iron they contain is non-heme form or added – and they often have lower calories than fatty cuts of meat. On the downside, many plant-based meats are higher in sodium (salt) to enhance flavor georgeinstitute.org. Some can also contain more sugar (for flavor or browning) than a plain piece of meat would georgeinstitute.org. Another key point is micronutrients: real meat is a natural source of things like vitamin B12, heme iron, zinc, and selenium. If you stop eating meat and only eat plant substitutes, you might miss out on those unless the products are fortified. One analysis found that out of 132 plant-based meat products studied, only 12% were fortified with iron, B12, or zinc to levels that meat would normally provide georgeinstitute.orggeorgeinstitute.org. This means someone living on fake meats could become low in B12 or iron over time if they don’t get those nutrients elsewheregeorgeinstitute.org. Dietitians advise that if you use plant meats as a replacement, you should keep an eye on your nutrition: include other sources of B12 (like dairy, eggs, or supplements if you’re vegan) and iron (like leafy greens, legumes, or fortified foods) georgeinstitute.org. In short, plant-based meat can be part of a healthy diet and even has some advantages (no cholesterol, often less saturated fat, some fiber)georgeinstitute.org. But it’s not a magic health food – it can be high in sodium and lacking certain vitamins, so it should be consumed in moderation and alongside other nutritious foods georgeinstitute.org. Many experts say that whole foods (beans, lentils, unprocessed meats, etc.) are still the gold standard for nutrition, and that it’s best not to rely exclusively on heavily processed meat alternatives for every meal georgeinstitute.orggeorgeinstitute.org.

Meat vs. Lab-Grown Meat – Which is the future of food?

Lab-Grown Meat vs. Conventional Meat: Since lab-grown meat is biologically the same as meat from an animal (it’s muscle and fat tissue with the same cell types), we expect the basic nutritional content to be very similar. A piece of cultured chicken should have about the same amount of protein, fat, and calories as a piece of traditional chicken (assuming similar muscle/fat ratio). In fact, an official from the European Food Safety Authority noted that the cells in cultured meat will use the same building blocks (amino acids, fats, vitamins) as in vivo meat, so the composition will be quite alike hindustantimes.com. However, there are some variables. One consideration is that in a living animal, micronutrients like vitamins and minerals often come from the animal’s diet or metabolism. For example, beef is rich in B12 because cows (and their gut microbes) produce and store B12; fish is rich in omega-3 because they eat omega-3-rich algae, etc. If you’re growing just muscle cells in a tank, those cells won’t magically create B12 or certain vitamins on their own hindustantimes.com. As a 2020 article in Frontiers in Nutrition pointed out, many of the important micronutrients in meat (like iron or vitamin B12) are not made by the muscle tissue itself but come from the animal’s feed or the animal’s organs hindustantimes.com. This means that unless the companies add those micronutrients to the culture medium and the cells absorb them, the resulting lab meat could be low in some vitamins or minerals compared to farm meat hindustantimes.com. Companies are aware of this and could fortify the growth broth with iron or B12 to make the cultured meat nutritionally on par with the real thing. It’s likely that early cultured meats (like chicken nuggets) will be formulated to have the expected nutrients. But it’s something to watch: consumers will want to check nutrition labels once these are sold, to see if anything is notably absent. On a positive note, cultured meat might avoid some negatives found in conventional meat. For instance, there will be no random antibiotics, no parasite eggs, no heavy metals (like mercury in fish) if the process is kept clean hindustantimes.com. Any contaminants that farm animals get exposed to – pesticides in feed, drug residues, environmental pollutants – could be mostly eliminated in a controlled lab environment hindustantimes.com. So in that sense, lab meat could be “cleaner” and potentially healthier (no antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc.). As for long-term health effects, it’s simply too early to know. Cultured meat hasn’t been in diets long enough to study population health outcomes. But since nutritionally it should mirror real meat, many scientists suspect the health effects would also be similar to real meat. This means the advice about moderation might remain – e.g. if someone eats a lot of fatty cultured meat, they could still get high cholesterol just like with regular meat, because it contains the same fats and cholesterol. The advantage might be that fat composition could be tweaked (some research suggests they could grow cells with healthier fat profiles, like more omega-3) – this is theoretical for now.

Processed Meat vs. Fresh Meat: Diet and health experts have been warning for years that processed meats are worse for health than unprocessed lean meats. Processed meats (bacon, ham, sausages, hot dogs, pepperoni, etc.) tend to be higher in sodium and often contain preservatives like nitrites. They also frequently have more saturated fat than an equivalent portion of lean meat (think of a fatty sausage vs. a lean pork tenderloin). The big concern is cancer risk: large studies have linked processed meat consumption to colorectal (colon) cancer and other diseases who.intwho.int. Fresh red meat (like steak) has also been linked to cancer to a lesser degree, but only processed meat earned the strongest warning (more on that in the next section). In terms of nutrients, processed meats can still provide protein, B12, iron, etc., but the added salt and the chemicals formed during processing tip the balance toward being unhealthy if eaten frequently. For example, a piece of ham might give you protein and B vitamins, but it also delivers a dose of sodium and possibly nitrosamines. Health agencies worldwide usually advise people to limit processed meat and instead choose unprocessed lean meats or other protein sources for daily use georgeinstitute.org. Fresh meat can be part of a healthy diet (in moderation), as it’s a good source of protein and nutrients, but even fresh red meat in large amounts has been associated with heart disease and some cancers. Thus, moderation and balance are key whether you eat traditional meat or meat alternatives.

Processed Meats and Health Risks

Study finds that processed meat causes cancer, but how big is the risk?

It’s important to discuss processed meats specifically, because they are a real, verified health risk and sometimes get brought into the “fake meat” conversation as a comparison (people ask, “are veggie burgers safer than hot dogs?”). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), processed meat has been classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1, the highest risk category) based on sufficient evidence that it causes cancer (particularly colorectal cancer)who.intwho.int. This conclusion came from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO agency, after reviewing over 800 studies on meat and cancer. In 2015, IARC announced that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer, and it also noted associations with stomach cancerwho.int. To put it in perspective, Group 1 also includes things like tobacco smoking and asbestos. However – and this is important – that doesn’t mean eating bacon is as dangerous as smokingwho.int. The Group 1 classification simply means the evidence of a cancer link is definitely strong, but the degree of risk is much smaller for processed meat than for cigarettes. In fact, the risk is dose-dependent: the more you eat, the higher the risk. IARC estimated that each 50-gram portion of processed meat per day (about one hot dog or a couple strips of bacon) increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%who.int. To clarify, that doesn’t mean you have an 18% chance of getting cancer – it means your relative risk goes up by that percentage. So if a certain baseline lifetime risk of colon cancer was 5%, eating 50g of processed meat daily might raise it to ~6% (5% × 1.18). It’s a measurable increase, which is why public health experts take it seriously.

Because of this link, many health organizations say to eat processed meats sparingly. For example, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association both suggest limiting processed and red meat. Some countries’ dietary guidelines explicitly mention that processed meats are not essential and you should reduce their intake. The Australian Dietary Guidelines classify processed meats as “discretionary” foods (treats to only have sometimes) due to the cancer associationgeorgeinstitute.org. The WHO itself doesn’t tell people not to eat any meat, but it reinforces that reducing processed meat can help lower cancer riskwho.int. Aside from cancer, processed meats are often high in salt, which can raise blood pressure, and high in saturated fat, which can contribute to heart disease. So there are multiple reasons nutritionists say to cut back on things like sausages, bacon, salami, hot dogs, and deli meats. Replacing them with fresher protein sources (chicken breast, fish, beans, etc.) or newer alternatives (plant-based deli slices, etc.) could be better for long-term health. It’s a bit ironic: some people worry about the unknown risks of novel fake meats, while we already know the very real risks of some traditional meat products like bacon. The best approach is to consider the evidence: processed meats definitely have health drawbacks, whereas for lab-grown or plant-based meats we currently have little evidence of harm (and possibly some benefits like no nitrites or less fat). Of course, everything in moderation – eating a piece of bacon once in a while won’t doom anyone, but regular heavy consumption is what experts warn against.

Various processed meats in a supermarket (hot dogs, sausages, bologna, etc.). Health authorities have classified processed meats as a cause of cancer and recommend limiting these in the diet who.intwho.int.

To understand why processed meats are risky, scientists point to the chemicals involved in processing. Curing and smoking meat leads to formation of carcinogens like nitrosamines and PAHs as mentioned earlierncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Also, processed meats may contain heme iron (from red meat sources) which in high amounts in the gut can promote cancer by causing oxidative damage. Furthermore, high-temperature cooking (like frying bacon) creates additional carcinogenic substances (heterocyclic amines and more PAHs). It’s a triple whammy of risk factors. In contrast, fresh unprocessed meats don’t have the added nitrites or prolonged smoking exposure, so they haven’t shown as strong a cancer correlation (red meat was classified in the lesser Group 2A “probably carcinogenic” category)who.intwho.int. The safest route from a cancer standpoint is to limit both red and processed meat, but especially processed. For someone who loves meat, switching some of your processed meats to plant-based alternatives could theoretically reduce your cancer risk, since the plant-based versions don’t contain heme iron or nitrosamine-forming additives. However, the plant-based ones are still often high in sodium and are “ultra-processed,” which carry their own concerns (like links to obesity or diabetes if overconsumed). So the recommendation is not to treat fake meats as vegetables – treat them as you would treat meat, something to perhaps enjoy but not go overboard with.

Why lab-grown meat is so controversial

Alongside legitimate debates, a number of bizarre conspiracy theories have emerged about fake meat and even processed meat. These usually spread on social media or fringe websites and are not supported by evidence. It’s important to address them so people don’t get misled by shocking headlines or hoaxes.

One notorious claim that went viral is the idea that human meat is secretly being put into food products. This is a grotesque notion, and it is completely false. The most famous version of this hoax targeted McDonald’s. Around 2014, an article from a satire website called Huzlers made up a fake story that “McDonalds Exposed For Using Human Meat!” reuters.com. It even mentioned an FBI raid finding human remains at a McDonald’s factory – but this was pure fiction. The Huzlers site had a tiny disclaimer saying it’s not a real news site reuters.com. Despite that, the rumor took on a life of its own and resurfaces every so often on Facebook or YouTube with clickbait titles. In 2021, Reuters Fact Check investigated these posts and confirmed they stemmed from that old satirical article and have no factual basis reuters.comreuters.com. McDonald’s themselves addressed the rumor on their official website, assuring customers that this is nonsense and that “only 100% pure beef and chicken” are used in their restaurants reuters.com. Snopes also debunked the human meat story back in 2014 when it first appeared reuters.com. In short, you can rest assured McNuggets are made of chicken, not children. This kind of hoax taps into a primal disgust and distrust of big food companies, which is why it spreads easily – but it is not true. If you see a headline about human flesh in fast food, you’re looking at fake news or satire.

Lab Meat. The $1 Trillion Ugly Truth

Another wild story popped up in 2023 in the UK. A Channel 4 television program aired a spoof documentary called “The British Miracle Meat,” which portrayed a scenario of harvesting meat from human donors (essentially a dark satire about economic hardship and cannibalism). The show was presented without clear warning that it was fiction until mid-way through, so some viewers who saw clips online genuinely thought Britain had opened a lab-grown human meat facility reuters.comreuters.com. On TikTok and Facebook, snippets from the show (which depicted a fake company “Good Harvest” growing human meat) went viral with panicked captions like “They are now making human meat… UK are becoming cannibals” reuters.comreuters.com. 

Channel 4 later clarified that the program was entirely satirical – basically an edgy piece of social commentary, not a real documentary reuters.com. Reuters did a fact-check to quell the alarm, explaining that the show was a “spoof TV documentary” and not evidence of any real practicereuters.comreuters.com. This is a good example of how people might see something on the internet, out of context, and believe a conspiracy that “human meat” is entering the food supply, when actually it was fiction. The very concept is straight out of a horror movie (or the old sci-fi film Soylent Green), and it makes for sensational gossip, but there is zero real-world verification that anyone is putting human remains into fake meat or any food. It’s important to use common sense and check reliable sources when confronted with such extreme claims. No reputable company or lab is interested in turning people into patties!

There have also been conspiracy-like claims that fake meats are part of some evil agenda – for example, that billionaires or “global elites” want to force people to eat bugs and lab meat as a form of control, or that plant-based meats are “poison.” These often come from misinformation campaigns or ideological groups rather than any evidence. Some far-right and fringe influencers label fake meat as “dangerous” or “unnatural” without basis, sometimes calling it “dog food for humans” or suggesting it will make people weak. Such comments are usually hyperbolic and not grounded in scientific analysis. They often ignore the fact that many traditional foods (like sausages or cheeses) are also heavily processed, and instead single out new foods as scary simply because they’re new or connected to environmental initiatives. It’s wise to approach these narratives with skepticism. Major health organizations like the FDA, WHO, or the American Medical Association have not issued warnings that fake meat is harmful; on the contrary, as discussed, regulators have mostly affirmed their safety. If there were an actual problem (say, an Impossible Burger causing widespread illness), authorities would investigate and recall it. The conspiracy theories persist mostly on social media, lacking any official corroboration.

Finally, another popular myth to address: some people have claimed that lab-grown meat is made from fetal cells or even embryonic cells from human babies. This is likely a twisted misinterpretation of the use of fetal bovine serum in early research, or confusion with unrelated topics (like stem cell research in medicine). To be absolutely clear, cultured meat is grown from animal cells (like cow or chicken), not human cells. There is no cannibalism involved. And as mentioned, even the animal cells come from harmless biopsies, not from fetuses or anything gory. No company would use human cells – aside from the ethical horror, it would be massively illegal and serves no purpose when the goal is to replicate animal meat. So those more fringe conspiracy claims are unfounded.

Lab Grown Meat is Edible Cancer?

“The Zombie Ingredient” is a phrase some are now using to describe the synthetic chemical cocktails used in lab-grown or "cultivated" meat production—specifically the substances required to keep animal cells alive and multiplying outside the body. These substances aren’t always talked about publicly, but they play a central role in making cell-based meat possible.

In order to grow meat in a lab, scientists must extract real animal cells—usually stem cells—and keep them alive in a bioreactor. But cells taken out of the body die quickly without a constant flow of nutrients, oxygen, and growth signals. 

To solve this, labs feed them with a growth medium made up of sugars, amino acids, vitamins… and in some cases, synthetic hormones, fetal bovine serum (extracted from unborn calves), or lab-engineered growth factors.

  This is where the term “zombie ingredient” comes in: these chemicals essentially trick cells into thinking they’re still inside a living organism.

Critics argue this process raises ethical, health, and even philosophical concerns. If meat is grown from life-sustaining chemicals, does it still count as food in the traditional sense? And what’s the long-term impact of eating something that required artificial stimulation to exist? While industry leaders promise that cultivated meat is “clean” and sustainable, skeptics worry about unintended consequences—especially when companies aren’t fully transparent about all the substances involved.

More concerning to some is the potential overlap with 3D-printed meat and other ultra-processed meat alternatives. As the push to reduce traditional farming continues, many ask: are we trading one problem for another by replacing it with food that couldn’t exist without artificial life support?

This is the heart of the debate—one rooted in science, ethics, and our changing relationship with what we consider “real” food.

Official Responses and Conclusions

Health authorities and food industry leaders have responded to many of these issues to help the public understand the facts. We’ve already noted that the FDA has publicly commented on cultured meat safety, explicitly refuting the cancer cell rumor and endorsing the safety of properly produced lab meat hindustantimes.comhindustantimes.com. The World Health Organization has published Q&As explaining the cancer risks of processed meat, so consumers can make informed choices about their diet who.intwho.int. The WHO and FAO in 2023 also released a report on cell-based foods, which generally found no new food safety hazards beyond those we already monitor in traditional food production (though it recommended continuing research as the field grows) dw.comhindustantimes.com.

Major food companies have also addressed consumer fears. As mentioned, McDonald’s issued a clear denial of the human meat hoax on its website reuters.com. Companies like Impossible Foods have sections on their websites or spokespeople devoted to explaining the safety of their ingredients and processes, often citing the rigorous testing and regulatory approvals they have undergone fooddive.com. When the heme controversy arose, Impossible’s CEO and scientists frequently communicated that the ingredient had been tested and that their product’s safety is backed by research fooddive.com. Cultured meat startups often emphasize transparency – for instance, some have invited journalists and regulators to tour their labs to see how the meat is grown in stainless steel tanks in sanitary conditions. This is to build public trust and demystify the process.

In summary, fake meats and new meat technologies appear to be safe to eat based on current evidence and regulatory scrutiny. There is ongoing research to fully confirm their nutritional effects and any long-term impacts, simply because they’re so new. It’s wise to stay updated with credible sources as more studies come out. But so far, fears that lab-grown or plant-based meats are secretly toxic or contain bizarre ingredients are not supported by science – they often stem from fear of the unfamiliar or from deliberate misinformation. On the other hand, traditional processed meats have well-documented health risks, so concerns about those are scientifically grounded (if sometimes exaggerated in media headlines).

As a consumer, the best approach is to rely on verified information. Look at what the FDA, USDA, or European Food Safety Authority are saying when a new food comes out, rather than random YouTubers. Check if reputed organizations like the American Cancer Society or World Health Organization have guidelines about the foods you eat (for processed meat, they do: limit it). When you hear a shocking claim – e.g., “They found human flesh in burgers!” – remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in these cases the proof is lacking or downright fabricated. Fact-checking outlets (Reuters, AP, Snopes, etc.) have debunked many of these viral rumors reuters.comreuters.com, and they are a good resource if you’re unsure what to believe.

In conclusion, fake meats (whether plant-based, lab-grown, or 3D-printed) offer an innovative alternative to farmed meat with potential benefits for the environment and animal welfare. Scientific studies and official reviews so far indicate that they can be produced safely and have nutritional profiles similar to the meats they imitate, though consumers should be mindful of salt and nutrient differences georgeinstitute.orggeorgeinstitute.org. There are real issues to consider – such as how to balance our diets and how to regulate new food tech – but the more lurid controversies like “human meat in food” belong in the realm of fiction and internet myths, not reality. As always, it’s wise to approach your diet with both curiosity and critical thinking: enjoy the new food innovations if you like, but keep informed through reliable sources and don’t fall for the clickbait conspiracies.

Sources:

1. FDA – Human Food Made with Cultured Animal Cells (November 2022)fda.govhindustantimes.com

2. Reuters Fact Check – “McDonald’s ‘human meat’ claims stem from satire article” (June 11, 2021)reuters.comreuters.com

3. Reuters Fact Check – “Channel 4 lab-grown ‘human meat’ show is satirical” (July 26, 2023)reuters.comreuters.com

4. Deutsche Welle (via Hindustan Times) – “Does lab-grown meat contain cancer cells? Debunking myths” (Oct 5, 2023)hindustantimes.comhindustantimes.com

5. The George Institute – “Are plant-based meats really better for us than the real thing?” (Jan 19, 2023)georgeinstitute.orggeorgeinstitute.org

6. WHO / IARC – Q&A on Red and Processed Meat and Cancer (Oct 2015)who.intwho.int

7. Food Dive – “Impossible Foods’ GMO plant-based heme received proper approval, court rules” (May 4, 2021)fooddive.comfooddive.com

8. BuiltIn – “What Is 3D-Printed Meat?” (2023)builtin.combuiltin.com

9. Additional references from FAO, Good Food Institute, and academic studies as cited in the texthindustantimes.comhindustantimes.com.

Please Like and Share 😉🪽

The Brutal Truth July 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Voyager 1, launched in 1977, continues to surprise us. Here are the latest developments on its so-called "impossible discovery" — what it is, why it matters, and what’s next.

Voyager 1, launched in 1977, continues to surprise us. Here are the latest developments on its so-called "impossible discovery" — what it is, why it matters, and what’s next.

In April 2024, engineers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory overcame a five-month outage by reprogramming the probe’s faulty flight data system. They deftly divided and relocated essential code to sidestep damaged memory chips, restoring data from the spacecraft’s four scientific instruments NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)Wikipedia.

In May 2025, mission controllers revived backup thrusters that hadn't been used since 2004. This critical move ensured Voyager 1 could maintain antenna orientation and stay in contact as the primary thrusters degrade NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)SciTech Daily.

As of 2025, Voyager 1 has traveled roughly 167 astronomical units (AU) from Earth, making it the most distant human-made object — more than 15 billion miles away Wikipedia.

'Impossible Discovery' Explored

Recent buzz suggests Voyager 1 is sending back anomalous data that shouldn’t be possible. The probe’s Attitude and Articulation Control System has transmitted readings that don’t align with its actual orientation — what NASA describes as "impossible data." While the probe remains operational and communicating, engineers are still working to fully interpret these unusual signals. 

IFLScienceVICEWikipedia.

What Could It Mean?

• Instrument drift or cosmic interference? The mismatch might simply be due to sensor degradation or radiation effects.

• Software glitches? The tricky reprogramming last year may have introduced anomalies in data reporting.

• Hints of new physics? Fringe speculation occasionally entertains wild possibilities — from unexpected interstellar magnetic fields to anomalies in spacetime — though mainstream science leans heavily toward technical explanations.

The Mission Today

Nobel Winner WARNS: “Voyager 1 just made an IMPOSSIBLE Discovery after 45 Years”

Voyager 1 is quiet but ongoing. As of early 2025, power and communication systems continue to function, albeit with reduced capability. NASA expects to receive meaningful data until around 2025–2030, after which the probe may fall silent as its radioisotope generators decline WikipediaNASA.

Voyager 1’s journey remains one of humanity’s most enduring achievements — a lone vessel sending back whispers from the cosmic sea. Whether this latest anomaly is a glitch, a sign of aging hardware, or a peek behind nature’s veil, it reminds us how much there still is to learn from the edge of interstellar space.

Fringe theorists don’t view Voyager 1’s latest “impossible data” as a mere sensor glitch — they interpret it as a crack in the narrative of conventional astrophysics. To them, this is far more than a signal anomaly. It’s a possible breach into hidden truths about the nature of the universe that mainstream science is either unwilling or institutionally forbidden to fully acknowledge.

Brutal Assessment 1: Voyager Has Crossed Into Forbidden Territory

Some fringe theorists believe Voyager 1 is transmitting erratic or inexplicable data because it has entered a region of space where the laws of physics — as we understand them — no longer apply. This idea aligns with longstanding fringe speculation that space isn’t uniform, and that beyond a certain threshold — sometimes referred to as the "Heliopause Event Horizon" — spacecraft may encounter fields, frequencies, or spatial conditions that alter time, matter, and measurement itself.

They argue the “impossible” readings aren’t malfunctions — they’re evidence Voyager 1 is now sampling a domain of space that conventional instruments were never designed to handle.

Brutal Assessment 2: The Data Is Being Filtered or Sanitized

Many fringe voices go further: they don’t just suspect anomalies — they suspect cover-ups. There is a deep-rooted belief that when probes like Voyager transmit data that challenges foundational physics or suggests exotic phenomena (like energy voids, space-time fluctuations, or dimensional instability), NASA, JPL, and associated institutions immediately go into narrative control.

They assert that real-time data is intercepted, filtered, and publicly interpreted only after being cleansed of "problematic implications". In this view, the public receives a watered-down version of what’s really being seen — because the true implications could unravel pillars of modern cosmology and disrupt geo-political and theological power structures.

Brutal Assessment 3: Evidence of Interdimensional Contact or Proximity

A more radical camp believes Voyager’s signal drift and bizarre telemetry may not be due to malfunctions — but to interference or influence from non-terrestrial intelligence or interdimensional boundaries. The claim: Voyager is approaching — or has brushed against — a domain that acts as a membrane between realities, and the distortion in data is the spacecraft's own systems reacting to that energetic shift.

This theory draws on decades of speculation about the outer edges of our solar system not being a clean vacuum, but a dimensional border zone — perhaps even a guarded perimeter for Earth’s quarantined status in the galactic order.

Brutal Assessment 4: Proof That Physics Is Incomplete — and They Know It

At the core of fringe analysis is this conclusion: Voyager’s "impossible" signals expose the limitations of our scientific dogma. Instead of admitting that existing models of space, time, and energy are flawed, the mainstream response is to downplay, dismiss, or blame instrument decay.

Fringe theorists believe this is deliberate intellectual containment — a refusal to engage with data that threatens the Newton-Einstein paradigm. Why? Because embracing the full implications might open the door to technologies, timelines, and existential truths that upend every institution built on current science.

In Summary:

Fringe theorists don’t see Voyager 1’s “impossible data” as a curiosity — they see it as a warning sign that reality is far weirder and more fragmented than official science admits. Whether it’s dimensional turbulence, broken physical constants, or the edge of a simulation, the brutal takeaway is this:

Voyager may have pierced something we were never meant to touch — and the silence or spin surrounding it says more than the data ever could.

Recent Voyager 1 & Spacecraft News

THE BRUTAL TRUTH MAY 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

🚨 SHOCK! Time Travel is real and here's how it works, government has been hiding it | Redacted

Yes, the White House just admitted on the record, we possess the technology to manipulate time and space. In other words, time travel and teleportation technology.

Recent statements by Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, have sparked discussions about the United States' technological capabilities. In a speech at the Endless Frontiers Retreat in Austin, Texas, Kratsios remarked that "our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space," suggesting advancements that could "leave distance annihilated" and improve productivity. 

While these comments have led to speculation about time travel and teleportation technologies, Kratsios did not provide specific details or examples of such technologies. Analysts interpret his remarks as metaphorical, emphasizing the transformative potential of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and semiconductors to revolutionize various sectors. ​

Currently, there is no publicly available evidence indicating that the U.S. possesses technologies enabling literal manipulation of time and space. The scientific community continues to explore theoretical concepts in physics, but practical applications such as time travel or teleportation remain speculative and unproven.

According to a recent Redacted show with guest Ashton Forbes, where did the Malaysian plane that disappeared go in time? 

Ashton Forbes, an independent investigator known for exploring unconventional theories, has proposed a speculative explanation for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. According to Forbes, the aircraft may have been involved in an event involving unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs), suggesting that it was escorted by three UFOs and subsequently disappeared through what he describes as a "wormhole" or interdimensional portal. This theory is based on a video that purportedly shows the plane surrounded by these objects before vanishing. Forbes has discussed this perspective in various interviews and podcasts, including an episode of the "Redacted" show.​

It's important to note that this theory lacks empirical evidence and is not supported by mainstream aviation experts or investigators. The official investigations into MH370's disappearance have focused on more conventional explanations, such as mechanical failure or deliberate human action, and have not found any credible evidence to support claims of UFO involvement or time travel.​

While theories like Forbes' capture public imagination, they remain speculative and are not grounded in verifiable data. The mystery of MH370 continues to be a subject of investigation and debate, with efforts ongoing to uncover the truth behind the aircraft's disappearance.

​Isn't all of this information based on Tesla and Einstein theories?

Ashton Forbes' theory regarding the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 involves concepts that he links to the work of historical figures like Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein. Forbes suggests that the aircraft may have encountered a wormhole or interdimensional portal, leading to its sudden disappearance.​

In his discussions, Forbes references Tesla's ideas on etheric energy and zero-point energy, proposing that such energy could be harnessed to create wormholes. He also alludes to Einstein's theories of relativity, which introduce the possibility of spacetime anomalies under certain conditions. Additionally, Forbes mentions the work of Salvatore Pais, who holds patents on unconventional propulsion systems, suggesting that these concepts could be related to the technology involved in the MH370 incident.​

It's important to note that while Forbes draws connections between his theory and the ideas of Tesla and Einstein, mainstream scientific consensus does not support the existence of practical wormhole technology or the application of zero-point energy in the manner described. The theories remain speculative and are not grounded in empirical evidence recognized by the broader scientific community.​

For those interested in exploring Forbes' perspective further, he has discussed his theories in various interviews and podcasts, such as the "Blurry Creatures" podcast.​

We welcome back Ashton Forbes to embark on a journey through the speculative realms of wormhole technology. Ashton has led the investigation into the missing Malaysian flight MH370; his most recent conclusions are startling. Forbes believes that the video and satellite evidence and the physics of the perceived phenomena surrounding the last minutes of Flight 370 may suggest the missing plane encountered a wormhole, a hypothetical tunnel through spacetime, leading to its mysterious disappearance. Ashton makes a great case that this science explains exactly why we cannot find the vanished aircraft. What are the implications? Why do so many people refuse to accept that elites may control this technology? What does the science say about the plausibility of manmade wormholes?

Blurry Creatures EP: 240 Wormholes with Ashton Forbes