Without Attribution

Purloining New Age Ideas 

A STARTLING RESEARCH DISCOVERY 
For over two years the Discernment Research Group has been actively engaged in researching the emerging Postmodern Prophecy Paradigm (PPP) leader’s end-time false teachings. The process is tedious, time-consuming, and tiring as we read, re-read, and fact-check voluminous files, articles, books, and audio-visual media. Sometimes, unexpected discoveries manifest while rabbit-trailing these bizarre and unbiblical teachings. This post is a result of one of those surprising finds.

It all began innocently enough, as I perused yet another book that crossed our paths while scrutinizing Missler and Eastman’s 1997 landmark book, Alien Encounters. We had temporarily pre-empted the series on the “Rise of End-time Occultism” in the Church, involving the PPP leaders, in order to publish Sarah Leslie’s in-depth review of this book, which seemed to lay important groundwork for the teachings in this postmodern prophecy movement. Note her observations from Part 4 of that review:

Just to double-check what I was researching, I decided to dig a little deeper. I was troubled by the physicists that Missler was constantly citing. I did a key word search on the physicists that Missler mentions most frequently – Bohr and Bohm – and this time added in Pribram. Up popped a book titled The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. I was shocked once again. It became quickly apparent that Talbot’s book served as a primary source for Missler’s metaphysical worldview. Talbot credited David Bohm and Karl Pribram with being “generous with both their time and their ideas” and credited Marilyn Ferguson and her book The Aquarian Conspiracy as one of his primary sources. Talbot, who said he grew up in a psychic family and had many psychic experiences, wrote extensively about the paranormal in his book… [3] [bold added] 

WHOSE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE? 

It was this observation—“that Talbot’s book served as a primary source for Missler’s metaphysical worldview”—that prompted me to take a closer look at Talbot’s 1991 book. While reading an online version of The Holographic Universe, I immediately noted a glaring familiar “ghostly images” quote on the first page of Talbot’s Introduction (the identical quotations are at the top of this post)! Because of my familiarity with Chuck Missler’s writings, I recognized the identical statement from Missler’s 1999 book, Cosmic Codes: Messages from the Edge of Eternity—on page 338.

Anxious to determine whether or not this was a simple oversight by Missler, I ordered a paperback copy of Talbot’s book and began the tedious, meticulous, and arduous task of comparing the two books—Talbot’s published in 1991 and Missler’s in 1999 (2004 revised edition).

I wasn’t prepared for what I actually found. Not only do these identical quotations appear in both books—but so do multiple other passages as well. I searched in vain for a single mention of Talbot’s name (or book) in Missler’s Cosmic Codes. He is not cited anywhere in the 372 pages of text, nor is he listed in the appendices, endnotes, or index. This is an inexplicable omission, especially because Talbot’s words and source work are clearly incorporated into Missler’s book. Entire paragraphs have been imported from Talbot’s book, many times word-for-word, without any attribution—even including Talbot’s original source work in the footnotes. Talbot’s original graphic of a hologram model is also found on page 309 of Cosmic Codes.

Coincidentally, or not, “a holographic universe” is the primary subject in the last section of Cosmic Codes—especially in Chapter 23, entitled “Our Digital Universe.”[6] It is also the title of a more recent popular article, purportedly written by Chuck Missler, in the November 2012 issue of Personal Update (a Koinonia House publication).[5] This article, adapted from Cosmic Codes, also begins with the “ghostly images” quote (provided at the top of this post)—that is also found on page 1 of Talbot’s book! This teaching is also available from Koinonia House as a DVD with briefing notes called—“Holographic Universe.”[6] Talbot’s “ghostly images” quote also appears in the advertisement for this video, which is also available at Amazon.com.[7]

I also noted that just enough of Talbot’s original writing was cherry-picked to avoid the more explicit New Age beliefs displayed in Talbot’s The Holographic Universe. As Sarah Leslie pointed out in her Alien Encounters review (Chapter 4), Talbot was very simpatico with Marilyn Ferguson, author of the landmark New Age book, The Aquarian Conspiracy, and other arcane advocates. Not only do these new discoveries show more about the dark and sinister roots of Missler’s teachings, but they also reveal the true teachers behind Missler’s teachings.

From careful research and documentation, it appears as though these findings go well beyond simple oversight or shoddy research. They raise serious ethical and integrity questions—over and above the obvious New Age and occult ideas that have been smuggled into the church from this 1991 book (under the guise of modern science) by a Christian author. We felt this issue was so serious that we paused in our current article series reviewing Alien Encounters, “A New Cosmology for the Church,”  in order to bring it to our readers’ attention.

THE DOCUMENTATION 
Below are several side-by-side excerpts taken from these two books. Color was added to show subtle changes that were made in the original text. (Note: We are not reviewing the subject matter; we are comparing the excerpts.)

TALBOT, pg. 1: “In the movie Star Wars, Luke Skywalker’s adventure begins when a beam of light shoots out of the robot Artoo Detoo and projects a miniature three-dimensional image of Princess Leia. Luke watches spellbound as the ghostly sculpture of light begs for someone named Obi-wan Kenobi to come to her assistance. The image is a hologram, a three-dimensional picture made with the aid of a laser….” [Ed. Note: Talbot gave credit for this opening paragraph to ‘Kerry Brace’ on his acknowledgment page xii.]


MISSLER, pg. 309: “In the movie Star Wars, Luke Skywalker’s adventure begins when a beam of light shoots out of the robot R2D2 (‘Artoo Detoo’) and projects a miniature three-dimensional image of Princess Leia. Luke watches spellbound as the ghostly sculpture of light begs for someone named Obi-wan Kenobi to come to her assistance. The image is a hologram, a three-dimensional picture made with the aid of a laser….” 

TALBOT, pg. 1: “…there is evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it–from snowflakes to maple trees to falling stars and spinning electrons–are also only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own it is literally beyond both space and time.” 


MISSLER, pg. 338: “…there is evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it are also only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own it is literally beyond both space and time.” 

TALBOT, pg. 1: “But the most staggering thing about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them.” 


MISSLER, pg. 341: “The holographic model has also opened the door to a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding—telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, etc.” 

TALBOT, pp. 11-13: “…Research conducted by Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in the 1920s had offered convincing evidence that specific memories did have specific locations in the brain…. In his book The Mystery of the Mind, published in 1975, just shortly before his death, he wrote, ‘It was evident at once that these were not dreams…. For Pribram the only answer seemed to be that memories were not localized at specific brain sites, but were somehow spread out or distributed throughout the brain as a whole…” 
TALBOT, (footnote # 1, pg. 303): “Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975).” 

MISSLER, pg. 329: “The research conducted by Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in the 1920s had offered convincing evidence that specific memories did have specific locations in the brain. In his book, The Mystery of the Mind, published just before his death, he concluded that everything we have ever experienced is recorded in our brain, a sequential record of consciousness that was spatially recorded. However, Karl Pribram… came to believe that memories were not localized at specific brain sites, but were somehow spread out or distributed throughout the brain as a whole….” 
MISSLER, (footnote #624, pg. 509): “Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of consciousness and the Human Brain, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975.” 

TALBOT, pg. 21: “Holography also explains how our brains can store so many memories in so little space. The brilliant Hungarian-born physicist and mathematician John von Neumann once calculated that over the course of the average human lifetime, the brain stores something on the order of 2.8 X 1020 (280,000,000,000,000,000,000) bits of information. This is a staggering amount of information, and brain researchers have long struggled to come up with a mechanism that explains such a vast capability.” 


MISSLER, pg. 330: “The holographic paradigm also explains how our brains can store so many memories in so little space. The brilliant physicist and mathematician John von Neumann, who we met in Chapter 1, once calculated that over the course of the average human lifetime, the brain stores something on the order of 2.8 X 1020 bits of information. (Accepting the traditional estimate of the age of the universe as about ten billion years, that’s 1,000 bits for every second in the entire history of the universe!). This is a staggering amount of information, and brain researchers have long struggled to come up with a mechanism that explains such a vast capability.” 

TALBOT, pp. 23-25: “[Subheading: ‘PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY’] …the holographic brain theory may explain why some people possess photographic memories (also known as eidetic memories)… [Subheading: ‘THE TRANSFERENCE OF LEARNED SKILLS’] … [Subheading: ‘PHANTOM LIMB SENSATIONS…’] …Creating the illusion that things are located where they are not is the quintessential feature of a hologram…. This is because a hologram is a virtual image, an image that appears to be where it is not, and possesses no more extension in space than does the three-dimensional image you see of yourself when you look in a mirror….” 

MISSLER, PG. 330: “…the distributed nature of memory and vision is not the only neurophysiological puzzle the holographic model seems to explain. The mysteries of pattern recognition, eidetic (‘photo-graphic’) memories, transference of learned skills from one part of the body to another, the sensations of a phantom limb which has been amputated, all involve mysteries which seem to yield to the virtual imaging of a holographic model… Creating illusions where they are not is the quintessential feature of a hologram. The hologram is a virtual image, an image which appears to be where it is not. It requires no more real space than the three-dimensional image you see of yourself in a mirror.” 

TALBOT, pg. 26: “…Indiana University biologist Paul Pietsch…. To prove Pribram wrong, Pietsch devised a series of experiments, and as the test subjects of his experiments he chose salamanders… In a series of over 700 operations he sliced, flipped, shuffled, subtracted, and even minced the brains of his hapless subjects, but always when he replaced what was left of their brains, their behavior returned to normal.… He writes about this experience as well as giving detailed accounts of his experiments in his insightful book Shufflebrain.” 
TALBOT, (footnote #8, pg. 303 [from the preceding page; refers back to source of Shufflebrain]): “Paul Pietsch, Shufflebrain: The Quest for the Hologramic Mind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981), p. 78.” 


MISSLER, pg. 329: “Indian University biologist Paul Pietsch set out to disprove Pribram’s theories. In a series of over 700 operations on salamanders, he discovered that their learned behavior was not affected by repositioning, reversing, or even shuffling the brain. After recovering from the operation, their behavior returned to normal.” 
MISSLER, (footnote #625, pg. 509): “Paul Pietsch, Shufflebrain: the Quest for the Hologramic Mind, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1981.” 

TALBOT, pg. 27: “While the theories that enabled the development of the hologram were first formulated in 1947 by Dennis Gabor (who later won a Nobel Prize for his efforts)… His goal was to improve the electron microscope, then a primitive and imperfect device. His approach was a mathematical one, and the mathematics he used was a type of calculus invented by an eighteenth-century Frenchman named Jean B. J. Fourier. Roughly speaking what Fourier developed was a mathematical way of converting any pattern, no matter how complex, into a language of simple waves. He also showed how these wave forms could be converted back into the original pattern. In other words, just as a television set converts those frequencies back into the original image, Fourier showed how a similar process could be achieved mathematically. The equations he developed to convert images into wave forms and back again are known as Fourier transforms.” 


MISSLER, pp. 308-309: “One of the most remarkable examples of a Fourier Transform is the hologram. The principles were first formulated in 1947 by Dennis Gabor (who later won a Nobel Prize for his efforts) as he was trying to improve the electron microscope, then a primitive and imperfect device. His approach was a mathematical one, leaning on a type of calculus invented by an 18th century Frenchman, Jean B. J. Fourier. Fourier had developed a mathematical way of converting any pattern, no matter how complex, into a language of simple waves. He also showed how these wave forms could be converted back into the original pattern just as a television set converts those frequencies into the original images. The equations he developed to convert images into wave forms and back again are known as Fourier transforms.” 

TALBOT, pp. 27-28: “Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s various researchers contacted Pribram and told him they had uncovered evidence that the visual system worked as a kind of frequency analyzer… this strongly suggested that the brain might be functioning as a hologram does. But it wasn’t until 1979 that Berkeley neurophysiologists Russell and Karen DeValois made the discovery that settled the matter. Research in the 1960s had shown that each brain cell in the visual cortex is geared to respond to a different pattern…. The brain was using Fourier mathematics—the same mathematics holography employed—to convert visual images into the Fourier language of wave forms.… Over a century before the DeValoises’ discovery, the German physiologist and physicist Hermann von Helmholtz has shown that the ear was a frequency analyzer. More recent research had shown that our sense of smell seems to be based on what are called osmic frequencies. 

MISSLER, pg. 330: “In the field of neurophysiology numerous studies have corroborated Pribram’s various predictions about the holographic nature of memory and also of perception. There is also accumulating evidence that the brain processes images by some kind of internal holograms. Berkeley neurophysiologists Russell and Karen DeValois discovered that the visual cortex processed patterns by Fourier transformations of the patterns. (Over a century before the DeValoises’ discovery, the German physiologist and physicist Hermann von Helmholtz has shown that the ear was a frequency analyzer. More recent research had shown that our sense of smell seems to be based on what are called osmic frequencies.) 

TALBOT, pg. 33-34: “One startling discovery made by quantum physicists was that if you break matter into smaller and smaller pieces you eventually reach a point where those pieces—electrons, protons, and so on—no longer possess the traits of objects. For example, most of us tend to think of an electron as a tiny sphere or a BB whizzing around, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although an electron can sometimes behave as if it were a compact little particle, physicists have found that it literally possesses no dimension. This is difficult for most of us to imagine because everything at our own level of existence possesses dimension. And yet if you try to measure the width of an electron, you will discover it’s an impossible task. An electron is simply not an object as we know it. Another discovery physicists made is that an electron can manifest as either a particle or a wave. If you shoot and electron at the screen of a television that’s been turned off, a tiny point of light will appear when it strikes the phosphorescent chemicals that coat the glass. The single point of impact the electron leaves on the screen clearly reveals the particlelike side of its nature. But this is not the only form the electron can assume. It can also dissolve into a blurry cloud of energy and behave as if it were a wave spread out over space. When an electron manifests as a wave it can do things no particle can. If it is fired at a barrier in which two slits have been cut, it can go through both slits simultaneously. When wavelike electrons collide with each other they even create interference patterns…. This chameleonlike ability is common to all subatomic particles. It is also common to all things once thought to manifest exclusively as waves…Perhaps most astonishing of all is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them….” 


MISSLER, pg. 336: “One startling discovery made by quantum physicists was that if you break matter into smaller and smaller pieces you eventually reach a point where those pieces—electrons, protons, etc.—no longer possess the traits of objects. Although an electron can sometimes behave as if it were a compact little particle, physicists have found that it literally possesses no dimension. Another discovery physicists made is that an electron can manifest as either a particle or a wave. If you shoot and electron at the screen of a television that’s been turned off, a tiny point of light will appear when it strikes the phosphorescent chemicals that coat the glass. The single point of impact the electron leaves on the screen clearly reveals the particle-like side of its nature. But this is not the only form the electron can assume. It can also dissolve into a blurry cloud of energy and behave as if it were a wave spread out over space. When an electron manifests as a wave it can do things no particle can. If it is fired at a barrier in which two slits have been cut, it can go through both slits simultaneously. When wavelike electrons collide with each other they even create interference patterns…. This chameleonlike ability is common to all subatomic particles. It is also common to all things once thought to manifest exclusively as waves…. What makes them even more astonishing is that there is compelling evidence that the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them….” 

TALBOT, pp. 35-37: “That assumption was made by one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle’s properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. This was disturbing to many physicists, for much of science was based on discovering the properties of phenomena. But if the act of observation actually helped create such properties, what did that imply about the future of science? One physicist who was troubled by Bohr’s assertions was Einstein. Despite the role Einstein had played in the founding of quantum theory, he was not at all happy with the course the fledgling science had taken… In 1935 Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published a now famous paper entitled “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”… The problem is that according to Einsteins’ special theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, let alone travel instantaneously, for that would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door on all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes. Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no “reasonable definition” of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist, and therefore Bohr had to be wrong. Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or EPR paradox for short. Bohr remained unperturbed by Einstein’s argument. Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, he offered another explanation. If subatomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent “things.” Thus Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise. In time most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct. One factor that contributed to Bohr’s triumph was that quantum physics had proved so spectacularly successful in predicting phenomena, few physicists were willing even to consider the possibility that it might be faulty in some way….” 
TALBOT, (footnote #3, pg. 304): “Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47 (1935), p. 777.” 

MISSLER, pp. 337-338: “The Danish physicist Niels Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle’s properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. But if the act of observation actually helped create such properties, what did that imply about the future of science?… One physicist who was deeply troubled by Bohr’s assertions was Albert Einstein. Despite the role Einstein had played in the founding of quantum theory, he was not pleased with the course the fledgling science had taken… In 1935 Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published their now famous paper, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”… The problem, according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The instantaneous communication implied by the view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door on all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes. Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no “reasonable definition” of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist and therefore Bohr had to be wrong. Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or EPR paradox for short. Bohr remained unperturbed by Einstein’s argument. Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, he offered another explanation. If subatomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent “things.” Thus Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise. In time, most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct. One factor that contributed to Bohr’s following was that quantum physics had proved so spectacularly successful in predicting phenomena, few physicists were willing even to consider the possibility that it might be faulty in some way….” 
MISSLER, (footnote #628, pg. 509): “Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review, 47 (1935), p. 777.” 

TALBOT, pg. 41: “Bohm’s interpretation of quantum physics indicated that at the subquantum level, the level in which the quantum potential operated, location ceased to exist. All points in space became equal to all other points in space, and it was meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from anything else. Physicists call this property ‘nonlocality.'” 

MISSLER, pg. 339: “Bohm’s interpretation of quantum physics indicated that at the subquantum level, the level in which the quantum potential operated, location ceased to exist. All points in space became equal to all other points in space, and it was meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from anything else. Physicists call this property ‘nonlocality.'” 

TALBOT, pg. 43: “Bohm’s ideas still left most physicists unpersuaded, but did stir the interest of a few. One of these was John Steward Bell, a theoretical physicist at CERN, a center for peaceful atomic research near Geneva, Switzerland. Like Bohm, Bell had also become discontented with quantum theory and felt there must be some alternative… Bell also realized that Bohm’s theory implied the existence of nonlocality and wondered if there was any way of experimentally verifying its existence. The question remained in the back of his mind for years until a sabbatical in 1964 provided him with the freedom to focus his full attention on the matter. Then he quickly came up with an elegant mathematical proof that revealed how such an experiment could be performed. The only problem was that it required a level of technological precision that was not yet available. To be certain that particles, such as those in the EPR paradox, were not using some normal means of communication, the basic operations of the experiment had to be performed in such an infinitesimally brief instant that there wouldn’t even be enough time for a ray of light to cross the distance separating the two particles. This meant that the instruments used in the experiment had to perform all of the necessary operations within a few thousand-millionths of a second.” 


MISSLER, pg. 339: “Bohm’s ideas still left most physicists unpersuaded, but did stir the interest of a few. One of these was John Steward Bell, a theoretical physicist at CERN, the center for atomic research at Geneva, Switzerland. Like Bohm, Bell had also become discontented with quantum theory and felt there must be some alternative…. When Bell encountered Bohm’s ideas, he wondered if there was some way of experimentally verifying nonlocality. Freed up by a sabbatical in 1964, he developed an elegant mathematical approach which revealed how such a two-particle experiment could be performed—the now famed Bell Inequality. The only problem was that it required a level of technological precision that was not yet available. To be certain that particles, such as those in the EPR paradox, were not using some normal means of communication, the basic operations of the experiment had to be performed in such an infinitesimally brief instant that there wouldn’t even be enough time for a ray of light to cross the distance separating the two particles… This meant that the instruments used in the experiment had to perform all of the necessary operations within a few nanoseconds (thousand millionths of a second).” 

TALBOT, pg. 46: “One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means ‘enfolded’) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order.” 

MISSLER, pg. 340: “One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means ‘enfolded’) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order.” 

TALBOT, pp. 52-53: “In the 1970s the technology became available to actually perform the two-particle experiment outlined by Bell, and a number of different researchers attempted the task. Although the findings were promising, none was able to produce conclusive results. Then in 1982 physicists Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard and Gerard Roger of the Institute of Optics at the University of Paris succeeded. First they produced a series of twin photons by heating calcium atoms with lasers. Then they allowed each photon to travel in opposite directions through 6.5 meters of pipe and pass through special filters that directed them toward one of two possible polarization analyzers. It took each filter 10 billionths of a second to switch between one analyzer or the other, about 30 billionths of a second less than it took for light to travel the entire 13 meters separating each set of photons. In this way Aspect and his colleagues were able to rule out any possibility of the photons communicating through any known physical process. Aspect and his team discovered that, as quantum theory predicted, each photon was still able to correlate its angle of polarization with that of its twin. This meant that either Einstein’s ban against faster-than-light communication was being violated, or the two photons were nonlocally connected. Because most physicists are opposed to admitting faster-than-light processes into physics, Aspect’s experiment is generally viewed as virtual proof that the connection between the two photons is nonlocal. Furthermore, as physicist Paul Davis of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, observes, since all particles are continually interacting and separating, ‘the nonlocal aspects of quantum systems is therefore a general property of nature.” 
TALBOT, (footnote #13, pg. 304): “Paul Davies [sic], Superforce (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 48.” 

MISSLER, pp. 339-340: “As technology improved it was finally possible to perform the two-particle experiment outlined by Bell. In 1982, a landmark experiment was performed by a research team led by physicists Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard and Gerard Roger of the Institute of Optics at the University of Paris. They produced a series of twin photons by heating calcium atoms with lasers, allowed each photon to travel in opposite directions through 6.5 meters of pipe and pass through special filters that directed them toward one of two possible polarization analyzers. It took each filter 10 nanoseconds to switch between one analyzer or the other, about 30 nanoseconds less than it took for light to travel the entire 13 meters separating each set of photons. In this way Aspect and his colleagues were able to rule out any possibility of the photons communicating through any known physical process. The experiment succeeded. Just as quantum theory predicted, each photon was still able to correlate its angle of polarization with that of its twin. This meant that either Einstein’s ban against faster-than-light communication was being violated, or the two photons were nonlocally connected. This experiment demonstrated that the web of subatomic particles which compose our physical universe—the very fabric of ‘reality’ itself—possesses what appears to be an undeniable ‘holographic’ property. Paul Davis of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, observed that since all particles are continually interacting and separating, ‘the nonlocal aspects of quantum systems is therefore a general property of nature.” 
MISSLER, (footnote #629, pg. 509): “Paul Davis, Superforce, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1948, p. 48.” 

TALBOT, pg. 54: “Such skepticism notwithstanding, there are also physicists who are sympathetic to Bohm’s ideas, including such big guns as Roger Penrose of Oxford, the creator of the modern theory of the black hole; Bernard d’Espagnat of the University of Paris, one of the world’s leading authorities on the conceptual foundations of quantum theory; and Cambridge’s Brian Josephson, winner of the 19973 Nobel Prize in physics. Josephson believes Bohm’s implicate order may someday even lead to the inclusion of God or Mind within the framework of science, an idea Josephson supports.” 
TALBOT, (footnote #16, pg. 305): “Saybrook Publishing Company, The Reach of the Mind: Nobel Prize Conversations (Dallas, Texas: Saybrook Publishing Co., 1985), p. 91” 

MISSLER, pg. 341: “Many physicists remain skeptical of Bohm’s ideas. Among those who are sympathetic, however, are Roger Penrose of Oxford, the creator of the modern theory of black holes; Bernard d’Espagnat of the University of Paris, one of the world’s leading authorities on the conceptual foundations of quantum theory; and Cambridge’s Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in physics. Josephson believes Bohm’s implicate order may someday even lead to the inclusion of God within the framework of science, an idea Josephson supports.” 
MISSER, (footnote #633, pg. 509): “The Reach of the Mind: Nobel Prize Conversations, Saybrook Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas, 1985, p. 91.” 

TROUBLING OBSERVATIONS 
As I trudged through these two books—from authors of supposedly diametrically opposed worldviews—many disturbing and unsettling observations became readily apparent.

1. Talbot, the New Age author, appeared more honest than Missler, the Christian author. Talbot wrote two full pages of attribution at the beginning of his book. Here are excerpts of a few of those individuals named, along with their specific contributions:

• • “David Bohm, Ph.D., and Karl Pribram, Ph.D., who were generous with both their time and their ideas, and without whose work this book would not have been written.” 
• • “Kerry Brace, for sharing his thoughts on the holographic idea as it applies to Hindu thinking, and from whose writings I have borrowed the idea of using the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie Star Wars to open the book.” [Ed. Note: Missler used this same Star Wars analogy in Cosmic Codes.]
• • “Marilyn Ferguson, the founder of the Brain/Mind Bulletin, who was one of the first writers to recognize and write about the importance of the holographic theory, and who also was generous with her time and thought. The observant reader will notice that my summary of the view of the universe that arises when one considers Bohm and Pribram’s conclusions in tandem, at the end of Chapter Two, is actually just a slight rephrasing of the words Ferguson uses to summarize the same sentiment in her bestselling book The Aquarian Conspiracy. My inability to come up with a different and better way to summarize the holographic idea should be viewed as a testament to Ferguson’s clarity and succinctness as a writer.” [8] [bold added]

Missler, while acknowledging a handful of individuals on a single page in his book, NOT ONCE mentions Talbot or his book. He is never cited and is not found in Missler’s 667 suspect footnotes or anywhere else. Here is an excerpt from the top of Missler’s Acknowledgments page:  

“This book draws on over 50 years of collecting snippets from hobby of discovery, as well as a technical career in the information sciences. It is certain that there remains indebtedness that has gone unacknowledged. As one accumulates personal notes from lectures, conferences, and other encounters—many of them private—and then assembles them into various informal presentations over several decades of speaking, some of the source annotations are inevitably lost.”[9] [bold added] 

But is it ethical or permissible to omit or fail to acknowledge such key sources—such as Talbot’s book? Any high school or college student would be disciplined or failed in their course for leaving out this vital information. Any reputable journalist would face suspension or termination for this flagrant breach of ethics. Shouldn’t the standards of scholarship be even higher for a respected and well-known Bible teacher? Shouldn’t the evangelical publishing world hold to an even higher level of scholarly integrity than the secular world? 

2. Talbot openly acknowledged the New Age bent of his book, but Missler used these New Age ideas from Talbot (and his occult sources) and smuggled them into the Church under the guise of “new science.” Why wasn’t Missler forthright and honest about using Talbot as a main source?

• This is important, because Talbot’s source work—the New Age ideas surrounding the holographic universe from David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Marilyn Ferguson… and others—form a foundation to Missler’s main teachings! They’re aren’t “new science” but old metaphysical teachings.
• Talbot openly acknowledges that the holographic model of the universe is directly connected to occult phenomena such as, telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, shamanic time travel, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), ghostly apparitions, and other mystical phenomena. He even admits to the influence of Hinduism and medieval alchemy, but Missler skirts around these phenomena as though they were simply things that science has misunderstood for millennia. He then claims that these ideas are compatible with Holy Scripture! They are NOT. 

3. Instead of quoting Missler in our articles dealing with New Age physics and holographic teachings, I discovered I was actually quoting Talbot! Note this excerpt from my 2011 article “Doomsday Datesetters 2012,” (also cited in Part 1 of the Quantum Mysticism 9-part series a year later), where I quoted from Missler’s Cosmic Codes book, chapter 23:

Quantum Teleporting, Part 2: Our Holographic Universe 
There seems to be evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it are only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own that the real reality is literally beyond both space and time. The main architect of this astonishing idea includes one of the world’s most eminent thinkers: University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein’s and one of the world’s most respected quantum physicists…. One of Bohm’s most startling suggestions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really kind of an illusion, like a holographic image…. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (“enfolded”) order and he refers to our level of existence the explicate (unfolded) order. [12] [color, italics and bold added]

The quoted portion in red actually came from Talbot’s Introduction to The Holograph Universe, page 1—and that is found on page 338 of Cosmic Codes! It is the same “ghostly images” quote that is at the top of this post, in Missler’s 2012 Personal Update article, and in his DVD advertisement. When I quoted Missler in these articles, I assumed that he was indeed the author of those familiar words, but I was mistaken. Missler lifted them from Talbot.

4. What kind of negative impact might these unfortunate disclosures have on Talbot’s readers… and Missler’s following? Unfortunately, Talbot met with an untimely death at 38 (he died the same year his book was released in paperback).[13] He did not live to oversee his work. How might these facts adversely color the Christian message for Talbot’s readers and family—many of whom might not know Christ and His saving Gospel? How about Missler’s own advocates and students? Might they be tempted to stumble?

PAST QUESTIONS OF ATTRIBUTION 
Sadly, I learned this is not the first time dishonest scholarship has been detected regarding Missler’s publications. Back in 1992, Missler and fellow Bible author Hal Lindsey had published a manuscript called The Magog Factor utilizing large portions—as much as 25 percent—of unattributed material from Edwin Yamauchi’s 1982 book, Foes from the Northern Frontier. The embarrassing account was reported in the Los Angeles Times:

Words can mean whatever you want. In this case, Christian authors Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler make their points with the above passage and numerous others that are virtually word for word (and without attribution) from a book written by one of their critics, historian Edwin Yamauchi. 

“It’s kind of a sophomoric plagiarism, it seems,” Yamauchi said after comparison passages had been read to him over the phone. “If they’re not acknowledging where they got it from, that is rather dishonest. I’m sorry to hear that.”[14] [bold added]

This stinging charge of dishonesty was made by a Christian professor at a secular college. Following litigation, Missler agreed to remove the unattributed portions of Yamauchi’s book, but audaciously, the same unattributed material was re-published in another book, The Magog Invasion, in 1995 (with the Foreword written by Hal Lindsey).[15] Professor Yamauchi is listed on the last page of Missler’s bibliography, but proper attribution is not given in the text of the book, and Mr. Yamauchi’s original source work in the footnoting reads as though it is Missler’s own work. Note this perplexing acknowledgement by Missler on page 9:

The sources and assistance for a project of this kind exceed our ability to be exhaustive. Furthermore, our diligence must be tempered with discretion. Surely our most valuable sources are ones which, of necessity, prefer (or insist) to remain anonymous. Our friends in the intelligence community, our many friends in Russia and Israel who have guided us and patiently tutored us over the years cannot begin to be listed here. 

Among our scholastic debts, none are greater than those to Dr. Edwin Yamauchi and his many fine works. While greatly benefiting from his work and citations, the conclusions and mistakes are entirely our own. [16] [bold, red added] 

But could this re-publishing of unattributed material—especially after promising to remove it—be caused from a careless clerical “mistake” or the unfortunate result of book-writing rigors as Missler insinuates? Is it even remotely plausible that Dr. Yamauchi needed anonymity—source protection—three years after his book was used without permission the first time? Or is this rather a case of something more deliberate and thought-out? Most readers, not knowing the background of this situation, would be confused by Missler’s comments above, because he does not confess to publishing professor Yamauchi’s writings without crediting his provenance.

The disquieting fact is that Missler indeed “greatly benefit[ed] from [Yamauchi’s] work and citations”—and continues to do so with every book sale. The Magog Invasion is still required reading for a Bible course at the Koinonia Institute.[17] According to the latest KI Handbook (PDF), Cosmic Codes is also currently used as a textbook at the Koinonia Institute.[18] What then is to be done about Talbot’s material that continues to been sold under Missler’s name? Should Talbot’s death matter? Do copyright laws matter? Does the apparent lack of integrity, ethics and character in an esteemed Christian leader matter?

Dr. Yamauchi was just one among dozens of names listed in the bibliography of The Magog Invasion; there are even more listed in Cosmic Codes. Given the brazen nature of the repeated purloining of original writings demonstrated here, could there be even more cases involving the work of other authors? Sadly we have found even more evidence of this (not documented here) from our close examination of Alien Encounters[19] —a book that has become a primer for many of the current Postmodern Prophecy Paradigm (PPP) leaders—and many others.[20]

All of this also raises grave concerns regarding the publishing arm of Chuck Missler (Koinonia House) and its scholarly and ethical integrity.

SOBERING QUESTIONS
Those with the time and inclination to do so will most undoubtedly discover more instances of such mendacious scholarship. The exhibits documented here should alleviate any doubts regarding the serious nature of our discoveries. They should also raise deep concerns over the unbiblical, unethical, and perhaps even unlawful patterns of authorship—spanning over two decades—that have cast a dark suspicion over every piece of writing graced with Missler’s name. How many KI students have been exposed to these unattributed works—and New Age ideas? What amount of pecuniary and personal acclaim has also been unfairly misattributed to Missler due to his use of Talbot’s intellectual property?

How might all of this harm the reputation of our Lord Jesus Christ—and that of His Bride? What are the ultimate ramifications in all of this? Only the Lord truly knows. Our hope and prayer is that these unsettling findings will be made right so that perhaps Christian integrity can be restored in view of the Gospel. The world is watching.

Endnotes: 
1. Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, 1991 (Paperback Version 1992), pg. 1. 
2. Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity, Koinonia House, Coeur d’Alene, ID, 1999 (Revised 2004), pg. 338. 
3. Sarah Leslie, “Quantum Metaphysics: A New Cosmology for the Church, Part 4,” July 30, 2013; See: https://herescope.net/2013/07/quantum-metaphysics.html. 
4. Missler, pg. 338. 
5. Dr. Chuck Missler, “A Holographic Universe?” Personal Update, Koinonia House, Coeur d’Alene, ID, November 2012; See: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1086/. 
6. See KHouse Africa store: http://www.khouseafrica.com/tt%20Holographic%20Universe.htm. 
7. See Amazon.com (UK): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holographic-Universe-Dr-Chuck-Missler/dp/1578215137. 
8.  Ibid. Talbot, pp. xi-xii. 
9. Ibid. Missler, pg. vii. 
10. Ibid. Talbot, pp. 2, 290. 
11. Ibid. Missler, pg. 341. 
12. Gaylene Goodroad, “Doomsday Datesetters 2012,” Herescope, June 10, 2011; See: https://herescope.net/2011/06/doomsday-datesetters-2012.html and “Quantum Mysticism in the Church: Codes, Cosms and Cryptologies,” Herescope, May 12, 2012; See: https://herescope.net/2012/05/quantum-mysticism-in-church.html. 
13. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot_(author). 
14. Roy Rivenburg, “Question of Attribution”, Los Angeles Times (online), July 30, 1992; See: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/news/vw-4952_1_authors-hal-lindsey-and-chuck-missler. Note: the author has the books in question and has verified the plagiarism. 
15.  Christopher A. McHorney, “Evidence of Plagiarism of Chuck Missler,” (2006); See: http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146663/missler-plagiarism. Note: the author has this book and has verified the repeated plagiarism. 
16. Chuck Missler, Acknowledgements page, The Magog Invasion, Western Front Ltd., Palos Verdes, CA, 1995, pg. 9. 
17. Koinonia Institute Handbook (PDF format), pg. 57; See: http://www.studycenter.com/downloads/KI_Handbook.pdf. 
18.  Koinonia Institute Handbook (PDF format), pg. 55; See:http://www.studycenter.com/downloads/KI_Handbook.pdf 
19. Missler and Eastman incorporated several word-for-word portions of David Allen Lewis & Robert Shreckhise’s 1991 book, UFO: End-Time Delusion (2nd & 3rd ed. 1992-93; New Leaf Publishing, Green Forest, AK), into Alien Encounters, published in 1997 (6th ed. 2006; Koinonia House, Coeur d’Alene, ID) without properly citing their original writing or footnotes. Lewis is mentioned briefly on pp. 109 and 300, while Shreckhise’s name is not. In one instance, Missler & Eastman misspelled James McCampbell’s name in an unattributed excerpt taken from Lewis & Shreckhise. The name erroneously appears in Alien Encounters as James “Campbell”. The original quote appears on page 68 of Lewis & Shreckhise’s book and on page 125 of Missler & Eastman’s book. They also misspelled McCampbell’s name in their incomplete footnote on page 364. This is how the footnote appears in Lewis & Shreckhise’s book: SCP Journal, August 1977, Vol. 1 No. 2, “UFOs—Is Science Fiction Coming True?” p. 14. Here’s how it appears in Missler & Eastman’s book: Physicist James Campbell, SCP Journal, 1977, p. 14. 
20. Sarah Leslie, “Alien Encounters: A New Cosmology for the Church,” Herescope, June 29, 2013; See: https://herescope.net/2013/06/alien-encounters.html. 

The graphic at the top of this post was obtained from: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/holographicuniverseglitches.php

We will resume our in-depth review of Chuck Missler’s book Alien Encounters which is titled A New Cosmology for the Church:
Part 1: Alien Encounters
Part 2: Ancient Astronauts & Star Children
Part 3: Flying Saucers and “Interdimensional Visitors”
Part 4: Quantum Metaphysics