Note: What’s been determined so far is this: both the telescope and the microscope are tools in which their technological purposes can be inverted in order to protect the investments of materialist ideologues who seek to establish dominance over others. Societal consequences unfold and grow more rife upon philosophical stagnation, by crippling economics, masking over ethereal solutions, and insisting to the masses that they live in the inverse of a realm, built upon artificial scarcity.
We can begin by simply asking questions, and putting the power of optics and παρρησία back into the control of sovereign people without any need for the senselessly authoritative gatekeeping of scientism. Welcome to Zetetic Philosophy; incredibly daunting implications may ensue by means of questioning the official narrative.
Zetetic Astronomy
No matter the learned perspective of any reader, the following questions laced throughout this chapter should serve as a participatory method of expression and response in order to resolve and alleviate any argumentative tension stemmed from the Copernican Revolution and forward, as this model has been more and more accepted by the public since it’s appearance around 500 years ago. It has been generally accepted that the Copernican model of our Earth, Solar System, and Universe has been able to disprove it’s predating level and stationary Ptolemaic source in which the Earth is an extended plane, with a small and local Sun and Moon moving above it by the guiding sky clock that directly indicates our creation by intelligent design; in other words, this incites an origin of substance as opposed to our mere existence being sourced from nothingness. If the Copernican model be true, then the counter balancing of response to some of the following questions in this chapter should very easily and comfortably reveal which one of these models that we definitely do not exist on.
Above: The Ptolemaic System, with Earth at the center. Below: the Heliocentric model of the Solar System, and “Helical” relative to it’s relationship to the Milky Way galaxy + completely uninhabitable vacuum universe.
Aristotle wrote:
“Again, our observations of the stars make it evident not only that the Earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size.”
With the non-ideological scientific method as a most useful tool in eliminating what is false for sake of achieving a more truthful taste in reality-based aesthetics, the burden for discernment still exists upon the very individuals reading along and participating, thus inviting subjective interpretation for what is measurably objective in our shared reality. The scientific method is specifically useful with disproving insistent hypotheses, thus rendering any truthful subject to analyze the existing remainder for themselves.
17th century occultist, Sir Francis Bacon wrote:
“Don’t theorize, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest.”
The Copernican model makes and insists upon a claim, where the level and stationary model does not make claims for that which is unobservable. By question and observation, we return our philosophical thinking into one of free thought and open invitations for public discourse and response, regardless of anyone’s initial presupposition. Regarding what is objective, nature does not lie, people do.
In his 2019 book “Word Magic”, Pao Chang wrote:
“Phonetically, the term world sounds similar to the term whirled which is the past tense of the term whirl, meaning “to turn around, spin, or rotate rapidly”. Before you were born, you were whirled into existence. The evidence of this is the fact that your physical body is made of atoms. What do atoms do? They spin, vibrate, and rotate very rapidly…
…In English, the term whir is defined as ‘to go, fly, revolve, or otherwise move quickly with a humming or buzzing sound’. The definitions of the boldface(italicized) words in this paragraph are all related to the word spin. Why the word spin? Because everything in the universe spins to some degree and we live in a galaxy that spins. The world (“whirled”) also spins to a certain degree and the people living on it use spoken words to create their worlds and realities.”
What is testable, repeatable and observable is to directly see for oneself that Polaris, our North Star, does not move, and the stars above us show no parallax when spinning around Polaris in a counter-clockwise motion from the perspective of the viewer. However, one cannot prove that the Earth is moving from the Earth, and modern astronomers claim that all that is around us only gives us the illusion that we are at the center, rather than simply being at the center.
Parallax (noun)- the apparent displacement or the difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points not on a straight line with the object
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The goal here is for those on any interpretive side of astronomy to build a more truthful argument in order to transparently share testable experiments, observations, and thus participate in the general dialogue that’s been surrounding this book and film. Anyone who seeks to disprove my work in order to continue supporting any alternative viewpoint is absolutely welcome to do so, and I encourage responses to many of the questions that occupy the remainder of this chapter.
Eric Dubay wrote:
“If the globe Earth was really spinning 1,000 mph, orbiting the Sun counter-clockwise at 67,000 mph, spiraling around the outer-arms of the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, while shooting through the Universe at 670,000,000 mph, how is it even conceptually possible that Polaris, 2 quadrillion miles away, day after day, year after year, always maintains its alignment straight above the North Pole!? That would mean from 2 quadrillion miles away, Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring Earth’s several simultaneous wobbling, spinning, spiraling, and shooting motions. Polaris would have to be shooting the same direction through the Universe at exactly 670,000,000 mph; it would have to be following the same 500,000 mph, 225 million year spiral around the Milky Way, and mirroring the same 67,000 mph, 365 day orbit around our Sun! Or, the earth is stationary - as common sense and everyday experience testifies.”
The key motive here is not in stringently claiming to absolutely know everything about where we are, but it’s rather in exposing the insistent lie that has dominated public thought for the last 500 years of an elusive spell, hidden in plain sight. This has been equipping the collective ego with a generally subconscious acceptance, in which simulated proofs have been occluding access to one’s ability to harness energy from within the laws of nature at any high degree possible. It’s not a problem on our end that one may believe that we live on a whirling globe, nor is it a problem for one to believe that we are all living on the back of a macro-cosmic turtle turning circles in space, or some giant triangle. What has become a problem occurs whenever we’ve found entities, statesmen, corporations, scientists, astrophysicists, computer programmers, mathematicians, bankers, philanthropists, mainstream media personalities, alternative media and controlled opposition personalities, all tangentially working alongside one another to protect an investment in this 500 year old spell, thus actively censoring our side of the table and shadow-banning our researches and expositions apart from algorithms, publishing distribution and thus bookstores, and mainline social media outlets. The truth about our realm is being suppressed, and the evidence exists in simply analyzing the act of why there has been such a massive effort behind this scheme.
It is my observation that this form of censorship serves an ideologically inverse function to hide energy from the æther, more land and resources extending both North and South beyond the disclaimed world maps, and the evidence that we were simply created by intelligent design.
To provide an example, I asked one question, and I quickly received a response to this answer. Below the answer received, I wrote out an elaborate response:
01- Why is the sky blue in the daytime?
Spelling correction: *Rayleigh; but it was only a typo
However, where in reality does any of this make sense? Are there any practical hands-on experiments that can be conducted that can re-create this phenomena? No. Is this theory standing based on the presupposition that the sun is 93 million miles away? Yes.
So, another member of the Royal Society exhales and crafts a most calculated sales chop in order to further explain away reality, for it’s principle reveals to be another insistently unfounded claim in order to uphold the Heliocentric model. It is a very real appeal to authority to just take Lord Rayleigh’s word for it, so instead I suggest equipping the power of pattern recognition and examining the special interests of the psychopathic controllers of the Royal Society. This is the same Royal Society previously mentioned throughout this book which provided funding in order to activate and push the hoaxes about ancient dinosaurs and the bone wars in order to falsely yet insistently prove the hypothesis of evolution during the 1800’s. This is the same Royal Society who helped scare populations during a 150+ year old spell involving spreading highly ideological lies about microbes, viruses and contagion. This same Royal Society who masked our realm with riddles in order to occlude access to free and ethereal sources of energy by cleverly moving the needle of public opinion through modern academia, special-interest groups of intellectuals and thus feeding the collective ego with a wizard’s circle of quantum mechanics, in order to emphatically describe substitutions for reality, and thus hide ether itself. This very same cult presents us repurposed tech that can be sieved through a fragmented current, and distort our perceptions of reality in order to sell us artificial scarcity through profitable control frequencies.
In “Word Magic”, Pao Chang also wrote:
“When light travels from the Sun to Earth, it has to travel through the Earth’s atmosphere before it reaches the surface of the Earth. As light travels through the atmosphere, it refracts which is defined as ‘(of water, air, or glass) make (a ray of light) change direction when it enters at an angle’. This process, which is known as atmospheric refraction, causes light rays to bend and change direction. In other words, it causes light rays to angle (verb), meaning ‘to move or bend in an angle’. It is important to know that the words angle and angel both have the prefix ang- which etymologically means ‘to bend’.”
It would be a fair answer to my initial question here if the hypothesis of heliocentrism be a conclusively proven and more truthful foundation for this answer regarding the Rayleigh scattering to stand on; for the idea that light would scatter after traveling 93 million miles would make some hypothetical sense for being filtered in some type of color prism before reaching the material surface of the Earth. Hypothetically, the colors would become blue, and then a sunset spectrum, if affected by the filters of our upper atmosphere and the layers from in between the Sun’s light and the field of observation from where we stand. The continually endless confusion and utterly unsolvable issue becomes where is there simply isn’t actually an experiment to actually replicate this phenomena by any practical means. Quantum mechanical foundations of intellectuals actively have been treating theories as universal laws by deliberate omissions of truthful experiment to be substituted for chaotically unreadable datasets. This then renders only vague similarities which get explained away by the inevitable reality-bending by more highly deceptive and obtusely mathematical sorcery.
In other words, the above examples do not answer the question, for upon further analysis, a bending and scattering of light would only occur through atmospheric lensing, where it would be filtered through dust, chemtrails, smog, mirages of humidity, and so on... And since the hypothesis of Heliocentrism is up for question on a chopping block, the answer to my initial question simply asking about why the sky is blue here inversely leans toward something we have only some agreement on, for the exact opposite of this answer holds a deeper and more accurate analysis when factoring in the naturally existent toroidal fields of electromagnetism. Though atmospheric lensing can be observed at sunset, depending upon weather conditions, elevation and terrain, it does not answer the question: “Why is the sky blue during the daytime?” The inconclusive idea that it’s light being refracted, is not empirical, and so it returns to the theoretical, where we can explore areas in which this would make more sense.
In a model with a close sun, in which the sun is not a burning ball of gas, but rather something of electromagnetic nature located only a few thousand miles above the Earth’s surface, would have the sun act as a magnet similar to a Tesla coil, activating a hue of noble gases, which has it’s entire color spectrum evident during clear-weathered and mostly undisturbed sunsets.
Terry R. Eicher wrote:
“I have come to the conclusion that daylight and sunlight are two different lights, just as the Bible says.
Sunlight being the light we see when we look at the sun… a yellowish white light; this is direct light, the cause of shadows. The second light is daylight which is diffused light; a glowing, scattered light with limited range which consists of many visible, different colors.
Once you get above the ozone layer (12-18 miles up) the inert gases will separate according to atomic weight… Helium, neon and argon all rise above the ozone layer, and layer out themselves.
The diffused light, which you see here, comes from these layers of inert gases that separate in the perfect calm and absolute cold, once high enough…
The electromagnetic field of the close passing sun is exciting these inert gases; and these gases, when excited, emit photons… which you know as light.
If you change the voltage, temperature, the pressure, or it’s elemental neighbor… then you change the color and intensity of the diffused light…”
The Rayleigh Scattering phenomena intentionally ignores and occludes any of this information, in order to explain away the reality, and substitute in place a false conclusion without experiment that fits perfectly with a deliberately insisted upon hypothesis, in order to simulate settled science with it’s presupposing ideology.
The sky is blue because the local sun acts as an electromagnetic coil, activating the inert noble gases, charging them with energy and causing the noble gases to emit photons, making them a clearly visible color blue within daylight, which casts no shadow whatsoever.
02- If the sun is 93 million miles (152 million km) away from the Earth, how was this distance ever calculated? Additionally, when space agencies arrived at their destinations, did the mathematics laid out by Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Kepler, or anyone else who calculated this same measurement, completely agree with eventual observation? If presupposing that the sun is 93 million miles away, then it’s acceptable to agree that this is an estimate. Upon new discovery, however, has this number been updated, or been more carefully calculated using all the new technology that floats around in space? If so, how do you know that?
03- When a space shuttle launches, it is clear that cameras can be attached to the exterior of rocket engines. If I were attempting to settle the score with those who doubt my claims, especially if we were receiving our funds from public tax money, wouldn’t it benefit my agency to provide non-stop video footage of this rocket camera as a means to provide full transparency to the public? Would it not greatly benefit the space agencies to provide as much video evidence of a shuttle, or a device, blasting into orbit, and then show the process of the shuttle or device as it docks onto the international space station? Surely this footage would readily exist and satisfy the burden of proof, if the claim holds true. If anyone has seen this footage, and it’s proof positive for the existence of an outer space vacuum, the globe Earth, and evidence for the orbiting satellites and ISS, then can this footage simply be shared? Why not share it? Ask yourself if you actually watched the footage start to finish.
If you claim this footage exists and proves the spherical and heliocentric model, it’s because you didn’t actually watch it that you might still believe it.
The footage I speak of does not exist.
04- It is said by the spherical model that Antarctica is a continent, which is at the bottom of the globe, which, if this model were true, would imply that there is not an ice wall surrounding us, but rather just a barren, cold continent at the bottom of our spherical world. If Antarctica is indeed a continent, then that means we indeed do have a South Pole, opposite of the north, spinning the entire earth on its axis.
Does this suffice as evidence for the existence of the South Pole? — South Pole photo from United States Antarctic Program: https://photolibrary.usap.gov/PhotoDetails.aspx?filename=south-pole-flags-full-station.jpg
Do buildings grow? Do buildings just get up and move? — South Pole: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station: South Pole | Geography | Britannica at britannica.com
a commenter on a thread started by @heliocentric.hoax urged us to take a look at his photographic proof that he has been to the South Pole and insisted to us that it indeed exists, because he wants us to know that we live on a globe. I do not want to be rude to him or escalate his CAPS LOCK rage out much further, so just in case his higher ups were playing a pretty mean trick on him, I left his name out of this thread as a polite gesture to him.
The question is: What is your favorite picture of Antarctica taken from space? Surely you could find one on google images, or a National Geographic article somewhere…
Below is some of what I could find. How does any of this compare to reality?
Image 1- my duckduckgo searchbar Image 2- the first page of results Image 3- "Antarctica from Space" is a photograph by NASA/GSFC/Marit Jentoft-Nilsen which was uploaded on May 30th, 2013
This edition of the Encyclopedia Americana was available to the public just one year before the United Nations would sign the Antarctic Ice Treaty, which would allow people to visit only the following islands (below), all very separate from the main areas of the Antarctic. Independent exploration into Antarctica has been deemed strictly off-limits by use of militaristic force and imprisonment for anyone who chooses to do so.
The question is many occurring simultaneously: Do these island names seem just a little strange to you? Delta, Omicron, Coronation… Does any of that somehow ring a bell? Why not allow entry? What are they hiding?
06- A point of contention between the debate on the shape of the Earth involves impossible flight paths from destinations too far apart, and thus contrasting a spherical model by extreme margins.
Next let’s see it on the globe model, and note that Southern Australia and the lower half of South America are much closer to one another.
The map we were given in schools.
Santiago, Chile is a major airport in South America, where many flights on that continent will have a layover at that major airport, similar to what we see in North America via NYC or LA.
According to Air Miles Calculator, which reflects calculations based on the spherical model, Santiago, Chile is 7060 miles from Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles, CA, USA is about 7488 miles from Sydney, Australia. There are one-way flights from Los Angeles to Sydney all the time, and flights from Santiago to Sydney all take a detour landing and refuel in Los Angeles.
Has there ever been a one-way flight from Santiago to Sydney? If so, how do you know this?
06, part 2- Alternatively, we could also ask: Has there ever been a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Melbourne, Australia? There is an overly friendly pilot with a youtube channel who tells us that when the virus finally gets defeated, we can then get back to once again having those one-way flights from the lower parts of South America over to Australia. At that point, we will settle the score in proving the spherical earth by showing the world that these flights totally exist once everyone is safe from the coronavirus. 74GEAR promises to provide that ride to anyone who wants to try it. Additionally, he seems to be the pilot willing to settle this trans-Pacific issue by leaving from Buenos Aires, traveling over the outer section of the Antarctic continent and into Melbourne, Australia; only hold-up is this would have to wait until after everyone is completely safe from the coronavirus.
Given what is presented, do you believe him? If so, why do you believe him? Ask yourself this: do you really believe that some theoretical virus contagion can be mitigated by the discontinued services of one-way flights from major South American airports to the major ones of Australia?
Must be a computer error! Someone should call Expedia and see if they can put the one way flights back up somehow.
“Kelsey, you look like you’re maybe a part of the government…
07- To assist the answer to the question above, perhaps we can take a look at this guy named Rory whose strange video teaches us that he really, really likes Qantas B747 airplanes that used to fly from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Rory actually took the time to make a full on-board review of this incredible flight, just one month before the “global covid lockdown” would discontinue these one-way flights from Santiago to Sydney for the indefinite future. I once made a public comment that questioned the spherical model directly to someone calling himself “Professor Dave”. This Qantas B747 video was a reply by one of his followers as proof-positive that the one-way flights from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia are indeed real.
How did Rory know to film this entire video in February 2020 before knowing for a fact that the governments of the entire world would indeed enforce Covid lockdowns for the first time ever? He films himself inside the airport stating this, with an edited marquee. How did he know that he was on one of the final flights of the Qantas B747 airplanes while he was filming this specific flight? Can Rory predict the future like no one else?
08- Regarding the Qantas B747 video above, did you check out the comments section? Regarding what you are seeing, and the congruent typeface throughout, how likely is it that a bunch of channels with near-zero content made such highly enthusiastic commentary about a video that is borderline unlistenable?
“Toss the dog a bone… Give them just a little of what they think they want.”
09- Meet Professor Dave (above); he is the youtube villain who created this image (below) upon his insistence that a flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia actually exists. He shows that you can book the flight a few months in advance. However, it is upon deeper and more independent investigation, that whenever the time comes around, these flights eventually disappear, and cease to exist much like some double head-fake. As a prop for his video, he drew this line from Santiago to Sydney, that logically does not even work in accordance with the curvature of a hypothetical sphere or the perspective shown on the map, but instead showed a flight path that is clearly inverted from what would be the shortest flight path on a spherical earth. The same experiment would show this clear as day given one’s own eyes, a basketball, two points on it, and a tight string, or a cheap piece of tape. If this was such an easy issue to destroy, why would Professor Dave even need to fake this image with a line that does not match perspective?
10- When we were in elementary school, we were taught about how the heliocentric model was “discovered” by the likes of Copernicus and Newton during the 16th/17th century AD, eventually to be expanded upon and further confirmed by Einstein, Hawking, Greene, and many others. We also hear about heliocentrism, Ancient Aliens, and relativity theory on television.
However, Copernicus admitted:
“It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculations. Neither let any one, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy; since that science can afford nothing of the kind; lest, in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this study more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood.”
The question is: What experiment was conducted to confirm the hypothesis of the heliocentric model, if it is to be considered true? Is the science settled? Multiple examples are welcome.
“It’s a sphere. So people have known that the Earth is spherical for thousands of years. It’s not okay to say that the Earth is flat. This is some sort of strange denial, I don’t know where it comes from. And it’s something where I keep getting this question. We really need to put this question to bed, because we’ve known that the Earth is a sphere, for a long time.”
-Michelle Thaller, NASA
11- It seems that astronomers have discovered a planet twice the size of Jupiter, and claim it to be a potato-shaped planet. WASP-103 is said to be around 20,000 miles away from its star and revolves around its star in less than one day. Let’s get to that starchy goodness, and see what these wonderful guys have to offer us on this television program.
How was the footage of this potato planet captured, and thus confirmed? Does this agree with your five senses? Is that a sufficiently satiated proof positive that these guys for sure found a potato planet in the far reaches of space?
12- During the Potato Planet video, Chris Anderson, the coordinator of the observatory at the Harriett Center for Arts and Sciences at the College of Southern Idaho, suggests that all planets that orbit any body at all are going to be somewhat elongated. He says that the Moon elongates the Earth with gravity, as it revolves around Earth, further adding to Newton’s hypothesis that we may live on an oblate spheroid. He states, “As the moon goes overhead, believe it or not, the ground beneath your feet rises by about six inches. Now you don’t notice that because it happens over a 12 hour period of time, right? So it’s a very gradual thing, but yeah. So this (potato planet) is just that (The Moon stretching the Earth) taken to an extreme degree; because this planet is so close to the star that it orbits, it’s REALLY being stretched by those tidal forces.”
How did they capture evidence for the existence of the Potato Planet? Was it through seeing the slight wavering of a star and deducing that it must be there, so we could calculate it accordingly? How did they manage to determine it was a Potato Planet? What experiment showed that the Potato Planet is twice the size of Jupiter? What is it that constitutes evidence for this experiment? When something out there has “extra gravity”, could this possibly be the variable of the equation?
13- When observing the planets near us, also known by ancients as “wandering stars”, we can see the planets move in a different pattern than that of the stars as they circle around the Polaris, which can be seen and observed from any timelapse.
In the Heliocentric model, we are told that Mars and Venus are relatively similar to the size of the Earth, and that Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are very large, and are very very far away, thus justifying our ability to observe them from where we are, with the use of telescopes. And if 2 + y = x, and x=7, then y=5, right? But what experiment has shown evidence for the calculated sizes of the planets (wandering stars)? If these sizes have been confirmed, then how was it confirmed? Is that a proof that is in confirmed alignment within the laws of nature? How do you know that the claimed size of Jupiter is not the variable within a fabricated equation?
14- If Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus are made of gas, and Mars, Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Pluto are comprised of stone, with what experiment was ever conducted and how did they achieve the results in order to confirm this hypothesis?
15- If space-time can be bent, what constitutes the physical properties that make space-time able to be bent or manipulated?
16- When you put helium in a balloon, why does it go straight up? Who is the biggest consumer of helium in the world?
17- On a globular Earth, the night-time sky is a result from one hemisphere of the Earth facing away from the sun, and into the vast reaches of space. It is also said that Mercury and Venus are closer to the sun than the Earth is.
The question is: If Mercury and Venus are closer to the sun than the Earth, as modern astronomy adamantly claims, then how have Mercury and Venus ever been discovered, and how is it in any way possible for us to regularly and predictably see either one of them at night?
18- If we are on a sphere moving through space, and the North Star is clearly seen above our magnetic north, then why is there not any mention of a South Star on NASA’s website?
If Polaris never moves, then surely the same would be true for a fixed point in the Southern Hemisphere, and we would be able to time-lapse this phenomena just the same. However, such a thing has never been once documented because it simply does not exist.
19- All ideologically presupposed confusion is created by an egoistic and inverse perception, can occur in both the microcosm and the macrocosm by abusing the tools of observation. Totalitarian domination occurs when a field of thought inverts the generally inaccessible microcosmic observation with super-specialized and expensively gate-kept microscopes. The exact same dilemma of ideologically dominant totalitarian thought unfolds in observations of the macrocosm, as the viewer’s perception (often through schooling) is inverted whenever looking outwardly through an AI-rigged telescope, or we are being given doctored images (art) falsely captured by super-specialized and expensively gate-kept telescopes, in which most cases do not actually exist or perform anything at all except to serve as a useless museum prop in the cult of modern science™.
As Below
Tracing back to earlier areas of this book, we observe not only what occurs under a microscope, but we also observe the behavior of the ones who invert the purposes of a microscope in order to insist falsely ideological conclusions that hold no evidence whatsoever. By the deliberate misuses of the microscope, it is claimed by overly-cooperative, degree-wielding, and investment protecting virologists that they have found and taken a picture of a virus, when clearly upon reading a few chapters into Tom Cowan’s The Contagion Myth, anyone can rapidly deduce for themselves that viruses under a microscope are being mistaken for what are actually exosomes. Thus, the language is at play here, where the spell-crafting sorcery of virus existence, which has never been proven to be the existent pathogenic cause of disease, hastily insists itself as conclusively existent, but operates much more like a self-induced curse for anyone who consents to its simulated reality, that holds no bearing in the physical realm.
Cartoons.
When one shuts off the news, and takes a closer look, we notice that the body is its own healing machine, and the truth of exosomes prove the case against it’s inverse argument that holds no foundation from within natural law.
The point is that we are taught the inverse of the truth about exosomes, and are given poisons as medicine which treat the body’s healing mechanism as the cause for disease. There is no virus.
The microscope is a great tool in order to make observations about microorganisms and the various microcosms of our shared reality. However, it’s a tool like any tool in which it’s craft can be lied about at large, pivoting from textbooks and journals funded by corporations and philanthropists. This dialectic can be used for creating something out of nothing, by casting inversions upon reality and thus further spiraling more insidious deceptions to mask over various stages of poisoning, whether it be ingested, injected, laced within crops, a vibrational hex, or serves as a placebo toward psychosomatic illness.
So Above
“He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
-Psalm 18:11
Conversely, trusting others behind closed doors to use telescopes for us does the same thing as what’s described above: by inverting the public’s perception of the macrocosm around us. This is where a pattern of destructive sorcery emerges, as the greatest con here involves hyper-real analysis of that which can clearly be seen above us. One should be wary of the inversion for what we are seeing in the sky, for these so called “very distant galaxies trillions upon trillions of miles away” are not so far away at all. First to falsify the claim of the distance and substance of what is seen, simply factoring in the inverse square law of light would render these galactic clouds invisible to the eye, or nearly any zoom camera or telescope. The function of statesmen and modern scientists openly lying to people about this is to de-center the subject and have them perceive themselves and their location rendered to something insignificantly small and off-center from our shared reality, however that does not imply that what is being seen does not exist.
With this foundation observed and established, the questions arise:
What is a galaxy? Relatively few independent astrophotographers have pulled off capturing and documenting these actual spirals above us, however one may share their usages of digital image rendering in order to elevate the subtleties in a photo, which seem to reveal what looks like a fingerprint in the sky. But does any of that prove the trillions upon trillions of miles distance these spirals are away from us? How can anyone actually prove these are hundreds or thousands of light-years away? If anyone has actually seen and observed a real heliocentric galaxy with millions of suns spiraling around the galactic cloud, then how would you know that you are not simply looking at spiraling cosmic clouds?
Google provides this with a search for the word “galaxy”.
A very high point of contention occurs when we can point out that, as an alternative to the human eye just looking through glass, AI software filters for telescopes are openly advertised with many types of expensive modern telescopes, thus tricking the viewer into seeing things in accordance to the modern science™. Again, we can clearly observe another insistently tricky behavior observed from those who seek to mask the sky with expensive gadgets, rigged with another cruel trick to hide the sky from those who seek to observe it for themselves.
The question arises: why would AI software enhancements need to be installed into modern telescopes at all? Do we need AI to hold our hand through the process? If you’re seeing this argument being laid out for the first time, then how else could I ever tell you about this, except to display the exact hard-line evidence for my very own claim? See the following images for yourself.
AI software presets installed in modern telescopes
In straight-forward writing, this salesman’s conspiracy against the eye of the observer boils down to these proclaimed “AI enhancements”, which are stated in written form. These truthful claims made by those who are selling these trapped out and mostly unaffordable optics sneak the truth into plain sight for what they are doing, and it’s obvious to anyone who can clearly see that we are not whirling around on a globe. The reason for pointing this out is that seeing what is truthfully above us hinges on the avoiding the purchases of booby-trapped telescopes that are advertised to be equipped with AI software. When one uses optics without AI enhancement, what’s being seen is no longer artificially rendered, thus the deception cannot stand in the way of the observing subject manning the equipment, and their subconscious mind deciphering the true reality about our night sky.
The Orion SkyQuest XT8 Classic Dobsonian telescope comes equipped with Starry Night software, advertised right out in the open.
A Nikon P900 does just fine to readily use a high-powered zoom lens for an affordable market price, and does wonders by simply not being sold to us with corrupted AI software installed into its viewing capability. Part of this great elaborate con, is that the AI software specifically exists in oder to mask the true cosmos, insisting a false model that tells a false story, thus functioning to further hide raqia from trespassing ones own ego.
רָקִיעַ (Raqia)
These observable clouds so high above us are not distant galaxies at all, for we are observing raqia.
Measure the aesthetics, and see clearly that Joe Hanvey’s astrophotography is no way designed to deceive you, and the photography he is committing to results in him just sharing what is being discovered in the sky above us, without hastily concluding that these are extremely distant galaxies. He knows they aren’t distant galaxies at all, thus is why his photos are of a much higher aesthetic quality than anything produced by modern space agencies.
Strong's Number H7549 matches the Hebrew רָקִיעַ (rāqîaʿ), which occurs 17 times in 15 verses in the WLC Hebrew.
And God made the firmament,H7549 and divided the waters which were under the firmamentH7549 from the waters which were above the firmament:H7549 and it was so.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmamentH7549 of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmamentH7549 of heaven.
And the likeness of the firmamentH7549 upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
And under the firmamentH7549were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
And above the firmamentH7549 that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmamentH7549 that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament;H7549 and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
20- On airplanes, the autopilot system uses the Azimuthal Equidistant map, which is flat, with the magnetic North Pole at its center. Why would we not use the spherical model to navigate, if the spherical model be true?
21- I remember being with my dad in the theater, at midnight for the opening night for the science fiction film Star Wars Episode III, and the two of us being completely amazed at the opening visuals in the battle above Coruscant. The time and energy put into the collective artistry of this opening shot unveils masterful artistry with the assistance of digital rendering.
Even in the recent sequel films, the overstimulating visuals of Lando's Galaxy-wide fleet's arrival on Exegol, however we can all agree that these effects are simulated, conjured and crafted by digital artists. The point of this is to focus on budget and capability, and use these to find out where the theatrical curtains of science fiction actually exist. Even the spaceships in their various distances away from the perspective of the viewer show parallax, which has a very neat visual effect that we do not see in the stars above us.
According to this article by Screenrant, the budget made to create Star Wars Ep. III was around $148.8 million (adjusted for inflation, 2019), and the budget made to create Star Wars Ep. IX was somewhere between $250-300 million.
In the fiscal year 2021, it seems that NASA had around a $25.2 billion budget, which at the time was over $69 million per day.
The curtains of this theater may extend far beyond the science fiction that we had originally thought, so the question arises based on logic and a quick analysis of the budget these organizations receive on a daily basis. Is it possible that much of this skyrocketed budget could be used by NASA to digitally fake images space, just like in the Star Wars films?
During live-streams, we notice glaring green screen errors that show themselves on the body of the interviewee astronauts, and we notice the occasional mishaps between the digitally rendered, floating material in “zero gravity”. The footage of these stunts only began to be shared with us by space agencies as special effects technology was further developed, practiced, and mastered for illusion magic, turning this simulated science into the science fiction that it always was.
An example below simply shows what there is, without insisting to us or editing in CGI. It simply shows the cameras being used, the telescopes being used, and tells the story of what exactly is being seen.
An Investigative Interlude on Jupiter and its Moons:
The argument presented by Galileo offers a dialogue between the Copernican system and the traditional Ptolemaic system. What is causing us to see these lights with the patterns from which they are moving? Are they solid objects (spheres/rocks)? Are they dinner plates? Are they the wheels of Ezekiel?
I think that the wandering stars are sonoluminescent lights in the sky, and much like the moon, are cosmic and electromagnetic in nature, meaning they are not held together by gravity nor have ever been proven to be comprised of stone, ice, lava, or any solid material. It’s magic in plain sight. Heliocentrists assume that gravity is holding these moons in a vacuum of space around Jupiter. Again, we do not deny that we are observing the same lights in the sky, but even Galileo offered discourse.
From wiki: Galileo later defended his views in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (1632), which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated both the Pope and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point. He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest."
It seems to me there is something inside of that book that really angered the Pope and the Jesuits who cut off their support for his work.
Cut off sentence at the end of slide number 10 reads "the book is presented formally as a consideration of both models". ----------------
Image 1
Images 2-10
Image descriptions:
1- Interesting video by a channel on youtube called : Creative Khancept
2- Very good capture
3- Good capture with captions and info, somewhere on Bitchute
4- Britannica: The Galilean satellites involve philanthropist Cosimo II de' Medici
5- House of Medici- an Italian banking family and political dynasty
6- The shadow forces behind the NWO Agenda
7- Images from NASA, Britannica
8- Khancept switches from a very expensive telescope to a fairly affordable DSLR camera
9- see bottom of his captured image; he captures a CYMATIC star | at the 2:22 mark Khancept assumes this is a camera error (it's not) and states: "Man, I still can't get this thing to be clean."
10- Frontispiece and information about "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" by Galileo Galilei
22- In a video provided by European Southern Observatory (ESO), how was a video captured in order to zoom in on the heart of the Milky Way? Are the satellites with extremely specialized high powered telescopes able to be remote controlled like a toy car?
23- From the perspective of the far reaches of the universe, we witness an epic zoom-in toward the Earth. If the capturing methods are from so far away, how is it possible that we were able to retrieve this footage in order to play it back for the public to see?
24- Can we look through the Hubble Telescope ourselves? If the Hubble Telescope is floating around and remote-controlled through the vacuum of space, how do we know that it even exists and is doing what they tell us it is doing? How would one know that it’s not just a museum prop, similar to the dinosaurs? How would one know whether the images we “receive” from it are real? If the Hubble telescope is real, then why do images taken from space need to be photoshopped?
In “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”, Edwin Hubble wrote:
“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position… must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”
Have you ever seen a distant galaxy or a nebula? If so, is what you’re seeing a rendered CGI image, or is it a photograph?
Have you ever taken a telescope from the ground and been able to zoom into a distant galaxy or nebula for yourself?
Does any independent telescope footage exist that can pull a distant galaxy or nebula into view?
25-
In his 1901 book “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact”, David Wardlaw Scott wrote:
“Our Modern Astronomers have strained every nerve to make people believe that the Earth is a Globular Planet. Of the many proofs which may be given that it is not, one of the simplest and best, after those derived from Scripture and the incontrovertible fact of the levelness of the sea, is obtained from the Mariner’s Compass. Had the Astronomers, or their disciples, only consulted it, they would soon have been convinced, from the following reasons, that the Earth is not a Planet but a Plane. The needle of this most important instrument is straight, its two ends pointing North and South at the same time, consequently the meridians must be straight lines also; whereas, on a Globe, they are semi-circles. Even at the Equator the needle points straight, which would be impossible, were that the mid-way of a vast convex Globe, as, in such case, the one end would dip towards the North, and the other be pointed towards the sky. Again, the navigator, when he goes to sea, takes his observations, and relies on the Compass to guide him as to the direction in which he wishes to proceed; he does not provide himself with the model of a Globe, which, if the world were a Globe, would surely be the safest plan for him to adopt, but he takes flat maps or charts. Thus, in practice, he sails his ship as if the sea were horizontal, though in theory he had been erroneously taught that it is convex.”
The question remains:
How do directional compasses operate from the southern hemisphere of our spherical planet, if do indeed we live on a globe?
26- This video claims to prove the spherical earth, by providing camera footage of the earth’s curvature, strapped to a MiG fighter jet.
When I take a straight piece of tape across my monitor to connect two points of the runway from one end to the other, I see that there is lens distortion, because we all know that a jet/airstrip runway is not made to be convex or concave, for very obvious safety reasons. Let’s observe some details that are attached to this video.
Here’s a science experiment you can test for yourself! Does this video use lens distortion? Hypothesis: if the Earth appears curved in this video, but is not curved, then the runway behind the airplane’s tail will be subject to the same distortion. The runway appears to be convex due to there being a fish-eye lens camera. Experiment: a straight piece of painters tape on my computer monitor (of the paused video) connects two top points of the runway, which if the image is not distorted with false curvature from a fish-eye lens, should not show a dip in the runway, revealing background grass. If the runway is straight and we are not seeing lens distortion, then the runway will match the piece of tape with precision. Conclusion: The camera is a fish-eye lens thus making the runway appear to have a curve (convex), and this video does not prove the earth’s sphericity whatsoever, but it does reward the ego to insist that it somehow does.
The question is: Why would the person filming this footage, take the time to write a disclaimer for flat earthers stating “A wide angle camera has been used”, but fail to simply use a camera without lens distortion?
A convex horizon.
27- In the picture below, what do you see?
28- Can this wobbly thing really withstand the thin atmosphere of the moon, hold a crew of moon-walking astronauts, and protect itself and the onboard passengers against the vacuum of space? If so, how does that work?
29- A rare phenomenon: the selenelion eclipse, is a type of lunar eclipse that can be seen in the daytime, when the sun has moved up past the point of sunset. In the description of the video, dated December of 2011, the videographer AlamogordoNewMexico states, “Just like the water refracts light and makes a fish appear to be in another position, the atmosphere bends the light of the moon making it visible even when its over the horizon.” But according to the heliocentric model, the shadow of the Earth is on the wrong side of the moon, if it is indeed the perfect shape of shadow covering the exact size of the moon.
The sun is rising at the 6 o’clock position relative to the perspective of the person filming, but let’s just take a look at one more selenelion eclipse, to be sure.
The question is: what is the true cause of a lunar eclipse?
28- Both flat and spherical models generally agree that the equator is around 25,000 miles in surface area, but the difference is that on the flat model, the equator is a concentric circle, set equidistant apart from the Magnetic North, center of this plane. The spherical model boasts that it is the outer belt of a spherical earth, but since there is a general agreement regarding the surface area covered by the equator, we could consider this a control amidst a simple equation matching an acutely shared reality between these drastically opposite models.
When measuring for curvature drop-off on the spherical model, the mathematics represented by the fixed size of the equator would determine that an observer looking outward on a level body of water would clearly see in agreement with one’s conclusion that distant objects disappear over a horizon due to curvature drop-off. Examples of what this is supposed to do in accordance to the spherical model can be measured and challenged as follows:
In his 1908 book “The Terrestrial Plane -or- The True Figure of the Earth”, Fredk H. Cook wrote:
The question is: why are so many advocates for the spherical model failing to test this for themselves? If their rapidly conclusive evidences be true, wouldn’t they make a film about it? Why wouldn’t they teach this in school?
29- If the spherically formed water bubbles displayed on the gravity-less International Space Station are indeed real, and definitely not CGI, then why are we only seeing videos of this years after Computer Generated Imaging was mastered?
Is there any footage of the early, pre-CGI era Apollo flights demonstrating the same exact phenomena that we are being shown from the ISS today?
30- Google Earth provides the spherical model of the Earth in order for people to zoom in. At the North Pole, it just shows painted looking water and “nothing of any real importance”, but when you zoom into the Antimeridian, starting from a Wrangel Island, Shmidtovsky District in the Russian Arctic, and move towards the North Pole, we see something else. As we move slowly along the Antimeridian line of longitude, we notice the evidence of aerial photos of land that is visible, popping out from the photoshopped ocean in a perfect line.
The question is: What do you think is at the North Pole? Why are we not allowed to go there?
31- Smart contact lenses are an interface that allow the user to visualize Augmented Reality (AR) directly into their eyes, and thus interact with simulations.
The question is: why did there never exist footage amidst space shuttles, the Apollo missions, and any space agency missions whatsoever transparently displaying their floating items while traversing the vacuum of space from a time before AR could be applied to the eyes?
32- I’ve been to New York City several times, and I have seen Washington Square Park. You can just walk up to it and look at it.
Below is the explanation for what the arch in the park is.
A friend of mine, Lausing Chan showed me that whenever we go onto Google Earth, and look at the Washington Square Monument from the street view, it’s censored from the street view, for some strange reason.
33- If an asteroid hit our Earth 66 million years ago, and formed a massive crater below the current Gulf of Mexico, thus being confirmed to having wiped out all of the dinosaurs across the globe, then how was it ever measured and confirmed to be around 66 million years? Did they send submarines to the bottom of the Gulf in order to scientifically analyze the ocean floor dirt?
34- In the 19th Century, professional educationists Horace Mann and Calvin Stowe made several visits to Prussia, where the Factory Model of Schooling system was found to be very effective. It operated like a cubicle box panopticon; a prison-like surveillance. More information can be found here about that.
A quote from Frederick Taylor Gates is as follows.
In the education system, it has been suggested to us that light has a speed that was mathematically calculated, and thus “travels” at something like 99.99999999999999% of a complete immovable instant. It is told to us that it takes light a grand total of 8 minutes to arrive to the Earth from the Sun that is 93 million miles away (152 million kilometers). We are told that electicity was discovered with the help of Benjamin Franklin and a kite experiment in a thunderstorm.
The question is: how were these old world buildings constructed without modern power tools? Why are schools modeled after prisons? Why are philanthropists of oil companies investing so much wealth and energy into supplying our education system with books?
35- To practice for real spacewalks out in zero gravity and the vacuum of space, NASA, and all other space agencies conduct field exercises of underwater spacewalks in a controlled environment by using full suits, underwater cameras, and more. This kind of practice seems necessary when dealing with navigating outside of a space station that is orbiting the Earth at 17,000 miles per hour.
NASA claims to have lost most of the footage and technical schematics when they performed the moon landing.
The question is: if Neil Armstrong really took the first step, then why wouldn’t we give any credit to the cameraman who was already there on the moon, waiting for him to take that first step?
39- The ISS livestreams of planet Earth look pretty cool, almost like a video game, but there has never been a 24/7 livestream produced by NASA once ever in history ever. With that set aside, and giving them an inch on it, if we indeed went to space in the 1960’s, why did we have to wait until the advancement of modern CGI to see the Earth from space? Couldn’t they have just filmed it a little bit?
40- For the astronauts who landed on the moon, would they have not wanted to take a few more photos of the Earth from the moon? Would this not be the most incredible sight to see?
41- Often, we see flights take off from locations in the Southern Hemisphere that land in destinations also in the Southern Hemisphere. The irony is that often, we notice that the flight paths seem to arc upward and cross the equator twice when traversing toward the destination. Are there any examples of this same phenomena occurring from two points in the Northern Hemisphere where the flight path would cross the equator between the two points?
42- If geoengineering and chemtrails exist, and arguably have one single benefit toward humanity or nature, what would that be? How do you know that artificial chemtrails are not being laced out in the sky just to occlude the cosmos and poison us?
43- In schools, many of us were taught to distrust our own eyes when we see the Sun and Moon appearing to be the exact same size in the sky. Modern astronomy offers super reliable facts to us about how the Sun is definitely 400 times further away from us than the Moon is from us, and it just so happens to be 400 times larger than the Moon, thus making them only appear to be the exact same size in the cosmos above. If this is a true phenomenon, then how were you able to confirm this for yourself?
44- In the year 1666, an apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton’s head thus unfolding an unquestioned “proof” for the existence of gravity as a force, that managed to pull the apple downward onto his head. However, when a very heavy anvil made of iron is placed on a small pool of liquid mercury, the anvil floats. When an orange is placed in water, it floats, but when its skin is peeled off and removed, the orange then sinks downward below the water level, even though it is lighter in weight. The question is: does gravity just change its mind sometimes?
45- We are told by Modern Science™ that the light reaching to us from the moon, is actually sunlight bouncing off of the moon, and shining onto us. It’s fairly relatable that anytime anyone measures the temperature for the shade of sunlight and compares it to direct sunlight, it is quite obvious and thus fairly agreeable to any honest observer that direct sunlight has a warmer temperature than the shade that would be produced by any occluding object, such as a building or a tree.
However, contrary to Modern Science™, whenever the exact same experiment is performed with moonlight, we find a completely opposite effect in that the temperature of direct moonlight is colder than the shade produced by any occluding object, such as a building or a tree.
Why would we not learn about this in school? This science experiment is very simple and affordably testable. With a cheap thermometer and an ideal setting with a full moon in a clear sky, weather permitting, anyone can test this out for themselves and their friends.
Inversely, it is frequent that whenever confronted with this simple experiment, many of the all-too-faithful believers in Modern Science™ will often forfeit the performance of this experiment altogether. Due to the philosophical ramifications of skirting around a cosmic miracle such as the self-luminescent moon, one with a high investment for modern astronomy may avoid the question altogether by demanding an artificial need for costly equipment. We can sometimes catch silly excuses that rhyme all too well with the old “dog ate my homework” trick, which kids used to attempt to pull off in elementary school. By adults with vested interests, we are collectively stifled and tamed by the egoistic demand for more elaborate and time-consuming variables for the experiment, which must follow whatever scholastic wizardry possible as a means to avoid simply talking about the moon emitting cold light.
Is someone protecting their investment? Thermometers are affordable and available in nearly any hardware store around the corner. If the moon ever emits warm light in comparison to the moon-shade, is there one testable and repeatable scientific experiment ever conducted to prove the case?
The prevailing assumption about moonlight is that it merely reflects the warm light from the sun, due to the advent of people believing in the heliocentric model. If this is true and the moonlight truly is bounced sunlight, then why do we find the moonlight to be measurably cold when compared directly to its very own shadows taken from very nearly the exact same location?
46- Why are we able to see stars through the moon?
capture any or find any picture of a half or crescent moon and turn the brightness up. 1- before 2- after 3- before 4- after
47- The deepest hole ever dug into the Earth was 7.619 miles deep into the surface. With this being the deepest hole, how has anyone ever confirmed that the Earth has an extreme high-temperature molten core?
48- If television did not exist, how would you know for certain that the moon landing ever happened? Also without the television, how would you know there was a Covid-19 pandemic? Are you sure it was a virus, and not just someone poisoning the well? If the vaccines are safe and effective, how do you know that? Is it because some psychopathic television ladies on The View said so?
49- If curvature of the Earth has ever once been seen, then at what height reached does the curvature of the Earth begin to be visible?
50- Countless times, we have been shown the dummy houses that were being blown apart during atomic weapon tests.
In the 1996 book “An Ethic for the Age of Space”, Ph.D research psychologist Lawrence LeShan wrote:
“Although the idea of atoms had been known since Democritus in the classical Greek times, the general Western population only accepted them as “really real” after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not only our knowledge of specific concepts such as robots and atoms—which become more or less real over time. It is also our more general beliefs about what is right and important and good. These also vary not only between societies, but also in the same society at different times.”
Without seeing houses blown apart in old propaganda videos, and grainy footage of a mushroom cloud at the end of World War II, how do you know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply firebombed just as we saw in the other Japanese cities such as Tokyo?
When playing back the footage of a nuclear weapon test, the houses get blown apart, and school busses flipped over sideways; the sound effects seem like they were captured by sound equipment, being that the resulting sounds lined up to the footage is fairly clear to hear and understand. If the house was a real house and not a toy house, and the flipping cars and destroyed busses were not little toys, along with the miniature trees all getting blasted from inside some smoke and mirrors trickery of miniatures, then how did any the camera equipment survive the nuclear blast? If the sound effects of the house getting blown apart were legitimate, how did the microphone equipment and tape reels survive?
Now, let’s say that the sound effects were added in post-production after the surviving equipment was gathered and observed; that would make the sound design of the nuclear weapon tests completely artificial for sake of emphasis, however if any of these nuclear weapons are real, why would they need to fake anything in order to convince us these weapons are real?
When the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima as described, how are we finding interviews with the survivors? Shouldn’t they have been obliterated into dust by the atomic weapon?
Can we actually find the original footage of smoke plumes of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions? How can we confirm that these are the originals?
51- Taught to us in the public schools of the and propagandized to us on science programs, laced with ads on television, it is likely that we all learned about how the gravity of the moon is the one direct causation for the high and low tides of various seashores. If the cause of tides is by the pull of the moon’s gravity, then how is anyone able to prove the case? We can clearly observe that inland lakes and ponds are not effected by “the moon’s gravity” at all, in that they do not rise or fall for the interval hours between high tides and low tides, as seen on ocean shores. If this globe model phenomena be truthful, the case could be proven by patterns of everyday observation and an analysis of the heights of tides, and clever mapping out of locations to support this gravitational force as the cause of tides. If the moon’s gravity being the cause of tides is indeed a myth, this would simply force any observer to contend with something that matches a more truthful observation, as opposed to what was taught to us, being this myth has been completely without real and testable experimental evidence. We just so happened to have learned about all of this from the philanthropist-funded curriculum of public schools, where we were also taught to believe in gravity.
In “Zetetic Cosmogeny”, Thomas Winship wrote:
“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”
52- When looking at the stars during the night sky in June, how are we able to view the same star constellations as the night sky in December? If the heliocentric model be valid, then shouldn’t we be facing two opposite directions at night?
53- Both the flat and spherical models hold agreement about the distance of the equator, which is objectively based on seasonal equinoxes and observable agreement with regard to the passage of time and logical use of sundials. On the spherical model, the equator is around 24,900 miles in circumference. On the flat and stationary earth model, such as seen in the Gleason’s map, the distance is the same number, but is mapped as a circle below a local sun and moon on a flat map, where every line of latitude in the southern hemisphere is larger in circumference than the equator, and the equator larger than any line of latitude in the northern hemisphere, until reached to the northernmost pole point, the center.
This takes an objective agreement between both models and forces one to contend with measurement of the curvature, or lack of curvature of the Earth in order to determine which is true and which is false, for many should agree that the Earth is not both at the same time.
On April 13th, 2016, amateur photographer Joshua Nowiki stood at a lakeshore in Warren Dunes, MI and photographed the entire Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan, ranging 56 miles from the focal point of the camera.
News coverage suggested that the ability to see this skyline is actually a light mirage, perhaps explaining this photograph as light bending over the curvature of the lake.
Of course, the hard evidence of this photograph that anyone can take for themselves during a clear-weathered day without fog or chemtrails was rendered reduced to “a mirage”. Of course, that’s what it must be if we are living on a whirling globe in outer space: that photo is a mirage, right?
Either that, or the earth is flat and this gentleman’s photograph is using a more acute angular resolution than the human eye to pull the entirety of this skyline back into the field of our vision.
According to the claimed mathematics that would calculate our Earth’s curvature with use of the equator as it’s circumference, every skyscraper in Chicago would be rendered invisibly masked by the curvature of the waters blocking them from our field of view.
8 inches per mile squared. We can see too far.
54- We are often told about deformed people and birth defects caused by the effects of radioactive nuclear fallout from atomic weapons or nuclear reactors gone haywire. During a bingo hall interview with Vice called “Atomic Soldiers”, the “atomic veteran” Douglas Hern speaks of having witnessed five nuclear detonations, thus one day causing his 11 year old daughter to grow a hump on her back, grow hair all over her body, in which he claimed that he and his wife used to shave her twice a day.
In the long-running AMC show, “The Walking Dead”, every episode faces our characters with these ghoulish obstacles: walkers. Behind the scenes, highly talented make-up artists dress up the walkers, as they are actually fully-alive actors who are masked by monstrous make-up, with fake blood and guts, thus effectively simulating the effect of the walking dead, and making the show that much more fun to watch.
How do we know that Douglas Hern’s claim is real? We are not shown any evidence for this claim, but our emotions for the story told may likely impede our investigative query toward questioning whether or not he is even telling the truth. For many of these “atomic veterans” we are told that they were sworn to secrecy for more than 50 years after the weapons tests, and that only now, in this bingo hall can we finally get insight from these goofy freemasons.
When seeing deformed humans in pictures, how can we be certain that this is not an artificial rendering in order to further validate the simulation of nuclear weapons? This effect can be simulated in movies, why wouldn’t they fake it in the perceived reality as well?
A dialectic occurs with an artificial problem, justifying a nonsensical solution of paying taxes to governments. If nation A claims to have nuclear weapons which can protect it’s people by countering the nuclear weapons stocked up by nation B, in which nation B claims to have nuclear weapons to protect it’s people from the nuclear weapons held by nation A or nations C, D and so on, then that high-stakes situation stifles all these nations into what seems to be a stalemate, such as seen in the Cold War. Like a completely locked up midgame in chess, these rockets that could blow apart entire cities with a single hit are claimed to have been kept shelf stable inside of secret nuclear silos, atomic submarines, aircraft carriers, and so on. This protection racket purported by all nations operates as a justification for the taxation of their own respective populations.
Either they have the nukes or they do not have the nukes.
How would one know for a fact that any of these nations have a single nuclear weapon? Did Douglas Hern really shave his daughter twice a day?
55- What is one example of any architectural accomplishment, such as a large building, or large set of buildings, or a long bridge, or some type of canal ever factoring in the curvature of the Earth into schematics? Has this ever once happened? If so, what examples exist for us all to see?
56- The Astronauts who “died” on the Challenger explosion all coincidentally seem to have twin siblings or exact lookalikes with very similar, or exact same names, many who just so happen to work in prestigious Universities such as Yale. Apparently, their twin siblings did not attend their funerals amidst such a disaster. The chances of this happening in the realm of probability is something like 1 in a trillion. We also notice footage of the crowd during the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster explosion, where we can identify parents and loved ones in attendance showing hysterical expressions of laughter and joy shortly after the explosion. How do you know any astronaut has been aboard a Space Shuttle once ever? How do you know that the Challenger was not detonated in the sky on purpose in order to stifle artificial “moon missions”? Would the advent of the increased capabilities of modern consumer optics have something to do with halting “space travel” after the seemingly-strategic Challenger explosion of 1987?
57- When we hear interviews with astronauts on the International Space Station, they refer to various pieces of technology laying around, and point at some notebooks and cords sitting in a weird corner of the ISS, and hear them say “that’s where we do science at”. What is one science experiment that they have done while aboard the ISS? Why can’t this experiment be performed on Earth? Why can’t we take a look at the science they’re talking about?
58- If the moon is a spherical shaped rock floating around in space that is bouncing light off of the sun, then why do we not observe the brightest amount of “bounced light” at the center of the moon, as we do all material objects? How would anyone even know if the moon has been confirmed to be a rock that can be landed on?
59- How is it that the electronics used for airplane flights never account for curvature of the Earth?
60- Independent exploration of Antarctica is strictly forbidden due to the United Nations Antarctic Ice Treaty in which every government in the world has absolutely no disagreement about. What are they protecting, and why can we not independently go there on our own?
61- What is one example where a North-South circumnavigation of our Globular Earth has ever once occurred?
62- What is an arc?
63- The word “Arctic” is used to describe the far North. From the point of view of standing at the equator from the perspective of an Azimuthal equidistant map, how do the lines of latitude form?
64- Relative to any arc presented above, what is an anti arc in comparison? Would it simply be an arc in opposite form?
65- The word “Antarctic” is used to describe the South. From the point of view of standing at the equator from the perspective of an Azimuthal equidistant map, how do the lines of latitude form?
66- How do you know that Stephen Hawking isn’t just some treat-fed slave of a sun-worshiping cult, strategically placed into a wheelchair by handlers like some type of sorcerer’s inverse icon, just to be puppetted around while groaning pseudo-scientific nonsense? Could one’s empathic emotions manage to impede one’s own ability to discern or question the validity of Stephen Hawking’s ability to write highly elaborate books while somehow having the keen ability to study black holes, and having strange inter-marital affairs while being unable to move more than a single finger on a button? Why would someone specifically install this disabled man into an artificial precipice of authority? Could it be that on television specials, we can learn about all this global trash through a script written by an elusive cult of con-men?
How do you know he is even saying what he is saying?
Who pays his translators?
Why would they do any of this?
Ask yourself.
Now might be a good time to go and get a second opinion. If any of you would like to stop at this point of the article in order to provide yourself some leniency towards answering the questions above by using your own subconscious mind, responses are absolutely welcome. I suggest to digest the questions above and don’t be afraid to take a guess, just like Newton did regarding the law of gravitation. It’s perfectly alright to have a wrong guess, a contrary opinion, an exposition of expanded perspective towards specific reading materials.
During a 1964 lecture at Caltech on the Scientific Method, physicist Richard Feynman stated:
“…Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences to discover that every consequence that you calculate agrees with experiment… the theory is then right?
No, it is simply not proved wrong. Because in the future, there could be a wider range of experiments you could include a wider range of consequences and you may discover then that this thing is wrong.
That's why laws like Newton's laws for the motion of planets take such a long time. He guessed the law of gravitation, calculated all the kinds of consequences for the solar system and so on… Compared them to experiment and it took several hundred years before the slight error of the motion of Mercury was developed.
During all that time, the theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right.
…But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succeed in proving what you thought was right- wrong.
So we never are right…
We can only be sure we're wrong.
Dissolution of the Hyperreal
Regarding imagery and video, the burden of photography or videography becomes a hyperreal issue in today’s world, forcing the hand of intuition as key all over again. A snake eats itself in the book Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, where the philosopher of mathematics Ludwig Wittgenstein makes these following statements in simultaneity.
1- The world is all that is the case
1.1- The world is the totality of facts, not of things
1.11- The world is determined by the facts, and their being all the facts.
2.021- Objects make up the substance of the world. That is why they cannot be composite.
2.0211- If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had sense would depend on whether another proposition was true
2.0212- In that case we could not sketch any picture of the world (true or false)
2.022- It is obvious that an imagined world, however different it may be from the real one, must have something—a form—in common with it.
2.024- Substance is what subsists independently of what is the case.
2.141- A picture is a fact.
2.19- Logical pictures can depict the world.
2.2- A picture has logico-pictorial form in common with what it depicts.
2.201- A picture depicts reality by representing a possibility of existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
2.21- A picture agrees with reality or fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true or false.
2.225- There are no pictures that are true a priori.
“Pictures of Earth from space.”
When presented with 2 hours and 11 minutes of control room footage and cheap animations allegedly proving the case of NASA’s Perseverance rover landing on Mars, we must simply ask if the images presented represent reality whatsoever.
Many who eagerly presume that this rover actually landed on Mars caught wind in the rumor mill of this event actually taking place, but none of those people who believe this ever bothered to watch the footage carefully, or with any truthful discernment. This old and dirty trick likely has people in the control room also believing in it and lying to themselves, however when one questions this simulated event, it becomes clear that this whole thing was completely faked, as it is provably impossible to perform anywhere in reality.
As Wittgenstein stated above, “There are no pictures that are true a priori”, and what separates the Mars rover photos from reality are the captions claiming these photos were ever taken on Mars. These photos were all taken from the terrain on earth from the local perspective of Devon Island, which is in Northern Canada, near the northern areas of Greenland. This proves that these photos have all been faked by NASA, whether photographed through the fish-eye lens cameras on the remote controlled robots, or just blatantly laced with more horrible CGI garbage. The evidence here is undeniable.
Physicist Richard Feynman:
”If it disagrees with experiment… It’s wrong.”
By the current state of affairs, the duality between reality and fiction sheds its skin, where a more truthful option may unfold whenever anyone decides to use a more refined perception in order to more easily explain the laws of nature; by deducing what there is not, allowing what is true to simply remain, and then taking action within that framework in order to unveil solutions.
Stagnating apart from truthful advancement, we have been merely insisted upon to rely on the sophisticated calculations of highly surreal numbers and astronomical mathematics that reach nearly unpronounceable groupings of zeros to describe the distances of vacuumed nothingness, where our imaginations then should only speculate our arrival towards these alleged planets, and eventually, alternative systems of similar homeostasis that are claimed to be located many, many light-years away, making the arrival to new lands seem impossible within our lifetime and thus nullifying our investments into such an unfathomable thought.
Edgar Allan Poe wrote:
“No astronomical fallacy is more untenable, and none has been more pertinaciously adhered to, than that of the absolute illimitation of the Universe of Stars. The reasons for limitation, as I have already assigned them, à priori, seem to me unanswerable; but, not to speak of these, observation assures us that there is, in numerous directions around us, certainly, if not in all, a positive limit — or, at the very least, affords us no basis whatever for thinking otherwise. Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy — since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all. That this may be so, who shall venture to deny? I maintain, simply, that we have not even the shadow of a reason for believing that it is so.”
The controllers bait us in to the promises of one day occupying a proxy earth, and lure us into it with various gadgets and traps, thus resulting in hiding any extra land existing beyond the poles, by means of effectively masking our perception of it being anywhere in the realm of possibility.
At my friend’s house, I was encouraged to wear an Oculus device and explore around the simulacrum for them to watch on a TV. The host of the great party Damian jested in observation:
“Wow man, if someone could figure out how to pay their rent from a sustaining economy generated from inside of the Metaverse here, I’d say that we are about a pizza delivery arriving straight to the toilet at the door from someone in the world to actually try hooking up to this thing and almost never ever leaving it, am I right?”
I suggest that mathematical truisms, as important as they are in observable physics, function to create magnificent architecture, technology, and societal advances that we can all clearly observe, however the problem arises in the observable subtraction of metaphysics from the reality equation altogether. In placing the size of things above us in the night sky, or the size of star systems, or our moon and sun, I’m suspicious of a maligned presupposition regarding the calculated distance, and the “correct” mathematics involved in explaining diameters and circumferences of what is observably above us.
Philosophically and theologically, this makes absolute sense, in the sense of opposite reactions of what is observably around us. It is the difference between truth and lie, which is comparable to the inverse difference between the substance of any object and the non-being of empty space which otherwise simulates it. The unobservable non-being that provides dimension, space and value to what does otherwise hold actual substance in our world.
Our reality is comprised of exactly one of two polarizing options, where one is the inverse of the other. Casually presenting the evidence before using the heliocentric model, this would successfully insist that we are alone in a massive cluster of solar systems and galaxies, connected by the vast distances of nothingness, with our obstacle for observation being in the vacuum of space. We are encouraged to bend space and time in order to transfer ourselves like a fly on folded paper, but ultimately are faced with a nihilistic perception in order to accept that we are amidst such a massively infinite space. The other option destroys the nihilistic sense of self, and reduces the need for computer models or authorities to translate our understandings deduced by a mix of conversation and straight forward observation.
With respect to holding high value for gazing into the skies and the stars, Zetetic Astronomy offers simple methods in which to point out what is incongruent with the dogma of sacrosanct models by simply questioning things and presenting discoveries with easily duplicatable and testable experiments and more refined hypotheses that anyone can try out for themselves.
In psychology, I’ve found that my own ego and sense of self-surveillance were frequently the only walls up around my mind that could prevent me from learning more, or further indulging in the vast amount of information contrary to what’s accepted across the board in today’s world. The sense of self is met with integration of ego and shadow, by reducing the panic of oscillations of wasted energy that is so profoundly blinded by simulated reason to the point of refusing to understand how a fish-eye lens works.
Heliocentrism appears to be gate-kept by a protective ego, simulated as necessary in order to protect the self from learning such an abrupt and profound truth about where we are. It is in excesses of ego where the increasing walls would serve an inverse function that imprisons the mind.
Gravity as we were taught does not exist. It is dielectric acceleration in a torus field. This is why it feels better to stand straight up, then it does to slouch over. Ether above you is a positive charge, earth below, negative charge. We are electromagnetic avatars of souls. Bodies. Our negative is attracted to the positive above us, our positive, attracted to the negative below us. We experience a series of density and buoyancy when dealing with things moving up or down. There is no such thing as gravity as a force pulling anything inward, there is only the remainder of a center of mass. Gravity is a placeholder of deception inserted into equations in order to explain away the laws of nature in our shared reality.
Whatever it is we are in, and the mysteries that lay before us, remember only one thing:
Share this post