All the presidents are related

For those of you that may have not come across this yet, I thought I would share this little tid-bit of information while also tying it together with the fact that the Washington, DC street map is actually formatted with intentional symbolism. So, there you have it.

Think on that for a bit.


Keep in mind that there are many more symbols to look through. I just happened to pick these few to look at. There are plenty of them aside from the pentagram, the owl, and the all seeing eye. There are masonic symbols (as above, so below)… as well as other triangles and even a broken cross below the pentagram.


What are the odd, right? Now, you may be asking yourself… what do the symbols and lineage have to do with anything let alone each other? Well, as we can clearly tell when reading the bible, lineage is very important, which is why we trace Jesus back to the promises of the old testament in the first chapter of the book of Mathew. If lineage is important to God, then wouldn’t it be safe to assume Satan takes it seriously as well?


But, hey… I’m just ignorant. It’s clearly all just a coincidence.

Directional Momentum in a Vacuum: part two

I recently posted a blog where I brought into question how it is not possible to have any form of space exploration in deep space based on one simple fact. You can’t generate momentum in a vacuum. You just can’t. Click here to read the blog that I posted on that topic. Today’s post is a reflection on this idea after having stumbles across a few Youtube videos where people are trying out various tests in homemade vacuum chambers. And guess what; the results are pretty much exactly what I expected. But hey, rather than rant about it… take a look for yourself.

Video one is based on atmospheric propulsion.

Video two is a different guy trying out a wide range of propulsion powers both in the atmosphere and in the chamber. I couldn’t help but smile.

Space exploration is not possible people.

Satellites: Science fact, or science fiction?

I have told a few people that I think that Satellites are fake and that they can’t exist in the vacuum of space because of mobility, compression and temperature. After giving a few reasons on why I think they are not actually real, the average person tells me I am silly simply because of the following:

They generally say things like “of course we have satellites, dummy. How else do you think you get your internet? Or, what about the images we look at from Google Earth. Those are from satellites, dumb-dumb. Or better yet, how else do you think your GPS works?”

Those are generally the three things that apparently refute anyone suggesting that satellites are fake. Let’s totally disregard the fact that they exist in an area of space below the freezing point as well as above the melting point. Let us also disregard the fact that there are no real photos of satellites when you do a web search. Let’s also disregard the fact that I can’t get my internet to work more than a foot outside of my house on a device connected to my house wifi, and yet you expect me to believe that your internet is connected to a device in the heavens that is something like 300 to 1200 miles away. Because that seems logical.

Instead of ranting on about the countless proofs for the fact that these objects are in my opinion not real, let us focus on just the main three reasons I am ignorant for thinking such a thing.

Number one. How else do you think we have world wide internet, you dumb-dumb? Well, let me think for a second… when the internet man came to your house did he set up a satellite or did he run some cables? He ran some cables. Here is how we use the internet to talk to the rest of the world.

Here is actual footage of these cables being laid. If the internet is from outer space, then why run all these cables?

Number two. Google Earth is made from images captures from satellites you, nincompoop. Oh, really? I dare say… spend some time looking up how much money Google has invested in drones.

Let’s totally forget the fact that satellites are supposed to be taking these images, and yet all we get is CGI up until about 15 miles above surface level on the following video. Go figure. If these heavenly objects are responsible for taking Google Earth images, then why don’t they zoom in from a real earth?

And finally, number three. You use the GPS on your phone, silly-willy. I’m sorry, but if you seriously believe that your phone again, reaches 300 to 1200 miles away to a satellite and yet looses signal when you are in remote areas, you are ridiculous. You lose signal in remote areas because you are no longer connected to the tower signal. Have you ever been driving from a major city to another major city and lose signal for about 30 minutes while surrounded by nothing but country side and farm lands, to then get the signal back a few miles before reaching the next habitable zone? I guess the satellites just don’t like farmers and it has nothing to do with radio waves bouncing off a tower.


Makes sense to me.

Also… let’s totally forget that we had a form of GPS during the Vietnam War. It just happened to have a different name. It was called the DNS and worked by bouncing radio waves on land. What makes you think today’s GPS works any different? That war ended in 1975 and the internet wasn’t around until 1983… and even then it was clunky and slow.

But enough ranting. I am clearly delusional. I must be ignorant.

Reflecting on the cosmos

So, today I was just sitting around thinking on things like I tend to do and I thought of something rather interesting. There are a few verses in the bible that talk about how the angels in heaven are actually the stars. A great place that this is mentioned is in Revelations 12 where the dragon takes down a third of the stars with his tail. This is very indicative of the battle in heaven where Satan convinced one third of the angels into standing against God. There are a few other places, for example, Satan being referred to as the Morning Star. (I interpret these things to mean that the stars are the angels – just my thoughts on the subject).

With that in mind… I started thinking about something that Lucifer proclaimed in Isaiah 14, and how it currently resonates with the popular minds of modern astronomy today. But first, here is one last example that shows why I think the bible refers to the stars as angels.

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. – Revelations 9:1 (note: this star was called a “him” and was given a key. So, he fell and was given power to open the pit).


Now, before I get into this… in what way did God create man? He mad man from the dust of the earth, if I am reading this correctly, of course.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.– Genesis 2:7

dust So, let’s recap real quick: Angels are the Stars of Heaven. Man was made from the dust of the earth.

Now, on to what this blog post is actually all about. What exactly did Satan proclaim he would do against God? He said that he would be like God. And what better way to do that than by insisting that you created man, rather than God.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. – Isaiah 14:12-14

With that In mind, I can’t help put step back and take a look at what some of the more modern greats of astronomy have had to say regarding the stars.


The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” ― Carl Sagan

We are not figuratively, but literally stardust.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”  ― Lawrence M. Krauss 

All I can say is, wow, just wow. Satan really has set out to become like God… and it looks like he is doing a pretty good job of it. Just think, what better way to exalt yourself unto godhood than to insist that God’s creations were in fact born from you rather than the hand of God himself? God didn’t make man… I did.

Do you see what I am getting at here?

I do realize that this one could be way off in left field, but hey… I’m just an ignorant fool, remember.


Pseudoscience, and the age of the universe

Speed of Light may not be constant, physicists Say. Einstein’s theory of special relativity sets of the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (300 million meters per second). But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes. The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say.

Now, I read this and thought to myself about something regarding how old the universe is, and how far away the distant stars are. Everything we know about the cosmos in regards to time and distance is completely dependent upon the speed of light.

For example: we have been taught that the universe is millions of billions of years old due to the fact that the constant speed of light takes time to reach us from those distant stars (hypothetically, if the speed of light is one mile per hour and the light takes three hours to reach you, you can then infer that the star is three miles away).

Here is the thing; guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson love words like, infer, conclude, and deduce… because they are fancier ways of saying “assume“.

So, how do we know how far away, or how old, the stars are in the universe? Let’s ask Neil. According to Neil, we know for a fact based on a measurement technique that is assumed to be constant (speed of light).

Now, Albert Einstein said in his Relativity paper that “light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity“. In short, assumptions are made. A fact based on assumption is what we call blind faith. We don’t know the speed from point A to point B, or the speed from point B to point C. We only know the total speed from point A to C and “assume” the round trip is the same.

So, what exactly am I getting at then? Rather than typing up a long drawn out explanation, I found a video that does a great job at describing the assumption that Albert Einstein was referring to in his Relativity paper. The fact that this physicist is a young creation Christian is coincidental and beside the point. The point is, we don’t know… and assumptions have to be made in order to arrive to a conclusion about the age of stars and the universe.

So, what am I getting at here… what is the point?

Here is the thing; determining the distance of a star requires the speed of light to be the same in both directions at all times throughout the history or the cosmos. Not only does light appear to be slowing down according to the article linked above, but we do not know that the speed of light is the same through release and reflection.

Example: If I throw a ball at one hundred miles an hour and it slows down slightly before hitting a wall and bouncing back to me, wouldn’t it be a fact that the ball is no longer going the same speed when it gets back to me, and that if it slowed down on the way there that it is probably slowing down on the way back as well?  To only count the total speed there and back and dividing them in half to determine the actual speed of the object is based on assumption.

The truth is, the age and distance of stars is completely based on inference. And since this assumption of a star’s age is presented as truth, we use the age of the star to age the universe. This is called pseudoscience, people. A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Now, am I arguing that the world is only 6,000 years old and that all the stars are super close? No, not at all. What I am arguing is that you can’t make an assumption while parading it as fact to the entire planet. The entire doctrine of cosmology with the Big Bang Theory and the age of the commons is built on an evolutionary assumption, not fact. I don’t know what your bible says, but mine says that the earth was made first, before the sun. And this is contrary to what the scientific community it parading as truth.

Am I going to believe in the assumptions of men, or am I going to stand firm on the word of God? We are in a time when man is being tested. We are in a time where what you put your faith in matters more than ever. Dusk is fading, and night draws near.

Until you can actually measure the one way speed of light, the entire cosmological doctrine of time and distance is standing on faith in something they “believe” to be true. And if this is the case, why is it being taught as fact in the public school system?

Who are we kidding though. Let’s leave the real thinking for the men and women in the lab coats. I’m just ignorant and don’t know any better.

The age of the universe truly is 13.8 billion years old. And all the stars out there are billions of light years away. The constant speed of light told us so…

What a joke.

If anyone tells you that we know for a fact that the universe is such and such old and that a star is such and such distance away, they are either ignorantly being led or they are lying. Truth is we have no clue, because no one knows the one way speed of light which is how science is claiming to make the measurement!


Pseudoscience takes faith; you do realize that… right

As I have begun to get on this kick of taking a new approach to how I view science (digging through the data myself rather than taking someone’s word for it), I have begun to notice a vast difference between what we call empirical science and pseudoscience. For those of you that don’t know, here is what they are:

Empirical science – Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

Pseudoscience – a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

What I find scary about these vast differences is how quickly the scientific community makes that leap from observation and experimentation into the realm of assumption across every platform of science, while in turn building their logic on theory and faith while continuing to argue that what they are doing is in fact still considered true science. If you build up concepts based on assumptions, it does not matter how far you go. All you have managed to do is create a long string of assumptions based off of your initial assumption. But that’s just it… modern science doesn’t like to use the word assumption. They like to replace it with dazzling words like; estimated, principle calculations (meaning: self-evident proposition or assumption), hypothesis, theory, and comparison (aka; circular reasoning).

So, what am I getting at? Why does this matter?

Here is “just one” video example explaining how we know what we know about the layers of Earth from the crust all the way to the core. First, please note that the narrator is wrong in that we have only drilled about 4 miles deep. This is false. We have drilled nearly 7 miles deep. It is called the Kola Superdeep Borehole, but that is beside the point. What matters is how quickly this video jumps from empirical evidence to pseudoscience while talking about it as if it were fact… and then taking a step further and making new assumptions based on initially introduced pseudoscience.

At less than one minute into the video we are already using phrases like “scientists believe“. From there, we begin to watch as the assumptions are built upon more assumptions. And yet, it sounds so scientific. At one and a half minutes in he tells us about a computer simulation. Just because I can simulate motion doesn’t make the motion fact. This simulation is based on “scientific belief” first mentioned at the one minute mark, not fact. He states that the “new model” reveals… as if we can go from empirical evidence to an assumption, and then use that assumption to arrive back at empirical evidence through a computer generated simulation of pseudoscience. At two and one half minutes in he states that more than a million years ago the north and south poles were in opposing positions. Please tell me how you can empirically come to that conclusion without piggybacking pseudoscience along the way? You can’t. And yet, the guy literally says that we know this to be true because of “science“.

But what is science?

science – the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (please note the last three words of this definition).

So, what’s the deal?

The point is this; there is a vast difference between fact and faith. And with this point in mind I have begun to look long and hard at what I have been taught throughout my life to be true by the scientific community. What I have found is rather alarming, in that, the scientific method time after time has been compromised for scientific faith based belief (also known as pseudoscience).


How can we honestly know what is at the core of the earth when the Kola Superdeep Borehole drill-depth is only a little more than 7.5 miles (12 kilometers). To put that in perspective, Kola descends further than the deepest point of the ocean, which lies at nearly 6.8 miles (11 kilometers). This is only one third of the way through the continental crust. To put that into perspective, that is only the first of many supposed layer. This is 0.002 percent of the way to the center.

The fact is… you can’t know. And what we have been taught to be true is merely based on assumption. Sounds a lot like faith to me. And the last time I checked science was about the provable facts, not faith.

So, this is the question, then: when did we trade in the scientific method for a scientific religion? And, have you been indoctrinated into this new world religion? If most of what science presents today is “theory“, it seems like the world is standing on a lot of faith.

Psalms 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

And that is exactly what is happening in the world today. Science is the new religion when you consider how much of it has been compromised for pseudoscience. If what you believe in takes a level of blind faith, I don’t care what you call it, because I call it religion. The issue I have, and the reason I am posting this, is simple. This type of “thinking/science/teaching” is littered throughout all aspects of what we are taught to be truth by the scientific world. If you don’t actually know, quit teaching it as if it were fact. And further more, if religion doesn’t belong in the classroom, then why are these types of things being taught?

Scientism is alive. Are you indoctrinated?

But who are we really kidding… I don’t know anything. I’m just ignorant.

Directional momentum in the vacuum; you say

Common physics will tell you one very simple fact. In order for an object to begin, or increase a directional momentum, force needs to be generated against an external object. To better clarify what I am talking about here are a few basic examples of what I mean.


In order for a dog to gain momentum in an upward motion force is generated in the dog’s legs as the animal propels itself upward as a result of pushing off of the ground beneath it. The same can be said about a bird in flight or a fish as it swims. In order for the bird to gain and or maintain momentum as if flies, it must use its wings as it generates force against another, all be it, outside force generating object. In the case of the bird that outside object is the air. For a fish, the forward momentum is clearly derived from its fins as the fish generates force through the water that engulfs the creature. The dog pushes off of the earth. The bird pushes off of the air. The fish pushes off of the water. Seems simple enough, right? In order for an object to generate momentum it needs to generate force with the assistance of another object.

So… what about the vacuum of space?


Let’s actually set aside for a moment the fact that I could not find a “real” photo of a satellite, and take note of the propulsion method being used by each object as it transverses the vast expanse of the cosmic void.

Something doesn’t seem to add up, and I have to ask myself… what are these objects pushing off of in order to generate the momentum they need to travel through the vacuum? The one on the right shows multiple short range burst of energy that allows the object to twist and pivot in any direction it desires. How is it possible for an object in space to generate momentum in any direction without the aid of an outside object to generate force? Because, if the vacuum is exactly that… a void (nothingness), then when a satellite attempted to use a propulsion system such as this it would do absolutely nothing. The compressed energy as it is dispensed will be released into the vacuum and with nothing for that energy to press against, the object would not gain or reduce any existing momentum.

With that in mind let us think then about the possibility of space exploration. If we went to the Moon, and if we plan to visit Mars, then how did/can an object traveling through the vacuum slow down its momentum with this style of propulsion system in an attempt to establish orbit? Whatever speed and direction you were traveling when you left the surface of the earth would be all there is. No changing direction. No speeding up. No slowing down.

An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. And since the vacuum is nothingness… any attempts at generating an “outside force” would result in nothingness. Pushing against nothing will generate nothing.

Space travel is fake. But what do I know, right? I’m just ignorant.