Subtle signs that hint to the truth

I have a lot of friends both Christian and non-Christian alike that love NASA. They love science and space exploration. They love learning about black holes, gas giants, and all the cool things NASA constantly puts out. I used to be like that too. But, the one thing that these two groups of people will disagree on is creation. The idea of God creating all things against the idea that it all started from nothing is a big debate. And today, many Christians side with the nothingness theory as if it were proven true, but still insist that God inspired the nothingness to create everything regardless of the fact that this concept goes against scripture.

And the pioneer of these epic discoveries just so happens to have no agenda at all. NASA is neither secular or Christian. Their agenda is clearly just one of science and the pursuit of knowledge… nothing more. Nothing less. That is one thing that both sides of the NASA fandom will agree on. NASA doesn’t have an agenda toward or against spiritual matters.

I am sorry, but I disagree with that entirely.

If they are known for being so none bias, then why is every single mission that they do related to pagan gods, Gnosticism, the occult, or outright luciferian concepts? And as of yesterday, we have yet again another example of this very thing to pile atop the countless other examples.

Meet Lucy, the mission that is apparently sending us to the Trojan Asteroids of Jupiter.

NASA-Lucy-spacecraft-studying-Jupiter-Trojan-asteroids-image-credit-Southwest-Research-Institute

Let’s totally set aside the fact that once again we are presented with nothing more than fake CGI junk rather than something tangible and real. Let’s stop and take a look the subliminal meanings behind this mission. And, in turn consider how NASA truly is none bias… or not.

The first thing to consider is the destination. We are sending a probe to a cluster of rocks known as Trojans. A Trojan by definition is a tool used to mislead large groups of people against the devices true intent. Secondly, we should stop and look at how and why the project was given its name; Lucy.

The name Lucy is derived from a Latin word, Lucius, meaning light. This explains why Satan is also known as Lucifer… also meaning light. And since the promises of Satan were transcendence and illumination, it is no wonder the movie Lucy was given such a name when evaluating what it was about (transcendence).

lucy_final_logosv

This patch symbolizes exactly the stance that NASA has on spiritual matters. With that in mind, I do not understand how so many Christians can so quickly rally behind this organization. Here, in this patch we have Lucy, the monkey skeleton… which stand on the bases of the evolution of mankind from primates to humans. Secondly, we have the rocks next to the probe. When compared to the ape bones to the probe we can see that it implies our evolutionary transcendence via the promises of Lucifer through knowledge and technology… who just so happens to hold the exact same meaning in his name as the word Lucy on the patch.

To make things even more interesting, the name of this NASA probe project was derived from the Beatles and a song called “Lucy in the sky with diamonds“. I could honestly rant on this fact forever. With that in mind I will simply point out that the album that this song appears on is heavily tied to LSD and Alice in Wonderland… which implies higher states of copiousness (Lucy being a great title since it means what it means).  Enough said.

So… why the diamond? Could it possibly be because it ties so well with the rest of the theme? I bet that could be the case. The diamond shape symbolizes ascension, clarity, and wisdom in many cultures.

With that said, here we have NASA propagating evolution to the masses, honoring Lucifer for his light of promising ascension, clarity, and wisdom through a band that is heavily associated with the occult. While at the same time admitting to your face that it is nothing more than a Trojan meant to mislead the masses, which is exactly what it is doing.

You want to keep believing in their fake CGI nonsense, you go right ahead.

As for myself, I will stick with the scriptures and the true scientific method. I don’t know. I guess I’m just ignorant, but a $19 billion dollar budget doesn’t automatically make your NASA cartoon truth. It is still just a cartoon.

And at the end of the day, I don’t care what you believe in… one thing is clear. NASA does promote a spiritual agenda weather you admit it or not. Just go back and look at the names of all their past missions.

There is a point when you could consider it all to be coincidence. But, let’s face it. We have been beyond that point for quite some time now.

Advertisements

the sun, apparently the final frontier

Well, apparently we are going to the sun. Seems legit to me. I honestly have to say, Don Pettit said it best: “If dinosaurs had explored space, they would still be alive today”. That too, also seems legit. I just don’t understand it. How in the ever loving truth does anyone actually believe any of this nonsensical CGI garbage?

All of the images and animations we are shown of the sun with its massive bursts of solar flares is absolute idiocy. The following is a much closer representation to the truth than what we are constantly shown. Do you see any flares of chaos or configurations of heating gas in either of these sets of images below? No… because this is what the sun actually looks like. Don’t get me wrong, the stuff we are presented looks way cooler and way more exciting (flares and masses of moving gas), but that does not make it truth!

NASA_s-SDO-Sees-a-Stretch-of-Spotless-Sun

But hey, if the entire world wants to think we are flying through space in 4 directions at once at unfathomable speeds while still managing to hold a motionless glass of water in their hands, then let them think whatever they want. The type of people that believe that type of nonsensical stuff are the same ones believing in NASA’s current claims of reaching out to the sun. Sure… next thing you know it we’ll be landing a man on the sun too. Or better yet, a man on Mars so we can get over there to figure out who the heck has been cleaning those solar panels on the Rovers for all these years.

Anyway, since most of you that read this blog know that I am totally against NASA and the concept the Copernican Principle in general, I thought I would share with you a few of the items on my Etsy Store that go right along with the theme of how I feel about today’s so called modern science. Because, you know… millions and billions of years is clearly observable, testable, and repeatable.

patches

In short, NASA is a liar, Michelson and Morley proved the earth was motionless already, and the ISS acronym actually stands for; international scam station. Science is something we can observe, test, and repeat. And almost all of what we are taught today about the world  around us defies observation, can’t be tested, and therefore can not be repeated.

Pseudoscience is a religion.

But no… seriously. I only have 3 questions. One, if the material hasn’t existed until now… what are we using said material for with practical application here on earth (none, because it doesn’t exist)? If a rocket leaves the atmosphere at let’s say, 800 miles an hour, how in the ever loving truth are they accelerating it to godlike speeds in the vacuum of space with nothing to push or pull against when trying to generate extra momentum? And finally, why are you buying into this nonsense? If we have a 4 inch shield that could withstand the radiation and heat that NASA claims, we could put a man in a suit made of that same material and go in and clean up Trinoble.

Just think about it. Use common sense and a basic understanding of physics and you will see right through this ridiculousness.

Then again, maybe I’m just ignorant.

Was the Tower of Babel Real?

Last night Sarah and I were talking briefly about the Tower of Babel. So, here is the question to consider. The reason that God confounded the language was because they had a goal that mirrored the luciferian promise of transcendence. The people were going to build a tower to the Heaven so as to make a name for themselves.

God himself said, behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

If I am correct in thinking, the people’s goal was to reach Heaven by building a building. And God went down and stopped them, saying they could accomplish anything. If this is true, would they have accomplished their goal of reaching Heaven? When we look at the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmology, supported by the big bang theory… which gives way to cosmological evolution, the answer is no. Heaven is too far away. The people of Babel would have never reached Heaven to make a name for themselves. All they would have done is reach the vacuum of space and die of lack of oxygen.

If this is true, and they would not have reached their goal, killing themselves in the process, then why did God clearly say they would have achieved anything they set to do? Clearly, that doesn’t seem right when you consider the cosmology that we are taught. Because their goal was Heaven and according to God, they could have done it had he not stopped them.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.  And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. – Genesis 11:1-9

Pyramid Cultures Built Triptychs

Now, when we consider the fact that Babylon was a real place and the Tower of Babel is actually recorded in history, it is no surprise that we find similar structures scattered across the world. Just because your language changed, doesn’t mean someone’s habits change. They would have continued to build and live the same way as before. The only difference is that their words are different.

When you consider that, it also makes sense to see that all the continents worshiped the same gods throughout history. The only difference when you consider the similarities would merely be the names of these gods.

Go figure.

So, here is the question then… are we being lied to about God’s creation?

The more I dig into the biblical perspective of cosmology, I can’t help but see that this is true.

According to the modern day wisdom of men the moon is a rock that is more than 200,000 miles away, the sun is a star 400,000 miles wider than the earth. All the stars are massive and far away. We aren’t special and we were created by randomness which led to the sun being created before the earth. The sun doesn’t move. The earth moves.

According to be bible, the earth came first, the moon is a her, the stars are actually heavenly beings that have and will fall to the earth. The sun is on a circuit. The earth is motionless (explain any of that with the Copernican Principle). Honestly, I could go on and on.

The thing is this…

The answer I am generally given regarding this issue is simple. I am told that we are currently in an era of enlightenment. We have become smarter. We know more today than we did back then. With that in mind, a lot of the bible is left to allegory and poetic interpretation.

I have two problems with that. One, to suggest we are getting smarter implies evolution at a conscious level. Last I checked most Christians didn’t buy into evolution. With that, we are not getting smarter. We are merely at a point where we are giving into lies and calling them truths. Second, am I to believe in the wisdom of men, or the Holy inerrant word of God? Because, if one verse is interpreted as man’s lack of understanding in the past rather than truth… then at what point do we draw the line on allegory, calling the entire bible a work of fiction? The bible is either the inerrant truth or it isn’t.

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.1 Corinthians 2:5

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 3:19

Anyway, I am clearly ignorant. And to be honest with you, I am starting to be okay with that. Because, let’s face it… people like SpaceX and NASA, the people giving us modern wisdom about the cosmos, clearly have never been caught lying… EVER.

squareearthrevealed

Whatever, I’m ignorant.

Do you think @NASA is hiring?

Well, if you have been following my blog for any length of time you will know my stance on good ol’ NASA and their $19 billion CGI, Photoshop, After Effects budget. Since they have so much money to throw around for all the nonsense that they release, I thought I would reach out and see if I could have a crack at a piece of the pie.

With that said, hey NASA… you guys hiring?

If so, here’s my resume. Hope you like it.

planet-pat.png

I call this first one Planet Pat. I’m sure that with the right budget I could come up with a better name. Maybe something like Murcanus K5L. But, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. We need a budget for something like that, so we’ll stick with Planet Pat for now.

planet2

I call this one Dry Dirt. Because, well… I think you get the point. It’s a spherical picture of dry crackled dirt.

lastone

I didn’t name this last one, because it isn’t like we have a chance in visiting it any time soon… what with it being trillions of billions of zillions of light years away and all that jazz.

But anyway, I’ll just leave you with a few wonderful words from Astronaut Don Pettit.

I would go back to the moon, but we can’t because we destroyed that technology. Next plan is to go to Mar, but we will go to the moon again before that happens. The only limitation to space exploration is in the realm of imagination“.

Space travel is impossible. Space is fake. It’s nothing but a bunch of Hollywood CGI junk. And Don knows it. The only way we have ever, or will ever, explore space is in our minds and imaginations. And that is all there is to it.

I am clearly ignorant. Don’t listen to me.

The Cavendish Experiment compromised by the pendulum effect?

I have a new question for the “scientists of today”. This question is in relationship to the Cavendish Experiment. For those of you that don’t know anything about this experiment, it’s a really big deal for physics and how we measure the known universe both in lengths and relative mass. How big is the earth? How massive is the moon? If the two objects are said to be such and such density, then they must be thus far apart for relative rotation to occur. And so on and so on. This experiment essentially weighed the earth giving us the gravitational constant. This constant is used to measure everything we know about the known universe. So, for me as a fan of space, this is the backbone of this field of science. For those of you that don’t know how the test works, here is a video of what the test was.

The thing that I find most odd about this test is the following. No one has actually successfully replicated this experiment, at least not that I have found. If you do a test and yielded a positive result, wouldn’t you want to test and retest the result to insure that you have it correct. Or better yet, change some variables to insure that the test isn’t being compromised by some outside force? Here is a video of s science professor expressing his admiration for the experiment despite having never gotten the experiment to work, himself. I find this odd.

Now, I have done enough digging that I have come across quite a few people who have attempted this experiment to varying degrees. And at that, with a few factors that in my opinion actually compromise the results. If you will note, the first two videos suggested two things. One, a closed system; so that no wind current would alter the results. And two; that the observer couldn’t be in the same room because their mass would alter the state of the experiment. And yet, if you look you will find countless attempts in open space with the observer present, no real control on the fixed points for observation, and air conditioning being factored into the process. All the tests you will find are relatively the same, and in my eyes inconclusive.

The idea behind the test is simple. The large mass of balls will gravitationally attract the smaller mass of balls toward themselves inward, twisting the pendulum or torsion rod toward the larger masses, thus giving us the gravitational constant when factoring the arch of the changes. When it comes to all of these tests, all I see is a free spinning shaft with two balls eventually touching against a resistance point. And because they touched the experiment essentially worked.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. And here’s why. How many of you have heard of a foucault pendulum? For those of you who don’t know what that is, here it is.

So, here is my issue with how the most recent Cavendish Experiments have been done. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that a freestanding object on a cord hanging down from a fixed point would be compromised by the rotation of the earth? And if that is true, as the foucault pendulum clearly shows us, then wouldn’t the Cavendish Experiment be successful every time based on the pendulum effect alone? Eventually the rotational momentum would force the rods in a direction causing the smaller masses to find themselves resting against the larger objects?

With that in mind I propose an experiment (one of which I have yet to see done). The only way to determine for sure that the pendulum effect does not in any way neutralize the test results of the Cavendish Experiment we must do the test in three distinctly different ways. One, we set it up as shown by all the other endless attempts you will find online. The result will be the same as always. The smaller masses turn and connect with the larger ones. The second test would be to raise the smaller masses up directly above the larger masses by mere meters so that they don’t actually make contact. After doing this we set the masses 90 degrees from one another or at a 15 as shown in the first video and leave it alone. Over the course of 48 hours or more one of three things will have occurred. One, the smaller masses will do nothing. Two, they will find themselves fixed above the larger masses as the Experiment would suggest (attraction working as it should). Or three, the pendulum effect will make itself known and we will see the smaller masses rotate above the larger masses with no added resistance over a very long period of time. Then, let’s assume that the attraction does occur as we would expect/hope. If that is the case, the third and final test would be to start the test over and do it this time with the larger masses removed. If the smaller masses find themselves eventually resting in the same parallel point as the previous two tests eliminating the pendulum effect as a possiblye veritable, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that there are other variables we need to be considering that may be affecting the result (ie; Northern Pole. Large objects in or around the experiment that may alter its result)?

With this in mind, I find it hard to believe we found Big G from this experiment with no real re-verification of any kind taking place. Before we can truly say that this test works we need to 100 percent insure that the pendulum effect does not play a role in any way toward altering the results of this experiment. And so far, from what I have seen, no one has done this.

Why is that?

Please note I am not one of those people with some silly hidden agenda. I am just an honest guy seeking honest answers about science and how we understand the world around us.

So, why is it important to insure that we remove the pendulum affect from this experiment? Everything you know about the size, distance, and gravitational attraction of our known solar system is resting on the results of this one test (results I might add that were given to use in the 1800’s and have yet to be precisely duplicated since).

Mars Rover Landing and countless questions

Alright, here is the thing. I don’t know what I believe anymore when it comes to NASA and anything they say. I already posted my thoughts on just a few of the highlights associated with the reason many people believe the moon landings to be a hoax. After stumbling across the moon landing content I dug a little more and came across a Conference video of the Mars Rover Landing. This was not a hoax video. This was just merely the genuine video of the conference held after the landing supposedly took place. The conference video is nearly an hour long, so you have to be interested in this type of thing to sit through it. And honestly, I am glad I did. This conference was a joke. None of the people in charge of operations could answer a single question asked of them by normal people like you and me. There was no science talk at all. It was literally just a bunch of dudes on a stage blumbering through the event with their fingers crossed. Rather than answer simple questions that clearly should have been answerable, they rambled about nothing, used small words, stuttered, and even pretended to call out names of other associates in the room as if those alleged people would have the answer.  I was so completely astounded by this conference video that I was instantly hooked. I needed to see more. It is clear that these “engineers” don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. Since the video is so long, I found a condensed version of it here for you that highlights some of the idiocracy. And to further help aid my point, the video starts out as if it were a Saturday Night Live skit. It’s completely pathetic.

Obviously, anyone who keeps up with any sort of conspiracy theories regarding NASA will have at least heard of the various objects found on the red planet. Bones of animals. Strange unexplainable shapes and so forth. Well, after digging around for quite a while I found one video that covers quite a bit of the content you can find scattered and sifted across the web. This video is also rather lengthy because it covers so much, coming in at over an hour and a half. I will say, however, that I watched the entire thing. Not only do these film makers discus the photos taken by the Rover, but they also touch on some very interesting topics like; how do the solar panels keep getting cleaned, how does the battery of previous “smaller” Rovers last as long as they have; and the obvious photo editing.

If the Rover isn’t on Mars, then where is it? This video is short and simple, highlighting the locations that NASA currently has camp set up. Ironically enough, the landscape it very similar to the supposed photos being transmitted from Mars.

This last video is just a quick little two second video of a guy that stumbled across yet another NASA image that has clearly been mortified in some way.

The conclusion to all of this is simple. With all of this potential evidence mounting, it won’t be much longer before the NASA saga comes crumbling down. And when it does I am curious to see what happens. Obviously NASA hasn’t been government funded in a little while, but they did spend a long time funded by the powers that be. And if all of this stuff is fake, that money went somewhere. I am curious as to where it would have gone.

But who am I? I am just an ignorant Christian. Clearly my creationist views are what drive this type of hogwash and not at all my simple desire for the truth.

UPDATE 1/15/17
Here is a new video that shows some rather ridiculous Photoshop editing.

Is NASA really just one big fat joke

I love science, astronomy, theoretical science, and quantum mechanics. I am still wrapping my mind around string theory, but I am enjoying it. I have read a lot of books on these subjects by some very well known names like Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking just to name a few. And have in fact read every book that the last two authors have published to date. With these things in mind I have been fascinated with astronomical distance. With the use of various equations and high powered telescopes we can determine the distance of an object in space relative to its size, wave frequencies, and its place on the light spectrum. These distances are based on measurements derived from the speed of light and all that jazz.

Well, here is the thing. Having found this type of stuff interesting, and being a skeptic of the moon landing for various personal reasons; like the Van Allen Belt for example, I came across two very compelling videos that are further proof in justifying the idea that perhaps we did in fact fake the moon landing. Before you roll your eyes, please remember that this post isn’t about the hoax and is more so about the math of distance and ones perception of distance when in the vacuum of space.

This first video is a narration of some actual footage from the Apollo missions which explains how the astronauts deceive the viewer into thinking they are seeing the earth from about 130,000 miles away. Based on this footage the camera is “pressed up against” the glass of the craft. From that great distance the earth looks rather small. The farther away an object is, the smaller it will appear.

In this second video we have a recap of a large percentage of the footage of the earth from the surface of the moon. That would mean that this footage was taken roughly 238,900 miles away (almost twice the distance that was described in the previous video), which explains why the earth looks so tiny in comparison to the moon’s surface. Again, the farther away you are from an object, the smaller it will appear. That is an obvious fact that anyone with eyes can test and prove at home. Why is it then, that we have a satellite called EPIC that is supposedly 1,000,000 away from the earth taking footage of the moon as it passes in front of the earth depicting the earth to be very large in comparison to the moon? That is nearly 3 times farther from the moon than the moon is from the earth. That is pretty freaking far away. Please note that I realize there are some miss spellings in this second video which some will suggest discredits the entire thing. If the creator of the video can’t spell, then he must be pulling these concepts out of thin air… give me a break.

All I am saying is this: If we actually landed on the moon, and the footage from the EPIC satellite is accurate, then despite being 130,000 miles away in the first video, the earth would have still taken up the entire window in the footage. With that said, size relative to distance does not allow for both of these difference sets of footage to be balanced comparisons. There are tons of theories out there, I know… some of which are silly. All I am asking is; if we landed on the moon, then why do these visual distances not add up? Let’s assume the camera on the EPIC satellite is better by a billion times over when compared to the camera they had for the Apollo missions. Problem solved, right? Wrong… when factoring the distance of the moon from the satellite to the distance of the earth to the satellite, wouldn’t it make the moon larger in perspective since it is closer by nearly 870,00 miles? And yet, the EPIC satellite depicts the moon and earth in their relative sizes as assumed by the perspective of person viewing these sizes in relative distance from the surface of Earth, which happens to only by one/forth the distance of that of the EPIC satellite. This just doesn’t add up for me.

Then again, I must be ignorant.