Nicolaus Copernicus bust at the evil United Nations, New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank God that the Earth is NOT Moving!!
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html by Niall Kilkenny
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm
THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY
by Malcolm Bowden
This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - Appendix 10.
(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT.
There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the Earth rotating or going round the sun. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun are -
(a) having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the understanding of the Bible passage; surely we can trust God to mean what He says and say what He means - as He does throughout the Bible.
(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers" and that we are more educated today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to ridicule Bible believers.
There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the Earth rotating or going round the sun. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun are -
(a) having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the understanding of the Bible passage; surely we can trust God to mean what He says and say what He means - as He does throughout the Bible.
(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers" and that we are more educated today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to ridicule Bible believers.
(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION
There is a major Biblical problem facing Bible-believing Christians who believe the Earth goes round the sun ( heliocentrists ). In the six days of creation, the sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the Earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previously created material. Both words are used of Man's creation.
To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events.
So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the Earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the Earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the Earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below.
There is a major Biblical problem facing Bible-believing Christians who believe the Earth goes round the sun ( heliocentrists ). In the six days of creation, the sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the Earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previously created material. Both words are used of Man's creation.
To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events.
So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the Earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the Earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the Earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below.
(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
Geocentrists are ridiculed as "unscientific" and "getting their science from the Bible". However, there are four experiments which clearly point to a Geocentric universe. Only the Michelson-Morley is ever referred to; the other three are hardly ever mentioned in our universities.
(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004).
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the Earth around the sun was about 30 km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained away".
There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the reason for the experiment.
Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very quiet engine (the Earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the sun). You are at the centre of the lake and the shore is a long way off but you can see mountains on it etc. You notice that the shore (the stars) is going past the large ship fairly quickly, and you realise that either (i) you are circling the large ship OR (ii) the large ship is circling you - and you cannot immediately tell which one is circling which.You know the distance between the two ships, and timing how long it takes for the shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you can say that either the large ship is going round you at 30 mph or you are going around it at that speed.
There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is circling which. What can you do to find out???
Geocentrists are ridiculed as "unscientific" and "getting their science from the Bible". However, there are four experiments which clearly point to a Geocentric universe. Only the Michelson-Morley is ever referred to; the other three are hardly ever mentioned in our universities.
(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004).
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the Earth around the sun was about 30 km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained away".
There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the reason for the experiment.
Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very quiet engine (the Earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the sun). You are at the centre of the lake and the shore is a long way off but you can see mountains on it etc. You notice that the shore (the stars) is going past the large ship fairly quickly, and you realise that either (i) you are circling the large ship OR (ii) the large ship is circling you - and you cannot immediately tell which one is circling which.You know the distance between the two ships, and timing how long it takes for the shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you can say that either the large ship is going round you at 30 mph or you are going around it at that speed.
There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is circling which. What can you do to find out???
The answer is very simple.
You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!
If you are moving through the water, then it is you going round the large ship, and you can check your speed through the water to see if it is 30 mph. If it is, then the large ship must be stationary. HOWEVER, if you find that you are stationary in the water, then it must be the large ship that is GOING AROUND YOU.
The MM experiment showed that the Earth was (almost) stationary! So they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, and eventually Einstein swept the whole problem under the carpet by mathematically removing the aether (the water). That this brought huge problems into scientific theories was ignored, and false evidence produced (Eclipse, travelling clocks, perihelion precession of Mercury) to support the theory. There have been many attacks upon the theory, but so powerful are the forces that support it that they have had little publicity or real damaging effect upon the "scientific" acceptance of the theory even today.
The MM experiment showed that the Earth was (almost) stationary! So they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, and eventually Einstein swept the whole problem under the carpet by mathematically removing the aether (the water). That this brought huge problems into scientific theories was ignored, and false evidence produced (Eclipse, travelling clocks, perihelion precession of Mercury) to support the theory. There have been many attacks upon the theory, but so powerful are the forces that support it that they have had little publicity or real damaging effect upon the "scientific" acceptance of the theory even today.
(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 ). This detected the aether passing the surface of the Earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the Earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the Earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the Earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for Geocentricity.
(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the Earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth and not the fast orbiting Earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)
(d) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors and camera with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole apparatus was detected by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.
These last three experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for Geocentricity. I asked three Christian physicists if they had ever heard of them; not one had! In October 2004 I commented on the UK Creation Forum -
"Re decrease in the speed of light - It MIGHT be constant now, but most certainly was not in the past; it was still falling until the 1950's. In addition, Sagnac's experiment proved that there IS an aether, whilst Einstein's Relativity Theorem is based on it NOT existing. Could I ask if ANYONE who did science at any university if they were ever told about Sagnac's simple experiment? I rather doubt it. So the fables of Relativity are passed down from generation to generation. What happened to truth? Malcolm."
I have just (1 March 2005) received an interesting response - "J, My agreement with all below [i.e. my comment "above"]. After 35 years as a professional physicist, with a thesis in relativity, I only learned of Sagnac's experiment last year...... R."
In January 2007 another correspondent complained that his professors never mentioned these important experiments -
"Dear Mr. Bowden, Thank you for your enjoyable and well-written website. I've enjoyed visiting there today. I was especially interested in your comments on Geocentricity, which (as noted) are controversial. The amazing thing is that NONE of the experiments cited were ever discussed in my undergraduate education, nor the implications cited...."
"...All my life, I have heard the story of how Copernicus' theory came to prevail. I would have thought that major experimental evidence already in existence and calling the theory into question would have at least been cited; and given the importance of some of the philosophical extrapolations on cosmology, theology, space exploration and public education in the United States, one would have also thought that the matter would have been intensely investigated until a resolution of the data with the theory could be obtained. One feels cheated as a student, of course, to keep finding twenty-five years later these bodies of contrarian evidence that never are mentioned in the classroom, unless a student has already researched the topics and brings them up..." (Emphasis MB).
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 ). This detected the aether passing the surface of the Earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the Earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the Earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the Earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for Geocentricity.
(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the Earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth and not the fast orbiting Earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)
(d) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors and camera with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole apparatus was detected by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.
These last three experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for Geocentricity. I asked three Christian physicists if they had ever heard of them; not one had! In October 2004 I commented on the UK Creation Forum -
"Re decrease in the speed of light - It MIGHT be constant now, but most certainly was not in the past; it was still falling until the 1950's. In addition, Sagnac's experiment proved that there IS an aether, whilst Einstein's Relativity Theorem is based on it NOT existing. Could I ask if ANYONE who did science at any university if they were ever told about Sagnac's simple experiment? I rather doubt it. So the fables of Relativity are passed down from generation to generation. What happened to truth? Malcolm."
I have just (1 March 2005) received an interesting response - "J, My agreement with all below [i.e. my comment "above"]. After 35 years as a professional physicist, with a thesis in relativity, I only learned of Sagnac's experiment last year...... R."
In January 2007 another correspondent complained that his professors never mentioned these important experiments -
"Dear Mr. Bowden, Thank you for your enjoyable and well-written website. I've enjoyed visiting there today. I was especially interested in your comments on Geocentricity, which (as noted) are controversial. The amazing thing is that NONE of the experiments cited were ever discussed in my undergraduate education, nor the implications cited...."
"...All my life, I have heard the story of how Copernicus' theory came to prevail. I would have thought that major experimental evidence already in existence and calling the theory into question would have at least been cited; and given the importance of some of the philosophical extrapolations on cosmology, theology, space exploration and public education in the United States, one would have also thought that the matter would have been intensely investigated until a resolution of the data with the theory could be obtained. One feels cheated as a student, of course, to keep finding twenty-five years later these bodies of contrarian evidence that never are mentioned in the classroom, unless a student has already researched the topics and brings them up..." (Emphasis MB).
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian Geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom Geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?
THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the Earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun.
Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the Geocentric model.
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the Earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun.
Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the Geocentric model.
Thus, there is evidence that the Earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the Earth carrying the planets with it, or the Earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the Earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new light and a new day ... here is a message for all enlightened people of the world who understand and look up to the heavens to wonder at the Creator ... no matter what your Earthly sect or belief system may be ...
HERE IS A QUESTION TO PONDER ... to the many who have studied Astronomy or even read about it in the newspapers, there seems to be recurring and dominating statements made over and over by professional astronomers and space scientists that might convince you that they in fact know what they are doing ... the amazing machines sent forth to study the universe would make you believe that the interpretation of data that is returned would be as exact and precise and unerring ... the reality is that there is an entire political correctness arena in "science" and it is rapidly breaking down ... most of the public are intuitively aware that something is very wrong with what they are being told, but have too little information with which to really see the details of this very complex topic ... NASA knows this and that is why they let out painfully little information to the public ...
My home page hopes to accomplish two things ... one is to show the flaws in "traditional thought and theory" so the lay person as well as the trained scientist will see the troubles in this "body of knowledge" ... and secondly to replace these "axioms" with a set of concepts that truly make sense once you have reversed and cleansed your mind of its programming and begin to see things in an entirely new light ... the light that we live in an Electric Universe ( a term I coined in my original papers in 1979 ) ... also beware of the many copycat pages by non-scientists on the internet today ... the original and well thought out work of my past decades are contained only on my home page ... now ponder this question ...
how could it be that the vast efforts within standard academic circles are so out of touch with reality? Even with the most sophisticated scientific equipment ever conceived by man ( within our miniscule recorded history anyway ) searching to the far reaches of the universe ? ...
A SIMPLE LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY EXPLAINS THIS LIVING OXY-MORON ...
Astronomers in their haste and anxiety 50 years ago ( and prior to sending out any space probes ) decided on four Axioms of Astronomy
1) incorrect axiom #1 states that there is only gravity governing the cosmos
2) incorrect axiom #2 states that the solar system began all at one time 4.5 billion years ago
3) incorrect axiom #3 states that comets were thought to be dirty snow balls
4) incorrect axiom #4 states that the cause of galactic red shifts is due to movement ( they failed to realize there is another source of red shift ... the induced electric dipole red shift ) and they incorrectly concluded that the universe must be expanding
SO HERE WE ARE 50 YEARS LATER AND EVERY PH.D. AWARDED IN THOSE YEARS HAS LEARNED AND HERALDED THESE INCORRECT CONCEPTS ( THOSE WHO DISAGREED DID NOT GET A PH.D. ) SO IS IT ANY WONDER THEY ALL AGREE? ... AS CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION CAME IN ONE PIECE AT A TIME THEY CONTINUED TO PUT BAND-AIDS ON THE AXIOMS OR DISCARDED THE DATA ... THE HEAVY HANDED ARROGANT ASTRONOMERS FORCED THIS DOGMA DOWN ONTO ALL OTHER FIELDS TO STEP IN LINE ... AND THIS IS HANDED OFF TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH TEXTBOOKS, NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, TV, THE EVENING NEWS AND ON AND ON ...
few people have been able to accomplish what I have done over the past three decades since I have seen this happening on the inside and relay this information in a form that everyone can understand ... that is one reason why standard scientists really hate me ... I am bringing this message directly to the public ... in a world of government supported science and scientists, I have always remained independent and have never signed any agreements or been paid to compromise my principles toward seeking the truth of the true nature of the cosmos
Remember that 99% of scientists today repeat what they "know" from something they read. So there are VERY FEW of them that have first-hand information regarding what they are spewing. I call them "Text Book Geniuses". They can regurgitate what they have read but few have taken the painful route to research the many issues for themselves. Ph.D.s all lined up in a row saying the same things does not make "science" ... it makes a mutual admiration society club house where popular vote wins ... not the scientific method ... and since they have long since eliminated the "competition" they are free to say whatever they want unopposed. This does make one wonder whether Astronomy qualifies as a "science".
THAT IS HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE MESS WE ARE SEEING TODAY IN THIS CRAZY WORLD WE LIVE IN ... THEN ADD IN THE SECRET AND BLACK OPS GROUPS WHO STRIVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM KNOWING THE TRUTH ...
A FEW ARE WAKING UP ... IT IS FOR THOSE FEW THAT REALIZE THE TRUTH THAT I KEEP WORKING AT WHAT I DO EVERY DAY ... jim mccanney
"As an aside to this, it is estimated that around 500 PhD theses were written about Piltdown Man, based only upon plaster casts. Assuming a 20% failure rate, then 400 got doctorates based upon their analyses of ( hoaxed ) plaster casts. If 75% of these continued in "research," then 300 ended up in universities, colleges and natural history museums around the World. By the time the hoax was exposed ( 40 years ), they would either be dead or retired, but what about all of their students?" N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any Christian who truly believes the
Scriptures cannot possibly believe in or accept
the deceptions, lies and distortions being espoused
Scriptures cannot possibly believe in or accept
the deceptions, lies and distortions being espoused
by today's taxpayer-funded theoretical science establishment.
The Bible clearly refutes the cherished belief system of heliocentricity, that is, a rotating and orbiting Earth.
The Bible clearly refutes the cherished belief system of heliocentricity, that is, a rotating and orbiting Earth.
It really comes down to one basic question:
Do you accept the Scriptures as God's inspired Word of Truth, or don't you? If you do, then there is no room for embracing the pseudo-scientific concept of "hell"iocentricity. We have an accurate, clear, factual
and scientific account of Creation from day one all the way up to the present time.
( see Isaiah chapter 65 verse 17,
Isaiah chapter 66 verse 22,
Second Peter chapter 3 verses 10 to 13,
and Revelation chapter 21 verse 1 ).
For anyone who is sincerely and earnestly
seeking the truth on this or any other doctrine, the answers can be found in the Bible, if
one asks the Lord to open his or her eyes and heart.
seeking the truth on this or any other doctrine, the answers can be found in the Bible, if
one asks the Lord to open his or her eyes and heart.
Anything which lends weight to the argument that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" or orbiting the sun can be shown to be not only false science, but also derived from the
Christ-hating Kabbala of the Pharisee Religion
and should be totally rejected by sincere Believers. There can be no compromise. Either the Genesis account of the Creation of the universe is the true inspired Word of God, or else it isn't. Remembering that Jesus is Creator as well as Savior
( see Ephesians chapter 3 verse 9,
Colossians chapter 1 verse 16,
John chapter 1 verse 2,
John chapter 1 verse 10,
Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3,
and Hebrews chapter 1 verse 10 ),
we each must make the decision for ourselves.
Which will you choose?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are Politically-Funded Scientists saying about the Truth of a non-moving Earth ( Geocentrism )?
Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Politically-Funded
MainStream Scientists. They are also lying about 9/11,
the Apollo moon landing and global warming or they are silent about the truth, which is the same as lying.
Some of the possible reasons the scientists are lying:
- Emotional Weakness
Some scientists may not have the emotional strength to deal
with truthful concepts such as Geocentrism that overturn popular deceptions.
- Member of the Crime Network
Some scientists may be accepted members of the zionist crime network, and some scientists may be working with the crime network simply for money, sex, fame or some other reward.
- Victim of the Crime Network
Some scientists may be blackmailed, bribed or threatened by the zionist crime network into remaining silent or supporting the official story of heliocentricity.
- Disillusioned with the Human Race
Some scientists may have become so disillusioned with the human race that they ignore the world around them. Some of them may not have bothered to take a close look
at heliocentricity, and others may have decided that the human race is so hopelessly corrupt and stupid that there is no point in trying to expose that deception.
- Stupidity, Greed, or Mental Illness
A scientist is just a person who passed whatever school tests were set up to get a degree.
Timothy Leary is a scientist, and so is Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski.
If you were to put all of the scientists on their own world, it would definitely be a more intelligent world, but there would be mental illness, crime, fights, and other problems.
Scientists are just ordinary people with intelligence
Scientists are just ordinary, fallible humans with extra "approved" schooling; some seem to act just like monkeys.
 "Moving Earth? I don't see anything strange about a moving Earth" |
Have you noticed that the scientists who work for chemical companies "discover" that their pesticides and other poisons are perfectly safe?
And that the scientists who do medical research discover that those same chemicals are dangerous? Scientists may be slightly more honest and intelligent than "ordinary" people, but that is nothing to boast about. Smelling slightly better than a dead fish is still stinking very badly.
It doesn't matter why they lie!
It doesn't matter why a scientist is lying about heliocentricity.
The important concept is that we are fools to trust anybody who lies. The issue of cosmology has a tremendous effect on
human knowledge, morals, behavior as well as on
corporate profits, government policies, and the future of the world.
Since scientists are willing to lie about 9/11, why wouldn't they also lie about cosmology and other issues of major significance?
The only issues scientists seem to be 100% honest about are the
issues of no financial or political importance, such as the boiling point of water.
We need scientists we can trust!
We are fools to allow NASA and other government agencies
to create policies for cosmology when the only thing we can be certain about is that our government officials, media companies and most scientists are proven liars who routinely trick us out of our money, and trick us into wars.
We need scientists who are intelligent, emotionally stable, and honest. We don't need monkeys with a college degree; we don't need well-schooled but falsely-educated lunatics; and we don't need scholarly criminals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Zionist Pharisee Government-Funded Theoretical Science Establishment is no longer in control of our information on cosmology. We can make DVDs and CD-ROMs, and we can post pages on the Internet. We can pass photos and information around the world instantly at low cost. We are no longer dependent on these Zionist Pharisees for news and analyses. It is only a matter of time before the entire world realizes that the most significant movement in history is the Zionist Pharisee Movement.
It is the largest, most diabolical, and most destructive movement that has ever existed. It has caused more wars, pollution, suffering, and misery than anything else.
The Zionist Pharisees are not honest about what their goals are, but it appears to be the domination of the planet.
They have been struggling for this goal for a long time, but all they have accomplished so far is misery. Every nation should take a serious look at these people and asked themselves, Why are we tolerating this abuse?
The world is also realizing that the Rothschilds, Oppenheimers, Bronfmans, and many other extremely rich families are criminal monarchies. Why is the human race still tolerating monarchies? The Zionist Pharisees realize that they are being exposed, and they are trying desperately to get control of the Geocentric Truth Movement."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benoit wrote:
What in the world is this ( your concept of conspiracy )? Do you think that conspiracy is "just another topic" that the average morons can easily chat about in public - for example at the downtown café while clutching a cup of coffee during break? You cannot be serious. If you even hinted at being an advocate of a ( woldwide ) conspiracy you'll be branded a kook before your cappuccino cream fizzes. Anyone who had a chat knows that despite you being very delicate and
non-confrontational about the conspiracy you are raising
[ the heliocentric deception ], you'll still get nothing but invective. You know what that means? It means they have no arguments - that they can't even begin refuting any of your points, so instead they feign "authority" and pretend that it is "beneath them" to get down to your "level" and discuss the nitty-gritty of the HARD FACTS. Lack of response covered-up by smoke-and-mirrors of namecalling and invective.
And that's all that counts here: the facts, just the facts.
And that's all that counts here: the facts, just the facts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
related - by Allen Daves
Richard Milton review of "The Antiquity of Man"
"Whenever he encounters scientific evidence that he is unable to rebut, Brass appeals to authorities who, in his mind, are so grand as to be unimpeachable. Yet these 'authorities' and their words often turn out on closer inspection to have no more substance than Brass himself. "To me this sums up the nature of all the Creation/evolution and Geocentric arguments from Mainstream Science ( MS ) ...... They are "right" because they pass each other off as the "authoritative" reference with certainty. When the work of one "authority" is questioned then the appeal is made to the other and then back again. Those who support their positions do the same, they pick and choose one "Authority" to "debunk" any argument against the reigning paradigm. Which authority to cite is easily recognized by that authorities' ability to support and/or make the argument in favor of the reigning paradigm.
The paradigm itself has become and is the standard by which "science" is measured rather than science the standard by which paradigms reign. This is a subtle but significant difference and even harder for those caught in its grasp of illogic to recognize. Even now when a paradigm or MS assertion must be changed due to overwhelming "facts" the nature of the change itself, ( what is to be changed and to what it is to be changed to ) is determined not by science ( observation & experience ) or logic but rather solely due to the existing hierarchy of reining paradigms already in place. Never you mind about observations and experience and especially don’t bother with those "anomalies", what is most important is that we do not lose consistency and/or coherency with what we already "have".
The observations and experience are and will be a distant second to "correct interpretations" as determined by those same "authorities", who do their part by making the determination for "the correct interpretation" in the first place. Observations and actual experience are substituted for imaginations upheld by all those "authorities". The logic used is simply a circular argument who’s own premises are without a foundation external of its own conclusions. "It’s true because the data show it to be true".... The only downside? Well, the data must be interpreted in "light" of the conclusions. However, since we know all this to be true anyway, that objection is only mildly, if at all, relevant at this point!
The same holds true for much of the "evolving sciences". Global warming as a result of climate change versus climate change due to global warming or even the ultimate cause of such, natural versus man made; the true causes get obscured by the predisposition to "interpret" selected data in very specific ways in spite of all the data. True, the timing with the industrial revolution is suspicious in and of itself but only in and of itself, without consideration of the rest of the data. To "sample" and/or ignore the rest of the data in favor of making a "quick sell" of certainty, is exactly what is going on presently with all of "science". Ironically, not only is this unscientific but it is the very epitome of looking though a funnel or with blinders and taking "What You See Is What You Get" ( WYSIWYG ), then turn around and calling that approach using all the data, without the funnel or blinders, too simplistic by missing the fact that is or could just all be an illusion in the first place...!?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving-Earth DECEPTION - HOME