I got an e-mail from a truth-seeker, asking about the meaning of the "four corners of the earth", and when I answered that, a further e-mail in which he explained he wanted to know because he believed the "four corners" was the "abode of the most high god" as mentioned in many ancient mythical traditions. He was under the impression that "abode" had not yet been discovered. I answered with the following, which I consider worthwhile posting for the benefit of others (who should also be warned that I am stating the simple fact when I say the great design of the "gods" is responsible for all the ancient mysteries, including the "four corners of the earth" and the "abode, or seat, of the most high"):
Mr. _______,
The "four corners of the earth" is not a specific place, in time or space, and is not the abode of the most high god, mentioned in many mythologies, although the abode, or "seat", of the high god is connected to that celestial frame, of course. Yes, I have already discovered that place, and yes, it is interesting, and its real meaning is of central importance in the design of the "gods". That precise location, as brought out in my book, is the north pole of the ecliptic, the direction in which the solar system is oriented. For a full explanation, you need to read my book, but you can find the central elements of the design discussed in some of my online writings, particularly "Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries", to which you will find a link in my blog post "Challenge To Science III..."
Once you have read the "Design Behind" article, for example, you should know where the "home of the gods" is, and the abode of the high god is the very center of that region. The design is precisely defined, you see, and the answers to all the ancient mysteries are precise.
Every generation has many truth-seekers attracted to the ancient mysteries, and none get very far, being misled by the fantastic stories of the ancient myths, and the continuing stories of modern writers, who themselves have only learned just enough information (and misinformation) to cast themselves as leading lights for others to follow. So I would warn you first not to be too quick to judge anyone as better than others to learn from, because you simply don't know enough yet. Don't focus your attention, or your intellectual favor, on any popular author today, such as Zechariah Sitchin, because he for example also only tells dramatic stories about the "gods"--and only the gods of Sumerian texts (Anu, Ea-Enki, Enlil, etc.) at that. Beware dramatic stories (the fodder of most authors on the ancient mysteries), which only perpetuate the misdirections of ancient myths, and beware any "answers" that are not global, but bound to the limited traditions of this or that civilization or people--such traditions are all one has to work with, at many points (before my discoveries of the real design), but the real answer, as I have verified, transcends geographic and cultural boundaries and refers instead to the entire world, and the common inheritance of all. In short, the "gods" were before man on Earth, and were the single source for all later civilizations in human history; they were also cut off from later mankind, so the latter were so many pockets of orphaned children, who were able to hold on to, and pass on to their children in turn, only childish fragments of the real truth that came before.
I am not trying to be overly dramatic or mysterious, either, with these words. I am open about the real answer, in my writings on the internet: The "gods" (for so they were known to men worldwide) were real; they taught mankind all it knew and inaugurated all that we have inherited--arts, sciences, religions, philosophy, including our appreciation for truth, beauty, justice and virtue); and above all they remade the world, physically, to a great design that functions as the physical repository of the message they wanted later mankind to know, when the design should be rediscovered. I have found and verified that great design, as a hard scientific fact (just at a time when modern science has, through fear of religious intrusion, become dogmatic in denying the possibility of design in or of the natural world). Indeed, having found the answer to all the ancient mysteries, I am confronted by the mystery of an incompetent modern scientific mind, intent on replaying the old religious suppressions in their own way, rather than openly confronting and accepting that great truth, newly recovered after all the trials and tribulations--and abuses--of human history.
Above all else, know that the physical mysteries have lasted so long only because they were bound up with the spiritual mystery of man's existence, from the very beginning of human history. The physical truth of the "gods"--call them rather our true forebears on Earth--has been thoroughly hidden in plain sight, behind that intellectual misdirection. I am a physical scientist by education and long professional experience, and my work has uncovered the physical and mental truth, of the great design left by the "gods"; it does not deny the spiritual, but it cleans off the muck of false spiritualism, magic and mysticism, so long tied to that design, that has been the curse of mankind throughout history. I have found, in more than seven years of trying to introduce the revolutionary new/old knowledge to modern minds, that the muck is hypnotically attractive to those who believe in the spirit, thoroughly abhorrent to those who believe not in that spirit but in science, and thus an effective deterrent to both sides learning the truth. The one side is bound to ancient dogmas, the other to modern dogmas. Anyone who would do better must not only be able to think, but to do so dispassionately, without regard for dogma, and be prepared to recognize the truth where it really is, not where popular or expert opinion would have you concentrate your attention. You must respect both science and spirit as fundamental guides, but don't be misled by the false beliefs others have attached to them; they are both the offspring of overarching meaning and intelligence, and equally worthy. The answer is before you, but still requires sustained effort on your part to study it and know it for yourself.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Man and the Pyramids
The following is a post I made today, commenting on a USA Today story about the pyramids--and especially about graves found next to them--at the Giza complex in Egypt:
The pyramids at Giza (originally pronounced "Jee-za"--as the Arabs still do--or "Jee-tsa", as shown in my book, "The End of the Mystery") were primarily monuments to the "almighty gods" of an earlier age; they were not really about the king (who was only a "Son of God", and temporal representative of the authority of the "gods") and thus they were, originally at least, not meant to be tombs of any man, even an earthly king. The absolute importance of the "gods" to ancient man, and the absolute separation between "man" and "god" from before the beginning of known history, is not today appreciated. Any graves, or tombs, of lesser citizens than the king found next to the pyramids (and use of the pyramid itself as a tomb for an earthly king) would have to postdate the creation of the pyramids by generations, even centuries or millennia, until the original meaning of the monuments had largely disappeared, or degenerated into a rote "sacredness" of the area, as absolute belief in the "gods" waned after the start of earthly kingship. The original monuments on the site, including the Great Sphinx, were probably all carved out of the living rock as the Sphinx was, c. 8700 BC (as shown in my book, and in the online article The Riddle of the Sphinx--Solved). In fact, the original rock here and in other areas around the world was no doubt made by the "gods" when they re-formed the Earth (forget conventional geology, which can be relied on only back to the last deliberate reformation of the landmasses by the "gods"). The predecessor of megalithic blocks in ancient constructions would have been not-yet-hardened sediments that could be easily dug out and molded; and the "gods" probably taught man how to make smaller cement blocks. The French scientist Joseph Davidovits has shown the casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were in fact not hewn stone but man-made cement blocks, clearly a later, much easier technology than rock sculpting or cement formation on a grand scale. Today's Egyptologists, and even alternative researchers, are ignorant of the larger mystery behind the megalithic monuments, and the source of that mystery "in the beginning" (which all the earliest civilizations on Earth looked back to--like orphans--as the "Golden Age" of the "gods").
The pyramids at Giza (originally pronounced "Jee-za"--as the Arabs still do--or "Jee-tsa", as shown in my book, "The End of the Mystery") were primarily monuments to the "almighty gods" of an earlier age; they were not really about the king (who was only a "Son of God", and temporal representative of the authority of the "gods") and thus they were, originally at least, not meant to be tombs of any man, even an earthly king. The absolute importance of the "gods" to ancient man, and the absolute separation between "man" and "god" from before the beginning of known history, is not today appreciated. Any graves, or tombs, of lesser citizens than the king found next to the pyramids (and use of the pyramid itself as a tomb for an earthly king) would have to postdate the creation of the pyramids by generations, even centuries or millennia, until the original meaning of the monuments had largely disappeared, or degenerated into a rote "sacredness" of the area, as absolute belief in the "gods" waned after the start of earthly kingship. The original monuments on the site, including the Great Sphinx, were probably all carved out of the living rock as the Sphinx was, c. 8700 BC (as shown in my book, and in the online article The Riddle of the Sphinx--Solved). In fact, the original rock here and in other areas around the world was no doubt made by the "gods" when they re-formed the Earth (forget conventional geology, which can be relied on only back to the last deliberate reformation of the landmasses by the "gods"). The predecessor of megalithic blocks in ancient constructions would have been not-yet-hardened sediments that could be easily dug out and molded; and the "gods" probably taught man how to make smaller cement blocks. The French scientist Joseph Davidovits has shown the casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were in fact not hewn stone but man-made cement blocks, clearly a later, much easier technology than rock sculpting or cement formation on a grand scale. Today's Egyptologists, and even alternative researchers, are ignorant of the larger mystery behind the megalithic monuments, and the source of that mystery "in the beginning" (which all the earliest civilizations on Earth looked back to--like orphans--as the "Golden Age" of the "gods").
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Light Amid the Shadows
Most people, scientists included, cannot seem to focus upon the evidence presented here, in the hard science posts (see the April and May "Challenge" posts, particularly), for the design of the "gods", long enough to really see it. They have lived so long in the twin shadows of ignorance and doubt, they are bewildered by the light. So here instead is my latest popular article, on NewsBlaze.com, to try to get their attention:
"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".
It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.
"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".
It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men...
Why is so much wrong with the world just now? I submit it is a case of the lesser designs of self-interested people--experts though they may be in their fields--running afoul of one another, and of a greater design. Read
The World Is In the Hands of Children,
at NewsBlaze.com.
The World Is In the Hands of Children,
at NewsBlaze.com.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Time For a Change
Here is another NewsBlaze.com article, from last month:
"Back to School: Things to Ask the Teacher".
And this, on the next generation of American space flight:
Will America Really Return to the Moon?
Spaceflight is near and dear to American hearts and minds, since the incredible 60's -- the true decade of change to all of us who lived through it. The civil rights and feminist movements; the sexual revolution; the Beatles, and the flowering of pop music in nearly as many ways as there were performers; the hippie phenomenon and the environmental movement. Michael Jackson got his start then.
That decade fueled the creativity of the four decades that followed, in so many ways. And it saw America march determinedly and with one success after another towards a close encounter of the third kind with our nearest neighbor in space, the Moon. On July 20, 1969 -- before the decade was out, as John F. Kennedy had exhorted the nation to do early in his presidency -- Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon, with his shipmate Buzz Aldrin soon joining him. And the nation, justly impressed by this feat, saw one Apollo mission after another follow, and it seemed the space franchise had been established and we would just keep heading outward into the solar system -- to Mars and beyond -- just as we had headed west a century before.
The adventurous mood of the 60's was fanned and reflected on television in series like "Star Trek", "The Outer Limits", "UFO" and "Space: 1999" (not to mention one of my personal favorites, the classic British marionette series, "Fireball XL-5"), and in theatres by such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and "The First Men On the Moon".
And then we stopped. (Cue the sound of crickets in an empty field.) Instead of continued manned exploration of the Moon and beyond, our attention wandered to harsher, real societal concerns, such as the exportation of Mideast terrorism to other countries, as in the kidnapping and killing of the entire Israeli Olympic team in 1972. For many of us, the Vietnam War was a sobering, defining time whose message seemed to be the curtailment of the hopes for peaceful progress engendered in the successes of the 60's.
The warring forces of the last 40 years are still with us, their conflict erupting into violent confrontations in many ways. The Conservative Right versus the Liberal Left, succeeding one another on the national stage like an automated seesaw, back and forth like clockwork, and always strenuously fighting more than building. Jews versus Muslims in the Mideast, the seeming archetype, or backdrop, to so much of the world's ill will, particularly since the 1967 Six Day War. The evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate, about which I have written elsewhere, which has become immune to reason and common sense about a real meaning to life, on science's part.
Now we are planning the next generation of spaceflight, and there are arguments on the direction to follow there too, although they are mild indeed compared to the above-mentioned wars between opposing dogmas. NASA is currently committed to going first to the Moon, while Apollo astronauts favor Mars, a position ably championed also by scientists in the Mars Society. Both sides have their reasons, which pretty much boil down to the progressive hopes and energy of the 60's versus the financial realities of today and the foreseeable future, with further debate thrown in over how much we need to learn from colonization of the Moon, just a quarter million miles away, before we tackle year-long trips in weightless conditions on trips to Mars, which is never closer than 35 million miles away from the Earth. That's like comparing an hour's walk through the mall to a 6-day continuous hike across country. Mars can also get as far away as 248 million miles, the equivalent of a 3-week trek on foot, with no rest stops, in our analogy.
NASA currently envisions seven-day missions to the Moon to begin with, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place. "We're not doing flags and footsteps," NASA planning director John Olson has said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."
A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, under the current NASA scenario.
Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, argues that "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," and warns that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."
Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, agrees, and with respect to the supposed learning curve for travel to Mars, says, "This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false. We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" in 1803, to explore the American West.
"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin said further. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."
Meanwhile, the hard realities of research and development of the next-generation engines that will power our future manned flights are not to be denied their say. An August 27th test-firing of the first-stage Ares rocket engine was scrubbed, due to a faulty valve that allowed fuel to drain away from a critical power unit needed to steer the rocket nozzle.
But, considering what the nation and the world have been through, especially in the last eight years, the strength of the voices calling for Mars exploration now is heartening.
"Back to School: Things to Ask the Teacher".
And this, on the next generation of American space flight:
Will America Really Return to the Moon?
Spaceflight is near and dear to American hearts and minds, since the incredible 60's -- the true decade of change to all of us who lived through it. The civil rights and feminist movements; the sexual revolution; the Beatles, and the flowering of pop music in nearly as many ways as there were performers; the hippie phenomenon and the environmental movement. Michael Jackson got his start then.
That decade fueled the creativity of the four decades that followed, in so many ways. And it saw America march determinedly and with one success after another towards a close encounter of the third kind with our nearest neighbor in space, the Moon. On July 20, 1969 -- before the decade was out, as John F. Kennedy had exhorted the nation to do early in his presidency -- Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon, with his shipmate Buzz Aldrin soon joining him. And the nation, justly impressed by this feat, saw one Apollo mission after another follow, and it seemed the space franchise had been established and we would just keep heading outward into the solar system -- to Mars and beyond -- just as we had headed west a century before.
The adventurous mood of the 60's was fanned and reflected on television in series like "Star Trek", "The Outer Limits", "UFO" and "Space: 1999" (not to mention one of my personal favorites, the classic British marionette series, "Fireball XL-5"), and in theatres by such films as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and "The First Men On the Moon".
And then we stopped. (Cue the sound of crickets in an empty field.) Instead of continued manned exploration of the Moon and beyond, our attention wandered to harsher, real societal concerns, such as the exportation of Mideast terrorism to other countries, as in the kidnapping and killing of the entire Israeli Olympic team in 1972. For many of us, the Vietnam War was a sobering, defining time whose message seemed to be the curtailment of the hopes for peaceful progress engendered in the successes of the 60's.
The warring forces of the last 40 years are still with us, their conflict erupting into violent confrontations in many ways. The Conservative Right versus the Liberal Left, succeeding one another on the national stage like an automated seesaw, back and forth like clockwork, and always strenuously fighting more than building. Jews versus Muslims in the Mideast, the seeming archetype, or backdrop, to so much of the world's ill will, particularly since the 1967 Six Day War. The evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate, about which I have written elsewhere, which has become immune to reason and common sense about a real meaning to life, on science's part.
Now we are planning the next generation of spaceflight, and there are arguments on the direction to follow there too, although they are mild indeed compared to the above-mentioned wars between opposing dogmas. NASA is currently committed to going first to the Moon, while Apollo astronauts favor Mars, a position ably championed also by scientists in the Mars Society. Both sides have their reasons, which pretty much boil down to the progressive hopes and energy of the 60's versus the financial realities of today and the foreseeable future, with further debate thrown in over how much we need to learn from colonization of the Moon, just a quarter million miles away, before we tackle year-long trips in weightless conditions on trips to Mars, which is never closer than 35 million miles away from the Earth. That's like comparing an hour's walk through the mall to a 6-day continuous hike across country. Mars can also get as far away as 248 million miles, the equivalent of a 3-week trek on foot, with no rest stops, in our analogy.
NASA currently envisions seven-day missions to the Moon to begin with, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place. "We're not doing flags and footsteps," NASA planning director John Olson has said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."
A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, under the current NASA scenario.
Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, argues that "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," and warns that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."
Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, agrees, and with respect to the supposed learning curve for travel to Mars, says, "This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false. We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" in 1803, to explore the American West.
"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin said further. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."
Meanwhile, the hard realities of research and development of the next-generation engines that will power our future manned flights are not to be denied their say. An August 27th test-firing of the first-stage Ares rocket engine was scrubbed, due to a faulty valve that allowed fuel to drain away from a critical power unit needed to steer the rocket nozzle.
But, considering what the nation and the world have been through, especially in the last eight years, the strength of the voices calling for Mars exploration now is heartening.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Atlantis Details
The truth about Atlantis is one of those mysteries that lay bare a piece of the actual physical process by which the Earth was re-formed and the great design of the "gods" enabled, rather than delineating the design itself. While it is not on the main line of my research into the design, the fact is I was able to find enough hard evidence to identify Atlantis to my satisfaction, and therefore to be worth communicating to the world, which flounders in many speculative (as opposed to hard factual) theories about its location. Here are two more articles on Atlantis I have written, on NewsBlaze.com, with the clearest evidence (but not all, by any means) for what became of it:
Details of Atlantis Disprove Modern Theories, and
Atlantis, Greenland, and Ancient Testimonies.
Of course, the reader should read the article "Atlantis At Last" -- in the July 4th post, just below -- first.
Details of Atlantis Disprove Modern Theories, and
Atlantis, Greenland, and Ancient Testimonies.
Of course, the reader should read the article "Atlantis At Last" -- in the July 4th post, just below -- first.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Challenging Competent Scientists
The following article is also on NewsBlaze.com here, with accompanying images of the dodecahedron pattern of lines followed by the landmasses on the Earth. Those images are also in the April 2009 post "Challenge to Earth Scientists" in this blog.
---------------------------
Hannah Montana Naked, Milankovitch Score on the Web
First, the back-story: I tried my hand at answering a question on answers.yahoo.com a few days ago--a question on planetary orbits that both the asker and the responders seemed to be having trouble focusing upon. Anyone who has ever taught physics knows you get a lot of, shall we say "soft" thinking from non-science majors who take an introductory physics course. That's because physics demands convincing evidence--not glib speculation--and strict rules of logic, not to mention mathematics. Some of those posting on that site were engaging in a fair amount of soft thinking, clearly without realizing it.
The question was, "if the force between the Earth and Sun is constant, why isn't the Earth's orbit a circle instead of an ellipse?" I won't go into the answer; my answer was given 2 thumbs down by viewers, mostly I think because I am a physicist, the question was an elementary one, and these kids--they seemed like kids to me--have evidently been spoon-fed a lot of smooth talk and bad ideas in their science classes.
Chief among these ideas was that planetary orbits change over time according to what is known as Milankovitch theory. Now, I am a physicist, and I don't subscribe to that theory (for reasons to be revealed below); earth scientists, however, do subscribe, and defend it strongly, because they think it "explains" the "ice ages" that are part of the modern scientific canon of holy theories, not to be denied lest you be called a religious idiot, i.e., a creationist rather than a rational person who, by the way, "knows" evolution is a fact.
You can see where this is going--earth and life scientists think their theories are strong enough to be called facts, and they're quite wrong, despite many incompetent physicists who also hotly defend them.
I am not being nice here, because modern scientists, with their holy canon, have not been nice, nor open to legitimate self-correction, for generations, nor have they been competent, particularly recently, in their dogmatic, biased attacks upon critics. Ben Stein even made a movie last year about this well known scientific tyranny, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." To be blunt, evolutionists (in the earth sciences just as much as the life sciences) are the bristly ayatollahs of science, misusing their religiously-taught, religiously-held beliefs.
"Evolution", I might as well tell you here and now, is in fact a robust metaphysical principle, applicable across the full range of human learning, but "undirected evolution", as espoused by modern scientists, is a contradiction in terms, and positively denied by a world of evidence. Milankovitch is one of the subsidiary religious beliefs of most earth scientists, just as epicycles were subsidiary to the planetary circles envisaged by medieval scholars who, inspired for centuries by the empty rhetoric of the universally admired Aristotle, played games with an earth-centered solar system.
Let me cut right through all the intellectual mud that "defenders of science" will want to throw at me. I am a physicist by education and experience, and no doubt of an older, and I think finer, school. I have proved that the surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, largely between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago--which just happens to be the time frame of the last supposed "ice age"-- to enable a great design that was the original, objective motivation for all the exoteric ancient mysteries (as opposed to the esoteric, or spiritual truths, also claimed by wise men and women since "the beginning"); I have found enough answers from the design, to a broad range of such ancient puzzles, to state this as a fact.
But, even more amazing, in the context of what modern science thinks it knows but does not, the Earth shows clear evidence of design that should long ago have checked the wayward advance of the earth and life sciences, into the present huge edifice of speculations piled upon assumptions, and arbitrarily legislated by "authorities" to be facts.
I have previously written about the "Clockwork Moon Science Ignores", for example. I have pointed out in another recent article the clear image of a man's face in the outline and inland features of Africa. I could further point out, and suggest the reader check for him/herself, that there are similar images (often incomplete or tantalizingly vague, but many striking in their recognizability) in the outlines of North America, the St. Lawrence Seaway, South America, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Sweden, Italy, South Asia (from Turkey to Indo-China), Australia, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea, New Zealand, India, Greenland, Antarctica, Arabia, Hudson Bay, and more.
I could point out--and I have many times, in the past 6 years of trying to gain recognition for my discoveries--that almost all of these earth images are uniformly upright on the globe, and so could not have been created by chance continental drift, or any undirected process. I say that as a physicist, confident of my estimations of the probabilities involved, which simply rule out chance formation of the landmasses. The fact that these images are also the original "sacred images" of mankind, worldwide--precisely described in the world's most famous myths--is merely icing on the cake, solidly confirming the basic, readily observable physical facts.
But science is so incompetent right now that no one, apparently, can even do such quantitative calculations, because scientists and their defenders simply don't believe design can be considered in the origin or history of the physical world. This is nothing short of juvenile delinquency on their part, and a gross, worldwide dereliction of scientific duty.
I have put a "Challenge to Earth Scientists" post on my blog, with a clear scientific and visual argument that positively proves design in the layout of the landmasses on Earth. Of course, this simple demonstration immediately invalidates undirected plate tectonics, the central theory of all the earth sciences, as well as the uniformitarian assumption underlying, and critical to, undirected evolution theory, at the center of all the life sciences. I present the pertinent images here, and simply state, and dare any scientist to disprove the statement, that the landmasses of the Earth were deliberately "parked" along their eastern coasts, to follow a strict dodecahedron pattern of lines laid out on the Earth--a pattern specifically and precisely indicated in the "Great Mapping" I found (as I call it).
The odds against chance placement of these landmasses according to that strict dodecahedron pattern, are on the order of a million million to one--that's how precisely, how uniformly, those coasts are separated one from another, and how certain is their deliberate design.
This is simply undeniable by any competent physical scientist: This pattern in the landmasses of the Earth, all by itself, shows that plate tectonics is a huge affectation, a modern myth, ascribed to by science as a matter of religious faith, just as the earth-centered universe once was. There are many scientific critics of plate tectonics (I refer to several in my blog post, "The True Origin of Continental Drift"), but none have been able to garner wide support, and neither they nor the theory's defenders have shown themselves capable of wresting their attention from the minutiae of their specializations, and lifetimes of study, to make the simple observations above, which the Great Design allowed me to make as a mere by-product of that discovery, literally unprecedented in all of known history.
Just that one by-the-way demonstration of the validity of the Great Mapping as an intentional world design, and the central theories of all the earth and life sciences are humbled. Until now, only the creationists have dared to judge these theories so harshly, and been reviled for even their best, most expert judgment. And they have not seen the Great Design, either.
The powers that be always leave the great discoveries for one person to find, before all others. I think it is meant, not to set that person up as a unique genius, but to tell man, in no uncertain terms, that the mind of every single person is of paramount importance in the world, and should be developed and used with great care.
I am not a "creationist", nor an "Intelligent Design" follower. I am an independent research physical scientist, who did my own dispassionate, unprejudiced research, and made world-altering discoveries of the intellectual origin of man on Earth, and I am here to tell the world that such seemingly small things as those soft-headed responders to that question about planetary orbits on yahoo.com, are fundamentally objectionable--blindly assuming Milankovitch theory is true, when it certainly is not; nor were undirected "ice ages" responsible for the carving of the Earth's surface as we see it today.
Nor did "God" do it, at the true beginning of all things. The ancient testimonies of man, worldwide, swore "by all that is holy" that the "gods" came down, and interbreeded with man, and taught him all he knew, and remade the world, and indeed the entire solar system--in the "birth of the new gods", the planets of today, as Greek myth remembered it.
I am an unknown in science, and I try to honestly call myself a competent, honest physical scientist, but until science confronts, and honestly accepts, the Great Design, I tell you it is incompetent working at the frontiers of human knowledge, and its theories will ever be subject to fierce debate--because they are wrong, and worse, wrong-headed.
Never mind calling me egotistical, fellow scientists (as both evolutionists and creationists have done); it is the specific design of the "gods" that tests you, and finds you lacking, when you are told of it and yet deny it, and refuse even to look at it. So many should not be so incompetent, on so clear a point as this; so the test is also obviously (to me) spiritual in nature, and worldwide, and has emerged just now because a fundamental, undeniable truth is nevertheless being denied by modern man: Design of the world.
And finally, as promised in the title: Hannah Montana Naked. She's a beaut, isn't she?
---------------------------
Hannah Montana Naked, Milankovitch Score on the Web
First, the back-story: I tried my hand at answering a question on answers.yahoo.com a few days ago--a question on planetary orbits that both the asker and the responders seemed to be having trouble focusing upon. Anyone who has ever taught physics knows you get a lot of, shall we say "soft" thinking from non-science majors who take an introductory physics course. That's because physics demands convincing evidence--not glib speculation--and strict rules of logic, not to mention mathematics. Some of those posting on that site were engaging in a fair amount of soft thinking, clearly without realizing it.
The question was, "if the force between the Earth and Sun is constant, why isn't the Earth's orbit a circle instead of an ellipse?" I won't go into the answer; my answer was given 2 thumbs down by viewers, mostly I think because I am a physicist, the question was an elementary one, and these kids--they seemed like kids to me--have evidently been spoon-fed a lot of smooth talk and bad ideas in their science classes.
Chief among these ideas was that planetary orbits change over time according to what is known as Milankovitch theory. Now, I am a physicist, and I don't subscribe to that theory (for reasons to be revealed below); earth scientists, however, do subscribe, and defend it strongly, because they think it "explains" the "ice ages" that are part of the modern scientific canon of holy theories, not to be denied lest you be called a religious idiot, i.e., a creationist rather than a rational person who, by the way, "knows" evolution is a fact.
You can see where this is going--earth and life scientists think their theories are strong enough to be called facts, and they're quite wrong, despite many incompetent physicists who also hotly defend them.
I am not being nice here, because modern scientists, with their holy canon, have not been nice, nor open to legitimate self-correction, for generations, nor have they been competent, particularly recently, in their dogmatic, biased attacks upon critics. Ben Stein even made a movie last year about this well known scientific tyranny, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." To be blunt, evolutionists (in the earth sciences just as much as the life sciences) are the bristly ayatollahs of science, misusing their religiously-taught, religiously-held beliefs.
"Evolution", I might as well tell you here and now, is in fact a robust metaphysical principle, applicable across the full range of human learning, but "undirected evolution", as espoused by modern scientists, is a contradiction in terms, and positively denied by a world of evidence. Milankovitch is one of the subsidiary religious beliefs of most earth scientists, just as epicycles were subsidiary to the planetary circles envisaged by medieval scholars who, inspired for centuries by the empty rhetoric of the universally admired Aristotle, played games with an earth-centered solar system.
Let me cut right through all the intellectual mud that "defenders of science" will want to throw at me. I am a physicist by education and experience, and no doubt of an older, and I think finer, school. I have proved that the surface of the Earth was deliberately re-formed, largely between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago--which just happens to be the time frame of the last supposed "ice age"-- to enable a great design that was the original, objective motivation for all the exoteric ancient mysteries (as opposed to the esoteric, or spiritual truths, also claimed by wise men and women since "the beginning"); I have found enough answers from the design, to a broad range of such ancient puzzles, to state this as a fact.
But, even more amazing, in the context of what modern science thinks it knows but does not, the Earth shows clear evidence of design that should long ago have checked the wayward advance of the earth and life sciences, into the present huge edifice of speculations piled upon assumptions, and arbitrarily legislated by "authorities" to be facts.
I have previously written about the "Clockwork Moon Science Ignores", for example. I have pointed out in another recent article the clear image of a man's face in the outline and inland features of Africa. I could further point out, and suggest the reader check for him/herself, that there are similar images (often incomplete or tantalizingly vague, but many striking in their recognizability) in the outlines of North America, the St. Lawrence Seaway, South America, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Sweden, Italy, South Asia (from Turkey to Indo-China), Australia, Borneo, Sulawesi, New Guinea, New Zealand, India, Greenland, Antarctica, Arabia, Hudson Bay, and more.
I could point out--and I have many times, in the past 6 years of trying to gain recognition for my discoveries--that almost all of these earth images are uniformly upright on the globe, and so could not have been created by chance continental drift, or any undirected process. I say that as a physicist, confident of my estimations of the probabilities involved, which simply rule out chance formation of the landmasses. The fact that these images are also the original "sacred images" of mankind, worldwide--precisely described in the world's most famous myths--is merely icing on the cake, solidly confirming the basic, readily observable physical facts.
But science is so incompetent right now that no one, apparently, can even do such quantitative calculations, because scientists and their defenders simply don't believe design can be considered in the origin or history of the physical world. This is nothing short of juvenile delinquency on their part, and a gross, worldwide dereliction of scientific duty.
I have put a "Challenge to Earth Scientists" post on my blog, with a clear scientific and visual argument that positively proves design in the layout of the landmasses on Earth. Of course, this simple demonstration immediately invalidates undirected plate tectonics, the central theory of all the earth sciences, as well as the uniformitarian assumption underlying, and critical to, undirected evolution theory, at the center of all the life sciences. I present the pertinent images here, and simply state, and dare any scientist to disprove the statement, that the landmasses of the Earth were deliberately "parked" along their eastern coasts, to follow a strict dodecahedron pattern of lines laid out on the Earth--a pattern specifically and precisely indicated in the "Great Mapping" I found (as I call it).
The odds against chance placement of these landmasses according to that strict dodecahedron pattern, are on the order of a million million to one--that's how precisely, how uniformly, those coasts are separated one from another, and how certain is their deliberate design.
This is simply undeniable by any competent physical scientist: This pattern in the landmasses of the Earth, all by itself, shows that plate tectonics is a huge affectation, a modern myth, ascribed to by science as a matter of religious faith, just as the earth-centered universe once was. There are many scientific critics of plate tectonics (I refer to several in my blog post, "The True Origin of Continental Drift"), but none have been able to garner wide support, and neither they nor the theory's defenders have shown themselves capable of wresting their attention from the minutiae of their specializations, and lifetimes of study, to make the simple observations above, which the Great Design allowed me to make as a mere by-product of that discovery, literally unprecedented in all of known history.
Just that one by-the-way demonstration of the validity of the Great Mapping as an intentional world design, and the central theories of all the earth and life sciences are humbled. Until now, only the creationists have dared to judge these theories so harshly, and been reviled for even their best, most expert judgment. And they have not seen the Great Design, either.
The powers that be always leave the great discoveries for one person to find, before all others. I think it is meant, not to set that person up as a unique genius, but to tell man, in no uncertain terms, that the mind of every single person is of paramount importance in the world, and should be developed and used with great care.
I am not a "creationist", nor an "Intelligent Design" follower. I am an independent research physical scientist, who did my own dispassionate, unprejudiced research, and made world-altering discoveries of the intellectual origin of man on Earth, and I am here to tell the world that such seemingly small things as those soft-headed responders to that question about planetary orbits on yahoo.com, are fundamentally objectionable--blindly assuming Milankovitch theory is true, when it certainly is not; nor were undirected "ice ages" responsible for the carving of the Earth's surface as we see it today.
Nor did "God" do it, at the true beginning of all things. The ancient testimonies of man, worldwide, swore "by all that is holy" that the "gods" came down, and interbreeded with man, and taught him all he knew, and remade the world, and indeed the entire solar system--in the "birth of the new gods", the planets of today, as Greek myth remembered it.
I am an unknown in science, and I try to honestly call myself a competent, honest physical scientist, but until science confronts, and honestly accepts, the Great Design, I tell you it is incompetent working at the frontiers of human knowledge, and its theories will ever be subject to fierce debate--because they are wrong, and worse, wrong-headed.
Never mind calling me egotistical, fellow scientists (as both evolutionists and creationists have done); it is the specific design of the "gods" that tests you, and finds you lacking, when you are told of it and yet deny it, and refuse even to look at it. So many should not be so incompetent, on so clear a point as this; so the test is also obviously (to me) spiritual in nature, and worldwide, and has emerged just now because a fundamental, undeniable truth is nevertheless being denied by modern man: Design of the world.
And finally, as promised in the title: Hannah Montana Naked. She's a beaut, isn't she?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)