Skip to content

Apollo witnessed UFOs on the Moon

“They’re Parked on The Side of the Crater – They’re Watching Us!” – When Neil Armstrong Landed On The Moon

Published on May 13, 2017  By Arjun Walia

“There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief” – Neil Armstrong (source)

It wasn’t long ago that the Russian government called for an international investigation into the U.S. moon landings regarding missing samples and photos not released to the public. This created a new wave of interest into what really happened when the U.S. went up there, and led some to question if they even went there at all. The topic is filled with a number of interesting facts and statements from credible people that make one thing abundantly clear: Something fishy is happening on the moon, and we’re not being told about it.
This uncertainty has been made apparent by various sources, which include multiple Apollo astronauts, academicians, and high ranking military whistleblowers, not to mention official photos taken by NASA. According to Bob Dean, an United States Army Command Sergeant Major who also served at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) of NATO as an intelligence analyst, more footage exists, erased and hidden all these years, which we have never been told about:

Ladies and gentlemen, my government, NASA, which many of us in the United States say stands for Never A Straight Answer, proceeded to erase 40 rolls of film of the Apollo Program — the flight to the Moon, the flight around the Moon, the landings on the Moon, the walking guys here and there. They erased, for Christ’s sake, 40 rolls of film of those events. Now we’re talking about several thousand individual frames that were taken that the so-called authorities determined that you did not have a right to see.
Oh, they were ‘disruptive,’ ‘socially unacceptable,’ ‘politically unacceptable.’ I’ve become furious. I’m a retired Command Sergeant Major. I was never famous for having a lot of patience. (source)

We will get into more intriguing facts from sources that would be considered credible later in the article. More points will be made as to why so many people are starting to wonder if there is actually, or was, an alien presence on the moon.
These points make it easier to consider the lore that surrounds the moon landing.

Perhaps one of the most interesting is what Neil Armstrong communicated to Houston when we landed on the moon.
According to multiple sources, after landing, the Apollo astronauts transmitted that they were being watched by very large extraterrestrial vehicles.

Where Does This Claim Come From?

One source is Dr. Steven Greer, founder of The Disclosure Project and The Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI). Greer was responsible for bringing forth high level military whistleblowers from all ranks to testify about the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon. He’s also had high level meetings within the Pentagon about this issue, which was verified by Apollo 14 astronaut and 6th man to walk on the moon, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, in Greer’s film Sirius Disclosure.
Edgar is one of multiple NASA astronauts who have made some eye-opening comments about the extraterrestrial presence.

According to Greer, from a blog post a couple years ago: If this link doesn’t work, you can check out a video of him speaking about the experience here.
Close friends and very close family members of both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have separately told me that indeed there were numerous, large UFOs around the crater where the Lunar Module landed and that these were seen by both Armstrong and Aldrin. I have also spoken to military officers that have seen the footage of this event- but it has never been made public.
One close family member of Buzz Aldrin told me “It is not my place to out Buzz on this- someday if he can speak about it, he will…”

Neil Armstrong became somewhat of a recluse after the moon landing, and rarely spoke of the historic event. His friends and family have told me that this is because he was a man of such integrity that he simply did not want to be put in a position to lie to the public about such a momentous encounter. How tragic that our heroes have been placed in this untenable situation!
When we were organizing The Disclosure Project a few years ago, I asked one of Neil Armstrong’s friends if Armstrong would come to Washington to brief members of Congress at the 1997 Congressional briefing we organized in April of that year. I was told that Armstrong wished he could –but that if he spoke about what really happened during the moon landing, that Neil Armstrong, his wife, and children would all be killed. It was put to me this bluntly. (additional source)

Another source is a former NASA employee, Ken Johnston. Johnston was a Boeing engineer and a former fighter-jock and test pilot for Grumman Aerospace. He was also a marine and an F-4 pilot, as well as a NASA employee, working as the chief Lunar Module test pilot at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. According to James Oberg, a U.S. space journalist, UFO skeptic, and space historian, “Johnston seems to be a sweet human being who did honorable service to his country in the military and in the Apollo program.”
Above is a picture of him wearing his gear, taken from a documentary in which he appeared that also featured Buzz Aldrin and other notable NASA colleagues. In the documentary, he reveals:

“While Neil and Buzz were on the Lunar surface, Neil switched to the medical channel, and spoke directly with the chief medical officer saying, they’re here, they’re parked on the side of the crater, they’re watching us.” (Source: 34 second mark)

Johnston is referring to a story put out by former NASA employee Otto Bender. According to Dr. Michael Salla, PhD., on a post written on his website, Bender confirmed that HAM radio operators had intercepted these VHF signals that were transmitted from Apollo 11, the ones that were kept from the public.
Apparently, this is how it went:

Mission Control: What’s there ? Mission Control calling Apollo 11.
Apollo 11: These babies are huge, sir … enormous….Oh, God, you wouldn’t believe it! I’m telling you there are other space craft out there… lined up on the far side of the crater edge… they’re on the moon watching us. (source)

William Tompkins and Admiral Larry Marsh.
As a teenager Tompkins had an eye for detail and loved to create Navy ship and submarine models. The Navy took interest in his capabilities and recruited him to do work on advanced technology projects. Recently, he has come forward with claims, as many others have, about clandestine Black Budget operation programs.

According to Tompkins:
The Landing Module (LEM) actually impacted the Moon surface in the Sea of Tranquility Crater, which had tremendous size vehicles parked around part of its rim. When astronaut Neil Armstrong made that First Step for Man on the Moon he looked up to the edge of the crater and said to mission control: “There are other ships here, they are enormous.”
The public did not hear that statement or see the massive alien starships. Armstrong panned his camera in a 360 degree motional all around the crater and the CIA then classified the information as way above top secret. (source)

Another source for this story comes from Timothy Good, one of the world’s leading UFO researchers, who has lectured at universities, schools, and many organizations, including the Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences, the Royal Canadian Military Institute, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Naval Air Reserve Branch, the House of Lords All-Party UFO Study Group, and the Oxford and Cambridge Union societies.

He says that a former member of MI6 revealed her conversation with Neil Armstrong at a NASA conference, when he confirmed that there were “other” spacecraft on the Moon when Apollo 11 landed in 1969.
Armstrong also confirmed that the CIA was behind the coverup. He also goes into more detail about it in this interesting lecture from 2013.
So you see, this story has many different sides to it, and given all of the information that’s now available in the public domain regarding UFOs and extraterrestrial life, it’s really not hard to believe, especially when we already have some compelling information about the moon.

Why The Above Story Could Very Well Be True

Maurice Chatelain, whose expertise allowed him to invent radio equipment used to go to the moon (here is an example of one of his twelve patents), has revealed that, “at no time when the astronauts were in space were they alone. They were under constant surveillance by UFOs.”
This statement has been backed up by several astronauts, one of them being Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon:

“Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered. . . . We are not alone in the universe, they have been coming here for a long time. I happen to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we have been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real.” (source) (source) (source)

It’s not only agency astronauts, but agency insiders as well. For example, Dr. John Brandenburg, the Deputy Manager of the Clementine Mission to the Moon, which was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and NASA, has also made some fascinating revelations. The mission discovered water at the Moon’s poles in 1994. (Source: page 16 of 18)(source)(source) But, according to Brandenburg, the Clementine Mission had an ulterior agenda:

[The Clementine Mission was] “a photo reconnaissance mission basically to check out if someone was building bases on the moon that we didn’t know about. Were they expanding them? . . . Of all the pictures I’ve seen from the moon that show possible structures, the most impressive is a picture of a miles wide recto-linear structure. This looked unmistakably artificial, and it shouldn’t be there. As somebody in the space defense community, I look on any such structure on the moon with great concern because it isn’t ours, there’s no way we could have built such a thing. It means someone else is up there.” (source)

George Leonard, a NASA scientist and photo analyst, has obtained a number of official NASA photographs of the Moon which he published in his book Somebody Else Is On The Moon. Although the photos are small in size and their resolution is not up to today’s standards, they show details of original, massive prints.
Far more compelling than these photos, then, are his verified NASA credentials and his statements about what was found on the Moon. And he’s not the only one with a credible background trying to tell the world the truth about the Moon and the photos that were taken from the Apollo missions.

Dr. Norman Bergrun, a mechanical engineer who worked for Ames Research Laboratory, NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, now known as Lockheed Martin, has accused the agency of “garbling” photos that the agency does not want the public to see. He has also stated that there are a number of large UFOs out there. You can view some of his publications for NASA, where he worked for more than a decade, here, and watch that interview here.

There are also studies to consider. Members of the Society For Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) have recently published a paper in the Journal of Space Exploration about certain features on the far side of the moon that appear in the crater Paracelsus C. titled: “Image Analysis of Unusual Structures on the Far Side of the Moon in the Crater Paracelsus C,”
It argues that these features might be artificial in origin, meaning someone other than a human being built them and put them there. You can read more about that here.

“Shortly after I retired from the Air-Force, and I still was maintaining contacts with friends and associates at the various bases and one Col Parker in the Air Defense Command, the Space Command . . . mentioned an incident which I later confirmed. A spacecraft went to the rescue of Apollo 13, and they accompanied Apollo 13 on their voyage around the moon and back to Earth, and on two occasions they thought they might have to transfer the crew to their spacecraft. But they saw them safely back to the Earth.”

The quote above comes from Colonel Ross Dedrickson, who, in the 1950s, was responsible for maintaining the inventory of the nuclear weapon stockpile for the AEC and accompanying security teams checking out the security of the weapons, among many other duties throughout his career.  He is one of the hundreds of military whistleblowers to give some very interesting testimony.  [link to his interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECRA49nkG1Y]

Help Support Collective Evolution

Advertisements

The Saqqara Stone Vessel Sham

We’ve been scammed, sort of, by silence and false impressions.  Even by ambiguity, and perhaps outright lies.  Maybe all of the above.  Who knows. But the truth has been uncovered as it is seen right in the Cairo Museum, or some museum, not sure which.

We have heard in numerous videos how someone (Flinders Petrie) found 30,000 masterfully carved stone vessels, -another says 20,000, -or thousands and thousands, in a pyramid at Saqqara.  Wow! we marveled!  That surely must have required a major factory with diamond tipped tools and lathes (i.e., evidence of E.T. fabrication with tools that the Egyptians did not have of their own making.  Well,….not so much.

The highfalutin impression that those claims made were mind-blowing, but were they true?  Or does the truth blow those claims away?  Well, it seems it’s the latter.
Here’s the man who was the most thorough Egyptologist for at least a generation, maybe more, his name being William Mathew Flinders Petrie, along with some of his finds:

Capture32
…and here’s what just one aisle of his museum looks like, the opposite matching it:
london-holborn139
Do you see many heavy igneous stone vessels like those below?
Capture15Capture18
No, that is not what is noticeable on those shelves, instead what we see are mostly clay pots, unlike what the authors of those videos blithely claimed.  Well, something isn’t/ wasn’t making sense, until I saw this one among a nice collection of Egyptian vessels:
Capture17b
Capture16b
We have no way of knowing how many of the discovered vessels were made this way, but judging by the shear number of them, it must have been almost all.

With an enormous amount of time and patience, Egyptians actually could very slowly grind down and grind out a block of igneous rock to shape it and hollow it into a beautiful, and valuable vessel, -no doubt only affordable by the very rich.  But what they could not do was produce them in huge numbers, …on a lath (even if they had one) because of the handles.

Handles cannot be in the way of a lathe’s cutting edge, so that means that they had to have been added after the vessel was formed. Of course that is impossible with stone since it is not malleable.  But clay is, and was for the craftsmen who figured out a way to make their fired-clay pots / vessels / vases look just like stone.  They discovered a way to make a coating of liquidy stone to give their clay a stone ‘skin’.  And it lasts a really long time if not banged around.

This fact does not end here.  It has FAR greater implications, since photographic evidence shows that they learned to do the very same thing with sculpture, including hard stone sculpture that is (in some cases) probably not hard stone underneath.  AND they could do it on a massive scale as I’ve pointed out in:

https://sciencetheory.wordpress.com/2019/08/15/colossi-of-memnon-stone-vs-geopolymer-concrete/

But they had other options as well, namely creating a sculpture entirely of cast geopolymer stone concrete used as an enduring version of their clay sculpture, -which could be given FAR greater detail and impossible patterns of lines and stripes.

And now, for a little desert:
Capture28b

So what does logic tell you?

 

Colossi of Memnon; Stone vs Geopolymer Concrete

I suspect that the minds of observers are tricked when observing the Colossi of Memnon, just as they were thousands of years ago when they were newish, but in a slightly different way.

Today they appear quite different than in their glorious past when they were both essentially identical in appearance and grandeur, but then, as now, things were not, as today they are not, what they seem to be.  In fact they appear to be significantly different.

That fact may escape one’s notice if one first examines the one on the left, and only later takes a look at the one on the right, a -cursory look that does not venture into comparing the two.

But if one does compare the two, one can grow a bit irritated if trying to figure out what is seen because what is seen does not seem to make sense.  Why not?  Because they are both innately different in construction methods.

One, the one on the left, was made “the old fashioned way”, while the one on the right was made via a brilliant short-cut way that saved an enormous amount of effort, even though it also was enormously laborious to create.

What exactly am I saying?  How were they different?  Well, this is how they were different:
The one on the left was probably carved out of a single gigantic piece of stone, while the one on the right was sort of counterfeited by not carving it out of stone but molding it over a stone-block base using geopolymer cement to form a sculpted stone concrete ‘sculpture’.

Now let’s go to the photographic evidence which became very clear this morning when I found a few very high resolution photos that show things  (close-up compared to the tons of small photos everywhere).  We’ll start with the right one.

Colossi.of.Memnon-67

Colossi.of.Memnon-67b

This one, the one on the right, was literally striped of its outer ‘skin’ that hid its true interior constitution. That skin was man-made and thus more vulnerable to the forces that attacked them both.

Colossi.of.Memnon-68b

Colossi.of.Memnon-leg

Colossi_of_Memnon-right-one-chest

Now let’s compare that to the one on the left.  It does not have a geopolymer concrete plaster coating or ‘skin’.  What you see is what you get, through and through. But I suspect that the left ear and surrounding area are a much later plaster repair and not original.

 

Colossi_of_Memnon_R01-50

Notice that all of the fracture lines are at an angle which means they are natural fracture lines in natural stone since they are not horizontal like blocks are.

Colossi_of_Memnon_leftt one

 

 

Colossi_of_Memnon_left one-base

damn typo….

Colossi_of_Memnon-both.jpg

Lastly, and equally surprising, or more, there’s this one:
Colossi_of_Memnon_left-one--gash
It sure looks like a powerful laser weapon burned a groove right into the stone. Notice no fracture lines.  Perhaps it was used as a means to judge how hard the target was, and thus the main weapon could be properly calibrated to employ the proper amount of energy for that hardness of stone.

What do you think?

Capture19

The E.T. Tech vs Primitive Tech Debate Pt. 2

Nobody Knows
@Adrien Nash I don’t need to disprove the claim that aliens landed on earth, made megaliths for fun and then left because it’s the most asinine explanation possible.
You want to pretend aliens visited Earth to play with stones. Just listen to how stupid that sounds. You simply refuse to accept that the most logical, intelligent and reasonable explanation is possible
For that “theory,” and I use the term quite loosely in this case, to be supported you have to prove that aliens exist, that they visited earth, that they created the megaliths and then that they left no traces behind. You can’t prove any of those points, making your theory useless.

Nash:
“I don’t need to disprove the claim that aliens …”; “…visited Earth to play with stones.”

Evidence of the paucity of one’s position appears when resort is made to erecting straw men which are easily knocked down. Yet you’ve resorted to that very tactic. How pathetic.
Your expressed attitude toward the very thought of extra-terrestrials reveals an amazing ignorance of a huge body of facts and testimonies going back 75 years. Where the hell have you been that you’ve missed all of it?? I suggest you get yourself up to snuff at my website: https://sciencetheory.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/apollo-witnessed-ufos-on-the-moon/
and this: https://sciencetheory.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/government-imposed-ufo-secrecy/
Here’s a quote from the above page:
Neil Armstrong’s Apollo 11 press conference statement: “It’s the beginning of a new age.” -was immediately followed by a pronounced frown. Why???? Followed by years of silence.

Capture19
“Why did he refuse interviews? Do you realize this man spoke publicly about his “trip to the moon” exactly 3 times during the entire rest of his life?” …25 years later he stated:

“There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief.”

Allow me to translate. There are ‘ideas’ that have never entered the minds of the people of the world. Those ideas are just sitting out there waiting to be discovered and revealed.
“Breakthroughs available”, -not ‘potential breakthroughs possibly available’.
The statement is not conditional or couched in hypothetical terms. It is stated as fact.

But those breakthroughs are only available to those who can see past the “layer”s that protect the psyches of humans from the “truth” that lies beneath. Why does ‘truth’ have to spare us from itself with layers of protection???
Because of our ingrained concepts about reality and how limited it is in our eyes.

“There are places to go beyond belief.” Those are not the words of a dreamer, or of imagination but instead are the words of experiential knowledge. He knew what he was saying and that it was not a wish or a fiction but a literal fact. He knew of places, real places and they were far beyond anything that we can imagine.
Describing them would be futile since no one would be able to believe the description, but he believed it because he had either seen things with his own eyes or he had heard things from men who had. AN

MrAchile13:
It is a circular argument. You need a third argument in order for it not to be, like an actual tool to be found, or for the process to be recorded in detail on a ancient scroll. Take a look again at the structure of the argument. A explains B and B explains A, without any C being involved.

Nash:  “It is a circular argument. A explains B and B explains A,”
The problem with that analogy is that nothing that is a product of human technology and human psychology explains B and yet B exists nevertheless. ‘A’ does not make that so, it just is. So if A is found to offer an explanation for ‘B’ then it does not require evidence in order for that explanation to be logical and therefore reasonable.

Your approach is to seek substantiation but that is not something that can be provided. Only that which exists and that which did not exist to produce that which does exists are all we have to go on.
So we either accept a logical but unprovable explanation or we are left with no explanation at all even though one is staring us in the face. To make that choice is a failure of nerve and a subservience to a homo sapien centric universe view. I reject that view as inadequate to the facts that are known about the past and the present.

MrAchile13:  I’m not sure how they got them out of the quarry.
Pliny tells us that they dug a canal under the obelisk and introduced boats under it. There is still no evidence of advanced technology used. The movement is attested by brute force and levers.
Wooden rollers have been found, the bigger the load the bigger the roller you can use. Pulleys also have been found.

Nash:
“I’m not sure how they got them out of the quarry. There is still no evidence of advanced technology used.”
Do you see what you did there? First you mention that it is unknown how they did it, but then you add that there is no evidence of advanced tech, implying that ‘no evidence’ means that no advanced tech was used otherwise there would be evidence.

Why does primitive tech get embraced with no supportive evidence but advanced tech gets rejected on the same basis?? That is logically inconsistent.
“Wooden rollers have been found, the bigger the load the bigger the roller you can use”

Not true. Huge logs cannot be man-handled as can reasonably-sized logs. And the logs had to be hardwood because softer woods would be crushed by massive weight. And hard woods are much heavier than soft woods.
“Pulleys also have been found” Not surprising. The Greeks and Romans ruled Egypt for hundreds of years and they had iron and pulleys, so their discovery means nothing to early dyastic and pre-dynatic Egypt.

 

MrAchile13:
“The Romans had no modern tools, when I say that, I mean modern, as after XIX century. If it’s 2000 years old, it’s not modern. The average Egyptian monolith is around 200-300 tons and there are 4 or 5 statues of 1,000 tons.”

Nash:
“The Romans had no modern tools”
Not so. I guess you haven’t seen the documentary on Roman surgical tools invented by Galen. Do a search for: Roman surgical tools and techniques
15 Ancient Roman Inventions We Still Use
www.historyly.com/rome-history/ancient-roman-inventions-used-today/2
Sep 06, 2016 · If Roman inventions in surgery hadn’t been done, we wouldn’t have survived healthily even for a day. Yes, this civilization invented many techniques in surgery and medicine. Romans pioneered in developing hundreds of modern surgical tools that remain in use till today.

“there 4 or 5 statues of 1000 tons.” Indeed there are, but there are no reasonable explanations or demonstrations as to how such weights could be move from the quarry to their temple location. If you know of one please inform us.
“The [Serapeum] sarcophagus can be worked by an entire team.”
You’ve started out on the wrong foot. You used the singular when the issue is the plural, -as in 24 gigantic stone boxes. Not only is no known human means of producing them evident, but neither is there any conceivable reason to have even made them for human purposes.
It seems you lack a basic knowledge of their size. They are too wide, too deep and too long for any technique of primitive technology.

“Why would they lift anything? Rolling the lid into place is easier.”
You forgot what you read. I wrote not of putting the lids on but of taking them off. The boxes were made to contain valuables but were all found empty. The makers emptied them at some point.

How did they lift a 30 ton lid inside a confined space? We cannot do that even today without advanced technology. Also, nothing can explain why the INSIDE is glass smooth when humans would never do that, as seen in Egyptian sarcophagi.

MrAchile13:
I believe that modern masons would readily accept such a task as replicating the Serapeum sarcophagi, if their life would depend on it. Also, how do you know that no stone mason would accept replicating them? [Chris Dunn asked one, and it was laughable to him, simply not done ever.] The sarcophagus can be worked by an entire team.
The most time consuming procedure is the emptying of the interior. We know they used drilling for that (as attested by the drill marks inside the sarcophagus of Khufu).

Perhaps for a sarcophagus that big they could drill the inner edges, pound the underside (like in the case of the unfinished obelisk) and then snap the core. I don’t know, but how you empty it would basically dictate the amount of time.

Nash: “pound the underside, like the unfinished obelisk” From where??? inside? There is no inside until the interior stone is removed.  Even if a channel on each side was somehow dug, the center could not be snapped because its mass would require an amount of force greater than the strength of the walls. THEY would snap first.
Also, there is zero evidence of any core drill in the world that could drill 5-6 feet deep into granite…or anything else.
Also, Chris Dunn’s exact measurements of the angles of the boxes showed them to be perfect in every way in relationship to each other.  Such precision would have require extremely precise instruments to measure and tools to achieve.

“It has been experimentally proven that you can move heavy stones by using dolerite balls. I don’t know the details of the experiments, but it’s a possibility. Why would they lift anything? Rolling the lid in to place is easier. Some of the lids have lever holes. It is well attested that the Egyptians used sand to lower heavy loads. Surely, we don’t know the details, but the evidence points towards advanced engineering not advanced technology.”

Nash:
“It has been experimentally proven that you can move heavy stones by using dolerite balls. ”
No doubt. But the circumstances would have to be near perfect. All balls of the same size, and an extended ground surface of hard stone (or else the balls would simply embed into soft limestone or crack and break up sandstone).

MrAchile13:
“megalithic polygonal walls made without a technology to weaken/soften molecular bonds?” There is no evidence of this. Evidence shows that the Peruvian stones were hammered. You can fit the stones together as long as you carved them specifically to fit the next stone. Great precision was attained in the whole antiquity, way before Incas (Just look at Egypt, Greece or Rome).”

Nash:
Re Sacsayhuaman: -‘…made with a technology to weaken/soften molecular bonds’
MrAchile13: “There is no evidence of this.”
There is no evidence of anything. Hammer marks? They are irrelevant. What is evident is that the human mind would never conceive of building walls like those found at Sacsayhuaman, nor would E.T. minds either.
They are the creation of advanced autonomous Artificial Intelligence robotic construction machines with molecular-bond weakening and stone-slicing technology. Only computer-controlled machines could or would come up with such designs and have the means to easily and quickly produce them.
Humans cannot mentally scan hundreds or thousands of surfaces and conform them to other surfaces. But 3-D scanners can, and did. That is a leap of logic that actually makes perfect sense once you considerate its real-world application. And that application includes the factor of GREAT WEIGHT!
Unless you want to claim that they were made by huge giants then you lack an explanation as to how so many massive stones could have been perfectly conformed to each other along with being raised and placed into position.
Logic argues that all massive polygonal, megalithic, non-uniform hard stones that were fitted with perfect precision to each other were not the product of sentient beings unless you want to call robots sentient.
~~~~~
MrAchile13:
“‘vaults to hold massive amounts of Nubian gold’ Where is the evidence of this?”

Nash:
There is no evidence, but where was the evidence for Einstein’s theories of relativity? Lack of evidence does not mean anything. But what there is is irrefutable:
The boxes were made for a very, as in VERY! important purpose, and nothing was more important to the makers than what they were planning to put inside for safe storage. They were not made for any reason other than a practical reason as evidenced by the total lack of any attribution carved into them. So tell me, what is more important than gold and heavy rare-earth metals and precious gems? Name something practical if you can think of something.

MrAchile13:
“Why would I believe they stored gold in them, if there is no evidence of it? Egyptians had plenty of gold and they didn’t store it in sarcophagi.
Why would anyone polish the interior if it was meant only for depositing gold? Why would they polish only some of them? Why would they abandon some of them on the causeway? Also, there are inscriptions on multiple sarcophagi.”

Nash:
What?? You know full well that I was not referencing Egyptians so why do you pretend that I did? The Egyptians did NOT create the boxes. If you want to be respectable then you must prove any claim that they did, along with your utterly baseless claim that they are sarcophagi.
As for me and ‘respectability’, I don’t care about being respectable. I’m only interested in being logical.
Yes, the Egyptians had plenty of gold, enough to leave plenty in the tombs.
The boxes were not ‘polished’. Varnish is not polish. There is evidence of a liquid having been used to coat/seal them, and it would have been an epoxy resin that produced a glassy finish.  But what you’ll learn from looking at thousands of images of temples and such places world-wide, many of them feature stonework that is vitrified; glassy on the surface.  That are clear evidence of the existence of such a technology, so there’s no reason to assume that those who made the Serapeum boxes did not also possess it.

There was only one box that never made it to its niche, #24, and that was because something ended the work before it was completed, like the disasters at Tanis and the Osireion…and other locations across the planet. Major works suddenly stopped, including work on the Giza temples.
Only one box has hieroglyphics crudely scratched into the surface. No thinking observer thinks that that very crude etching was done by the box makers.
That being said, there is one box with perfectly embossed symbols, which is an anomaly. I suggest the possibility that stone-softening equipment was used on that surface to make it like the clay that cuneiform writing was done on.
Two things are certain: the Egyptians never had the technology, nor a motive, nor the psychology to produce boxes like no others on the face of the entire Earth, and whatever the reason was for making them it was to store valuables of enormous worth, and in a way that would precluded theft.
As before, I invite you again to propose what the objects were for which the boxes were created. Tell us what the Egyptians had that was worthy of such an impossible effort?
They had nothing. But E.T. colonists did. They had tools and equipment and precious rare-earth metals that, like Columbus & spices, prompted them to span a great distance to obtain them.
~~~~~~
​Nash to: Real M; not having seen any good images of the ‘relieving chamber’ granite blocks [which might all be rough ‘cut’ -or split] I figure that any iron available to Egyptian sculptors was used exclusively for royally commissioned statues.
Did they have enough iron  to create tools to produce the granite walls and ceiling of the ‘king’s chamber’? We can never know but we can logically doubt it. Still, they could have imported an unknown amount.
~~~~~
MrAchile13 @Adrien Nash
As long as I give you the correct citation, that can be found, it’s not my concern how you get to it. That’s how scientific citation works. My job is to give the accurate citation. By the way, you can search it on google scholar, or on libraries, either physical or virtual. I can’t understand why would you complain that I gave a citation that you consider hard to find, since it’s an actual citation [-a book that sells for $57.00!] and you gave not one, besides the geo-polymer one.
The person who wrote this article seems to be unaware of the archaeological record and experiments regarding the working of hard stone with stone tools. The geo-polymer theory simply ignores the fact that people quarried stones with stone tools. We have the quarries which show that quarrying was done in blocks,

It has been proven that stone tools can work hard stone, we have traces of tools used for cutting, carving , pounding etc, on the actual stone objects, we have ancient sources depicting movement/carving of stone objects, we have lever holes and bosses, drag marks etc. all of which would be absent in the case of a cast geo-polymer block. Why do you simply ignore the extensive archaeological record?
There are unfinished blocks at Pumapunku, showing the carving process, which would be illogical for a cast block. Also, why would they cast blocks? All the way since the Romans, concrete was used for casting the whole area of the structure (like the dome of the Pantheon), not blocks. There are no ancient sources documenting block casting (correct me if I’m wrong)  [I doubt he is wrong, since it was a closely held guild secret worth a lot of future employment.]

MrAchile13:  There is no debate that masons of old performed remarkable feats of achievement by shear effort and tenacity, but that fact has no impact on other facts that demonstrate feats that no group is known to have attempted or every been able to achieve.  Even conceptually, some things are just ridiculous to contemplate, and that is why it is 100% sane to not believe that primitive masons of old did anyway.
“why would they cast blocks?”  Because…1. they could, and quite easily, and 2. because they were intent on producing highly detailed results.  But I shouldn’t call the “H” blocks highly detail because they are not when compared to what was produced in India.  Their accomplishments were 100 times more detailed, and they were all cast in geopolymer stone concrete, which is evident in many photos.  Entire incredible temples are castings and not carving in stone.  Meaning they were carved in clay and then molds were made.
~~~~~~~

~ ~ ~ ~

MrAchile13: @Adrien Nash As I said, long internal 90 degrees angles are possible with the use of obsidian. It has been proven. Check the published source I mentioned. There are examples at Tihuanaco showing this kind of long 90 degree ridges in the process of making. It shows the different levels of polishing. It was a process in layers and is confirmed both by experiments and by the archaeological record.
Take a look at the Greek and Roman statues and sarcophagi, which are just as precise as the Egyptian ones. Even more so, their statues are more complex then the Egyptian ones. Denys Stocks used flint to carve 3D hieroglyphs in granite. The results have been published, including photos.

I can tell you that Roman technology was not only capable of quarrying the stones at Baalbek, but was capable of moving and placing them, but you refuse to admit the possibility. That’s a failure on your part to understand what just one ancient culture was capable of.
The Baalbek stones were moved a couple hundred meters, not an astonishing distance to move massive blocks, so it’s not unreasonable to argue that they could and did move them.
They moved smaller blocks longer distances for the simple fact that it was easier. Baalbek doesn’t provide any engineering difficulty since they aren’t being raised a significant height, they didn’t get moved a significant distance and the Romans could easily move those blocks.
That would be why the accepted origin of the Baalbek stones doesn’t start in outer space, but on earth, with humans, using ancient technology.
All the evidence supports the current belief so when people like you come along and propose aliens as the explanation, you get laughed at.

Nash:
“I can tell you that Roman technology was not only capable of quarrying the stones at Baalbek, but was capable of moving and placing them”.
That is a claimed backed by nothing.
Romans never demonstrated the capability of quarrying or moving 1,000 ton blocks. No civilization ever has. So you are just flat out making crap up.

There are no records of such a feat anywhere. Also, the Romans lived thousands of years after super-megalithic blocks were used and they had tools that did not exist far back in pre-history.
“…not an astonishing distance to move massive blocks so it’s not unreasonable to argue that they could and did move them.”
The two have no connection whatsoever. And you can’t verbalize one. In your dogmatic inflexibility you’ve resorted to defective logic, but “Correlation does not equal causation”.
The proximity of the quarry to the site does not connect the blocks to the Romans in any way. The Romans came thousands of years later.

“and the Romans could easily move those blocks” Based on what record? None. The Romans never moved such blocks because it was far beyond their capability. Prove otherwise or retract your claim. We are talking about facts here.

You made a factual claim, now back it up. But that is not possible. Why did the Romans build their temple columns from multiple slices stacked on top of each other? Because each slice was damn heavy. But guess what? Someone imported Red granite from Aswan to Baalbek and formed cylindrical columns with it, columns of single pieces. Why would the Romans have done that when that was not how they made columns? They didn’t have a huge powered stone-cutting lath.
“All the evidence supports the current belief…”. That could be true if there actually was any evidence, but there isn’t. That is a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Why the fantasy and denialism?
~~~~~
@Adrien Nash You’re married to the opinion that aliens created the great works of the ancients. Why can’t you accept the facts that “aliens did it” is simply a sign of a small mind incapable of admitting that human’s ancestors weren’t stupid and lazy.

Nash:
“humans ancestors weren’t stupid and lazy.”
I agree 100%! And never gave any indication otherwise. But what they were not was magicians or creators of great works with purely primitive technology. I’m convinced (based on the evidence) that they DID possess advanced technology and they used it to create astonishing works, but they did not create the technology itself nor come by the knowledge that came with it by any known historical evolution.

The important thing is not ‘who create great creations of antiquity’ but ‘by what means were they possible?’ Primitive means or advanced means? Evidence exists that could not be the result of primitive means so that only leaves means that we would use today or that we still do not even possess.
That being said, I DO believe that some things, mostly great walls and such, WERE the creation of E.T.s indirectly since they were not the product of the E.T.s themselves but of their super-computer-controlled autonomous A.I. construction robots.
As for what I’m “married to”, it is not my opinions or theories; what I’m married to is the logic derived from facts that lead to the theories. Always rely on logic instead of personal-agenda opinions.

Proof of Ancient E.T. Robot Builders Pt.2

Grand Tomb of Hili--UAE-txtGrand Tomb of Hili--UAE-txtb

64890253_n

Do these look like cuts that were made by hand with hand tools? Their uniformity is perfect.  Aside from what is probably earthquake damage, the surface is perfectly flat, which means that the cuts were made after a horizontal cut and a backside vertical cut removed a huge chunk of rock.
If the cuts had been made into the stone, creating a criss-cross assortment of cubes which were then each broken off, then the breaking would not result in a bottom surface that is so uniformly flat as some would not have broken off evenly.
Perhaps it could have been ground-down flat to make it even but there’s still the problem of no saw existing in the primitive tool box that could cut igneous rock like this was cut, and it could not have been a circular saw since there are no saw marks into the back wall.  So it is a mystery and lends itself to a suspicion of Artificial Intelligence being involved, along with extra-terrestrial tools.


Notice below that the surface of the curved-roof stones has been shaved off by about two inches.  That is not the sort of thing that human masons would feel a need to do, nor be willing to attempt due the almost upside down position of the blocks. It seems it was done after all of the blocks were in place so who would want to have their eyes and lungs exposed to the dust that such a chore would generate?  How can such an inexplicable cut be explained as the product of human technology or psychology?

 

Here’s a shot of Longyou Cave, China, showing the uniform perfection of the grinding process and machine capability. There are zero pick or chisel marks anywhere.  So here’s the logic of what you see:
Capture5b.jpg

Equipment was used which did not exist in the human tool repertoire.
That means it was not from any terrestrial origin.
That means it had to get here from another world.
That means that those who brought it had to be advanced enough for inter-stellar teleportation.
Being that advanced means that they had and used extremely advanced Artificial Intelligence construction robots to do all manual work for them. It’s simple logic.

modern01(1)

“The Longyou Caves have been asserted as the ninth miracle in China after the Great Wall and the Tomb of the Emperor of the Qing Dynasty. In spite of this, there is no record at all of this monumental construction, which might indicate that they are very, very old.
In June, 1992, a villager pumped the water out in one of the water holes of the area and found it was actually a man-made cave. In time, six more nearby waterhole caves were pumped dry, each of which had steps that led to the bottom.
To date, 24 caves (3 clusters of 8 caves) have been found, one of which is the main tourist attraction.
If those caves were all dug by hand, then this was an enormous and costly project that could only have been organized and financed by heads of state. But there are no historic records of the Longyou caves although the Chinese were meticulous record keepers.

The caves are located… only 69 meters (200 feet) above sea level.  The area was never occupied by people until the 1950’s.

There are more mysteries about the side-by-side caves that you’ll want to read about and can at a great website that gives all of the details: https://cosmicktraveler.wordpress.com/the-longyou-caves-or-grottoes/
~   ~   ~

We don’t know who did all of that work, nor when, nor why, nor how, so we are left to conclude that it is a case of being what it looks like, namely the work of powerful machines.   And the fact that all of them were filled with water indicates that a great change in the geology of the area took place since they were carved… -or not!

What probably changed is the sea level.  The area was not as close to the China Sea during the period of the Ice Age because the sea level was some 300 ft. lower than during the age beginning about 10,000 years ago after the great ice sheets and glaciers had mostly melted.
So, if we have no choice but to date the caves to the ice age, -before the rise of the sea level, then that says a whole lot about the absence of  advanced technology available back when they were made.


Peruvian_wall

In Peru there never was a society so advanced that it possessed advanced technology of the type that could have produced this wall and others just like it.  It would require an industrial infrastructure capable of quarrying, transporting, cutting and stacking great blocks of igneous rock.  For such a logistical and technical and engineering infrastructure to have existed would have left plenty of evidence of itself.  But there is none.
How would men with only primitive technology have built great walls? At best, like this:
50501254

For any reader who is ignorant enough to dismiss the very idea of E.T. technology having been present on Earth, you really can’t be helped much since your arrogant lack of curiosity has left you bereft of the common knowledge readily available to (and accessed by) hundreds of millions of people.
You are still living in the dinosaur era of ‘scientism’ when academics thought they knew all the basics of mankind’s progression through history, but their basic assumptions are being proven wrong all of the time, and one of them is the E.T. ‘atheism’ that refuses to believe the evidence that would be right in front of their eyes if their eyes were open.  But they are not, and so they go on living blind to the proof of E.T. presence on Earth while being confident ‘disbelievers’ just as they are about the subject of the Intelligent Design of life.

Their subconscious intent is to live with the self-identity of being the highest form of life in existence.  Well they have that half-right.  Humans are the highest form of created life but that does not make them then most technologically advanced form of created life.

And least anyone misunderstand: the E.T. beings that used advanced technology and machines to created the inexplicable marvels found around the world were also humans, but of a different variety and with superior genetics.  THEY WERE HUMANS!

The little green men…the ‘grays’, also exist and obviously are not human, but they were not the great builders of old.  They, instead, are asexual sentient beings created in bio-pods by those with advanced everything, to serve them as cloned drones doing rather boring mundane science / lab research into genetics because genetics is their greatest interest.
If you reject these assumptions, then please, prove me wrong.

 

 

8 Reasons why Khafre Built the Sphinx

https://curiosmos.com/here-are-8-compelling-reasons-why-khafre-built-the-ancient-sphinx/

There’s not much we know about the Sphinx. We don’t know who built it, why it was built for, nor when it was carved.
What we do have are guesses that are based on archeological excavations at the Giza plateau, and the views and opinions of a select group of archeologists.
In the New Kingdom, the Sphinx was worshiped as the solar deity Hor-em-akhet and the pharaoh Thutmose IV (1401–1391 or 1397–1388 BC) specifically referred to it as such in his “Dream Stele”.
But that’s one of the few things we know about the statue that has been written down. Its old but its not that ancient. Thutmose IV made the Dream Stele a long time after the Sphinx had been carved. In fact, by the Time Thutmose IV “slept next to the half-buried Sphinx”, the statue was already ancient.

Who exactly built or carved the Sphinx is heavily debated and has been the subject of numerous studies, excavations, and theories. The truth is that we don’t know since there aren’t any written documents, papyri, or hieroglyphs that speak of the construction phase or the purpose of the Sphinx.
There’s nothing,…just as there isn’t anything about the imposing three pyramids at the Giza plateau.

And that’s kind of surprising, taking into consideration the massive effort it was to build not only one but three pyramids, several temples, and the Great Sphinx.
It was a monumental construction process that lasted across countless generations. Given that fact, is it not surprising that there’s no evidence whatsoever about any of the construction processes that took place?

Khafre Theory

The idea that Khafre was the one who commissioned the Great Sphinx is one of the most widely accepted theories, but the actual builder and the exact timeframe are a heavily debated subject.
However, modern Egyptologists largely maintain that the Great Sphinx was built, better said “carved”, around 2,500 BC, by Pharaoh Khafre, “the man who commissioned the second-largest pyramid on the Giza plateau”.
Writing in 1949, Egyptologist Selim Hassan explained:

“Taking all things into consideration, it seems that we must give the credit of erecting this, the world’s most wonderful statue, to Khafre, but always with this reservation:
~that there is not one single contemporary inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafre; -so, sound as it may appear, we must treat the evidence as circumstantial, until such time as a lucky turn of the spade of the excavator will reveal to the world a definite reference to the erection of the Sphinx.”

The greatest pieces of evidence that supports Khafre building the Sphinx is:
~a diorite statue of the Pharaoh discovered buried upside down, along much other debris, in the Valley Temple.
The Dream Stele, erected much after the Sphinx was built also associates the Sphinx with Pharaoh Khafre. When the stele was uncovered by experts, its lines were heavily damaged or missing but one of the lines made reference to “Khaf”.
Although it doesn’t say “Khafre” the line reads:

“which we bring for him: oxen … and all the young vegetables; and we shall give praise to Wenofer … Khaf … the statue made for Atum-Hor-em-Akhet.”

Auguste Mariette, the founder of the Egyptian Cairo Museum unearthed the Inventory Stele which supposedly explains how Khufu came across the Sphinx, which was then already buried in the sand.
The Inventory Stela is treated today as a purposeful fake, -believed to have been created by local priests in order to “imbue the contemporary Isis temple with an ancient history it never had.”

Gaston Maspero took a particular interest in the Sphinx. The French Egyptologist was the second director of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In 1886 he conducted a survey of the Sphinx and concluded that since the Dream Stela mentioned Khaf on line 13, it was Khafre who excavated the Sphinx, (not Thutmose IV) meaning that the Sphinx surely must have predated Khafre and his predecessors.

E.A. Wallis Bude, an English Egyptologist, agreed with Maspero saying that the Sphinx predated Khafre’s reign. In his 1914 book “The Gods of the Egyptians,” Bude wrote:
“This marvelous object was in existence in the days of Khafre, or Khephren, and it is probable that it is a very great deal older than his reign and that it dates from the end of the archaic period, around 2686 BC.”

Maspero, on the other hand, believed that the Great Sphinx was the oldest statue in Egypt.
Other experts like Vassil Dobrev of the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale in Cairo believe that since the causeway connecting Khafre’s pyramid to the temples was built around the Sphinx, the statue must have been already in existence when the temples were being built.

8 (Modern) Reasons why The Sphinx was Probably built by Pharaoh Khafre

[~be aware; these reasons do not link any construction to Khafre although they link the different constructions to each other.  That implies a common builder but does not imply that he was Khafre.  That is strictly a guess.]

According to Mark Lehner, the Sphinx Temple, the Sphinx, and the Valley temple belong to one monumental construction phase ‘attributed’ to Pharaoh Khafre.

Same style – Walls of the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple were built of the same giant limestone core blocks, -with harder red granite as a finish. Khufu’s Pyramid Temple was not built with megalithic core blocks.

Nearly identical court design and dimensions – Sphinx Temple and the upper Pyramid Temple are the same design except the upper temple had 12 instead of 10 colossal statues, and there isn’t any evidence of colossal statues in the ‘Khufu mortuary temple’.
Sphinx Temple and Sphinx ditch left unfinished – This suggests that they were the last major structures to be worked on in the area. The Valley Temple was nicely finished inside and out.

Same quarry and construction sequence – The Sphinx and Sphinx Temple were part of the same sequence. Sphinx Temple blocks originate from the lower bedrock layers ins the Sphinx Ditch.
Shared terrace – The Valley Temple sits on the same leveled terrace as the Sphinx Temple. The fronts and backs of the temples are nearly aligned.

Walls Parallel – The Sphinx’s Temple south wall is parallel to the Valley Temple north wall, showing the same deviation north of due west. The Sphinx Temple builders must have adjusted it to the already existing Valley Temple.

Sphinx Ditch – The south side of the ditch is the north side of the foundation of the ‘Khafre causeway’ just where it enters the Valley Temple. The Sphinx ditch was sunk along the south side of the causeway that already existed.

Drainage Channel – Runs along the north side of the ‘Khafre causeway’ and opens into the upper southwest corner of the Sphinx ditch. It looks like the ancient quarrymen formed the Sphinx ditch after the ‘Khafre causeway’. Otherwise, they would not have the drain empty into the Sphinx ditch.

But in addition to all that Lehner further argues that it was Khafre’s builders who built the Sphinx and the temples because they:

1. Completed the Valley Temple with its granite casing.
2. Built the northern and southern enclosure walls.
3. Removed the northern wall.
4. Built the Sphinx Temple where the northern wall had been.
5. Used huge blocks from the Sphinx quarry for the Sphinx temple walls.
6. Abandoned the quarrying of the Sphinx ditch and construction on the Sphinx Temple shortly before either were completed.

[Note: none of those reasons are directly linked to Khafre.]

Advanced Ancient Accomplishments: Logic vs Academic Dogma

~a conversation regarding ancient technology:

MrAchile13
@Adrien Nash I will try to make this as short as possible. If you think I missed any of your previous points, feel free to bring them up.
It is a circular argument, and therefore is logically invalid. [~inexplicable objects required non-terrestrial tools, therefore they prove the ancient presence of E.T.s. And the proof of E.T.s is the ancient inexplicable objects.]
In order to explain their existence, [such as the inexplicable Serapeum vaults] there’s the experimented archaeology tests I referenced, ancient Egyptian accounts, and the archaeological record. I can make the same argument for magic:
 ‘Serapeum sarcophagi were made by the use of magic, and the existence of Serapeum sarcophagi is evidence of magic.’ It’s the same circular argument.

Magic does not make things, technology and tools make things. It is all a matter of advanced tools versus primitive tools. If you wish to claim that primitive tools could be used to make and use 24 Serapeum boxes and lids then you would have no basis to make such a claim. It’s not only baseless but it’s also illogical. Advanced tools make advanced products while primitive tools make primitive products.
To say that primitive prehistoric terrestrial tools could not have been the means to make the boxes is logical. Your only logical response could be to say that the tools used were not primitive but were advanced even though their use preceded recorded history. Then we would be in agreement. (But I offer an explanation as to where those tools came from.)
Therefore to say that the Serapeum boxes are evidence of the use of technologically advanced tools is a rather self-evident statement especially considering that the tools had to have been more advanced than what we use today.

To say that there is a total lack of evidence to support that view misses the point because the absence of evidence is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement. Truth is not dependent on evidence. What is dependent on evidence is ‘proof’. There is no proof of anything except that they exist and cannot be explained by anyone or any known technology.
So inquiring minds want to know; Where did the technology come from?

AN: “Why does primitive tech get embraced with no supportive evidence but advanced tech gets rejected on the same basis?? That is logically inconsistent.”
This is not true. Not only there is no evidence of it, but all the evidence available tells us they used primitive tools. Again, I can use your same argument for the existence of magic. Wooden pulleys have been found, dating from the Middle Kingdom. The heaviest stones were moved later, during the New Kingdom.
I see no evidence for the E.T. stories. Mythology can be interpreted in any way in order to fit any narrative. It makes no sense for all the traces of that technology to vanish.

There is no claim that it vanished. I claim that the original colonists and their own children lived for hundreds of years and then were motivated or compelled to return to their own world and people, taking most of their tools with them.
The Serapeum boxes were not emptied by robbers since they didn’t know that they existed and could not open them anyway. They were emptied by their makers, or they left this planet before they had a chance to use them.
The tools that remained were kept secret and well guarded, but war, bad weather, and natural catastrophes took their toll, along with disintegration due to oxidation, ultra-violet, or more likely, extensive wear from use, and lack of a power source, -followed by recycling of metals.

AN: “neither is there any conceivable reason to have even made them for human purposes” This is not true. Making a sarcophagus is nothing compared with the making of a pyramid.
“They are too wide, too deep and too long for any technique of primitive technology” This again, is not true. Obelisks are wider and longer. I see no logic behind this statement, since people can make (with primitive tools) trenches in granite as long, wide and deep as they want.

There is no evidence (nor modern replication) of trenches made in granite with primitive tools. But even if with an enormous amount of time and effort, primitive tools would only make primitive trenches and primitive boxes. Only advanced tools could have produced the advanced results of the interiors of the Serapeum boxes. That is a fact that is not disputable by any evidence, nor is there any evidence that they were made by Egyptians or served as “sarcophagi”.

If you assume to label them something without any basis whatsoever then how are you debunking what I claim when you use the same non-proof approach? I rely on logic, but you rely on nothing but presumption.
You dare to presume that the presence of E.T.s on Earth is an illogical assumption? On what basis can you make such a baseless claim? You must be truly ignorant of an enormous amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

Manpower alone certainly could never have moved a 30 ton lid in such a confined space. And speaking of confined spaces, check-out this quote:

“Héctor L’Arbalète In northern Saqqara, south of the Pyramid of Unas, inside a tomb 20 meters deep underground, lies a 37 ton monolith made of a different material than the surrounding bedrock, far too large to fit through the narrow entrance shafts (both vertical and horizontal).”

Hmmm…. how did such a large box get into such a small space over 60 feet underground when it was too big to fit through the passageways? See the problem? To pretend to oneself that there are no inexplicable enigmas in Egypt is delusional. Which brings up a quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (probably as a line in Sherlock Holmes):

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

AN: “INSIDE the granite boxes is glass smooth when humans would never do that,” This again, is a blind assumption. As I said, do you have any evidence that they were used to store gold?

No, it is not ‘blind’. It is logical. Do you wish to say that it is illogical? Do you want to claim that such a highly polished surface was laboriously produced by primitive technology when it was completely unnecessary? I’d say that that would be a rather “blind assumption”.
“As I said, do you have any evidence that they were used to store gold?”

Do you have any evidence that they were used to store nothing? Do you assume that they were made to NOT store valuables but mundane items instead? What is of greater value and rarity than gold? If they were made to serve as tombs of giant E.T.s then I suppose my assumption has some competition.

AN: “There is no evidence of anything.” This is not true. There is extensive evidence of working stone by pounding. The Inca walls have even different pit scars at their edges, left from smaller pounders. As I said, walls with stones fitted to each other can be observed at Egyptians and Romans, way before the Incas.

     “The Inca walls have even different pit scars at their edges, left from smaller pounders.”
I saw that in a video but that is not evidence of how the megalithic polygonal stones were precision-fitted to each other. What one needs to recognize, which no one yet has done that I’ve seen, is that there are at least a half dozen different types of ancient walls, perhaps even 8 or more.
Some are clearly examples of how primitives make walls while others are much more advanced, requiring hard metal masonry saws. Sawn blocks perfectly fit together because they all have flat surfaces.
But there is no conceivable way or purpose for humans to construct walls such as those at Sacsayhuaman and Ollantaytambo. No one has suggested a realistic means to replicate such work because the stones are too massive and multi-sided.
Size matters…a lot. It certainly comes into play when attempting to explain how massive stones were moved from distant quarries across roadless countryside and up steep mountain sides above the tree line when (by later human standards) it was not necessary as they resorted to using common uncut field stones.
~~~~~

The logical explanation for the movement of 1,000 ton statues is rolling and transportation by boat, just like the Russians did. It’s true that we lack the details, but you will have a hard time convincing a logical mind that this is silly, while “alien technology did it” is somehow reasonable.

I notice that you used the “L” word… ‘logical’. It has be applied due to a lack of ‘evidence’…-similar to what I do. But that logic depends on the unmentioned fact that a hard ground surface is required for roller logs or or stone columns or balls. That would have required making a road of granite blocks for balls or limestone for rollers. Notice I don’t refute the possibility of such an approach being successful.
But great ingenuity and effort cannot explain all such intended feats, such as the transportation of the unfinished obelisk and the unfinished Maoi on Easter Island, both of which are about twice the size of the largest ones previously made and moved. And then there are those monster blocks in the Baalbek quarry and temple complex, 2.5 million pounds each.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~a conversation between two bloggers:

Is this a peer reviewed publication?
“Peer reviewed” by whom? Mainstream quackademics?
Some career professionals who spend they’re lives studying archaeology and know what they’re talking about.
Indeed, some do. But most are just parroting the incorrect narrative, because family, mortgage, loans to pay back, credibility in connection with sponsored research by the old institutions, et cetera.
As soon as they deviate from the mainstream narrative they’re just kicked out. Very few are -understandably- willing to take that risk. Yet it’s the only way to really get to the bottom of many so called ‘explained’ enigmas.
There’s this PhD anthropologist on YT called Robert Sepehr. He took the risk and now he needs to crowd fund his own research.
You might want to check out his channel.

“I know many scientists and this is not the case. What colour is the sky in your world?”
What planet do you live on?
“You obviously don’t know any scientists, stick to your amateur enthusiasts.”
You stick your head were the sun don’t shine, arrogant piece of sh*t!
~ ~ ~
You can’t open the eyes of people who believe their own mindless brain-washing, who NEVER question orthodoxy and its dogmas because that would be a betrayal of the system they bow down to. Ernst self-confidence derived from the certainly that the ‘system’ would not support or tolerate rigid thinking when in fact it is built on it. (not all areas of study of course, but far too many) AN

Uncovered: the Secrets behind the Stoneworks of Ancient Masons Pt.1

~ Magnificent Ancient Artificial Stoneworks ~
Geopolymer Concrete Columns & Sculpture

Throughout the history of great civilizations magnificent works of stone have been produced, both in the form of structure and in the form of sculpture. People have been in awe of these great and even gigantic works and they therefore produced a state of worship in their minds, reverence for the enormity, magnificence and sacredness of such mysteriously made objects.

Yet they form a story that is far more complicated than the objects themselves since they constitute a progression of knowledge, techniques, tools & materials which has never been documented nor even understood.  That progression embodies two main factors: the secrets of the masters and the mysteries of the means.

It can be assumed that the knowledge of the masters has been handed down for hundreds of generations, -from father to son, or master to apprentice. That knowledge included secrets that were not known to the population, not in ancient times nor even in modern times.  In regard to structural elements the secrets were not in regard to new and better ways of doing things, but in ways of pretending that things were being made in the same way as in the distant past, when in fact the things made in the distant past could no longer be made because of the lack of the needed tools.

Faced with that reality, the masons of antiquity resorted to ‘shortcuts’ that imitated the works of old, but in a manner that workers could handle, with results that looked the same or similar to the eyes of the beholders.  Yet very close examination of those works reveals the secret elements that have been overlooked or not made public.

The secrets of the masters are now detectable via evidence and logic, while the ‘mysteries of the means’ involves something more than secret methods.  It involves the secrets of the earliest tools & methods used long before history began to be written, along with their origin.

Now let’s cut to the chase.

We are confronted with a two-headed problem; 1. deciphering the evidence of tools that terrestrials could not possibly have possessed, and 2. uncovering the secrets that our ancient ancestors employed to replicate or imitate the great works of old that preceded them by centuries and millennia.  It is the latter that will be addressed here and in follow-ups.  It is the issue of substitution for things that were no longer physically possible, since the ‘means’ of achieving amazing stone creations not only did not evolve upward but actually devolved downward.

The loss of capability, it seems, was due solely to loss of advanced tools to accomplish works of the past,  and so substitutions had to be invented, imitations created, short-cuts discovered, and they were, and they were used, and I’ll show evidence of their use.

That evidence will blow the lid off of one of the greatest secrets of all time; -not one that we knew we didn’t ‘know’ -as in a known unknown,  but one we did not know that we did not know, as in an unknown unknown.  Or as I prefer to say; a ‘known’ unknown since we’ve always thought that there were no secrets since we ‘knew’ the facts, -‘facts’ that we actually did not know since we were deliberately deceived in order to maintain the impression of magnificence and glorious accomplishment by the masons and architects charged with creating great works like the great and colossal works of old.

There are two ‘secrets’ to which I refer.  One is the fact that some great works were not made as single units but as combinations of separate pieces that were seamlessly and imperceptibly joined.
The other is that great works were not carved in stone at all, but were instead carved in clay or wood or soapstone, along with actual items stuck onto a soft sculpture (like beads and wood or molded patterns) and then the finished work was cast as geopolymer stone concrete.
The eye cannot tell the difference, and even those looking closely have no way to tell except by the fact that some things simply cannot be carved by human hands in any sane amount of time and especially when lacking the tools to do the work.

So, now here is evidence of what no sculptor could or would ever accomplish by hand:geopolymer stone nettingmarble-'sculpture'-net-francesco-queirolo2IMG_201908
Look at the netting.  Does it look real?  Does it look like something that you would attempt in a million years?  The realism of the netting, and the impossibility of sculpting it tells us that it is real!  But it looks like stone, right?  So how was a real net made to look like stone?  Simple, it was soaked in a geopolymer solution that coated it thickly enough that the material underneath was completely covered. And it was still pliable when removed from the solution, so it could be draped around the figure.  It seems that the sculptor went ‘a bridge too far’ in his mind-blowing innovative sculpting which resulted in logic getting a peak under his skirt…so to speak.

Additionally, the cloth around the boy has folds that would be impossible to sculpt in stone from a tool perspective as well as a psychological perspective since if it were even possible with hand tools, it would take forever to do without breaking the stone.

Sculptures like the Pieta (seen before and after the hammer attack) reveal how indifferent the sculptor was to the complexity and supposed difficulty of ‘carving’ the gown. But if real material was used, and coated in geopolymer slurry, then it would be pretty easy to accomplish.  Note that it was repaired with geopolymer granite powder and resins.

Michelangelos-Pieta-at-th-002hand2

This logical proof leads to another: if the netting looks just like the statue, and it is as hard as stone, then why could the statue itself not also be a geopolymer casting from a clay original?  Well the answer is that it could be.  And it is.

Capture3Capture4bcolumns
Capture82bBoth the surface forms and the background slab were still not dry when joined, so they formed a permanent bond to each other, but the slab was too dry at the bottom.

Capture19b

Bedse Caves4b

All of these forms originally were seamless and one could not tell that they were not one single piece of sculpture, and that seamlessness was accomplished by the techniques used to merge separate pieces or to plaster over them.

Ayacucho37c
This represents what builders seek to present to the eye, which hides the reality of their construction.  They want an appearance of perfection and great scale even when they are not able to achieve it due to a lack of technology.

Check-out these items from my garden, none of which were actually sculpted in the material on which they appear: milk glass, adobe, clear glass & metal, plastic, plaster, and Styrofoam.
All shapes were a part of the original mold used for the material in which they were cast (carved into it or applied onto it).  No examples of geopolymer stone concrete…although adobe might quality, -but not really since it has to be fired in an oven.

IMG_20190809IMG_20190808

IMG_20190809_183516  IMG_20190809_1  IMG_20190809_2  IMG_20190809_182624

How about this place: -carved in stone?? :
Casa Professa, Palermo

Please see my previous article on the geopolymer sculptures at Warangal Fort in India:
    “India’s Geopolymer Casting Disguised as Stone Sculpture”
https://sciencetheory.wordpress.com/2019/08/02/indias-geopolymer-casting-disguised-as-stone-sculpture/

Now how about a quick primer on the subject of Granite and its uses..[keep in mind that all that is needed to make artificial stone concrete is an adequate binder; either chemical or organic -and don’t forget about all of the manufactured granite used on things like counter tops]:

Granite is the signature rock of the earth; found in abundance throughout the world. Most of the continental crust is formed by the volcanic magma that is one major resource of formation of this intrusive igneous rock known as granite.
In all seven continents wherever you travel you will find granite beneath the land and it can be seen in use all around us in our daily life.

There is a long list of purposes for granite and ever since the Egyptian era it has been in demand.
When granite rock was and is quarried it undergoes several kinds of fabrication phases which produce large amounts of granite slurry, gravel and rubble. These remainders of granite stone are ground into powder for several other uses. Here is one of the uses of powdered granite.”

Victoria Stone

“When it comes to construction of piers, stairs and landings etc Victorian Stone is the most popular material that is used for building construction.
This stone is manufactured by using the granite powder and Portland cement.
Initially slurry of these two compounds is made and is allowed to set in a mold.
Once this Victoria stone is formed it is submerged into mixture of silicate and soda for up to two months which causes a chemical reaction in the stone that eventually produces a super-harden stone for construction.”

With that background in mind, learn from this very revealing forum posting by KorbenDallas at the ‘stolen history’ blog.

Artificial Ancient Granite and Marble

Artificial Stone

I did not go beyond the official Wikipedia Article pertaining to the narrative compliant history of the artificial stone production. Why would I? Wiki is the tool to give us the official version, and as such, the information provided has to be properly reflecting TPTB position on the issue.

  • History:
    • One of the earliest artificial stones was the Coade stone (SH Article), a ceramic created by Eleanor Coade (1733–1821), and produced from 1769 to 1833.
      • not an artificial granite
    • Later, in 1844, Frederick Ransome created a Patent Siliceous Stone, which comprised sand and powdered flint in an alkaline solution. By heating it in an enclosed high temperature steam boiler the siliceous particles were bound together and could be molded or worked into filtering slabs, vases, tombstones, decorative architectural work, emery wheels and grindstones.
      • Developed around 1844
      • not an artificial granite
    • This was followed by Victoria stone, which comprises finely-crushed Mountsorrel granite solid surface and Portland cement, carefully mixed by machinery in the proportions of three to one and cast in molds of the required shape.
    • When the blocks are set hard the molds are loosened and the blocks placed in a solution of silicate of soda for about two weeks for the purpose of indurating and hardening them. Many manufacturers turn out a material that is practically non-porous and is able effectually to resist the corroding influence of salty sea air or the impure atmosphere of large towns.
    • Most later types of artificial stone have consisted of fine cement concrete placed to set in wooden or iron molds. It could be made more cheaply and more uniform than natural stone, and was widely used. In engineering projects, it had the advantage that transporting the bulk materials and casting them near the place of use was cheaper than transporting very large pieces of stone.
      • not an artificial granite
  • Engineered stone
    • Engineered stones are the latest development of artificial stones, it was invented in the early 1980s and have since been continuously developed by the Italian company Breton S.P.A.‘s late founder Marcello Toncelli and marketed as Bretonstone.
    • Engineered stones are a mix of marble powder, resin, and pigment cast using vacuum oscillation to form blocks. Slabs are then produced by cutting, grinding, and polishing. Some factories have developed a special, low-viscosity, high-strength polyester resin to improve hardness, strength, and gloss and to reduce water absorption.
    • There are two major varieties of engineered stones based on the main composition of its aggregates (stone powders), marbles and quartz. The process is more or less similar except in certain details, however the two products have different commercial applications.
    • Engineered marbles are most commonly used as flooring for large commercial projects. Engineered quartz is widely used in the developed world for counter tops, window sills, and floor and wall coverings.
    • The vast majority of engineered stone companies are located in Greater China, India, and its birthplace in Italy.

KD: Essentially, the narrative tells us that our artificial granite:

  • was not developed until 1980’s
  • uses resin
  • has marble powder mix (and I assume granite, or whatever other powder as well)
  • was given a cool name of “engineered stone

Circa 1734 Artificial Marbles
“The ‘stucco’ whereof they make statues, busts, basso-relievos, and other ornaments of architecture, is only Marble pulverized, mixed in a certain proportion with plaster; the whole well sifted, worked up with water, and used like a common plaster. See Stucco.
There is also a kind of artificial Marble made of gypsum, or a transparent stone resembling plaster; which becomes very hard, receives a tolerable polish and may deceive the eye. See Gypsum.
There is another sort of artificial Marble formed by corrosive tinctures, which, penetrating into white marble to the depth of a line, imitates the various colors of other marbles.”  1743 Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences

Circa 1672 Artificial Marbles
 “3. To inquire after the ways of making Artificial Marble and whether that, with which the Electors of Bavaria hath adorned his whole Palace at Munchen, so as to one that suspects not the artifice, it looks as rich and beautiful as any Palace…”

Artificial Marble in General
“About 1750 the Italian Martinet invented artificial marble, and the French Mantamy and Racle perfected it to a high degree, so that in the year 1760 they established a factory. In the commencement of this century it was introduced in Germany, and an effort was made to cover wood with artificial marble, but it was abandoned, as the change of heat and cold destroyed the artificial covering.
In this country the experiment of covering iron with marble has recently proved entirely successful. And the brief sketch which we have given will be interesting, as an epitome of the whole history of the use of marble in artificial structures and wares.” 1853 Mining Magazine

“…having artificial marble columns cast using molds was nothing special for the “common people” living in 1736. As a matter of fact they were surprised to see columns made with real marble.    1736 The history and antiquities of the City of York

KD: Sounds like there is a whole lot we do not know about our not so distant past.

Really, why would you spend time to quarry some 800 ton slab of granite, transport it to a city, and then spend time shaping, and lifting it. Apparently our so-called ancient forefathers were not as dumb, as our pseudo historians want us to think.

1839  Artificial Granite and Marble
D’Harcourt’s Patent Artificial Granite and Marble

1822

I have a strong belief that our Mr. D’Harcourt did not invent the method he patented in 1839. The reason for it is this 1822 publication titled:

The above 1822 pub specifically talks about multiple issues related to the Artificial Granite.

Also, with most of our “ancient” statues and busts discovered in the 19th century… are we still supposed to believe that for 2,000 years they were waiting to get discovered?

  • Filippo Baldinucci (1624-1697) said the following, “Bernini liked to boast that in his hands marble could become as impressionable as wax and as soft as dough.”
    Bernini’s marble does indeed seem to mutate into other substances: fibrous rope; brilliant steel; locks of hair.
  • Bernini’s son Domenico, surely recording his father’s own analogies, also singled out the greatest prize of the artist’s chisel as his victory over the hardness of marble, rendering it “pliable as wax…. obedient to the human hand as if made of dough – pasta.”
  • Faux marble, Alexander the Great, Dhul-Qarnayn, Ivan the Terrible and our Lost History

1822 Geological Cookery

to_make_granite

  • As early as 1850 BC on Crete in Minoan Knossos there were large column bases made of porphyry. All the porphyry columns in Rome, the red porphyry togas on busts of emperors, the porphyry panels in the revetment of the Pantheon, as well as the altars and vases and fountain basins reused in the Renaissance and dispersed as far as Kiev, all came from the one quarry at Mons Porpyritis (“Porphyry Mountain”. Porphyry was also used for the blocks of the Column of Constantine in Istanbul.

Some links to 19th century artificial stone:
Artificial Stone: 19th-century Cementitious Sculpture and Rockwork
Pulhamite artificial rock
The Pulham Legacy
And a pdf on how to repair/conserve it.
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/durability-guaranteed-pulhamite-rockwork/durabilityguaranteedpulhamite/
You will never look at ‘a castle’ the same way again, or ‘ancient rocks’ or ‘sculpture’.

Thanks to STOLENHISTORY.ORG for all this valuable info. It can be found in full at:

Artificial Ancient Granite and Marble

In the follow-ups to this expose I’ll presenting further photographic evidence supporting the claim that geopolymer stone concrete comprises most of the ‘sculpture’ seen at temples and sacred sites the world over.
The figures, objects, and patterned designs are either a part of a block of cast stone concrete or they are an added veneer as a plaster or stucco layer molded by a negative mold they were formed in, which was made as a plaster mold from the original sculpture which was done in clay, wood, or a soft stone like soapstone.

They would have been fools to have, if even possible, done their work in hard stone when, even if they had the needed tools, which they did not, would have taken them forever to accomplish since the details are so enormous and, in many cases, not even possible to accomplish in stone because of the limitations of tools, time, and human psychology, i.e. human patience.

Sahasra Bahu Temple, Gwalior

2950757154816_n

Moral of the story: Looks can be deceiving.  Don’t assume facts not in evidence. If an inferior object can be made to look like a superior object, then someone will make it so. That is the very basis of counterfeiting.  But the works of the sculpting masters is not to be denigrated just because they worked in an impermanent medium that needed to be transformed into a permanent one.
And let’s not overlooked the genius of the chemists who concocted the geopolymer formulas that were so high-quality that their works remain today as believable works of real stone.

The Ark of God & its Deadly Device

Secrets of the Ark Squeezed from Scripture

 

Much mystery surrounds the the Ark of God, aka, the ark of the covenant, beginning with what happened to it. It was, at some point, removed from Jerusalem but there is no mention of when or why nor by whom.
We are told in Exodus all about its dimensions and materials and what was placed inside it, (the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s staff,…probably in two sections, and some manna). Those items do not account for a whole lot of empty space remaining. So why was it ordered to be built so large; was it for practical usage or just for impressiveness?

I’ve come to conclude that it was built to contain something much larger and heavier than those listed items, -something that was never revealed in any way, except by inference. That inference can be backward engineered using known facts and logic, and they lead to a startling conclusion. A conclusion that no Judeo-Christian leader or teacher has ever taught nor even imagined. But we are in the 21st century and able to see things in a more revealing light than those of the past, and our modern knowledge will serve to unlock a great mystery of antiquity. So let’s begin our adventure of discovery.

The focus is on the first book of Samuel. It mentions two important pieces of the puzzle, with the third coming long before them when the Israelites first enter the land of Canaan. We will return to it shortly.
I will let the text of that book speak for itself.

il_fullxfull.1899501753-w

1 Samuel 5 New International Version (NIV)
The Ark in Ashdod and Ekron
5 After the Philistines had captured the ark of God, they took it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. 2 Then they carried the ark into Dagon’s temple and set it beside Dagon. 3 When the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord! They took Dagon and put him back in his place. 4 But the following morning when they rose, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord! His head and hands had been broken off and were lying on the threshold; only his body remained (intact).
Dagon done
6 The Lord’s hand was heavy on the people of Ashdod and its vicinity; he brought devastation on them and afflicted them with tumors.[a]
7 When the people of Ashdod saw what was happening, they said, “The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us, because his hand is heavy on us and on Dagon our god.”
8 So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and asked them, “What shall we do with the ark of the god of Israel?”
They answered, “Have the ark of the god of Israel moved to Gath.” So they moved the ark of the God of Israel.
9 But after they had moved it, the Lord’s hand was against that city, throwing it into a great panic. He afflicted the people of the city, both young and old, with an outbreak of tumors.[b] 10 So they sent the ark of God to Ekron.
As the ark of God was entering Ekron, the people of Ekron cried out, “They have brought the ark of the god of Israel around to us to kill us and our people.” 11 So they called together all the rulers of the Philistines and said, “Send the ark of the god of Israel away; let it go back to its own place, or it will kill us and our people.” For death had filled the city with panic; God’s hand was very heavy on it. 12 Those who did not die were afflicted with tumors, and the outcry of the city went up to the sky.

1 Samuel 6 New International Version (NIV)
The Ark Returned to Israel
6 When the ark of the Lord had been in Philistine territory seven months, the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners and said, “What shall we do with the ark of the Lord? Tell us how we should send it back to its place.”
3 They answered, “If you return the ark of the god of Israel… get a new cart ready, with two cows that have calved and have never been yoked. Hitch the cows to the cart. 8 Take the ark of the Lord and put it on the cart, and in a chest beside it put the gold objects you are sending back to him as a guilt offering.

Send it on its way, but keep watching it. If it goes up to its own territory, toward Beth Shemesh, then the Lord has brought this great disaster on us. But if it does not, then we will know that it was not his hand that struck us but that it happened to us by chance.”

10 So they did this. …12 Then the cows went straight up toward Beth Shemesh, keeping on the road and lowing all the way; they did not turn to the right or to the left. The rulers of the Philistines followed them as far as the border of Beth Shemesh.
13 Now the people of Beth Shemesh were harvesting their wheat in the valley, and when they looked up and saw the ark, they rejoiced at the sight.
The-reapers-lifted-their-eyes-and-saw-the-ark
14 The cart came to the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh, and there it stopped beside a large rock. The people chopped up the wood of the cart and sacrificed the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.
15 The Levites took down the ark of the Lord, together with the chest containing the gold objects, and placed them on the large rock. On that day the people of Beth Shemesh offered burnt offerings and made sacrifices to the Lord. 16 The five rulers of the Philistines saw all this and then returned that same day to Ekron.
18…The large rock on which the Levites set the ark of the Lord is a witness to this day in the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh.

19 But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them. 20 And the people of Beth Shemesh asked, “Who can stand in the presence of the Lord, this holy God? To whom will the ark go up from here?”

Ark-history2
~The alien technology contained within the ark may have been stolen by the liberated Hebrews on the orders of Moses who, as an adopted prince of Egypt, would have known about its power if possessed by the throne of Egypt.
Something unexplained enraged Pharaoh against the Israelites after he finally allowed them to leave Egypt, prompting him to try to run them down in the desert to punish them.. For what?
For taking his ancient E.T. power supply of the gods.  It may have been housed in the Great Pyramid since its ‘sarcophagus’ was large enough to hold the entire ark.  If it existed in Egypt it would have been the center of the king’s world because it would have been a mind-blowing object of great and mysterious power.  How could he not be burned-up with rage at the audacity of its theft?

NASA completes full-power tests of small, portable nuclear reactor

It could generate power for distant, long-term space travel.


“Kilopower’s compact size and robustness allows us to deliver multiple units on a single lander to the surface that provides tens of kilowatts of power,”
NASA Associate Administrator Steve Jurczyk said in January.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/02/nasa-completes-full-power-tests-small-nuclear-reactor/

It is what destroyed the base of a portion of the wall of Jericho (which fell down flat when the ground-level blocks turned soft due to their molecular bonds weakening by being over-driven by powerful sonic vibration disruption and losing their cohesion)

King James Bible
“So the people [of Israel] shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat,…”
That great shout from all of the Israelites, along with the trumpets, was to do two things: rouse their spirits for an immanent attack, and to mask or hide the vibration produced by the devise.
If they had been silent then they would have heard it or at least felt it, and connected the dots when the wall collapsed, giving the ark the glory thanks to its magic power instead of giving the god of the Israelites all of the credit.  That would not have served his purpose of endearing them to him.

The same devise probably was the means to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan as God promised Moses he would do, driving them out on the Israelites behalf…probably by means of a stealth attack team infiltrating and using the device anywhere and everywhere.
How could experienced armies be destroyed without a fight? By the same means that we have witnessed in Science fiction movies for two decades; molecular disintegration. A form of vaporization. Such a weapon, if focused, could sweep across a battle ground and bore right through thousands of warriors in seconds. That’s the ‘end game’, so there’s that.

Of course such a device would require a lot of dependable power, and it could have been supplied only by a nuclear device. But that would only produce heat, so that heat had to be converted into electricity and that electricity would have to be strong enough to power such a device. That would require that it’s voltage be high enough, and that would require the use of a high-voltage capacitor to boost and store the voltage.

High Voltage Capacitors

Capacitors are energy storage devices that have voltage ratings. High-voltage capacitors typically range from 25 volts (found in common home electronics) to thousands of volts.  The higher the voltage rating of a capacitor, the more charge it can hold.

Being un-grounded, the capacitor, when fully charged could release high voltage that would electrocute anyone touching the metal-lined ark, and kill them by stopping their heart-beat electrical-signal generator. That is exactly what happened to a man who reached out and touched it to prevent it from tipping over when the oxen stumbled. He died instantly.
The story of Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant is found in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12. As the ark was being transported, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled, and a Levite named Uzzah took hold of the ark. God’s anger burned against Uzzah and He struck him down and he died.

His instantaneous death was our first clue.  It was a source of enormous voltage.

That super-high voltage may have been behind the statement that God “put to death” 70 of the Israelites who received the ark back.  You may have experienced being shocked and paralyzed by a bad electrical short circuit.  If someone grabbed you to pull you away from the shorted circuit, they would have been paralyzed by the current running through you. So, if somehow the power cell was still working, and had recharged the capacitor, and the voltage of the ark was fatally high, whoever touched it would have been paralyzed as his muscles contracted violently, and anyone who grabbed him to rescue him would have also received the same voltage.

If 70 people were caught in that situation, the current may have been strong enough to stop all of their hearts.  But I’ve never read an explanation of voltage vs amperage vs wattage to understand the physics of electricity.  Hopefully, “voltage” is the correct term for this situation.

When the ark began to kill ‘indiscriminately’ after it was captured in battle, it must have been because its captors smashed open the housing and shielding of the nuclear power cell inside, exposing themselves to a fatal dose of radiation, or to enough to cause horrible tumors.
1 Samuel, chapters 4-6

Radiation-induced cancer: a modern view

https://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611719

The fact that ionising radiation causes cancer in humans has been known for over a century. In 1902, the first radiationinduced cancer had been reported in an area of ulcerated skin. By 1911, there were even reports of leukemia arising in radiation workers .

THE VOICE OF GOD….the word of the Lord

The other matter revealed in Samuel is found in the third chapter. It reveals the true nature of “the word of the Lord”. It shows that it was literally a voice heard like all other voices, via sound and ears.
Samuel was a young assistant consecrated to the high priest Eli by his mother when he was a child.

The LORD Speaks to Samuel
1 Meanwhile, the boy Samuel served the LORD by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the LORD were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.
[note: that implies that communication, like in the days of Moses and Joshua, was once fairly common, but that those days were over, and it was then “uncommon“.]
2 One night Eli, who was almost blind by now, had gone to bed. 3 The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Tabernacle near the Ark of God. 4 Suddenly the LORD called out, “Samuel!”
“Yes?” Samuel replied. “What is it?” 5 He got up and ran to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”
“I didn’t call you,” Eli replied. “Go back to bed.” So he did.
6 Then the LORD called out again, “Samuel!”
Again Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”
“I didn’t call you, my son,” Eli said. “Go back to bed.”
7 Samuel did not yet know the LORD because he had never had a message from the LORD before. 8 So the LORD called a third time, and once more Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”
Then Eli realized it was the LORD who was calling the boy. 9 So he said to Samuel, “Go and lie down again, and if someone calls again, say, ‘Speak, LORD, your servant is listening.’” So Samuel went back to bed.
10 And the LORD came and called as before, “Samuel! Samuel!”
And Samuel replied, “Speak, your servant is listening.”
11 Then the LORD said to Samuel, “I am about to do a shocking thing in Israel. …..
~     ~     ~
Clearly the voice was an audible voice and not a trance voice, or dream voice, or hallucination. That means it came from a source that was either human or electronic. There is no hint that there was a person there speaking to him, -only a voice, so where did it come from?
Well, there are two possibilities. One is that it came from within the Ark, which was nearby, meaning it contained a hidden communication capability, with one or more hidden speakers that might have employed 3-D sound capability. It would have had a built-in antenna and microphone also.  Through it “the word of the Lord” was communicated to the chief priest.
If we go with that possibility then we might have an explanation for all of the hand bags that kings are seen holding in depictions from around the world.

Capture5-w

hand bags of the gods-50

They may have contained (or been designed as) a communication devise by which messages could be transmitted to kings and all within hearing range. And event-updates obtained from them.
Any monarch with such a device would be walking around with the means to hear the voice of the gods himself; -gods that had been in contact with him.
Such a situation would certainly inspire any mortal monarch to keep that communication device with him wherever he went…kind of like people do these days.

Perhaps the blossom-like bracelet that many kings wore was a wireless speaker tuned to a 2-way radio, or shortwave radio, or satellite phone.
3597696_n
Anyway, here’s a verse that indicates that the Lord could and did listen to Samuel speak to him as he would via a communication device. It is in regard to the people of Israel badly wanting to have a king as their ruler, instead of having no figurehead at all, -just the judges.
Samuel 8:21-22 ~And Samuel heard all the words of the people and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. So the Lord said to Samuel; “Heed their voice, and make then a king.”
in the hearing of the Lord” probably means in the presence of the ark. Note that it does not say that he prayed and God answered his pray in a dream.

There is one other possibility, and it is focused sound.  Over two decades ago I read in Popular Science that the military had perfected the focusing of sound waves in the same manner as a laser focuses light waves.  Meaning they are aimed as a beam and do not radiate outward like ripples in a pond.  One could speak into a microphone connected to such a sound device and it could send a beam of sound to just one person’s ears. No one around would hear it.  I’ve never read nor heard a single reference to it since, but found a forum question/answer that perhaps comes as close as one can find. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1263/how-can-you-focus-sound

Was it used to speak to targets in Biblical times?  Acts: 22

And it came to pass, as I was going and drawing nigh to Damascus, at mid-day, that suddenly from heaven there shone round about me a great lightAnd falling on the ground, I heard a voice saying to me: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered: Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light: but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with me. 

So Saul (alone) heard the voice on the road to Damascus, and was converted because of it, and via his life and teaching about Christ changed the course of human history.  That voice was not heard by the others, which means it was aimed exactly at the head of Saul, and was not projected via an audio speaker.

And the light, at mid-day, was so bright that it burned his retinas.  “And whereas I did not see for the brightness of that light, being led by the hand by my companions, I came to Damascus,”.  It took him several days to heal.

The light that shined so brightly at mid-day would seem especially bright at sunset.  I suspect it was used in the past as well, as the Star of the East that the wisemen followed in their quest to find the Christ child, and as a sun-substitute during a battle for Canaan under the command of the right-hand man of Moses: Joshua.

Joshua 10:12-14

12 Then Joshua spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in ‘the book of the just’? [ancient unknown reference] So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

14 There was not before, nor after, so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.  ~

Skipping the issue of the moon, which commonly is not visible in the daylight, we can speculate that that command to stop the sun was actually a command to stop it from setting because they were running out of light.  There would be no reason to care about lack of sunlight during the brightness of the day, but as it begins to fade at dust then the concern arises that you can’t wage battle in the dark.  So how could the sun not set?

Simple.  A cloud moves in front of it just as an aerial platform of whatever sort moves directly into line-of-sight between the sun and the battle area, and that platform turns on a light like the one that blinded Saul, maybe it’s power was over 100,000,000 candlepower, and it stayed in one place until about dawn the next day.
A similar approach could explain the shadow on a sundial moving backwards 10 degrees, as reported in another Biblical account but the light source would have had to have moved somewhat.

“15 MILLION CANDLEPOWER SPOTLIGHT/FLASHLIGHT
– WORLD’S BRIGHTEST FLASHLIGHT!”

XR Series Xenon 15 in. Searchlight
Brightness of 35,000,000 Candlepower and Over 3 Mile Range!
YOUR PRICE: “>$25,588.28  [Wow! -at that price I’ll take two!]
~Imagine an array of those lights shining in tandem.

And speaking of lights…and blindness…. there is another Biblical account that involved striking with blindness… and it is that of what preceded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It tells of two messengers from God sent to extract Lot, (the nephew of Abraham) and his family, from the city of Sodom before it was destroyed by fire from the heavens.  It’s destruction is recounted as a warning to any and all who might go the route of Sodom and devolve into perverse predatory sexual devils.

The men sent to extract Lot would have known what kind of people were ‘ruling’ that place and would not have been sent in defenseless.  They had a means to defend themselves, and they used it, -kind of like a contingent from the Starship Enterprise might come armed when injecting themselves into an environment of potentially hostile aliens.  So here’s the account as recorded in Genesis 19:

Lot Welcomes the Angels

The two angels entered Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them, bowed with his face to the ground, and said, “My lords, please turn aside into the house of your servant; wash your feet and spend the night….”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But Lot insisted so strongly that they followed him into his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

[Why did Lot see them as extraordinary and worthy of such a personal invitation to the point of insistence?  It had to have been the obvious, namely something about their appearance. They must have been attired in garments like he had never laid eyes on.]

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called out to Lot, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have relations with them!”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him. “Please, my brothers,” he pleaded, “don’t do such a wicked thing! Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them to you, and you can do to them whatever you want. But do not do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.

9Get out of the way!” they replied. And they declared, “This one came here as a foreigner, and he is already acting like a judge! Now we will treat you worse than them.” And they pressed in on Lot and moved in to break down the door.  But the men inside reached out, pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.
And they struck the men at the entrance, young and old, with
blindness, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the door.”

[ It seems to me that the author of this account either did not know the real story or was hiding the details of it.  Let me elaborate with some logical speculation.  To blind someone requires either the penetration of an object or objects into the eyeball, or the penetration of an amount of light such that the retinas are burned. 

When I grew up, no such hand-carried device existed so I never imagined such a use, but after the invention and miniaturization of lasers it became a very real possibility, and even a hazard to airplane pilots.  Imagine a Star Trek Phaser-type hand-held device used against the eyes. It would cause temporary or permanent blindness.  A good non-violent self-defense device, I’d say.  So, why would those messengers have not been equipped with such a self-defense device when sent into an extremely hostile situation? 

Well, they were so equipped and they used their devices against those who intended to violate them in the most perverse way possible.  I’ve assumed for many years now that they shined their lasers into the eyes of those criminals and blinded their retinas, but now I imagine that it went further than that.

The written account concludes the encounter with a most absurd statement, saying: “they wearied themselves trying to find the door.”  uh…that didn’t happen.  Finding a door with your eyes closed does not weary a person, but the author had to say something conclusive so he went with that lame invention. 

What is an alternate possibility that makes more sense?  It is this: the lasers were more than just strong light sources; they were light weapons.  If the light could be shined into the eyes to cause blindness, (which would leave the victims free to use their bodies in any hostile manner they chose) then it had to have had a greater power-setting to burn even stronger than what would have merely caused blindness. 

It would have had the capability to burn past the retina, through the back of the eye, and into the brain, frying brain tissue.  Now that would have stopped anyone in their tracks and kept the users safe.  Then those who witnessed it would have had a 180 degree change of attitude and would have occupied themselves with removing the body of their demonic gang leader(s) (as apposed to ‘wearying themselves’ with trying to find a door that was right in front of them). ]

Lot Flees to Zoar

12 Then the two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—a son-in-law, your sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here because we are about to destroy this place. For the outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that He has sent us to destroy it.”

14 So Lot went out and spoke to the sons-in-law who were pledged in marriage to his daughters. “Get up,” he said. “Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

15 At daybreak the angels hurried Lot along, saying, “Get up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city.” But when Lot hesitated, the men grabbed his hand and the hands of his wife and his two daughters. And they led them safely out of the city, because of the LORD’s compassion for them.

17 As soon as the men had brought them out, one of them said, “Run for your lives! Do not look back, and do not stop anywhere on the plain! Flee to the mountains, or you will be swept away!”
~     ~     ~

It’s clear that time was of the essence.  A count-down of sorts was in effect and the messengers were under the gun to get Lot and his kin out of the city before impending calamity struck.  That obvious urgency tells us something important; they had been informed in advance what day it would come, and even what part of the day, i.e. early morning, late morning, early noon, …etc., and they knew that time had run out.  It was too late for a casual exit because that would have doomed them.

So how was the knowledge of the timing of the impact from space acquired?  There is only one way short of divine revelation, and that is via observation, …but not just any kind of terrestrial observation because there would not have been available equipment to detect and plot the trajectory and timing of an approaching collection of meteoric debris.  That might have been different if the Earth were was in a fixed position in space.

But with the Earth both revolving around the sun and rotating on its axis, to plot the course and timing of an approaching object in space would have required three observation points in order to be able to calculate the trajectory in 3 dimensional space.  Then added on top of that were those additional factors of two forms of movement of the planet.  Hitting a bullet with a bullet would be far less complicated from a mathematical perspective, so a super-computer would have been required, and used, along with three detection locations, one or two of which could have been on Earth.

In addition, there is the factor of the impact location being a selected target, or so it appears by the narrative.  To insure a direct hit on the plains of Sodom and Gomorrah would have required the ability to alter the trajectory of the meteoric debris. That would have required some form of force-field technology to perfectly push (repel) or pull (attract) it into the path intended.  Kind of like a Tractor Beam.

Of course there is always the alternative of the equivalent of a modern “field” or tactical nuclear bomb device being used instead of “fire and brimstone” from heaven.  But I’ll go with the original narrative since I don’t believe that those behind the destruction would have built and used nuclear weapons.  The recorded account is one of a natural disaster that came from space.  We know that that is not an unlikely possibility, especially after what befell Tunguska, Siberia in 1908. Total devastation.

You certainly do not get this perspective from the scripture but you certainly can infer it, and without it we’d be left as have all readers of such accounts throughout history; without any explanation for the arcane details included in otherwise understandable accounts.

Well that’s enough for now.  If you think of anything to add, let me know.

India’s ‘Geopolymer Casting’ disguised as Stone Sculpture

India has the most mind-blowing temples in the world. That is due to the volume of extremely detailed figures and patterns in stone, unmatched and unattempted by any other culture on Earth.  Many, if not most, are indescribable and stand as mysteries of great stone-carving genius.  And yet, what they actually are is genius at avoiding carving in stone.

In the absence of advanced power tools and computer-aided manufacturing, stone presents great limitations, but clay does not. The limitations include the slowness and difficulty of shaping stone, while clay can be shaped rapidly and in great detail. That makes it possible to produce far more work in any given period of time than can be produced by working stone.

A cursory look at any ‘average’ Indian temple reveals the presence of enormous detail, so that should raise our suspicions that exquisite work in such great volume must have involved work at a much faster pace than what is possible with stone carving. To research whether or not such suspicions might be supported by evidence we can review and examine photos that might give a clear answer.  I’ve done that within just one of my saved folders of Indian Temple images, and here is what I found at just the Warangal  Fort complex.

[It should be noted that the place was either a manufacturing center or is near where one was once located.]

Capture82b
This shows that the figure was not a part of the flat stone slab but was instead layered on top of it and bonded to it, but unsuccessfully at the bottom section where it was broken off.
This insight tells us that all of the surface imagery was no different. It was all layered on top of a flat stone slab via some form of molecular bonding.  That insight leads to the conclusion that both surfaces had to have been in an unhardened state for a bond to take place between them.  But one of them dried before the layering could take place, and thus the bonding was a failure, although that could not be known since all of the rest of the added surface did bond well.

This insight leads to another: if the ‘stone’ figure was in an unhardened state then it must have been a casting from a mold, plus, if it was a casting, and is identical to the stone slab to which it was attached, then it also must have been a casting…of a kind of artificial stone; i.e. geopolymer igneous concrete made from a mixture of powdered stone, plaster chemicals, and natural binders.

This insight leads to another: if that stone slab could have been made from a mold then even larger slabs and blocks could as well, including blocks used as structural members to construct the elements of temples. Including, in particular, pillars, and floors, and beams.

That possibility leads to this question: which would be more possible, and easier to accomplish; breaking, cutting, smoothing, and polishing very hard igneous rock or crushing it to powder and then making concrete with that powder?

And an ancillary question is: which would be far easier to work with and produce the maximum output in terms of detail and volume?  Well, I need not answer that for any thinking person.  So now let’s see some more images that strengthen this theory.

What we want to spot is the presence of repeating elements, whether figures or patterns,  since they would be what is so much more easily produced by casting than by carving.  And secondary to that is shapes that are too straight or angular or delicate to be considered  as likely subjects of masonry or sculpting tools.  Exhibit # 1: (excellent but not from Warangal I assume)

67482152_2771879339492880_2835946796511920128_n

Capture87

Capture79Capture51Capture57Capture58Capture72

Capture45

So, if casting of geopolymer shapes was the practice, then the casting of geopolymer concrete stone blocks comes along with it.
Capture80b

Modhera Sun Temple_n

Now we have to confront a question that has never been asked: Are the figures and shapes of places like the Kailasa Temple also geopolymer forms that were added to the structure that was carved out of a stone hillside?
We need to keep in mind what has been previously seen, and ask ‘why would they not use the same ‘much easier’ technology since they possessed it?

Lastly, there are no explanations for what has been pointed out by Praveen Mohan in the following video of Hoysaleswara Temple, except that the pillars are geopolymer castings from molds made of clay sections turned on potter’s wheels and eventually joined together to produce a master mold which received the geopolymer cement.
I would expect that some or several of the pillars are identical. Also, he finds intricate sculptures that can’t be explained, (except as being soft layers that were carefully added to larger soft bodies which hardened into stone).

Proof of Ancient E.T. Robot Builders

Notice the undercut of the bottom blocks of the window spans. Humans would never  design (nor do) such a thing. But Artificial-Intelligence robots would. And did. -prove me wrong. And for those who aren’t keeping up: we will be building such machines within 25 years.

ADjoser Temple-2
At the bottom of the page there’s a photo of a modern tool that is a tiny stand-in for the huge drill bit that cut out those faux window sections.
Cumbemayo aqueduct in Cajamarca, Peru5
Straight-cut walls…’cut’ or sliced, not chiseled or hammered.

Capture23
Just another common sixteen-sided (!!) stone block. Humans do that all of the time, right?

 

Capture4c38411824_n
A typical example of a stone slab extracted from a rock face? Who does that??
Extraction method: Unknown.

60441265_n
Chisels and hammers?  Or two ‘fell swoops’? Note the left side is not an edge of the back cut.  It is like the right side: protruding and also cut just like it.  But how???? Does anyone know how that was possible in the distant past, or even today?

Capture24
~a straight cut…overhead….with chisels??…no goggles? Robots don’t need goggles.

Baalbek,Lebanon quarry
~largest stones ever quarried. Notice the size of the four people. Weight of the blocks: over 2,400,000 lbs. each.  Size: over 60 ft. long; 15 feet high
They were destined for the massive Baalbek ‘Temple’ complex which features the largest stones ever used in construction, and plenty of them.  The method of quarrying: unknown.  The method of movement: unknown.  The purpose for using blocks of such size: unknown. The time period of their use: unknown.  Those responsible for their use: unknown.  Reason that their work stopped: unknown.  Symbols, images, writing inscribed on the giant blocks: none. Legends that speak of them: none.

CaptureLongyou Cave complex, China.  Unknown origin and age. Carved out of rock…by non-terrestrial quarrying machines.  Discovered in 1992.  No record of this place ever existing.

Al Naslaa Rock Formation2

Capture20
He once knew the real story….but now he ain’t talkin’.

mjk2nzgynw

RedRobot

 

 

 

612zNt-b9bL._SY450_.jpg

Yes, folks, we are talking about a very large diamond-encrusted drill bit for a very big drill, used by a very powerful robot for cutting stone, limestone.
And here’s another photo of the same wall as at the top of the page.

1-Saqqara-temple

 

Exhaustive Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory

REAL SCIENCE RADIO post (reformatted)

Updated April 18, 2019: Our long-awaited video is now released also in DVD, Download, and Blu-ray!
History: After Real Science Radio’s debate with Lawrence Krauss, -a  leading big bang proponent, we aired our first program on the peer-reviewed scientific evidence against the big bang and against the widely-held major features of the cosmological model founded on the theory.
Welcome now to Real Science Radio’s List of Evidence Against the Big Bang!

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss got Bob Enyart and co-host Fred Williams all worked up when he told RSR that, “all evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.” In response, we produced this list, which is the web’s highest ranking, most concise, and comprehensive catalog of evidence assessed by many scientists to be inconsistent with the expectations of a big bang origin.

* RSR’s List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For descriptions and links to journal references, see below.
– Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.4Bly distant GN-z11)
– An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts a most fundamental BB prediction
– Observations show that spiral galaxies are missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
– Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
– A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth
– Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn’t form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
– A missing generation of billions of implied ‘first stars’ has simply never existed as evidenced by fruitless searching
– Missing uniform distribution of earth’s radioactivity
– Solar system formation theory wrong too
– It is “philosophy”, not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
– Sun missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
– Supernova theory for the origin of heavy elements now widely rejected
– Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
– Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
– Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
– Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted “quieter” echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
– The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we’re #1.)
– These “shouldn’t exist” – a super-massive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
– Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

RSR’s List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The big bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Why? Because if the universe is 13.8 billion years old, light traveling toward us for 13.4 billion years would show objects as they had existed in the early stage of the universe, long before (the BB theory has claimed) mature and bright galaxies could possibly exist.

Instead though, as RSR host Bob Enyart has been reporting for two decades, astronomers are repeatedly “startled” and “baffled” (per the journal Science) to observe that what actually exists is exactly what the big bang predicts should not exist.

For many of the most distant (i.e., allegedly “youngest”) galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies that are all around us!

Just in time for our 2014 RSR big bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: “discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn’t be: at an average distance of 12 billion light-years away from Earth.”

And in 2015, Caltech astronomers discovered Galaxy EGS8p7 at an astoundingly high redshift of 8.68 putting it apparently 13.2Bly away!

And the Astrophysical Journal, which had previously reported z=11, in 2016 reported the huge and especially bright GN-z11 galaxy at z=11.1! Such discoveries prove wrong Neil deGrasse Tyson and his claim that we creationists cannot make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows.

In 2005 a cover story Science News stated,

“Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That’s the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they’ve looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form.”

Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, as a biblical creationist, Bob Enyart predicted that NASA and the entire big bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more including hereherehere from the journal Science, and here from the journal Nature with their A galaxy far, far away!

* An entire universe worth of missing antimatter: When super-colliders form matter from energy, as expected from the laws of physics, equal parts of matter and antimatter form, which is exactly what should have happened if an energetic big bang created all the matter of the universe. So astrophysicists have spent decades looking for antimatter regions of the universe with scientists culminating a significant project by writing in The Astrophysical Journal, “we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded” with the journal Science reporting a physicist’s assessment:
The work is extremely compelling and gives me fresh pessimism” -that is, on the difficulty of explaining why the matter of the universe even exists by way of a big bang.

Consider also 1) Lawrence Krauss waving away this universe-worth of evidence on a Discovery Channel program; and
2) biology’s right-and left-handed parallel to cosmology’s antimatter problem; and
3) see RSR.org/big-bang-predictions which disproves the claim that predictions have confirmed the big bang.
And if you’d like to watch this fascinating brief Fermilab video on the missing antimatter, remember that the journal Nature in 2016 reported that,

“Current theory requires that matter and antimatter appear in equal quantities after the Big Bang, but the Standard Model of particle physics offers no quantitative explanation for the apparent disappearance of half the Universe [that a big bang would have created].”

 Spiral galaxies missing millions of years of collisions~

A major big bang prediction was falsified so strongly that Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles stated, “It’s really an embarrassment.” Assuming that large spiral galaxies formed as a result of the merger of smaller galaxies, big bang theorists have claimed that the bulges in the center of spiral galaxies are evidence of hundreds of millions of years of violent collisions from those merging galaxies. However, a careful look at large spiral galaxies, and especially those that can be seen “edge on” found that a significant percentage of very large spiral galaxies have no bulge whatsoever.

In fact, what astronomers had assumed, for many spiral galaxies, were classic “bulges”, turned out to be nothing of the sort. Further, simulations show that galaxy mergers could not occur without the millions of years of collisions occurring. And because all those collisions would produce a bulge, another major prediction of the big bang theory, regarding the formation of all large spiral galaxies, has been falsified.

Yet even at the Hubble Space Telescope operations center, as of 2015, big bang proponents still haven’t taken this empirical data into account.
Now that scientists have looked for the expected forensic evidence of that galactic violent history, and realized that it is missing, therefore the University of Texas astronomy department chairman John Kormendy admitted that these pristine spiral galaxies “were something of a shock” for they “look rather too perfect.”

* Clusters of galaxies exist at distances so great the BB predicts that they should not exist
 Galaxy clusters typically have between 100 and 1,000 gravitationally bound galaxies. When astronomers began looking at the furthest galaxies, which must have been formed when the universe was young, they did not expect to find galaxies pulled together into clusters. But they did.

“The surprising thing is that when we look closely at this galaxy cluster,” said Raphael Gobat, lead author of an Astronomy & Astrophysics journal paper, “it doesn’t look young…”
The official Hubble website reports that its very old stars and galaxies, “makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo galaxy cluster…” The Virgo cluster is not 10 billion light-years away; it’s so close to us that we’re in it!
The Virgo cluster contains 2,000 galaxies including the Milky Way. So finding a cluster with the mass and age of the Virgo cluster, more than 10 billion light-years from the earth is more than “surprising”; it is another major failure of the big bang model’s ability to predict the nature of the universe. (See too the MNRAS 2009.)

And even further clusters will continue to be discovered. For example, the Jet Propulsion Lab announced discovery of another galaxy cluster, at a very high redshift of z = 5.3, comprising “400 billion suns” at a distance of “12.6 billion light-years away from Earth.”

We invite you to share this page with friends
by posting this simple rsr.org/big-bang link!

Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars: Indiana University led a study of the metallicity of fifteen galaxies that undermined rather than fulfilled a major and fundamental big bang prediction.

RSR sparring partner, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical), and other materialist cosmologists do not *know* but they “believe” that, as billions of years pass during star evolution, these trillion stars were supposed to be creating vast quantities of metals (in astronomy speak, that means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium). Instead, these stars lack nine billion years worth of metal!

Based on a paper in the Astrophysical Journal, Space.com reports that,

“The reigning hypothesis of galaxy formation holds that such well-established spirals would have formed about 13 billion years ago, shortly after the big bang. But the new discovery of a group of 15 spirals that look to be much younger may upset that thinking.”

Space.com presents this in a typical isn’t-evolution-amazing! kind of way, but to strip the galactic evolution hype from the report, the actual observation indicates that these fifteen spiral galaxies are lacking the elements heavier than helium and up to iron that should have been created by nucleosynthesis over 9,000,000,000 years.

“We’re not saying there’s a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution,” says lead author and Indiana University astronomer John Salzer, “but that these objects do run counter to the standard model.”  Ya think?!

Galaxy super-clusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn’t form them in the age of the cosmos

Enormous superstructures, called superclusters, contain about 90% of all galaxies and are made up of millions of galaxies. Astronomers find them shaped like filaments and bubbles and in structures like the Great Wall, and the 1.2 billion-light-year-long Sloan Great Wall, and even in an astounding 5-billion-light-year spiral (see image).

Galaxies forming a giant spiral ring should not exist. But they do! And they span an area of the sky 70 times the diameter of the moon and five billion light years across and more than that away.
Of course as with other discoveries, this structure falsifies the Cosmological Principle and its two key concepts that the BB theory rests upon, homogeneity and isotropy.

The Great Wall and the Sloan Great Wall
Great Wall & Sloan G.W.

Even at the universe’s alleged 13.8 billion years of age, it lacks 99% of the time required for gravity to pull such structures together!
Thus because it would take a trillion years of work by gravity to pull together even the smaller superclusters, the “standard model” did not predict their existence.
Thus if the big bang were true, superclusters should not exist. But they do.
So to save their favored theory (and motivated by a desire to explain the cosmos apart from the Creator), theoreticians imagined a BB rescue device: dark matter.

And aside from distant clusters, Georges Lemaître himself realized that the big bang theory didn’t even explain the existence of nearby clusters. For as observed at a Belgium symposium to honor the father of the big bang theory, “The clustering of galaxies became a challenge that devoured Lemaître’s research in cosmology.

Time and again [Harvard’s Harlow] Shapley demanded that the theory of the expanding universe account for concentrations of nebulae he was charting close to the Milky Way. Lemaitre wanted foremost to satisfy the demand. Yet to the end of his life the solution eluded him.” And everyone else for that matter through to today.

* Completely missing first generation of (Population III) stars: Big bang theory predicts that many “first generation” stars (which are referred to not as Population I, but as Population III stars), would contain only the light elements claimed to have formed in the big bang (hydrogen and helium with trace amounts of lithium) and that these Population III stars should still be plentiful. Yet even though many millions of stars have been studied and cataloged, not even one Pop. III star has been found. “Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy.” –ScienceJan. 4, 2002 (see more references)

* Missing uniform distribution of earth’s radioactivity

 (Remember, this contrasts in the most shocking way with the uniformity of uranium isotope ratios, etc., explained just below.) Big bang theorists claim that all of our heavier radioactive elements were created in the supernova explosion of stars (a hypothesis now rejected by the Nat’l Academy of Sciences).

Regardless of how materialists claim that the heavier elements might have formed in space, such a story of origins predicts a relatively uniform distribution of these elements, for example, throughout the Earth’s crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart’s statement on air that ninety percent of Earth’s radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust!

That 90% is not in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, [covering about two thirds of the Earth’s surface] nor in the mantle or core. Rather, Earth’s radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of our planet’s mass, in the continental crust. Further, as Krauss admitted, uranium is preferentially concentrated near granite!

This is a further and powerful contradiction of the big bang model’s explanation of planetary origins.

Krauss did offer a partial explanation: that uranium was originally distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth, but being a large atom, it floated upward toward the surface. However, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core. And Krauss doesn’t explain why the uranium avoided the oceanic crust, nor why it is preferentially near granite.

The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around continental granitic crust. (See also below, the missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes and see too that RSR joins in the creationist prediction, which also helps to falsify big bang chemical evolution theory, that the Moon and Mars have little radioactivity.)

* Impossible consistency of Uranium isotope ratio if formed in space

Google: “origin of Earth’s radioactivity”. The top-ranked result is Dr. Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory, explained at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes:

The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. … Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017.
Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion light-years away and millions of years before the Earth formed] and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes.

Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element.
Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons [in the granitic crust, from the piezoelectric effect of underground earthquake lightning during the global flood (see evidence)] provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed.

Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global.

“Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day.” -Bob Enyart

* Solar system formation theory wrong too: (We maintain this list, updated, at rsr.org/solar-system.)

From its physics to its major predictions, the evidence against the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation has mounted to where the theory has failed. The California Institute of Technology manages NASA’s exoplanet database. Caltech’s astronomer Mike Brown stated:

Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.

Exoplanet discoveries, with their masses, sizes, composition and orbital characteristics different than what has been predicted for decades by the standard model of solar system formation, including with their retrograde orbits, highly inclined orbits and hot jupiters, have effectively falsified that model.
So, the impressive scientific discoveries (that taken together) completely falsify the nebular hypothesis include:
– exoplanets contradicting the predictions of the theory
– the theory depending upon ubiquitous catastrophism
– that our Sun is missing nearly 100% of its predicted spin
– that our Sun’s rotation is seven degrees off the ecliptic
– planets would not form because as admitted in Nature in 2013 “according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets”
– even when dust grains and small rocks collide gently they break apart instead of accreting to form planetesimals
– even if the laws of physics enabled planet-formation, 4.5 billion year is far too little time to build large planets
– the missing predicted uniform distribution pattern of solar system isotopes
– the missing expected uniform distribution of Earth’s radioactivity
– the contrary-to-expectations fine-tuning of the solar system
– the many contrary-to-expectations transient events in the solar system
– star formation has similarly intractable physics problems
– planet formation has similarly intractable physics problems
– contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain Earth-like minerals and rounded boulders
– short-period comets still exist even though they have lifespans of only thousands of years
– that Mercury has greater density than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
– the MNRAS published-analysis showing simulations can never demonstrate both planet and asteroid formation
– the rocky planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would rotate far more slowly if accreted from a condensing nebula
– the origin of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn has no “satisfying explanation” per the journal Science in 2002
– that Uranus rotates perpendicularly and that Venus rotates backwards.

So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the BBC, Nova, Bill NyeLawrence Krauss, etc., wrongly built public confidence in that secular origins story. The longstanding claims of solar system formation were invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system.
Now that thousands of exoplanets are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with epicycles and levels of Darwinian selection, shall we say, ‘more complex’.

For today’s show RSR recommends
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System

* It is “philosophy” that claims the universe has no center

It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center. Thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias.
At rsr.org/cosmological-principle see the physicists and astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman who state unequivocally that the belief (which Krauss holds) that the universe has no center, (which is essential to big bang cosmology) is a philosophical claim which the evidence is unable to confirm.

Hawking co-author George Ellis describes,

“a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
-with Hawking elsewhere concurring that scientists, “are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.”

Sloan Sky Map of the universe

* Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
The most extensive observational evidence ever collected in the history of science is indicating that the universe may have a center. Yet intense philosophical bias, described as “embarrassment” by Feynman, makes it difficult for belief-driven theorists like Lawrence Krauss to objectively evaluate the evidence as presented by many secular and creationist astrophysicist and cosmologists who have documented the quantized redshift of one million galaxies suggesting that these exist in preferred distances and concentric shells out from the center of the universe. This data comes from many sources which you can see in the video or in the list just below.

[watch several excellent videos at the original website page: https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang#supernovas%5D

Quantized redshift consistent with Axis of Evil

As seen in the video, this list (below) presents the papers, published mostly in secular journals, that suggest that the universe may have a center. Another equally impressive, independent data set reinforces, in a completely different way, that the universe may have a center.
This other, massively extensive observation is of the CMB [cosmic microwave background radiation] showing the anisotropy of the universe and what is popularly called the Axis of Evil. Lawrence Krauss explains (click the link or see the video just above) that this indicates that the Earth’s orbit is on the plane that passes through the center of the universe.

Now combine the CMB data with Sloan’s quantized redshifts. If both are valid, together, these data indicate that the universe has actual northern and southern hemispheres.  Three generations of satellites, COBE, WMAP, and Planck, have established and refined this CMB “Axis of Evil” and the Sloan survey has incorporated 208 million galaxies!

So these two massive and independent sources looking at very different types of data suggest that the universe, bisected by Earth’s orbit, may indeed have a center with the Milky Way being rather near that center.
– Sloan Digital Sky Survey maps (constantly updated; see image above)
– 1974, Proceedings of the 58th Int’l Astronomical Union Symposium, Fine Structure within the Redshift
– 1990, NatureLarge-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles
– 1996, Astronomy and AstrophysicsRedshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster
– 1997, Journal of Astrophysics and AstronomyQuantized Redshifts: A Status Report
– 2002, Sandia Nat’l Labs physicist Russell Humphreys, wrote in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, “…redshift quantization is evidence (1) against the big bang theory, and (2) for a galactocentric cosmology…”
– 2004, The journal Spacetime & Substance at Cornell University’s arxiv.org, Large Scale Periodicity in Redshift Distribution
– 2006, Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters at Cornell’s arxiv.org, On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
– 2008, Astrophysics and Space Science journal, creationist John Hartnett and Koichi Hirano, Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis, 318(1, 2):13–24
– 2009, 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Fourier Analysis of the Large Scale Spatial Distribution of Galaxies in the Universe, Dr. John Hartnett
– 2010, University of Western Australia physics professor John Hartnett, Where are we in the universe? in Journal of Creation
– 2014, Our Galaxy near the centre of concentric spherical shells of galaxies?, Prof. John Hartnett (various secular physics and astrophysics journals have published Dr. Hartnett’s work)

* Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart: The discoverer of gravity Isaac Newton rejected the nebula hypothesis that gravity could condense a gas cloud into our sun and its orbiting planets. Big bang proponents reject Newton’s insight. So they must develop a secondary assumption to explain why the Sun, which has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, has less than 1% of the “spin” of the system. Thus at least apparently, the claimed evolution of our solar system would violate the law of the conservation of angular momentum, requiring yet another “rescue device” to be devised to protect the theory.

* Big bang advocate Lawrence Krauss:
We interrupt our program to bring you this important information. Arizona State University Prof. Lawrence Krauss has been an aggressive salesman for the philosophical worldview of atheism for so long that perhaps he has forgotten even what it means for “evidence” to support a theory.

At five minutes into Part 2 of our Krauss interview, this big bang marketing rep repeats what appears in his recent book on page 6, that, “all evidence supports the big bang”, and in the nature of a propagandist, Krauss ups the ante by adding that “all evidence now overwhelmingly supports the big bang,” and to put a cherry on it, he adds: “overwhelming is an understatement.”
Now we return to our regularly scheduled programming, i.e., more evidence against the big bang.

*

* Supernova theory rejected for origin of heavy elements

As Science News explains stellar nucleosynthesis:

“Fusion reactions in the cores of regular stars produce carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements essential for life. But the heaviest element that fusion can construct is iron” (March 2013, p. 17).

Thus for decades on TV and in print, a thousand nature programs, articles, and books have confidently declared that even the heavier elements that also comprise the Earth, such as “zinc, silver, and gold… form in the midst of the extreme heat and energy of supernovas… But simulations show that these explosions have an insufficient quantity of neutrons” (p. 16-17).

Thus when the National Academy of Sciences issued a report titled, Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, they included question #10, “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” Yet countless secular science sources such as LiveScience as recently as Feb. 2015 ignore the nail in the supernovae coffin.

As described in the journal Nature, actually looking at a supernova explosion provides astronomers “no spectroscopic evidence that r-process [heavy] elements have truly been produced” (Rosswog, 2013, p. 536; see also Physics Reports, 2007Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2011; and Physical Review Letters, 2013)

Denying that the Creator made the Earth, the naturalist’s impossible quest to find the origin of our heavy elements takes them from supernovae to the next equally unlikely source for our heavy elements, namely, neutron stars

* Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes

To pile on, scientific observations also challenge the standard stellar nucleosynthesis story of the origins of our solar system’s lighter elements, those between lithium and iron. For, if these were created inside of stars which later exploded, the big bang model expects a reasonably homogenous distribution of the created elements such that, the Sun and the Earth should consist of the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen.

However, the Sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the Earth, which is contrary to standard planetary formation theory, which predicts the same percentage of isotopes in both bodies. Likewise, the Earth has 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to its other isotopes, than does the Sun. NASA reports:

“that Earth, the moon, as well as… meteorites… have a lower concentration of the O-16 than does the sun… The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials…”

(Any secondary assumptions that attempt to answer that problem, regardless of how improbable in and of themselves, of course, will fail to explain any isotope mismatches between the Moon and the Earth.) And to pile on even more, there is a missing distribution of iron in so-called second-generation stars.

* Surface brightness of furthest galaxies identical to nearest galaxies: A 2014 physics journal paper reports careful observations of about a thousand galaxies that contradict a fundamental big bang prediction.

“[T]he Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe [distant galaxies] should actually appear fainter but bigger.”

This would reduce their surface brightness per unit area. But it turns out that the surface brightness of the furthest galaxies studied is identical to that of the nearest galaxies!

A team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics published, UV surface brightness of galaxies, and found that, as reported in Sci-News:

“Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.” And further, “It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said one of the study’s co-authors, Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.

At rsr.org/expansion read more about why equal brightnesses contradict the big bang and hear more about this from physicist John Hartnett, inventor of the most precise clock ever made by humans.

* Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies

As Princeton’s astrophysics Prof. Michael Strauss describes the data:

“…tremendously distant galaxies are just as clustered as today [that is, as those that are nearby] and are arranged in the same filamentary, bubbly structures that nearby galaxies are.

Thus, rescuing the big bang theory from the existence of unexpected-distant galaxy clusters merely exposes an equal and opposite failure of the theory.

If 96% of the stuff of the universe is hypothetical and unknown, but sufficient to rapidly pull together galaxy clusters from across the universe as they existed allegedly many billions of years ago, then that same extra matter should have pulled together the mass of nearby galaxies far more so than it could have done in just the early stages of the universe to the most distant galaxies.

At the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech’s astronomy Prof. Charles Steidel concurs with the degree of clustering, near and far: The work is ongoing, but what we’re able to say now is that galaxies we are seeing at great distances are as strongly clustered in the early universe as they are today. This enormous observation fits the predictions of young-earth creation but contradicts BB expectations.

* Missing CMB shadow of the big bang

As reported in Science Daily, University of Alabama at Huntsville scientist Dr. Richard Lieu concludes, “Either… the Big Bang is blown away or … there is something else going on’.”
The Astrophysical Journal reported on a “vital test of the present cosmological paradigm” i.e., the big bang, that “taken at face value, one may even hold the opinion that there is in fact no strong evidence” for the long-predicted shadow of the CMB from behind 31 nearby galaxy clusters, “beyond the usual primary CMB… variations”.

As with dozens of some of the most careful and extensive observations ever made in the history of science, the missing shadow is yet another failure, not of an incidental off-the-cuff prediction but of a fundamental requirement of the big bang. As Dr. Lieu put it:

 “These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years. If you see a shadow… it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don’t see a shadow, then you have something of a problem.”

See also the Royal Astronomical Society’s follow-up corroboration and hear RSR’s 2014 discussion with one of the world’s more successful physicists, at rsr.org/john-hartnett, that this hard data implies that the CMB may have a foreground source. Yet the BB remains a matter of deep faith among believers, as Dr. Lieu told space.com, “I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday.”

 CMB and other alleged big bang predictions that were never made

Consider first that the big bang’s famed “prediction” of the distribution of elements was adjusted after the fact. As is typical of the CMB and other alleged predictions of the big bang, the claim that there was an accurate prediction of the primordial percentage of elements (like hydrogen and helium) has been contradicted in the journals Nature and Physics Essays and has been challenged in The Astrophysical Journal, in Science News, and in Cambridge University’s Modern Cosmology.

For example, a paper in Nature describes the particulars of this prediction as, “assumed ad hoc to obtain the required [predicted] abundances”. In Physics Essays also, “The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe.” 

See more excerpts and all of this documented at rsr.org/big-bang-predictions along with the big bang’s predictive failures regarding antimattermagnetic monopoles, a thousand times too much lithium-6, and also regarding big-bang-required dark matter. Likewise, the big bang’s “prediction” of the 2.7K CMB was yet another after the fact retrodiction.

In addition to challenges in New Scientist and Physics Essays, a winner of the Nobel Prize for discovering the cosmic microwave background radiation himself disclaimed the accolade that the big bang theory predicted the 2.73 degree Kelvin CMB. In his lecture given on the very occasion of sharing the Nobel Prize for discovering CMB radiation, Robert W. Wilson, acknowledged that, “The first confirmation of the microwave cosmic background that we knew of, however, came from a totally different, indirect measurement. This measurement had, in fact, been made thirty years earlier… near the peak of a 3 K black body spectrum.”
Thus physicist Lawrence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing, p. 18, on RSR, etc.) is wrong when he claims that such “predictions” have confirmed the big bang. See more documentation of this at rsr.org/bb-predictions#cmb.

* A Supermassive black hole should not exist: But it does.

If the big bang theory were true, the black hole at 12.8 billion light years away containing the mass of 12 billion Suns that (by the big bang theory) “simply can’t exist“, shouldn’t be there. But it is.

Likewise the mature distant galaxies, distant galaxy clusters, and the superclusters, shouldn’t exist by the big bang theory, but they do.
The black hole that shouldn’t exist is described in a 2015 Nature paper, a 2016 Science News “not enough time” report, and in this EuroNews video:


* Dusty galaxy shouldn’t exist: But it does.

In March 2015, phys.org reported, of a newly found galaxy apparently 13 billion light years away, “Expected to look like a newly formed system, the galaxy surprised the observers with its rich chemical complexity and abundance of interstellar dust.” On this galaxy A1689-zD1, National Geographic quotes University of Arizona’s Daniel Marrone, an “expert on galaxy formation” saying:

“Last week, we learned of an incredibly massive black hole in the early universe. Now we have this average galaxy with significant amounts of dust. We’ve had this cartoon picture of the early universe, but it’s clear that we really don’t know what’s going on.”

The big bang theory maintains that the universe started out with no “metals” and no dust at all, but almost only hydrogen and helium. So this expert on galaxy formation sounds just like one of the world’s leading experts on the nebula hypothesis, Caltech’s Mike Brown who manages NASA’s exoplanet database, who said in 2013 that our theory of planet formation is, “clearly, thoroughly wrong.”

* Iron-poor “second-generation” stars shouldn’t exist: But they do. By the big bang theory, the oldest stars (called Population III) should have no iron. Population II stars should have some. And Population I stars (the youngest) should have plenty of iron. However, based on a paper in the journal NatureScienceNews reports:

 “Scientists thought that the high-energy explosions, or supernovas, of the universe’s first stars would have seeded galaxies with this heavy element [iron]. But the old star’s chemical composition and that of four others suggest that the explosions of the first stars were much lower in energy than those of giant stars today. … That could explain why old, second generation stars… have very small traces of iron, and it suggests that low-energy supernovas were more common in the early universe than originally thought, astronomers report February 9 [2014] in Nature.”

With the near infinite pliability of such cosmological story-telling, evidence like this that undermines the long-standing secular account of the development of the universe is simply woven into a different story. True believers assume that any newly created gaps in the “plot” of the story of the universe will be filled in by other even more imaginative storytellers.

* Galaxy formation problems

To a materialist, galaxy formation is an unsolved problem. In 1990 the journal Nature:

“A comparison of the merits of five general theories for the origin of galaxies… produces no clear winner… we would not give very high odds that any of these theories is a useful approximation of how galaxies were actually formed.”

About that time and then republished in 2005, Stephen Hawking ended his list of unsolved cosmology problems with this:

“galaxies… are thought to have developed from small differences in the density of the early universe from one region to another. What was the origin of these density fluctuations?”

NASA doesn’t have the answer either, as reported by New Scientist: “We have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed… whether they were formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivision of large ones.”

And in 2009, a search of a trillion stars revealed nine billion years of missing metal (that’s a lot!), which, as reported in the Astrophysical Journal, is “a challenge [to] the current paradigm of galaxy formation”, which was already challenged enough.

Then, telescopes including NASA’s FERMI, exacerbated the “transparency problem“, with so much missing “infrared light between galaxies“, apparently, billions of years worth, that it “may call into question our understanding of how galaxies are born“, something that was questionable enough already!

Additional problems with naturalistic explanations, as described above and at rsr.org/galaxy-formation-problems and listed here concisely, include:
Spiral Galaxies: near and far, have the same amount of spin, whether next door or 10 billion light years away.
Huge Galaxies: appear at such great distances that they would have had to form too rapidly for a BB time frame
Clustered Galaxies: near and far, are strongly clustered, contradicting the expected influence of gravity over time
Galaxy Superclusters: enormous galaxy clusters like bubbles, the Great Wall, filaments, the Sloan Great Wall, which is more than a billion light years across, all lack the time for gravity to pull them together.
Even Temperature Resists Galaxy Formation: The big bang model says that gravity working on an uneven distribution of matter would create galaxies, but the background temperature of the universe (CMB) is about 2.73 degrees Kelvin with less than 1/10,000th of a degree variation, indicating an extreme evenness by which gravitational pull in every direction would tend to prevent clumping such that galaxies would not form in a mere 14 billion years.
Fractal Universe: if the universe is fractal, as it appears, the big bang then doesn’t explain galaxy distribution.
Mature Galaxies: 12B light-years away where we should only see infant galaxies formed, we see mature galaxies
Spiral Galaxies “Too Perfect”: Cosmologists say that the missing collisions in pristine galaxies is “an embarrassment”
Closest Bulge a Mystery: Even the formation of the closest one to us, the bulge within our own Milky Way, is a mystery.
Galaxy Spin: The big bang does not explain even why galaxies spin.
Spiral Arms: after supposed billions of years, their spiral arms should now be deformed.
Fast Moving Arms: The big bang requires hypothetical entities to justify the great speed of the spiral arms of galaxies.
Stars First, or Galaxies? The long-time editor of the journal Nature admits that the big bang theory doesn’t even help scientists determine which formed first, stars or galaxies.

And they have the most difficult time even explaining where our own Moon came from, let alone the entire universe. Thus, far from being able to explain how the universe could form apart from God, they are groping in the dark.

And RSR’s own Density Problem: As journalists, here at Real Science Radio we typically report what others have published. But consider NASA’s acknowledgement of the missing density problem after sophisticated measurements indicate that there exists only half of the expected baryons (normal matter) that should exist in the universe based on the prediction of the big bang theory.

So now RSR asks, if there actually is only half the ordinary matter, and thus less gravitational attraction, than previously presumed, with that much less matter to coalesce, does such missing matter imply yet another problem for galaxy formation?

~    ~    ~    ~

Additional Evidence Against the Big Bang
RSR occasionally moves items below from this abbreviated list,
sourcing and expounding upon them, and promoting them to the above list:

Millions of years of missing spiral arm deformation. Of the evidence that does not “support” the big bang, this is an example that proponents jump on first, actually claiming this as positive evidence, while it is one of the first observational contradictions of the theory that caused them to assert the existence of one of their first hypothetical entities, dark matter.

Psychologically speaking, the more observations that contradict a theory, and the more secondary and tertiary rescue devices needed to prop it up, the more its proponents make over-the-top assertions such as in this case by Dr. Krauss: “All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.

Big bang nucleosynthesis has given no account of the universe

Although claimed as one of the major confirmed predictions of the big bang theory, the “predicted” initial abundances of elements allegedly made in the big bang account for only a tiny percentage of all the “stuff” that should exist in a BB universe.

For example:
– Dark Matter: Astronomy texts that present a materialist story of the origin of the stuff of the universe, called BBN, or big bang nucleosynthesis, present no accounting whatsoever for the origin of dark matter!

However, a big bang universe requires the existence of five times more dark matter than all the normal matter that we actually observe filling the cosmos! Thus, it is grossly incorrect to claim that the big bang theory does a good job explaining the origin of the stuff of the universe.
– Antimatter: Of course, the big bang nucleosynthesis hypothesis also failed in one of its most fundamental predictions, that 50% of the “matter” of the universe would be antimatter.
Dark Energy: And because cosmologists admit that, like dark matter, they have no idea what dark energy might even be, therefore of course, the big bang theory has in no way explained how dark energy could have formed.
– Etc. (If materialists can’t even propose what the substances are that would fill 95% of their materialist cosmos, then of course they cannot have a robust theory that explains the origin of that universe, given that they don’t even know what’s in it!) And for more examples of stuff not predicted, see rsr.org/bb-predictions#initial-abundances.

Star formation is an unsolved problem.  Physics laws contradict the claim that gas would condense into stars. How could the first generation of stars form by naturalistic means? Serious problems with the theory of stellar formation include that they begin with stars already having formed or in the process of formation. (This is not unlike Darwin’s over-reaching title, On the Origin of Species, since he began with at least one species already in existence.)

If a gas cloud began to condense naturally, then gravity, a relatively weak force, would be overwhelmed by the increase in temperature and pressure, which would cause the gas cloud to expand rather than to collapse. So, to get beyond the fact that what we know of the laws of physics prevents the natural formation of stars, the standard theories begin either with a protostar (a star already well into it’s formation), or the explosion of a star from a previous generation of stars so that it’s energy wave would condense a gas cloud to create a protostar.

In layman’s terms however, that’s called cheating. See rsr.org/star-formation-problems to consider also the missing Population III stars, the angular momentum problem, the missing stage 3 supernova remnants, and a textbook summary of star formation problems from a Cambridge professor.

Alleged dark matter still missing. Dark matter apparently doesn’t exist within the closest 13,000 light-year swath of the Milky Way (May 2012) according to a study in the Astrophysical Journal. This contradicts one of the initial reasons for proposing the existing of dark matter, that “the Milky Way galaxy is embedded in a dark matter halo.”

So this leaves scientists even further in the dark about what they (by faith) believe constitutes the vast majority of the matter of the universe. More recently, in December 2015, a technical Physical Review Letters paper was reported on by phys.org, New results from world’s most sensitive dark matter detector, but the single word, “Nothing” is the even more succinct summary from David Coppedge, a former Jet Propulsion Lab administrator.

A Princeton University big bang advocate puts it this way: “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical,” Jim Peebles admits. Then in 2018 when NASA announced the observation of “the farthest star ever seen“, with galaxy cluster lensing illuminating Icarus, a transiently brightening star apparently an astounding 9 billion light years away, they also acknowledged that this sighting likely eliminates another place to look for dark matter, innumerable “primordial black holes”. ”

[S]cientists were able to test one theory that dark matter might be made up mostly of a huge number of primordial black holes formed in the birth of the universe with masses tens of times larger than the Sun. The results of this unique test [i.e., seeing starlight that traveled more than half the diameter of the universe] disfavor that hypothesis, because light fluctuations from the background star, monitored with Hubble for 13 years, would have looked different if there were a swarm of intervening black holes.”

Thus the big bang did not predict, and does not explain the nature of, nor therefore the origin of, the vast majority of matter that is proposed in order to prop up the theory. Peebles’ assessment above prohibits the use of the vast majority of the claimed matter of the universe in support of Lawrence Krauss’ marketing claim that, “All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.” Further, for decades, plenty of observations that:
– should have quantified dark matter have instead suggested its non-existence
– gravitational lensing used as evidence for dark matter, except when it’s not (like when global warming makes fish bigger… except when it makes them smaller 🙂
Far too evened-out temperature creates BB’s own Starlight & Time Horizon problem

Big bang supporters assume “inflation” to address their own starlight travel time problem. Like the starlight and time challenge put to biblical creationists, the big bang has the same problem, known as its horizon problem. Even a 14-billion year old universe is nowhere near old enough to enable the temperature of the background radiation to even out so perfectly.

So in 1981, not as a prediction of the big bang, but in a dramatic ad hoc secondary assumption to adjust to the data, Alan Guth imagined an inflation period in which space expanded far more rapidly than even the speed of light!

Many believe that this solves the problem of a big bang universe being far too homogeneous to be explained by the laws of physics. There is no known mechanism that could suddenly start the expansion; the “graceful exit” problem of an equally sudden stop is also unsolved; and the inflation theory’s 2014 gravity wave fiasco resulted in the journal Nature publishing a scathing criticism that asked whether or not the belief in inflation itself is, “fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.

Inflation leads to multiverse, anti-science, and even Boltzmann Brains

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse,” said Alan Guth. “But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.”

Once you posit an infinite number of universes, then atheists really run wild, as Luke Barnes over at space.com points out, describing, “a fully-formed brain spontaneously popping out of ’empty’ space. Given enough time and space this vanishingly improbable event will occur.

While such freak observers, known as Boltzmann Brains, would be massively outnumbered by biological observers in our universe [RSR: saints be praised], they could be common in the almost unending time & space of the entire multiverse.”

Thus, the big bang is rescued by the imagined inflation period,
-which leads to the science-killing multiverse,
-which makes it infinitely more likely that the universe doesn’t exist
-and that the big bang never happened,
-and that you are merely a Boltzmann Brain floating alone in space with false memories. Really.

Inflation is challenged by the measured density of the universe

Known also as the missing baryonic matter problem, NASA writes, “the only serious problem facing Big Bang cosmology is… the density of our universe [which seems] to come up short by a factor between two and five” as compared to what has been “predicted by… inflationary Big Bang cosmology.”

Lawrence Krauss suggests that this matter is missing just because it’s not luminescent, so that its hard to see because it doesn’t shine. However, his problem is exacerbated by the “transparency problem” and by NASA attributing this missing matter problem not to what we can’t see but to what we CAN see!

“The recent study of supernovae located some 5 billion light years away have, again, indicated that the universe seems to have about five times less density than inflationary cosmology demands that it must have to be consistent with the COBE measurements.”

NASA then added, “No astronomer [presumably except for those at cosmologystatement.com] is even remotely suggesting that Big Bang cosmology is incorrect…”

* The big bang model dates stars as older than the age of the universe

As NASA has put it, “There seemed to be [a] problem with the age of the universe turning out to be shorter than the ages of the oldest stars…” But the latest recalibration makes those stars only about 10 percent older than the universe, unless as NASA does, they apply 100% of the margin of error in favor of their theory.

Yet even then, the Methuselah Star formed 13.7 billion years ago, at the moment of the bang, which is still 400 million years before the big bang theory claims that stars began to form.
Even our speed through the universe is inconsistent with the big bang theory

NASA reports that our Sun is moving about 800,000 mph relative to the photons of the CMB, which speed is significantly different from what it should be in a big bang universe, being inconsistent with the supposed earliest (and most fundamental moments of the) expansion of the universe.

Further, a 2004 Cambridge University text reports that our Sun is moving at 1.4 million mph relative to the expansion of the universe, when cosmological calculations based on the CMB indicate that we should be moving closer to half that speed.

* Assumed dark matter bubbles to get densities in the homogeneity

While inflation was imagined to address the problem of the universe being too homogeneous, to solve the exact opposite problem, dark matter bubbles have been imagined because the extreme evenness of background radiation indicates that the universe was not lumpy enough to naturally form stars.

An expanding universe exacerbates the problem, presented above, that the laws of physics do not enable the natural formation of stars from gas clouds. So BB cosmologists call again upon the super malleable great-in-a-pinch dark matter to rescue their theory.

It is now claimed that trillions upon trillions of dark matter bubbles (DMBs) allegedly formed in a just-so arrangement by way of the big bang so that each one would gravitationaly attract gas to form the trillions of alleged Population III protostars.

With all those DMBs formed, this tertiary assumption/rescue device also solves the problem of how galaxies formed, suggesting that DMBs were initially arranged into clusters which formed the galaxies. Imagined inflation and DMBs are such dramatic attempts to explain observations which otherwise bluntly falsify the standard model, that one can see that the big bang theory is as pliable as any science fiction holodeck could be.
Alleged dark radiation added to the BB’s hypothetical rescue devices.

The hypothetical conjectures of dark matter, dark energy, inflation, the multiverse, and more recently, dark radiation, exist to offset the direct implications of extensive scientific observation. Yet as with the big bang itself, these violate the most fundamental laws of science, including the conservation of energy.

* Nine billion years of missing chemical change in supernovas

Sounding like a surprised paleontologist looking at a living fossil, Space.com reports, “The chemical composition in these 9-billion-year-old supernovas look remarkably similar to those that occur in the modern universe.”

If it were true, the big bang paradigm requires thirteen billion years of stellar nucleosynthesis to account for today’s heavier elements. Yet this scientific discovery regarding these supernovae “standard candles” suggests that stellar nucleosynthesis was put on hold for most of the history of the universe, requiring then a non-standard explanation for these “standard candles”.

* Prof. Stephen Hawking caught cheating in class on origins.

Stephen Hawking alleging that God did not create the universe but that gravity did provides another example of cheating. In his famous speech Origin of the Universe Hawking asked:

 “So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe.”

To this any observer should ask, “What universe?” In the atheist origins camp, as happens generally even at elite levels, Hawking is assuming the existence of that which he is claiming to explain!

Missing evidence to explain the order of star and galaxy formation.

John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, admits on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, that scientists don’t even know, “Which objects came first, stars or galaxies?” Thus evolutionists oversell the evidence for the big bang to the public, and neither for Earth nor for space can they answer the chicken-or-egg dilemma.

Stephen Hawking, after alleging that the big bang has great explanatory power, describes “stars and galaxies” as “irregularities” in the universe and admits that scientists don’t even know at the most generalized level how they could have formed.
Quasars challenge big bang red-shift interpretation.

Quasars, believed to be the extremely bright centers of very distant galaxies, typically have high redshifts (implying great distance). However, they statistically cluster with galaxies of low redshift (implying near distance). Further, many quasars appear to be “ejected in pairs in opposite precisely aligned directions perpendicular to the plane of [their] galaxy”, and some even appear to be physically connected to these much lower red-shifted galaxies.

In an extraordinary example of red-shift evidence that does not fit into the big bang paradigm, spiral galaxy NGC 7319 has a low red-shift value of z = 0.022 interpreted as being 360 million light-years distant, yet it appears to sit behind a foreground quasar with a much larger redshift of z = 2.114, interpreted by the big bang model as being 35 billion light-years away!

Spiral arms rotate more rapidly than predicted and haven’t deformed: Galactic arms should deform in less than a few million years. Yet even after alleged billions of years, grand design spiral galaxies still have well-defined arms.
Further, big bang theorists expected decreased rotation speed with distance from the center, but this fundamental prediction has failed in that speeds tend to plateau and “are essentially constant beyond a certain distance from the center.”

Leading advocates admit that big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) cannot even theoretically make enough baryonic matter (i.e., regular matter, made of protons and neutrons) to explain the rapid galactic rotation speeds, so they believe in the existence of ten times more matter than is visible, much of which is hypothetical non-baryonic dark matter, to overcome this failed prediction.

“Axis of Evil” Anisotropy falsifies the Copernican principle

The New Scientist article, Planck shows… axis of evil, reviews the “four-year mission conducted by the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, which has created the highest-resolution map yet of the entire cosmic microwave background (CMB) [which] does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB.

These include a ‘preferred’ direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed [as even in the journal Science] the ‘axis of evil'”. Why evil? Because Planck seems to both falsify the big bang’s central Copernican principle, and to suggest that the earth is in a special place in the universe.

As space.com put it, “The Big Bang Theory says that the CMB would be mostly the same, no matter where you look [yet] the Southern Hemisphere appears slightly redder (warmer) than the Northern Hemisphere.” Hear also our RSR program on the cosmic “axis of evil” and see our summary of the peer-reviewed literature at rsr.org/anisotropy.

Water unexpectedly exists on the moon.

The water discovered on the moon runs contrary to the expectations of the theories of its formation.

* Venus rotates backwards.
If Earth and our neighboring planets originated by the big bang model for solar system formation, from a condensing, spinning spiral nebula, then all of our planets would be expected to have prograde rotation, that is, in the same direction of the spin of the alleged initial nebula. However even materialist astronomers admit that (from their perspective) Venus’ retrograde rotation is inexplicable.

Evolutionists are planetary catastrophists.

Evolutionists traditionally reject explanations involving catastrophic past events on Earth, even though continent-wide flood deposits and massive lava flows cover our relatively small Earth. Yet, in the enormously larger space of the solar system, secular theorists invoke catastrophe repeatedly, even at the magnitude of planetary collisions, in an attempt to explain materialistically inexplicable observations.

For example, trying to explain the backward rotation of Venus, evolutionists resort to catastrophism. However, with the increase of our knowledge, (now including that exoplanets have falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation) not only does Venus challenge atheistic origins, materialists do not have an explanation for any planet.

Challenged by the conservation of angular momentum, so far we’ve discovered that one exoplanet actually orbits its star backwards. In our own solar system, major catastrophes are claimed per planet (as for the creation of our Moon). The rescue devices here are the extraordinarily high number of billiard-like planetary collisions that result in just-so positioning and conditioning of planets to explain the particulars of our own solar system, and others.  To begin with:
– planetary collisions are invoked to explain why a few inner rocky planets are spinning so rapidly on their axes
– evolutionists invoke an Earth collision with a planet possibly as large as Mars to explain the origin of the Moon
– a planetary collision is invoked to explain why Venus is spinning backwards (retrograde)
– etc., etc., as evolutionists invoke many more collisions to explain the features of our eight planets and their moons.

Our Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic.

If the standard model’s formation of a solar system from a spinning nebula were true, a mechanism would have to exist to either tilt the massive sun, or shift the orbits of the planets as a group, to obtain our current 7 degrees off configuration. The more we learn, the more Isaac Newton’s conclusion is affirmed, that the planets are in their current orbits only because the Creator of the system desired it so.

* Forcing a neutron-star answer for the question of the origin of heavy elements:

The National Academy of Sciences issued a report titled, Eleven Science Questions for the New Century which includes question #10, “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” Likewise, Stony Brook University astrophysicist James Lattimer plainly said that, “One of the universe’s overriding mysteries is where heavy elements originate” (Grant, p. 16).

Well, remember that years ago the government unwisely pronounced that eating fat makes people fat? Since a dearth of neutrons means that supernovae are out, where else to look next but to neutron stars, which are cast superficially into a cosmic drama about heavy, neutron-rich, elements.

This latest origins fad is supported with circular reasoning and by making models that produce results conforming to after-the-fact requirements (as with the ubiquitously acclaimed but failed solar system formation model). However, with the average neutron star having more mass than the sun yet compressed to a sphere with only a 6-mile radius, its enormous gravity will hold onto its own matter, leading model makers to attribute the heavy elements of the universe to neutron stars merging with one another or being shredded by black holes with the claim that much of their matter then escapes their enormous combined gravity. See references and more at rsr.org/phil-plait#neutron-stars.
The rotation of Uranus is perpendicular to the sun’s.

By the law of the conservation of angular momentum, the seventh planet from the sun, Uranus, should have an axis of rotation parallel to that of the Sun. However, some describe it as the “rolling planet” because it appears to roll around the sun rather than orbit typically, because it has a rotation axis that is nearly parallel to the ecliptic instead of that predicted for it by evolutionary assumption, an axis parallel to the sun’s axis.

The Moon’s outer core is molten. So much still-molten rock on such a small body in space is either evidence against it being billions of years old, or is evidence of very recent bombardment, both of which are widely rejected by evolutionists.

Many unexpected transient events in our solar system. If the solar system actually were 4.55 billion years old (that third significant digit is added by evolutionists as a psychological device to convince the public of a fictitious precision), by now it should have reached a stasis. Instead, scientists observe a great number of fleeting, short-lived occurrences, (transient phenomena) including:
– Mercury: Rapid decline of its magnetic field; “recently” deposited “geologically young” water ice on poles
– Venus: Recent volcanic eruptions and the apparent significant slowing of rotation
– Earth: Rapid decline of magnetic fieldinner core meltingblack smokersrapidly collapsing “ancient” features“recently” formed mantle upwelling (beneath New England)
– Moonrsr.org/TLP cites unexpected thousands of moonquakes, heat, dust, molten outer core, volcanism, many young craters, ubiquitous micrometeorites, radon & helium emissions, hemispheres not yet in homeostasis, recession, and two major but “temporary” dust clouds gravitationally held in two of the Earth/Moon Lagrange points

– Mars: Eruption of water vapor plumes to 200 kilometerswater on the equator, “inexplicable” methane plumes randomly belch out thousands of tons at a time of this organic gas which “really shouldn’t be there” says NASA’s Chris Webster; and outgassing of its moons Phobos and Deimos

– Jupiter: Moon Europa erupting and Io giving off 10x more heat than tidal pumping can explain
– SaturnRings are young & changing; Enceladus ejecting plasma & erupting (hear RSR interview with a former JPL systems administrator)

– Comets: The European Space Agency was surprised to film an actual landslide on the allegedly four billion year-old Comet 67P flying pile of rounded boulders and ice that is also outgassing oxygen; also, short-period comets exist even though the Oort cloud does not! See more at rsr.org/comets.

– Asteroids: NASA surprised to catch an asteroid breaking up, while others outgas including the large Ceres at 13 pounds of water vapor per second and the small binary comet/asteroid Body 288P, and some even look like comets, with one having six tails, etc., see phys.orgNASAEarthSkyetc., and a retrograde one that barely missed hitting Jupiter for… billions of years? See more at rsr.org/asteroids.

– TNOs: Trans-Neptunian Objects are thousands of years old because millions of years would have randomized their perihelions. See more at rsr.org/TNOs.
– TNO Pluto: Pluto’s smooth, youthful appearance was not expected considering its alleged 4-billion-year age.
– See our maintained list at rsr.org/transients and please feel free to send other examples to Bob@rsr.org.

Visit the Real Science Radio web-page to see the many fascinating videos there: https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang#supernovas

[* BIG RSR Announcement! The long-awaited astronomy video, RSR’s Evidence Against the Big Bang, is finally here! If you enjoy Real Science Radio and would like to help keep the guys broadcasting and reaching more people, you just might love getting your own copy of this really fun and informative video. This big bang video is persuasive in the way that RSR is known for, and so it will also make a fabulous Christmas present for creationists and non-creationists alike!]

90 scientists: Global warming is a total hoax

Bryan Fischer column
Bryan Fischer
July 9, 2019

Folks, don’t let the Talking Snake Media lie to you. Not only does man-caused global warming not exist, it is the scientific hoax of the century. And 90 leading Italian scientists say so.

All of them signed a detailed letter to lawmakers which challenges the claim that man is causing catastrophic global warming, and that CO2 emissions are the culprit.

They argue that our policies with regard to global warming should not be based on hysterics but should be “consistent with scientific knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more.

So if we are going to base our view of climate change on science, the first thing we need to accept, say these scientists, is that “CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT ITSELF A POLLUTANT.” (Emphasis in original, except where noted.) The view that CO2 is a pollutant is the single biggest lie of the entire environmental movement.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. It is, as these scientists say, “indispensable for life on our planet.” Plants absorb CO2 and use it to grow. They also release oxygen into the atmosphere, which is a nice thing if you like to breathe.

If you run a greenhouse and you want to turbo-charge plant growth, you can do it by injecting CO2 into the greenhouse. Side by side videos of plants in an environment with normal CO2 levels and plants in an environment with highly elevated levels of CO2 show an astounding difference in the rate of growth. In fact, an area the size of the United States has greened up around the world as the CO2 concentration has increased. CO2 is not our enemy. CO2 is our friend.

These scientists go on to state flatly that “the anthropic origin of global warming is an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability.

“Natural variability,” in fact, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” It is irresponsible and unrealistic to blame warming on human beings, and further, it’s nonsense to believe all the doom and gloom warnings. “The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.” (Emphasis mine.) The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.”

For instance, there is no correlation between rising CO2 levels and increased tropical cyclone activity. There is, however, a strong correlation between cyclonic activity and the completely natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, an oscillation that runs in roughly 60 year cycles.

These scientists also blow up completely the myth that science is in any way based on a show of hands, which is what five alarm environmentalists want us to believe. “The scientific method dictates that the facts, not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory.” (Emphasis mine.)

They themselves are living proof – all 90 of them – that “the alleged consensus (on global warming) DOES NOT EXIST.” Their petition itself demonstrates clearly the absence of a scientific consensus on the matter. The list of signers includes professors of physics, atmospheric physics, physical chemistry, natural sciences, environmental engineering, astronomy, applied geology, volcanology, meteorology and climatology, oceanography, satellite interferometry (whatever that is), hydrogeology, and probability and mathematical statistics. In other words, these are outstanding and highly credentialed scientists. They know what they are talking about.

Their bottom line: “Nature, not the activity of Man, governs the climate.”

And since in America, we believe in “Nature’s God,” it is in fact God who governs the climate. Man can’t do a thing about that. Man-caused, catastrophic global warming, folks, is a sham, a scam, and a hoax. Don’t fall for it. Science has your back on that one.


Bryan Fischer is the host of the daily ‘Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association. ‘Focal Point’ airs live from 1-3 pm Central Time, and is also simulcast on the AFA Channel, which can be seen on the Sky Angel network.

© Copyright 2019 by Bryan Fischer
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/190709

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
Host of “Focal Point” on American Family Radio, 1:05 pm CT, M-F www.afr.net

How Supplanting Newton’s Physics Spawned Multiculturalism

How the Eclipse Expedition to Confirm Einstein’s Theory Instead Birthed Multiculturalism

The American Thinker

Between May 29 and July 1919, an expedition organized by Cambridge astronomer Arthur Eddington and the Astronomer Royal Frank Dyson photographed first an eclipse of the Sun (May 29) and then, a month later, the stars where the Sun had been during the eclipse.  By comparing the two photographs, the deflection of light caused by the Sun’s gravity could be precisely measured.  Einstein’ gravity theory predicted a deflection value of 1.75 arcseconds, and Newton’s gravity theory a value half that.  The results were announced in November 1919 to a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society. Prof. Salim Mansur nicely described the expeditiona few weeks ago on this site.

Einstein was confirmed!  Newton was overthrown!  And multiculturalism was born.

Let me recommend reading Prof. Salim Mansur’s Delectable Lie: a Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism, which gives the following very nice definition of “multiculturalism:” the idea “that all cultures are equal and deserving of equal treatment in a liberal democracy…” (p. 2).

So how did the eclipse observations birth multiculturalism? By overthrowing the Newtonian Empire.

For if the central theory of physics, Newtonian physics, could be proven false, there was no guarantee that Einstein would not himself be overthrown in the future.  As Karl Popper put it in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, “All universal theories, whatever their content, have zero probability” (p. 373).

So why bother to test any theory? They are all false.  Western civilization was believed, before the eclipse expedition, to be superior because its knowledge was superior to those of other cultures, including earlier Western culture.  But if all theories have zero probability of being true, then the theories underlying all cultures are equal because they all are equally false. Indeed, it follows that objective truth does not exist, because an objective truth would have probability one, not zero, of being true.

But what if the Newtonian Empire actually never fell?  What if Einstein’s gravity theory — which is in fact correct — is not a successor of Newtonian theory, but instead a special case of Newtonian theory?

Then all cultures are not equal.  Then Western scientific culture is superior to all the other human cultures.  Then postmodernism is complete nonsense.

Einstein gravity theory is in fact a special case of Newtonian gravity theory!

To see this, it is first necessary to formulate the two gravity theories in the same mathematical language. This was accomplished in 1924 by the great French mathematician Elie Cartan, who showed that Newton gravity is time being curved, while Einstein gravity is time and space being curved.  In Cartan language, the equations of the two theories are:

Newton                                                 Einstein

Rmn = 4pGSmn                                     Rmn = 4pGSmn

If these equations look the same to you, it is because they are the same!  In both cases, Rmn  is the Ricci curvature tensor, G is Newton’s gravitational constant, and Smn is the density of matter tensor.  The Greek subscripts can take on the values 1, 2, 3, or 4, the first three representing the three directions of space, and 4 representing time, which for both Newton and Einstein, is the fourth dimension.

But in the original Cartan formulation, the identity of the two equations is misleading.  For Newton, who did not know space could be curved, there is no curvature in space, which means Rmn  is zero when the Greek letters represent space, while for Einstein, space as well as time is curved.  So for Einstein, Rmnis non-zero for all subscripts.

But there is no reason to restrict Newtonian gravity to non-curved space.  Had he known of curved space, Newton himself would have added spatial curvature to his equations. I showed how to add spatial curvature to Cartan/Newton in a paper published in the leading British astronomy journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.  When spatial curvature is added to Cartan/Newton, Rmnis then non-zero for all spatial subscripts.

With spatial curvature added, Newton gravity is now more general than Einstein gravity, because for Newton, the spatial curvature can be anything.  Nothing in Newtonian theory restricts spatial curvature.

We can restrict spatial curvature only by taking into account Maxwell’s equations, which was considered part of Newtonian physics in the nineteenth century. One of Einstein’s greatest achievements was to show that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, which requires that the speed of light be the same for all observers, thus requires that space and time be mixed together, which is to say, combined together to make space-time.

When this fact is incorporated into Newton’s equations in Cartan’s curvature language, it can be shown mathematically that not only is the spatial curvature now restricted, but the restriction necessarily turns Newton’s equations into Einstein’s equations!  That is, Einstein gravity is restricted Newton gravity!  I have shown in a paper published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that quantum mechanics is also restricted Newtonian mechanics.

The Newtonian Empire never fell!  Newtonian physics, the center of modernity, holds!

The Australian philosopher David Stove, in his book Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a Postmodern Cult, showed that all post-modernism, in particular the entire work of the philosophers Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, is based on the belief that Newtonian physics was replaced in the twentieth century.  If one reads carefully the founding texts of postmodernism in the humanities and the social sciences, one sees that these texts acknowledge that postmodernism is based on the perceived fall of Newton.  Often they quote Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to this effect.

So all postmodernism is based on a mathematical error. There was no revolution in twentieth-century physics.  As George Orwell pointed out in 1984, left-wing philosophy is ultimately based on a denial of mathematical truth, in particular denying that 2 + 2 = 4.

It is time universities, and intellectuals generally, accept that 2 + 2 = 4, reject multiculturalism, and return to modernity.

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University.  He is the author of numerous technical papers, mainly in cosmology, quantum mechanics and general relativity.  His non-technical books are The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity.

The Moon is a Mystery We Cannot Solve

 

15 Mysteries You Need to Know About Earth’s Moon

https://curiosmos.com/15-mysteries-you-need-to-know-about-earths-moon/

The moon is the fifth-largest natural satellite in the Solar System, and the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits.

Although we have successfully landed on the moon and explored its surface the best way we could, the moon, its origin, and history remain a profound enigma to humans.

It was the ancient Greeks who began understanding the moon’s properties before anyone else.  It was a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher called Anaxagoras who first discovered that Earth’s moon did not shine its own light, but that it was light reflected from the sun.

Another Greek scholar called Aristarchus was the man who managed to measure the relative distance of the Sun and the moon and realized that the Sun is located at a greater distance from Earth than the moon.

The following centuries saw experts study the moon in greater detail and with the refracting telescope in function, early astronomers were intrigued by what they managed to see.

Then, as time moved and technology advanced, we sent space probes to the moon, and eventually ended up going to space, landing astronauts on the moon, and returning to Earth evidence of mankind’s greatest journey to date.

But despite this, the moon is packed with mysteries.

We still have no clue how the Moon formed

The greatest Moon mystery is surely related to its origin. The most acknowledged theory argues that the moon came into existence after a planet collided with a young Earth, around 4.5 billion years ago. As the two bodies collided, material got ejected into space. It eventually accumulated, condensed and formed the moon.

But that’s just a theory and we still don’t know the moon’s exact origin.

Distinctive layers

It is argued that the moon has at least three distinct layers of rock, with the heavier rocks of the moon being found on the surface. Edgar Mitchell admitted that because heavier materials are located on the surface, there was a possibility that the moon had gigantic caverns leading inside the moon.

Rust?

Apollo 16 astronauts are said to have discovered rocks containing pieces of rusty iron on the moon. Oxidation needs oxygen and free hydrogen and the rust tells us that there should be water somewhere on the moon.

Wind and Water

We’ve been on the moon six times. And during those moon missions, we left a bunch of stuff on the moon’s surface. While most of it is refuse, the astronauts left some scientific instruments that have remained functioning ever since. In 1971, one of the instruments left by Apollo mission astronauts (near the Apollo 14 landing site) registered ‘wind’, containing traces of water sweeping across the lunar surface.

Water ‘found to jump’ around the Moon

A recent study found that water on the Moon’s surface hops across its surface as the moon warms and cools throughout the day. This was found by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has been studying the Moon since 2009.

There’s a paper titled “Is the Moon the creation of Alien Intelligence?”

This is not a conspiracy, but the title of a study published in the 1970’s by two scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Scherbakov wrote in their article:

If we abandon the traditional paths of ‘common sense,’ we have plunged into what may, at first sight, seem to be unbridled and irresponsible fantasy.  But the more minutely we go into all the knowledge gathered by man about the Moon, the more we are convinced that there is not a single fact to rule out our hypothesis.”

The Moon rang like a bell, sort of

On November 20, 1969, when the Apollo 12 crew returned to their command ship, the lunar module ascent stage was sent down to crash into the moon to produce an artificial moonquake.

The LM crashed into the surface of the moon at a location around 20 kilometers from the Apollo 12 landing site where astronauts had installed ultra-sensitive seismic equipment. As the LM crashed into the moon, the seismometers recorded something unexpected;  Earth’s Moon reverberated like a bell for approximately an hour.
The vibration wave recorded by seismometers took almost eight minutes to reach a peak.

Something similar happened on Apollo 13.  It hit with the force of 11 and a half tons of TNT. The seismic impact didn’t peak until after seven minutes, with shock waves 30 times greater and four times longer than those from Apollo 12’s LM impact, over three hours!

Is there Life on the moon?

Officially speaking, we haven’t found evidence of alien life. But there are chances that microbes may exist on distant alien moons, on Mars, and also on the surface of our Moon. We aren’t speaking about little Moon men walking around, but primitive organisms that somehow managed to hitchhike a ride to the moon. There, the extreme lunar conditions in so-called “lunar cold traps” may have preserved organic substances, in a way similar to how Earth’s permafrost (like Siberia) has protected extinct animal species.

The Far Side of the Moon is different

The Moon’s Far Side, often incorrectly dubbed ‘Dark Side’ was revealed for the first time in 1959 when the Soviet spacecraft Luna 3 managed to get there. Humans directly observed the far side of the Moon for the first time when Apollo 8 orbited the Moon in 1968.

Although it didn’t find aliens running around, it did discover that the far side of the moon was drastically different from the near side of the moon. For example, on the Moon’s near side, there are massive impact craters and lunar seas called maria, (leftover magma that arose from the ground, filling in the inner crater).

But the far side of the Moon is different; the far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with fewer maria. According to researchers, only 1% of the surface of the far side of the moon is covered by maria. In comparison, around 31% of the Moon’s near side is covered in Maria.

There’s a massive metallic structure beneath the largest Moon crater

The dense mass, whatever it may be, where ever it may have come from, is weighing the basin floor downward by more than half a mile, experts have revealed.

The massive structure is buried beneath the surface beneath the largest crater in the solar system, the Moon’s South Pole Aitken basin.

The Moon is ‘shrinking’

Officially, Earth’s moon is shrinking. To explain ‘why?’, we turn to moonquakes. Just as our planet has earthquakes, the moon has… you guessed it, moonquakes. These lunar quakes are the result of the moon being tectonically active. These quakes are causing the moon to contract.

NASA has concluded that the interior of the moon is cooling down causing its surface to contract. As the moon’s surface cracks, it produces cliffs called scarps.

1668, a UFO on the Moon?

No seriously.

In 1668, a guy watching the moon observed the first UFO ‘on the moon’. In 1668 a Colonial Preacher by the name Cotton Mather observed a strange shape on the moon’s surface as he was observing the moon. He recorded seeing a mysterious light traversing the surface of the moon.

His report was archived in NASA archives. It can be accessed by visiting NASA’s Chronological Catalog of Reported Lunar Events.

Earth’s Moon, a small… Earth?

Scientists have proposed that the Moon may not be just a satellite, but an actual ‘mini planet’.

A study from planetary scientist Kevin Righter of the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Division (ARES) at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston proposes that the Moon may be more like our planet’s mini version. The researcher argues that the Moon may not be a combination of the young Earth and an object that allegedly impacted it, but a smaller packed version of Earth itself.

There were plants and animals on the Moon…

-and fairly recently we may add. China’s Chang’e-4 Mission became the first spacecraft to successfully land on the far side of the moon. It was a massive step not only for China but for the entire human species. Before this, we never actually managed to land on the far side of the moon, despite various attempts.

China made it happen, and the lander that touched down on the far side of the moon carried among its numerous experiments, plants, and animals.
Scientists wanted to see how these living organisms would react to the gravity of the moon, and abrupt temperatures.

The lander carried a small laboratory that was home to seeds of potatoes and rockcress, a flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard. The miniature laboratory also carries silkworm eggs.

Weird size, and a few mini-mysteries

The moon is an exceptionally large-ish cosmic body relative to Earth. That’s strange. The Moon’s diameter is more than a quarter of Earth’s but its mass is only 1/81 of Earth’s.

The Moon also happens to be the largest moon in the entire Solar System relative to the size of its home planet. Furthermore, the moon orbits our planet in a synchronous rotation. This means that the moon always shows us only one of its sides, the near side.

  • Radius: 1,079 miles
  • Orbital distance: 238,855 miles
  • Orbital period: 27.32 days
  • Gravity: 1.62 m/s²
  • Age: 4.53 billion years
  • Circumference: 6,784 miles

Wikileaks Document Exposes a “Secret US Base on the Moon”

 

IN BRIEF
  • The Facts:A document published by Wikileaks clearly implies that the United States had a “secret” base on the Moon that was destroyed by Russia. It’s one of many interesting documents that suggest strange things are and have been happening on the Moon.
  • Reflect On:Is our world really as it’s been presented? There are millions of pages of documents that are classified by multiple countries every single year, how is it possible to really determine what’s going on behind the scenes? Why does secrecy rule?

The Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects, and one of them is the effort of governments, and it’s not just the US government… The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal multitude to know about… That’s basically what happened. Wikileaks was producing things that people ought to know about those in power, people in power don’t like that. So therefore we have to silence it. – Noam Chomsky (source)

*Note from author: I recently published anarticle that goes into detail about what Julian Assange’s arrest tells us about our world.

The idea that something strange may be happening on the Moon is not far fetched at all. In fact, given all of the information that’s now available within the public domain on the subject, it’s hard to see how it’s not a fact. We’ll get to some of that information later in this article; but first, let’s draw our attention to a strange Wikileaks document titled, “Report That UR Destroyed Secret Moon Base.”

Unfortunately, the document is not an electronic document, therefore access to its full contents is not available online. For anybody truly interested in reading the entire thing, a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) may be in order.

Without speculating here, we can conclude that this is what it says it is, a report regarding possible space wars that are taking place in the classified world. The document title alone not only exposes the reality of these alleged wars, but the possibility of a “Secret Moon Base” belonging to the United States that apparently was in operation until it was destroyed by “UR.” (Soviet Union)

You can view it in the Wikileaks archive here.

So, what other information exists, besides this document, showing that something strange is and has been happening on the Moon? There’s a lot of information, so it’s hard to know where to begin.

First of all, the idea of bases on the Moon have been an open discussion within the government for a long time, although the information isn’t easy to find, but it’s definitely out there. A document from the government’s own publishing office is a great example. It clearly shows one of the goals of the United States government is to build a base on the Moon, and this is as far back as 1966. (source)

A portion of the document reads, with reference to presidents Kennedy and Johnson in a statement by HON. George P. Miller:

I also believe that we can and will achieve the goal set by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson: a manned landing on the moon before 1970. My own confidence in our rapidly advancing science and technology is such that I can visualize many more dramatic achievements ahead, although I will fix no timetable for them. 1. The exploration of the lunar surface, and possibly the establishment of one or more permanent bases there.

Furthermore, decades old documents have been declassified discussing this topic, showing just how serious and far possible advancements with these intentions have gone.

Take a look at the screen shot below, taken from the CIA electronic reading room in the form of a memorandum that was addressed to the CIA director regarding “Military Thought (Top Secret)” by Lieutenant General Korenevskiy.

The document above really goes into detail regarding the importance of weaponizing space. This brings to mind another document from Wikileaks, in the form of an email that was sent to politician John Podesta from Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, and Dr. Carol Rosin. It reads as follows:

Dear John, Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk. Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. The following information in italics was shared with me by my colleague Carol Rosin, who worked closely for several years with Wernher von Braun before his death. Carol and I have worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, attached for your convenience.

A declassified report by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center from June 1959 shows just how seriously they considered a plan called Project A119. In general, they wanted to investigate the capability of weapons in space as well as gain further insight into the space environment and the detonation of nuclear devices within it.

Interesting to say the least, but it’s important to recognize the intentions behind the letter, and that is the recognition that humans have brought and will continue to bring their destructive ways into space by weaponizing it or attempting to weaponize it.

With all of this documentation, it’s also interesting to look into witness testimonies from credible sources.

In the 1950s, Colonel Ross Dedrickson was responsible for maintaining the inventory of the nuclear weapon stockpile for the AEC, and for accompanying security teams testing the security of the weapons, among many other duties. When it comes to weaponizing space, which is clearly outlined within multiple documents linked above, this is what he had to say:

“I also learned about incidents involving nuclear weapons, and among these incidents were a couple of nuclear weapons sent into space that were destroyed by the extraterrestrials… At the very end of the 70s and the early 80s, we attempted to put a nuclear weapon on the Moon and explode it for scientific measurements and other things, which was not acceptable to the extraterrestrials. They destroyed the weapon before it got to the Moon.” (source)

Dedrickson is one of hundreds of whistleblowers with verified, credible and impressive backgrounds to speak up about an extraterrestrial presence. In that same interview, he went on to state that:

A spacecraft went to the rescue of Apollo 13, and they accompanied Apollo 13 on their voyage around the Moon back to Earth. And on two occasions they thought they might have to transfer the crew to their spacecraft, but they saw them safely back to Earth.

This may explain why several astronauts have also been quite outspoken about an extraterrestrial presence, like Edgar Mitchell, Brian O’Leary, Story Musgrave, Gordon Cooper and many others.

Another document from 1965 regarding the CIA keeping tabs on Soviet space plans reads as follows:

Keep in mind, this was more than 50 years ago.

Below is an interesting quote from Carl Sagan:

It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist, or even that some kind of base is maintained (possibly automatically) within the solar system to provide continuity for successive expeditions. Because of weathering and the possibility of detection and interference by the inhabitants of the Earth, it would be preferable not to erect such a base on the Earth’s surface. The Moon seems one reasonable alternative. Forthcoming high resolution photographic reconnaissance of the Moon from space vehicles – particularly of the back side – might bear these possibilities in mind. (source)

George Leonard’s 1976 book, Somebody Else is on the Moon, and Fred Steckling’s 1981 book, We Discovered Alien Bases on The Moon, also come to mind when discussing this subject.

Members of the Society For Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) recently published a paper in the Journal of Space Exploration about certain features on the far side of the Moon that appear in the crater Paracelsus C. Titled “Image Analysis of Unusual Structures on the Far Side of the Moon in the Crater Paracelsus C,” it argues that these features might be artificial in origin.

The study makes a great point when it comes to the extraterrestrial hypothesis:

A decidedly conservative mainstream scientific establishment often rejects anomalies based on subject matter alone, i.e., there cannot be alien artifacts on the moon because there are no alien artifacts on the moon (or other planets). Such a view is an example of circular reasoning, based on the belief that extraterrestrials do not exist, or if they do exist that they could not have traveled to our solar system.

The truth is, “there is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that civilizations have been visiting us for a very long time.” – Dr. Brian O’Leary, former NASA astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor (source)

When it comes to the Moon, man-made bases may not be the only ones there.

As far as our own bases are concerned, Karl Wolfe, who was a precision electronics photograph technician at Langley Air Force Base, became well-known when he provided his testimony at National Press Club in Washington, D.C. as part of Dr. Steven Greer’s disclosure project.(source)

Wolfe’s testimony revealed that he was taken into a dark room where images from NASA’s Lunar Orbiter were being developed and stitched together into composite images called “mosaics.”

“They were doing 35 mm strips of film at the time which were then assembled into 18 ½ x 11 mosaics. Those strips were from successive passes around the Moon and they would build up a photograph ,” Wolfe said.(source)

“We walked over to one side of the lab and he said, ‘By the way, we’ve discovered a base on the backside of the moon.’”

Dr. John Brandenburg, the Deputy Manager of the Clementine Mission to the Moon, which was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and NASA, has also made some fascinating revelations. The mission discovered water at the Moon’s poles in 1994 (Source: page 16 of 18)(source)(source). But, according to Dr. Brandenburg, the Clementine Mission had an ulterior agenda:

“The Clementine Mission was a photo reconnaissance mission basically to check out if someone was building bases on the Moon that we didn’t know about. Were they expanding them?… Of all the pictures I’ve seen from the Moon that show possible structures, the most impressive is a picture of a miles-wide recto-linear structure. This looked unmistakably artificial, and it shouldn’t be there. As somebody in the space defence community, I look on any such structure on the Moon with great concern because it isn’t ours, there’s no way we could have built such a thing. It means someone else is up there.” (Quote from the documentary, “Aliens on the Moon.”)

Related Articles

There are other strange facts about our Moon that’ve been pointed out by some very credible sources. I go into more detail regarding the actual structure of the Moon and what it is as well as the evidence suggesting it could be artificially made in the article linked below:

Multiple Scientists Publish Papers Suggesting The Moon Is Hollow & Artificially Made

Welcome To The World of Secrecy

A Michigan State University economist teamed up with multiple researchers, including Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They found trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from housing & D.O.D and going towards black budget programs. You can read more about that here.

We are talking about Special Access Programs (SAP). We have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.” (source)

I am mentioning this stuff because, whatever is happening with regards to the Moon, you can bet that it’s being funded by trillions of dollars from within these deep black budget programs. These are our tax dollars hard at work.

We don’t really hear about black budget programs, or about people who have actually looked into them.  However, the topic was discussed in 2010 by Washington Post journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin. Their investigation lasted approximately two years and concluded that America’s classified world has:

Become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. (source)

CE founder Joe Martino recently went deep into this subject on an episode of CETV, it will be airing soon!

The Takeaway

Our world is not how it’s been presented. Many subjects once and that still are deemed as a “conspiracy” are clearly not a conspiracy. Strange things happening on the moon and UFOs, for example, are one of several great examples.

It’s OK to explore these things, but it’s vital that we examine good sources and present good sources when we do so.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution’s content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY EMAIL
START YOUR DAY WITH THE LATEST NEWS

 

SUBSCRIBE