know dear reader. I know. You are probably thinking that I must be joking, right? I'm not joking. Now you may be wondering if I have completely lost my mind. I assure you that I haven't lost my mind, quite the opposite, actually. Now you must be wondering, why should I (or anyone) entertain such a loony tinfoil hat idea? Now, now. that kind of attitude is very unscientific. As if tin foil can protect us from mind control any better than it can protect us from deadly radiation. Now if we want to talk about effective barriers to solar radiation, then read my last article about the firmament, where the research I found states that clouds are a real barrier to certain types of solar radiation. I have also found that anyone with a sarcastic "tin foil hat" mentality is nearly unreachable with facts, much less the truth.
At any rate, I must admit, that in the past I've shied away from any discussion on "flat earth, simply because I was taught and accepted the globe model, which is obviously the truth, right? I mean we have picture perfect proof thanks to the moon missions and satellite images. And that is why I never dreamed of questioning what I was taught and what I saw with my own eyes. But ever since I've come to the realization that many of the things I've learned in school are outright lies, like:
- The Declaration of Independence was literally signed on July 4 by the "Christian" founding fathers (who were really Freemasons, and Deists)
- The origin of Thanksgiving (Not even close to reality)
- Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery (He was really more interested in keeping the United States in tact)
(just to name a few), then logically, that tells me there is a very real possibility that there are plenty of science lies out there too. Therefore, science isn't safe from my newly reacquired sense of doubt and scrutiny. As for that "picture perfect" proof of our globe world? Well, come to find out, that even in our modern space age era, those photos are composite images. That's right, we are amazingly lead to believe that satellites, which are in space, like the Hubble Telescope, can only send us little pictures of the earth which have to be pieced together with Photoshop and CGI techniques. Hmmm...me thinks that is a load of dirty snow.
But how annoying it is to find that even experts can be fooled by those who are experts in deception. There are white lab coated scoundrels who have a vested interest in fudging facts and numbers in a study, in order to gain sizable grants and undeserved prestige. And even more exasperating, legitimate experts in the same field can have surprisingly different opinions about the same data. And then there are those who are not as "expert" as they think they are, all of which leads us back to: " the silly people don't know their own silly business."
Theoretical vs. Zetetic Inquiry
The fudged data comes from temperature gathering sites stationed in and near urban cities, which naturally collect and retain higher temperatures due to all of the concrete, brick structures, and the asphalt paving in a city, more so than more woodsy and rural areas would absorb. It is well documented that earth's temperatures fluctuate over decades, so this is not a real cause for alarm, unless you want to push a population control agenda via fear mongering, which is what this whole issue is really about. It's amazing how, according to these scientists, that "global" temperatures seem to be rising in direct relation to the population, kinda like when more people enter a cold room, it starts to heat up. What's their ultimate yet subtle solution? Culling the population, of course. Since it is down right rude (and dangerous) to tell people to their faces that they are expendable, other ways to get rid of excess population are needed, and what better way to justify the reduction of the undesirables than with faulty science?
Dear reader, this is not empirical data based science, it's all fairy tales and fiction, or what Spongebob Squarepants would call, "Imagination!" They can't even replicate the act of macro
evolution (a life form turning into a different life form) in a lab, nor is there any slightest hint of macro evolution occurring in front of our eyes in nature. Macro evolution, is after all, the foundational sacred cow of their theory, which is disproven by the foundation of biology that states, only life comes from life, not rocks. Therefore, since their fanciful method of theoret-ical scientific inquiry is polluted and needs some sort of reform, there is apparently a better way to explain natural phenomenon; a better scientific methodology. Flat earther's like Samuel Rowbotham, call it the Zetetic method.
We must understand that even though we ourselves may not have any ambition to rule the world, there are people who have had, and do have such a lofty goal. The pages of history are littered with such people's treachery, outlining the tools they used to achieve world con-quest such as: war, cloak and dagger plots, political intrigue, and coup d'etat. For people to be so clueless as to the reality of past and continuing world conquest conspiracies carried out by elitists is mind boggling. Even to this day in the U.S., many states in the Union conspire ways to expand their borders for more elbow room and resources. There is an Oregon border town that is technically inside California, and they live in mortal fear that they will be annexed some day and forced to be Californians! But not all boarder disputes are fomented by man, some-times nature's ebb and flow, like rivers, move borders. My point is, mankind is NEVER happy with what he has!
Getting back to the zetetic method, we must learn to trust, to an extent, the evidence we experience with our own senses, and make logical deductions from what clearly presents itself to be evidental information, just as Descartes said. What a concept! For example, instead of your physician guessing, or hypothesizing what's wrong with you, wouldn't it be nice if he actually listened to you and thought about, and tested the evidence in front of him/her? Many doctors just digest and regurgitate what they are taught without any thought. If you don't fit their mold, then you're either a hypochondriac, a stress case, or are depressed and are in need of Prozac. "Oh! You have acid reflux, or heartburn, you say? Well, obviously you are in need of Prilosec or Zantac!" It can't possibly be a symptom of a larger problem, like something wrong with your nervous system, thyroid, electrolyte or hormone imbalance, or the presence of a possible bug, poison or toxin in your system, because as everyone knows, the stomach magically digests food all on it's own, without any other bodily system being involved! Right? No! That kind of mind set is compartmental madness!
Another Inquiry Method?
Therefore, the Bible is my go to source for absolute truth. If someone doesn't believe in God (or the Bible), then they have severely limited their access to a very reliable resource of truth. When we take man's word over God's, we have in essence, voluntarily taken the word of known liars over the word of one who embodies absolute truth. Not a very wise thing to do. Yet this is what many well meaning Christians do, they take the word of imperfect men over the word of our perfect God. They even go so far as to interpret Scripture based on the information that fallible men give us about our world, rather than using the word of the one who created our world to judge the information offered by fallible men. I used to do this too, so I'm not guiltless. I have decided that this alarming trend must stop here on out.
What about the staunch atheists? How are they going to find the truth outside of the Bible? They can still arrive at the truth if the honest seeking person relies on a legitimate empirical, or even the zetetic method of inquiry. When they allow themselves to use their reasoning capabilities, and not their emotions, bias, and the power of suggestion when they are pre-sented with undeniable hard facts, the truth will be easier to swallow. To be sure, those who roam the theoretical halls of science will not accept the true empirical, or zetetic method, much less the Biblical method. They will instead, jealously guard and ravenously defend their empty philosophies out of the predictable fear of losing their lively hoods, which depend on their fertile imaginations. To be sure, no matter what scientific method we employ, only hard concrete evidence will lead us to the truth, but if we are willfully blind to it, then we have no hope of ever finding it.
And that is why I depend on the Bible to root out people that would lie about the reality of our existence. Lie? That's such a strong word, why would men lie about the shape of the earth, and the nature of our universe? That's a very good question to ask, and so I am going to investigate a possible motivation for the apparent deception.
It's All About Rule & Power
Deception is keeping people in the dark, which is definitely one of many well proven ways to effectively rule over the masses, whether the deceiver is a maniacal spirit, or a flesh and bone person matters not. And like it or not, the spiritual realm is real (God says so). And like it or not, we humans are wired for the desire to rule over others in varying degrees; even to be ruled over. And according to Scripture, evil entities are no different in their lust for power than humans are. People can argue all they want about the validity of these statements, only an honest person will concede to at least considering them instead of dismissing them altogether. Here are a few quotes from three very influential people of this world, that say pretty much the same thing regarding deception and a person's reaction to it.
In the movie Ben Hur, there is a small yet important scene where Sextus (the retiring Roman prefect of Jerusalem) is briefing Messala (the ambitious new prefect) about the volatile situa-tion there. He laments about not being able to physically drive revolution from its inhabitants because of the idea, or belief of the Israelites in their coming Messiah. In frustration over Messala's enthusiasm, Sextus asks Messala, "How do you fight an idea?" And Messala fires back, "...I'll tell you how...with another idea! " And do you know what? It works!
In our reality, there are currently two warring ideas as to the nature of our universe, whether it is the sun, or the earth, that is at the center of our universe. And war they do, sometimes brutally. I'm not interested in the mere opinions, or tiny minds of those who attack other people's intellects in the name of protecting their own intellectual homeostasis. I'm only interested in the absolute truth, and the all that encompasses it. If you don't think that abso-lute truth exists, well then, just click off and go somewhere else, because this discussion won't interest you. Maybe you should go watch some mindless, and meaningless t.v. sitcom instead. Are they gone? Whew! Now those of us who want the truth, let's consider those two complete-ly opposing view points and what they ultimately represent.
Heliocentric vs. Geocentric Universe
The heliocentric model of our universe is fairly new in human history. Many of the ancient civilizations, up to the time of of the 15 century, depicted the earth as a flat plain, that was covered with a pot lid of sorts, forming the sky, which held all the luminaries within it. These ancient peoples were not knuckle dragging neanderthals, by the way. The Sumerian, Babylon-ian, Egyptian, Vedic, Arabian, and Mesoamerican cultures were all very advanced in their mathematics and star gazing abilities. Can any of the brainiacs in this modern world figure out how ancient cultures moved massive rocks, quarried with astounding precision, from great distances and then stacked them to great heights in layouts which perfectly mirror the starry host? Nope! The best they can do is infer that aliens from outer space are responsible. I won't even go there, as I have enough on my pseudo-science plate to chew through for now. (I will, in a future post, look into the idea of levitation induced by electromagnetic aether, that Nikola Tessla was experimenting with.)
Proponents of the heliocentric cosmos will point out that not everyone held the geocentric view up to that time, as being scientifically accurate. Their proof? Several paintings of monarchs holding a globe in their clutches. That's all well and good, but that in and of itself doesn't experimentally prove the earth is in fact a globe, it just proves they were clutching a globe while being painted.
Long Distance Sea Travel
Come to think of it, yet another historical lie I learned in school (that has since been refuted) was that long distant sea voyages were not undertaken by ancient man. I have recently dis-covered that many ancient cultures were well able to navigate long distance sea voyages via the stars, and ocean currents. There is even evidence that other explorers have landed on the shores of the Americas long before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492! If not, then how did coca, which is native to western South America, find its way into Egyptian mummies? I heard a scientist once say that mountains are greater civilization barriers than oceans, and I can see how that is very true. So, let's not patronize the ancient's intelligence, or capabilities, okay? While they may have tried to explain some aspects of natural phenom-enon via spiritual means, that in no way makes them morons. Speaking of spiritual explana-tions for natural phenomenon...
Satan, the highest ranking spiritual enemy of our souls, will advance any plan to steal the truth away from us. Any unbiblical scenario will work wonders toward furthering Satan's sinister plan of world domination by bankrupting man's spiritual sense of the divine. Like the lie that he doesn't exist, or that this world came about through the use of dismembered body parts of false gods to create the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them. Or he will promote the extreme opposite, which would be a completely god-less world cosmology, one where every-thing in this universe came about on its own. And that is exactly what the hypothesized helio-centric model, which Copernicus (a Jesuit sponsored scholor), does.
By foisting this mysterious fancy (or idea) upon humanity, Copernicus allied himself with Satan, against the word of God, and made it possible for other scientists to further challenge God's word regarding creation itself. He fought an idea, with another idea, if you will. The fact of the matter is that the geocentric idea model has far more evidence to support it, than the heliocentric idea model does. If Christians want to get rid of evolution for good, then we need to get rid of the idea of Copernicus' imagined and untested heliocentric cosmology. The simple fact is that the current heliocentric big bang cosmology being taught as gospel truth today, flat out denies the existence of Almighty God, or any god for that matter. But Christ-ians insist on shoehorning God into the world's godless Helios model idea.
The heliocentric model that Copernicus supposed, and never tested, worships the sun as being the center of the universe, where all things revolve around it's life giving rays. It's a theory that those in the Renaissance days would've embraced, as they were sun worshipers. But over the centuries, as with all things subject to entropy, heliocentric science started to degrade into humanism by the godless Enlightenment era's scientific brotherhood, which had no need for such trivial notions as religion, spiritual beings and their spiritual super powers, but rather sought to claim that life evolved from rocks and we just so happen to live on an insignificant speck of dust in a vast ever expanding universe of billions of other galaxies, all of which are nothing more than a product of a several billion year chain of coincidental events, stemming from a cataclysmic super hot explosion.
I'm sorry, but that theory flies in the face of observable common sense. Common sense dictates that, something that is made, has a maker. And that explosions destroy, they don't create anything, other than a chaotic mess. And precision requires a plan, knowledge, and skill to execute it. Some people actually like the dehumanizing aspect of evolution; of their supposed inexplicable, and accidental existence. Why? Well, I can only surmise that if they imagine themselves to be animals, then they probably believe that they won't have to answer to a creator for their sins. How wrong they are, but that's a whole other subject for another time.
Now for the geocentric cosmology (either biblical, or idolatrous), which is more simple, and in direct contrast to the complexity of the heliocentric model. The geocentric model makes ample room for the reality of creation by Almighty God (or any creator god), and clearly shows that he (or they) purposefully made the heavens to revolve around the stationary vastness of the seas and plain of earth. Geocentric cosmology makes the earth unique, and special, because we are at the very heart, or center of the small and enclosed universe. This model also demands that the created, worship the creator. Do you see the difference? Oh, and as a consequence of this God (or god(s)) created earth centered cosmology, that means we humans will have to answer for ourselves to our creator(s) when we leave this natural life upon our death. I'm sure that just sent a terrifying chill down the supposed evolved ape spines of all the atheists out there, and gives a very big reason why the geocentric model is disdained by the godless who support the big bang heliocentric model.