To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

Richard E. Byrd and his relationship with Antarctica

 This clue revolves around one of the most remarkable men you may have never heard of, Richard E. Byrd and his relationship with Antarctica, and the secretive missions he carried out there until his dying day. 

Some of you have followed the legend of Richard Byrd through the hollow earth theory. We aren’t going to be covering any hollow earth in this chapter, but instead focus on the man and his involvement with the South Pole.

The readers digest version of Richard Byrd is as follows: Born in 1888, he became an American naval officer who specialized in feats of exploration. He was a pioneering American aviator, Medal of Honor winner, polar explorer, aircraft navigator, expedition leader in the worst environments in the world, and the youngest Admiral in the history of the navy.

In addition, his list of awards takes up several pages in Wikipedia, including three ticker tape parades in his honor. In short, he was Indiana Jones on steroids. Some people will say that Roy Chapman Andrews was the real Indiana Jones, and you might be right, but Richard Byrd beat Indy six days a week and twice on Sunday.

I mention all his accolades to paint a picture of credibility and trust. The governments of the US and the world trusted his judgment and leadership, and they took advantage of every chance they had to put him in charge of special missions.

The first large scale mission was an expedition to Antarctica in 1928. This was noteworthy because even though he had just flown over the North Pole in 1926, all expeditions from 1928 on were focused on the South. The expedition lasted two years, and during it, at the age of 41, was promoted to Admiral.

His second Antarctic expedition ran from 1933 to 1935, and his third from 1939 to 1940. While in Antarctica he also was an advisor for other countries who had their own expeditions, including England, France, Germany, and building off previous countries expeditions from Belgium, Japan and Sweden.

He then helped lead US Navy fleet operations in World War 2, was present during the Japanese surrender in 1945, but then something strange happened….He went back to Antarctica.

Now some of you aren’t surprised, because he’d been there since 1928, and I agree with you, it’s thehowthat’s interesting here.

His fourth trip to Antarctica wasn’t an expedition, it was a military operation called Operation “High Jump”.

Commanding an entire aircraft carrier group that included 13 support ships, Admiral Byrd led 4,700 men to the South Pole, for reasons that are still shrouded to this day.

Some say they were chasing the remaining Nazi fleet, even though Germany had surrendered a full year earlier. Others say that there was a Nazi base established in Antarctica during the war, when Admiral Byrd was absent. None of these theories are important for this clue.

What we do know is that the US had sent an excessively large military force to the ice, all under the guise of peaceful intentions.

During this operation, Admiral Byrd told a Chile newspaper this:

The most important result of his observations and discoveries is the potential effect that they have in relation to the security of the United States. The fantastic speed with which the world is shrinking – recalled the admiral – is one of the most important lessons learned during his recent Antarctic exploration. I have to warn my compatriots that the time has ended when we were able to take refuge in our isolation and rely on the certainty that the distances, the oceans, and the poles were a guarantee of safety.

After the operation, Admiral Byrd toured the states, and gave interviews. The most interesting of which as a national television show in 1954 called the Longines Chronoscope, a horrible name, but a decent show. I’ve added the transcript to the end of this chapter and put the reference link below[3]and in the resources, so that you can watch it for yourself.

During this television interview, he first spoke of an area beyond the South Pole as large as the United States, which no one had set foot on yet. He then went on to say that there would probably be expeditions year after year because the US government had really become interested.

The interviewers then probed as to why the interest in the South, when any perceived military threat from Russia (keep in mind this was 1954) would be from the North. He went on to say that it was the most valuable and important place in the world for science. It involved the future of the nation, an untouched reservoir of untapped resources, including coal, oil, minerals, and uranium.

He added that at the time of this interview, there were seven nations currently engaged in Antarctica including Russia, Australia, Argentina, Chile, and New Zealand.

During the interview the Admiral talked about planning the next military mission to Antarctica. It was called Operation Deep Freeze, and ran from 1955 to 1956.

The mission was completed, and he supposedly returned home.

Now this is where you come in and say, so what, and normally I’d agree with you, except for what happened next. Nothing happened next. The missions justsuddenly stopped, and that was it! No other expeditions, military or otherwise were conducted on the continent,ever!

Then a treaty was put in place banning any country from doing basically anything.The end.

And if you’re wondering what you’re missing, it’s this:

Admiral Byrd goes on television, says that this massive body of land, most of which sits on a plateau 2 miles high, is rich with every resource you could ever want, ENERGY rich, pristine, with no indigenous population or plant life, and every country that has sent teams is ready to carve it up like a big turkey, not to mention there’s a expanse of land larger than the United States they haven’t even LOOKED at yet, and out of the blue everyone just calls the whole thing off? There are no environmentalists in 1959; this is the land of Diner food and 20 cent gas!

FLAT EARTH CLUES 

The Sky’s The Limit

Sergent Mark 

“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud.”

 Cancer

“Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud.” Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate

“I keep telling people to stop giving money to ‘cancer research’ because no one is frigging looking for a cure. We have several and they have been carefully hidden away from public view . . . this is a multi-billion dollar per year industry and a ‘cure’ would put a lot of people out of work.” Geraldine Phillips, cancer research worker, 2011

“The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination.” Dr Robert Bell, former Vice President, International Society for Cancer Research

Dr James Watson won a Nobel Prize along with Dr Francis Crick for discovering and describing the double helix shape of the DNA molecule at Cambridge University in the early 1950s and during the early 1970s he served two years on the US National Cancer Advisory Board. In 1975, he was asked his thoughts about the American National Cancer Programme. Watson declared, “It’s a bunch of shit.” Blunt and crude though his assessment may be, it also happens to be true.

Cancer, that ‘life-threatening disease’ and ruthless killer of countless millions of mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters in the last 100 years or more, is relatively easy to cure and even easier to prevent.

I am acutely aware of the emotive subject that cancer has become and do not make this glib-sounding statement lightly, but with due deference to the millions who have lost loved ones and / or suffered terribly and had their own lives cruelly cut short for what amounts to no reason at all, unless of course you consider the vast, unimaginable profits made by the purveyors of this great criminal racket, for criminal racket is exactly what it is.

In 1953, a United States Senate investigation reported in its initial findings that there was the strong suspicion of an ongoing conspiracy to suppress and destroy effective cancer treatments. The Senator in charge of the investigation died suddenly in unexplained circumstances, the usual MO (modus operandi or operating method) in these cases, which was obviously very convenient for those with much to lose from his revelations. As a result of his death, the investigation was subsequently, suddenly disbanded without further ado and was never resumed. Unsurprisingly, the good Senator was neither the first nor the last of literally hundreds if not thousands of strange, unexplained deaths involving people in positions to threaten the interests of those running the Elite controlled cancer programmes and indeed the Elite controlled anything else. Ethical people who attempt to disrupt the flow of profits into the Elite’s coffers have to be silenced one way or another, after all.

But this is only the small tip of a very large and extremely dangerous iceberg. In 1964, the FDA spent millions of dollars to suppress and bury an ‘alternative’ cancer treatment which had cured hundreds, if not thousands of cancer patients according to well-documented sources. It became apparent and was later disclosed that in the subsequent court proceedings, the FDA had falsified the testimony of witnesses, to suit its own ends. The FDA lost the court case because the jury found the defendants innocent and recommended that the substance be evaluated, objectively. In fact it never was evaluated but instead all the evidence was totally suppressed and then conveniently ‘lost.’

For many years (and still to this day), the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) coordinated their own ‘blacklists’ of cancer researchers who were regarded as threats to their cancer monopoly and who were to be singled-out for smear campaigns and ostracised by the mainstream. One investigative reporter declared the AMA and ACS to be “ . . . a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices and profits.” The ACS, believe it or not actually makes political donations! A ‘charitable organisation’ that makes political donations? What does this tell us about them and the system within which they operate?

In the late 1950s, it was learned that Dr Henry Welch, head of the FDA’s Division of Antibiotics, had secretly received $287,000 (a colossal sum in those days) from the drug companies he was supposed to regulate. In 1975, an independent government evaluation of the FDA still found massive ‘conflicts of interest’ among the agency’s top personnel.

And In 1977, an investigative team from the prominent newspaper ‘Newsday’ found serious ‘conflicts of interest’ at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and in 1986, an organised coverup of an effective alternative cancer therapy, orchestrated by NCI officials, was revealed during Congressional hearings. The list goes on and on and once again, I strongly suggest to the reader that they should undergo their own research on this topic and not simply take my word for it. It is extremely simple. Just key into a search engine, the phrase ‘alternative cancer treatments,’ or ‘cancer has been cured,’ for example, plus any other similar or relevant phrase. However please be aware that there is now so much Internet censorship, especially through the chief culprit in this regard, Google™ that many useful websites which contain this information are consigned to total anonymity by the simple expedient of being suppressed by search engines. Some do ‘slip through the net’ though.

The cancer ‘industry’ now has a more than 70-year history of vast corruption, incompetence and organised terror against its many detractors and a shameful track record of suppression of cancer therapies which are actually beneficial. Millions, if not billions of people have suffered terrible torture and death because those in charge took bribes, had closed minds to the innovative, or simply were afraid to do what was obviously and ethically correct. Instead, corporate, and individual greed and the desire of the few to profit from the many, as always, take precedence.

“The doctor’s union (AMA) the cancer bureaucracy (NCI) the public relations fat-cats (ACS) and the cancer cops (FDA) are conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer . . . It would be easy for any Congressional committee, major newspaper, television network or national magazine to confirm and extend the evidence presented here in order to initiate radical reform of the critical cancer areas -- the hospitals, the research centres, the government agencies, and especially state and local legislation regarding cancer treatment.

But that will not happen without a struggle. Neither Congress nor the media desire to lift the manhole cover on this sewer of corruption and needless torture. Only organized, determined citizen opposition to the existing cancer treatment system has any hope of bringing about the long-needed changes. I expect the struggle to be a long, difficult one against tough, murderous opposition. The odds against success are heavy. The vested interests are very powerful . . . ” Barry Lynes, ‘The Healing of Cancer’

There is a veritable mountain of overwhelming evidence and examples which support the theory of collusion between activities of Western governments, especially the United States, along with other prominent members of the ‘medical Elite’ to prevent an effective cancer treatment being promulgated.

Surgery is a massive shock to the system, uses carcinogenic anaesthesia and increases the risk of cancer in the resultant scar tissue. It has value only where the threat to life processes is immediate, as in digestive obstruction etc. The routine removal of every malignant or sometimes even benign lump, surrounded by the body with a defensive shield, can be virtually a death sentence, especially in the elderly.

Chemotherapy involves the use of extremely toxic petrochemical drugs originally derived from the highly toxic chemical weapon nitrogen mustard also known as ‘mustard gas’ famous for its deadly use in battle during WWI. Oddly enough, in 1942, two Yale doctors (Goodman and Gilman) after researching the poisonous effect of mustard gas on WWI soldiers, decided since the gas seemed to destroy normal white blood cells (and notably lead to cancer) in these exposed victims maybe it could also destroy cancer cells. So they experimented on a patient (simply referred to as J.D.) with advanced lymphoma who had several serious tumour growths and found that nitrogen mustard significantly shrunk the tumours. Never mind J.D. still died 6 months later, the reduction in tumour size was enough to declare the procedure as a ‘success’ and bring the drug, with minor modifications, to market. Chemotherapy, despite its questionable origins, is still used today in the hope, which is often never realised, of killing the disease before killing the patient. The drugs are designed to kill all fast growing cells, cancerous or not, and to systematically poison all cells caught in the act of division. The effects include hair loss, violent nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, cramps, impotence, sterility, extreme pain, fatigue, extreme cognitive impairment or ‘brain fog’ (aka ‘chemo-brain’), cancer and death. According to the government’s own figures, around 2% of chemotherapy recipients are still alive after 5 years. The term ‘alive’ is used here in its literal sense, i.e. not yet clinically dead. One of chemotherapy’s less well-known side-effects is pneumonia. Many cancer patients die of this after undergoing chemo treatment and their cause of deaths are not recorded as ‘cancer.’ In this way, death statistics can easily be manipulated to demonstrate that they are ‘winning the war’ against cancer.

“Toxic chemotherapy is a hoax. The doctors who use it are guilty of premeditated murder. I cannot understand why women take chemotherapy and suffer so terribly for no purpose.” Oncologist, Channel 4 TV, 2010

Radiotherapy likewise is equally, if not more deadly. One person who chose to have treatment with the radiation machine turned off altogether was the British Grand National winning jockey Bob Champion. Convinced by the early detectors, in spite of feeling well, that he was “ . . . likely to die of cancer of the lymph gland,” he decided that he did not relish the thought of a treatment that “ . . . could have ruined his lungs,” let alone the rest of him. He eventually survived the alternative treatment and the ‘lymphoma.’ His doctor, the ‘cancer specialist,’ Ann Barrett, declared that “He is the only patient in my experience who has come through this disease and achieved such a high degree of physical fitness afterwards. His recovery is even more remarkable when you consider that he refused to have the conventional treatment!” Or not?

The plight of the ever-increasing number of parents of child cancer victims facing ‘radiotherapy’ was well illustrated in October 1993 “ . . . after learning of the appalling side-effects of radiotherapy . . . her anxious mother has opted to take her to America for private treatment . . . ‘I’ve been told the radiotherapy will cause brain damage knocking forty points off her I.Q . . . Her growth would be stunted . . . she would need hormones to help her growth and sexual development. It is also likely she would be sterile.’” Further associated ‘delights’ include bone and nerve damage, leading to amputation of limbs, severe burns and of course, death, at a future time, from cancer and leukaemia due to the highly carcinogenic effects of the huge doses of radiation.

“Chemotherapy and radiotherapy will make the ancient method of drilling holes in a patient’s head, to permit the escape of demons; look relatively advanced . . . the use of cobalt . . . effectively closes the door on cure.” A cancer researcher who wished to remain anonymous

The 90/95% death rate within a five year period has not stopped the cancer industry from carrying out the same procedures, day in, day out, for decades with the same deadly, inevitable results. Temporarily suppressing, with the scalpel, drug or radiation the symptoms of cancer does nothing for the victim’s chances of survival.

Adding gross insult to injury, the treatment involves massive doses of carcinogens and super-poisons. The patient is subject to a regime diametrically opposed to that which is needed for survival. Succumbing to cancer is an acceptable form of suicide for those who have lost the desire to live, this loss being a major factor in the development of the disease in the first place. The great tragedy and scandal is in cases where the victim has a strong determination to live and fight but is then destroyed by the assault from the lethal, useless treatment and not by the cancer itself.

So why are the vast majority of doctors against alternative cancer treatments and why would they actively encourage us to undergo known-to-be-dangerous treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery instead of using natural cures?

Unfortunately, doctors are against ‘alternative’ treatments because from the first day of Elite-controlled medical school, they are brainwashed into believing that disease can only be effectively treated by those methods proscribed by Big Pharma. They most certainly will have been led to believe that there are no cures for cancer, when in reality there are several, none of which will enhance the profits of Big Pharma or sustain the payments on a senior hospital consultant’s Aston Martin. Additionally they operate under the severely inhibiting paradigm that food is good enough to keep you alive but not sufficiently good enough to keep you healthy or heal you when you are sick.

Most cancer drugs cost in the region of $40,000 per annum per patient. In the US this is payable either by the individual or by their health insurer (assuming they are adequately insured) whereas in the UK this is paid by the NHS (National Health Service). However, whichever way, the fact is that this is the amount paid into the coffers of Big Pharma, per person, per annum and when you consider the number of people worldwide who suffer from and die from cancer each year, I am sure you can do the maths. What incentive is there for any organisation whose first responsibility is always to maintain a profit for its shareholders and owners, to discover a cure? (Turkeys ‘voting for Christmas’ springs readily to mind.) I submit that there is no reason at all and this is the true cause of the utter failure (despite the eloquent hype) of Big Pharma in their self-styled ‘war on cancer.’

We are even deceived by the so-called professionals in such seemingly beneficial activities as ‘cancer screening programmes.’ For example, mammograms, heavily promoted as being an integral part of the early detection of breast cancer, provably achieve nothing other than to irradiate the breast and in many cases actually cause the cancer it is supposed to be detecting.

Most doctors believe not only that what they were taught in medical school must be true, but they also believe that what they were not taught cannot be important and as a result of this are unable to comprehend anything that falls outside of their area of knowledge. Most doctors are still thinking ‘inside the box’ when it comes to cancer and doctors who do think for themselves instead of regarding their learning as gospel and treat the actual cause of disease rather than the symptoms are regarded as ‘quacks’ and are subjected to huge pressure, ridicule and threats to conform. One of the FDA’s modus operandi is to raid the offices of alternative thinkers and practitioners, destroying their medical records and often all their equipment and putting them in jail.

Additionally, some doctors (especially in the US) are afraid of expensive, time-consuming lawsuits and their insurer could well refuse to pay out if they use alternative treatments of any kind. Their medical boards may fine them and even revoke their licence to practice or strike them from the medical register, effectively disbarring them from medical practice forever. Peer pressure is a huge issue too. After all, doctors are only human, and their colleagues will not be slow to publicly ridicule them if they use alternative treatments or are seen to be using or endorsing ‘non-conventional’ medicine.

“Doctors will continue to fail with cancer until they buck the training and accept that a patient is not some collection of malfunctioning cells but a human out of homeostasis. We have cultures alive today who don’t get cancer. No stress, no speed cameras, no mobile phones, no Iraq War. Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe 21st century civilisation has much to commend It, but there are downsides. We’re a toxic society and that includes the medicines. If cancer is striking 1 in 3 of us, that means something is going fundamentally wrong and we’re either going to be honest about it or continue canoeing down that long river in Egypt called De-Nial, splurfing down the ratburgers until the meat wagon comes to collect us.” Philip Day, health researcher

Cancer Research UK spends £170 million, annually, on 3,000 research scientists whose brief is to avoid any research into holistic, naturopathic, nutritional treatments; therapies which provide the ONLY means to successfully treat a cancer victim.

“Using the guise of ‘established’ medical science, many widely accepted studies are disseminated through medical journals and accepted as the ultimate authority by many. In the case of Professor Sheng Wang of Boston University School of Medicine Cancer Research Center, his cancer research was found to be misconducted, fraudulent and contain altered results. What is unsettling is the fact that his research had been previously accepted and used as a cornerstone from which to base all subsequent cancer research.” Andre Evans. Activist Post, 19th October 2011

“The American Cancer Society was founded by the Rockefeller family to act as a propaganda outlet and public relations tool to suck-in money and help promote pharmaceuticals for cancer ‘therapy.’ Gary Null did a fantastic exposé on who and what the ACS is, in a series of articles about 10 years ago and he often retold his experiences on the radio in coming to realise what a fraudulent outfit the ACS actually is. People are simply giving aid and comfort to Big Pharma when they support the ACS.” Ken Adachi, political researcher, May 2011

However, not all studies are fraudulent, but when the motivation for these doctors and professors is financial, it turns the current medical paradigm into a war zone. As a consumer, it is vitally important that you undertake your own research on the harsh side-effects of traditional cancer treatment methods such as chemotherapy.

There is much evidence that there are in existence literally hundreds of alternative cancer treatments which really do work. Some are even of sufficient potency or are fast acting enough to effectively treat a cancer patient who has been deemed to be ‘terminal’ by his/her doctor. As untold millions are pumped into the fake cancer industry that thrives on provably fraudulent research, it is important to remember that free, alternative health options do exist. Utilising natural sweeteners, vitamin D therapy and eliminating artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in its many guises, are extremely simple ways to effectively prevent cancer and potentially begin reversing it. Additionally reducing or eliminating exposure to wireless (microwave) radiation and avoidance of chemical containing personal care and cleaning products are very potent cancer prevention exercises, as all of these exposures have been proven carcinogenic. Even as recently as 2018 the US National Toxicology Program, after a $30m FDA funded decade-long study into the correlation between microwave radiation from regular mobile phone use, found “clear evidence of cancer” from exposure to this form of radiation. (Notably the FDA has thrown out the results stating that ‘animal studies have no bearing on humans,’ even though it was the FDA which requested the animal studies in view of the fact that it is considered scientifically unethical to experiment on humans before testing on animals, and that animal testing for safety of products used by humans is the current scientific standard.)

It is not my intention here to relate those cures to the reader as this is outside the remit of this book. It is obviously desirable that everyone become familiar with a few different working methods of preventing the disease rather than trying to affect a cure at the eleventh hour, so to speak and these preventative and curative strategies are all available in abundance on the Internet. However, even should the worst happen, and you are unfortunately diagnosed with cancer of some kind then it is still not too late to adopt the ‘cure rather than prevention’ approach in 90% of cases and this is true even in cases where traditional cures have been attempted and apparently failed.

The Falsification of Science

John Hamer

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Seeing too far...

 The second line of evidence that Garcia references in the court case involves people seeing too far. In other words, they see things that should be blocked by Earth’s curve. For a believer in the Globe, one would think it would be straightforward to find something in the distance that should not be visible because it is below Earth’s curve. This simply requires having the appropriate camera or telescope. The physical curvature should block the object. Shouldn’t there be a great abundance of these cases, well documented and replicated, to put the Flat Earth debate to an end?

But the reverse seems to happen repeatedly, which is perhaps one of the reasons why more and more people are expressing skepticism of the Globe. People buy high-resolution cameras, telescopes, or binoculars and see distant objects that should be physically blocked by the curve. The counterargument from Globe  believers is that those things are only visible because the light refracts and creates a “mirage.” Or they claim that the curvature math was incorrect or that the viewer’s height was unclear (which would affect the viewable angle).

“Seeing too far” would inherently refute the radius value of Earth and thus debunk the Globe as it is currently conceived. But technically it would not totally debunk the concept of a spherical shape; it would simply debunk the idea that Earth is a sphere with a specific radius value. The shape could still be a sphere—just a sphere that has a much, much greater radius value than what the Globe model currently asserts. That would still reflect a radical departure from modern cosmological thinking because of the ripple effects on all other Globe assumptions discussed earlier.

Sometimes, however, no special equipment is needed, and people can still see too far (according to the Globe’s assumed radius value). Garcia references cases in which people can see New York’s Statue of Liberty on a clear day from up to sixty miles away, while it should be well below the curve. Similarly, he cites residents of Oahu, Hawaii, who can regularly see the island of Kauai from more than ninety miles away.

He also mentions one of the most famous cases that was picked up by South Bend, Indiana’s ABC57 local news in 2015. The article, titled “Mirage of Chicago skyline seen from Michigan shoreline,” reports: “A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. [Photographer] Joshua Nowicki snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon from that vantage point, but the image of the skyline can be seen above it.”15

Garcia remarks in the court document:

[The news report] was proven false, by two of my colleagues, Rob Skiba and Rick Hummer. These gentlemen went to Chicago and made a video documentary, confirming that one can…see the picturesque Chicago  cityscape from the side of lake Michigan where Joshua took his picture. They then rode across Lake Michigan in a boat, while filming the entire duration, the city growing in scope and size as one came nearer to it. This documentary affirmed without a doubt that one could, in fact, see the Chicago skyline from such distance and that it was not as the [news’] weatherman claimed a mirage.

He also interviewed several natives from that area, who all shared conclusively that seeing the Chicago skyline from such distance was a normal and daily possibility and that the only things which could skew in some slight manner such viewing, would be inclement weather, but that more or less it was…possible to see the entire cityscape even when in windy conditions and choppy waves from the opposite shores of Lake Michigan.16

Additional Instances of “Seeing Too Far”

Separate from Zen Garcia’s court victory, many other examples have been observed and cited.17 For instance, Austin Whitsitt has more recently referenced some striking examples in a 2024 presentation.

Before discussing the examples, however, it’s first important to understand the notion of “the horizon.” In the Globe worldview, the horizon is a physical location; it’s where Earth curves down and away from the viewer and literally blocks the viewer’s vision. What’s blocked from view can change with altitude, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Globe implies a physical horizon created by the curve. Since the Globe model assumes we’re on a spherical object, we are always perceiving ourselves to be at the “top” of the sphere from our perspective, meaning that the sphere is always moving down and away relative to us.

On a Flat Earth, the horizon is only apparent based on a vanishing point with respect to one’s visual “perspective” (as discussed in the previous chapter). The Flat Earth horizon actually moves around based on factors such as atmospheric conditions and  perspective. This can be seen in time-lapse videos of the horizon itself; it moves up and down.18

In his presentation, Whitsitt provides a video example in which the horizon is observed to be much farther than it should be based on the Globe’s assumed radius value. The video zooms in on oil rigs at sea, from the beach, and taken at a height of about a foot and a half off the ground. Whitsitt notes that the physical horizon should be under two miles from the camera at its height, based on the Globe’s assumptions. The farthest oil rig is about ten miles away…and the horizon can be seen clearly behind it. The horizon “should be” about two miles away, but it’s not. It is clearly behind something that’s roughly ten miles away. This means that the horizon is much, much more distant than it should be based on the Globe model’s math. And since the horizon is a physical location in the Globe model, this should not be possible—unless the Globe model’s radius value is simply incorrect. As Whitsitt says, “People will make all kinds of excuses, but it doesn’t matter. It’s basic geometry. The horizon [in the Globe model] has to be in front of the oil rigs. [There’s] no magical invocation of refraction [that Globe-Earth believers can point to]. This right here refutes the Globe….This is why Flat-Earthers exist: they went and looked at the Earth.”19 [emphasis added]

Whitsitt gives additional examples that he feels challenge the Globe’s radius value. The examples, and Whitsitt’s case as to why they’re important, are as follows:

❍Mountains 255 miles away from an observer at a height of 9,824 feet are seen, even though there should be 12,800 feet (more than two miles) of curvature blocking the view of the mountains. In other words, they should be far below the curve, and yet they are visible. The image is taken using infrared, which is significant because infrared mitigates the effect of refraction of light. Refraction is the standard Globe-based rebuttal. In other words, this observation is seemingly impossible on the Globe.20

 ❍The longest line of sight observation in the Guinness Book of World Records is 275 miles away (taken in 2019 by Gaspard Picard in Mallemort, France). “Line of sight” refers to observations that are directly from the observer’s eyes to the object that’s viewed without any obstructions. In this example, the observer views mountains from an altitude of 9,251 feet (roughly 1.75 miles). The mountains should be more than three miles below Earth’s curve, but they are visible.21

❍The Canigou mountain in the South of France is observed, two days every year, with the sunset behind the mountain. In the video that Whitsitt shows, the mountain is not visible until the Sun sets behind it, effectively backlighting it so the mountain is clearly visible from long distances. The mountain should be far below Earth’s curvature, according to the official Earth curve online calculator that Whitsitt used. The Globe advocate’s standard rebuttal is that refraction makes the mountain visible. However, because the Sun is behind the mountain, what is seen is a silhouette. Whitsitt alleges that this effective “shadow” is the absence of light, and since refraction is the bending of light, refraction should not explain this observation. Certainly refraction is a continued point of contention, but the observation of the mountain alone is noteworthy. Whitsitt remarks that Globe advocates claim this is just an “illusion,” and the mountain is not actually there. He calls this example “a direct falsification of the Globe.”22❍“Mirror flashes” have been done over twenty or twenty-five miles. This involves placing a mirror on, say, a beach, and the mirror reflects light. Then the observer moves far away from the beach where there is a direct line of sight. The mirror, and the light it reflects, should be under a substantial amount of curvature at far distances. But that’s not what is observed. The mirror flashes reach the observer at great distances. Whitsitt notes that the  military has used this method because it’s a silent form of communication.23

❍In a separate presentation, Whitsitt references long-distance laser tests of more than thirty miles, over a large body of water. The laser is also viewed from the side that shows it’s completely horizontal and parallel to the water—that is, the laser isn’t refracting and coincidentally “curving over the Globe.”24The beauty of examples like these is that anyone can try to replicate them, and that goes for government agencies as well. Hopefully, over time, more clarity will develop as additional trials are conducted and replicated with ample documentation.

Comedian Owen Benjamin brings some levity to the situation with his cartoon skit called “Globe Earth Sniper.” The sniper is hiding in the bushes, trying to shoot an enemy that he sees far away in the distance, but he constantly asks his compatriot in battle about adjusting for the Coriolis Effect (that is, Earth’s rotation on the Globe). He thinks that the enemy he sees far away is just a mirage because he should be below Earth’s curve.

His fellow sniper says: “We only have one shot at this guy [the enemy]. [Aim] a little left.”

Globe Earth Sniper replies: “Okay, now factor in the spin [of Earth]….What direction are we? East, west, north, south, northeast? Factor in everything! We need to know exactly the direction, the spin of the Earth and how to combat it or else….”

His colleague urges him to just take the shot, to which Globe Earth Sniper responds: “But that would mean Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong.” His colleague urges him to shoot accurately because a miss would blow their cover on their covert location.

Globe Earth Sniper insists: “Tell me the spin of the Earth!” He then shoots and misses and says, “I guess [Earth] was spinning a little faster than I thought!”

 He then says: “I can see the mirage,” to which his colleague responds with urgency, “No, no, that’s the target [the enemy you’re supposed to shoot at]!”

Globe Earth Sniper insists: “It must be a mirage. I’ve done the calculation [of Earth’s curvature]; I wouldn’t be able to see him. It’s a mirage. I’m not taking the shot.” His colleague says: “It’s him!” and urges him to just shoot.25

The skit continues, but the point is well made that when thinking practically about some of the Globe advocates’ counterarguments, they seem like silly post hoc rationalizations. We experience the world one way and are told that it functions in another way.

Ships Disappearing “over the Horizon” but Brought Back into Sight with Cameras

One of Aristotle’s famous “proofs” of a Globe, which is still used often today, was that when looking out at a large body of water, ships would disappear, hull before masts.26Visual perspective can explain this without invoking the Globe model. Simply put, there is a vanishing point in our vision. But explaining why the hull (bottom) drops before masts (the tall part) requires a more technical analysis. The answer has to do with “angular resolution.” The angle of vision determines what “disappears”—and lower objects will disappear first due to the viewing angle. The viewing angle thus creates the obstruction. Using more technical terminology from the field of optics, at a certain distance, an object reaches the “Rayleigh criterion” (that is, the diffraction limit). This hinders the ability to resolve details, and it’s most apparent at low viewing angles. Thus, objects disappear “bottom up.”27

However, Aristotle didn’t have cameras like the Nikon 900, as we do today. So, many Globe Skeptics use these high-resolution cameras to zoom in when a boat “disappears” over the horizon. Thus, the camera alters the angular resolution, and the boat comes back into view. This implies that the boat is still on a level surface;  it’s simply beyond view from the naked eye. This is said to occur repeatedly, even when the distant object should be “beneath the curve.” Many such videos are available online. They show that the ship goes in and out of view with high-resolution cameras (see David Weiss’s Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app, under the Frequently Asked Questions “Ships over the Horizon” playlist).

This phenomenon is another one that could use rigorous documentation and replication. But even if cases were published, one might wonder if any scientific journals would be willing to publish such heresy in a Globe-dominated world. As noted by geocentric physicist Robert Bennett, PhD: “Peer review is now peer censorship.”28The Horizon Rises to Eye Level

The Globe model would predict that as a person rises in altitude, the curve of the physical horizon should be more and more visible. So Earth would appear to be bending down and away, in all directions, and more so with increased elevation. This is simply a matter of geometry; the curvature of Earth determines all of this since the horizon is a physical location within the Globe model. However, that’s not what happens. The horizon remains at eye level as one rises in altitude. Anyone can experience this when ascending on an airplane, for example.

This phenomenon is supportive of the Globe Skeptics’ view, which suggests that the horizon isn’t a physical location but instead reflects the vanishing point based on perspective. In fact, a seminal book for artists published in 1939, titled Perspective Made Easy by Ernest Norling, gives the following instruction for artists: “If we ascend in an airplane we shall find that the distant horizon rises with our height. It appears to remain at eye-level. This accounts for the peculiar basin-like appearance of the earth when viewed from a great height.”29Norling calls this “peculiar” because he assumes the Globe model is correct. But if that model is false, then the observations make sense.

 Steven A. Young, PhD, summarizes the situation well:

All that would be needed to prove the globe would be to film the horizon while going straight up in a balloon; it would start flat at eye level, then as you ascended, it would bend at the sides and curve down and away as you got higher up. But nobody has been able to reproduce this; even SpaceX, with all the dozens of rocket launches they claim to do, never produced this simple footage of the flat horizon continuously bending into a sphere; their cameras always point down at the rocket. We learn nothing about the cosmos from these experiments….There are several amateur high-altitude rockets that have shown [that] the horizon remains totally flat at eye level, and even one that appeared to get stuck in the firmament. Globe sticklers will claim that continuous raw amateur footage is fake, while holding strong that NASA’s piece-wise TV footage is all legit.30 [emphasis added]

It’s also worth mentioning two pre-NASA anecdotes. In 1931, scientist Auguste Piccard ascended to an altitude of 51,775 feet (almost ten miles) in a hydrogen balloon. He and his assistant, who traveled with him, reached the highest point recorded at that time. Popular Science magazine reported: “In the first half hour, the balloon shot upward nine miles. Through portholes, the observers saw the earth through copper-colored, then bluish, haze. It seemed a flat disk with an upturned edge.”31 In other words, he didn’t report a “down and away” curve but rather the reverse. [emphasis added]

In 1933, the USSR broke Piccard’s record by launching a balloon to an altitude of 60,095 feet. Popular Science magazine wrote about this one too: “Soaring in their airtight balloon gondola to a record-breaking height of 11.8 miles above the earth, the other day, three Russian aeronauts brought back the first scientific observations ever made at so great an altitude. Above their heads, the sky provided a striking spectacle; its color had turned a soft, deep violet, and almost devoid of the light-reflecting haze found  at lower levels. Looking down, they tried in vain to detect any curvature of the earth’s horizon.”32 [emphasis added]

15Coomes, “Mirage of Chicago skyline seen from Michigan shoreline,” https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline.

16As quoted in a legal document for Zen Garcia’s case (“Case No.: 2019 MV-1104”), available at the following link: https://rodscontracts.com/docs/legal/ThompsonVersusGarcia.pdf. For more information on this case study, see Rob Skiba, “The Chicago Skyline Expanded Edition–Part 1: Refraction, Magnification or Curvature?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Q-FuXJSTQ&t=1s.

17For instance, see Hamer, The Falsification of Science, 198-204; and Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth, 25–50.

18Whitsitt X account, June 4, 2024, https://x.com/Witsitgetsit/status/1798165881429668322?s=46&t=ijTvU_628uOjAUiS9U8Hxw,2:51:00. Also partially available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssCZXJrDxiQ (so the time stamps do not perfectly match).

19Ibid., 2:52:00.

20Ibid., 2:57:00–2:53:00.

21Ibid., 2:54:00.

22Ibid., 2:57:00–2:58:00.

23Ibid., 2:57:00–2:59:00.

24Anti-Disinfo Leauge [sic], “True Earth 101: Curvature,” https://www.bitchute.com/video/6nbYsiGpwAH9/, 5:00-6:00.

25RobinsHoodlum, “Globe Earth SNIPER ~ from Mountainbear,” https://rumble.com/v1hlc50-globe-earth-sniper-from-mountainbear.html.

26Garwood, Flat Earth, 20.

27Mitchell fromAustralia, “Flat Earth School – Why Objects Disappear Bottom Up,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVVbsekJ9Sg. Also see Witsit Gets It, “Schooling Globers – Episode 26,” https://www.youtube.com/live/FBKrYJ0YvUY, 1:59:00-2:00:00.

28Witsit Gets It, “In The Field – Robert Bennett Ph.D. – Part 1,” https://www.youtube.com/live/5j0wCrkzfwk, 2:11:00-2:12:00.

29Norling, Perspective Made Easy, 9.

30Young, A Fool’s Wisdom, 79–80.

31Odle, Like Clay Under the Seal, 100. Odle includes the image from the magazine itself that includes the text. It’s worth noting that Sungenis cites an alternative view in his book Flat Earth/Flat Wrong, p. 12. He cites a 2008 article in Applied Optics in which the author, David K. Lynch, writes: “The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931.” Sungenis cites this as if it’s contradictory evidence to the Popular Science quote about Piccard. Piccard saw “upturn” edges, not the downturn edges that would be expected on a Globe. So perhaps that is what Lynch was referring to. Otherwise, Lynch does not cite a primary source suggesting that Piccard saw downward curvature, beyond noting the following: “Piccard is widely believed to be the first. There are many references to his achievement on the Internet, most of them certainly derivative. I contacted the Piccard family and they were aware of the claim but had no hard evidence or literature citation backing it up.” Thus, the claim that Piccard actually saw downward curvature suggestive of a Globe seems unsubstantiated.

32Odle, Like Clay Under the Seal, 102. Odle includes an image from the primary source, as well.

An End to the Upside Down Cosmos

Rethinking the BigBang, Heliocentrism, the Lights in the Sky…and Where We Live

Mark Gober

Disinformation...

 DISINFORMATION 101

All warfare is based on deception.

—SUN TZU, THE ART OF WAR (CA. 500 B.C.)

“Disinformation” is not lying. The Reagan administration adopted the term “misinformation” in the early 1980s to soften the blow when they were caught fibbing about matters of record or abuses of trust or the Constitution. The term “disinformation” was coined by German intelligence in WWI to give a name to their techniques of deliberately leaking real-appearing secrets about troop movements, weapons strength and capabilities, and the like. The KGB (in all likelihood stealing the term from captured German agents) adopted the term dezinformatsiya to describe some of the methods they used to effectively dupe NATO and the United States throughout the Cold War. According to their own definition from a KGB manual, “Strategic information assists in the execution of state tasks and is directed at misleading the enemy concerning questions of state policy.” When asked by his first intelligence chief, Felix Dzerzhinsky, what disinformation should be directed at the West, Vladimir Lenin replied, “Tell them what they want to hear.”

To disinform is to give your mark just enough good stuff in a story that a cursory investigation will bolster the whole caboodle. If it is also what he wants and/or expects to hear, then so much the better. Finally, if the target believes the story enough to act on it, your job is considered a success. For example, if a certain intelligence agency is worried about civilians (and by extension, foreign governments) who are asking too many questions about the newest secret weapons research, they could carefully announce to a selected few press outlets that A) They are testing something out in the desert at a certain location; B) It does involve aircraft; C) The aircraft does not take off from a runway; and D) The testing does not involve offensive weapons. That is all, they say, they can reveal. If we go out to this remote desert site and park off the highway we might see lights floating up into the night sky from time to time. Carefully placed foreign agents would be looking into the skies around this area to try to determine what this super new aircraft is capable of doing. The catch is that “B” and “C” are not true. The project might in actuality be a ground-based system that is able to reflect radar waves off the ionosphere to catch incoming aircraft and missiles before they are visible over the horizon or curvature of the Earth. Maybe.

This sort of scenario has been used for centuries to keep people who don’t “need to know” out of the way, and it still works beautifully. In fact, many disinformation schemes have been shut down at the last minute because the “giveaway factor” is too great to have even part of it revealed in order to mislead an enemy. Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese general, described this in detail in his classic treatise on warfare.

If you still think that the Soviet Union wasn’t clever enough to fool the combined resources of the United States and NATO throughout the Cold War, consider this: During the mid-1960s, the KGB repeatedly misled the CIA to convey an impression of weakness in their missile arsenal by deliberately skewing guidance communications during live-fire tests. The ruse worked, mainly because the Russians leaked to the CIA exactly what they were expecting (which of course was the prime directive in Soviet disinfo).

Russian intel operatives worked with rocket scientists to develop guidance telemetry that deliberately sent inaccurate data to U.S. intelligence—who were listening in from stations in Iran and Pakistan. CIA analysts had a preconception that U.S. rocketry was superior (hadn’t we stolen the best scientists and technicians from the Germans?) and the biased data reinforced what they “knew” already—the Communists were failing miserably. Later, U2 and satellite photographs of the craters left after the missiles hit the ground gave the lie to Soviet electronic disinfo, and the Americans had to play “catch-up” after embarrassing proclamations of U.S. superiority were announced by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Gen. Jan Sejna, a member of the Czechoslovakian Central Committee, defected in 1968 and during debriefing revealed that the Soviet Politburo approved long-term global plans for disinfo at least fifteen years in advance. Lies told over many years are easier to believe and cover up—just like much of the UFOlore that has entered our collective unconscious.

By the late 1960s, U.S. intelligence had learned their lessons well and began to use the disinfo tool not just on enemies foreign, but domestic “subversives” as well. The history of the CIA’s Operation Garden Plot reveals that undercover agents had infiltrated almost every radical faction in the United States by the late 1960s—including UFO researchers.

It is a documented fact that UFO groups, from the serious to the silly, have always been watched and infiltrated by secret agent men. It is easy to figure why this went on from the 1950s to the 1970s: Some of the more way-out groups espoused dangerously communistic ideas and spouted one-world-government rhetoric. The G-men were also worried about any Soviet bloc infiltration and the slim chance that valuable UFO sighting information would fall into the wrong hands. This all seems pretty silly now, but at the time loyal citizens lost their careers and maybe even their lives in the fury of finger-pointing and pervasive paranoia. Anything off-track raised hackles in the establishment, and though no one in the UFO arena was ever sent to jail for studying saucers or claiming to have spoken with the disc jockeys, the potential for poisoning patriotic minds kept the FBI and CIA busy for many years.

Considering the fact that disinfo programs may be planned decades in advance, we may well wonder on what base much of the modern UFOlore rests. Bill Moore, a researcher and writer specializing in the anomalous, had been ruminating on these very ideas for almost a decade when in the late summer of 1980, he was suddenly drawn to the very center of what would become known as the Bennewitz affair.

chapter 8

THE MAVERICK

William Leonard Moore rides a 1000cc Honda motorcycle, can fix just about anything on wheels, and these days, prefers not to talk to any UFO researchers. He still maintains the P.O. box that was the mailing address for the Fair Witness Project, a research organization he formed with a small group of like-minded compatriots in the early 1980s. Although he is now in his late fifties, he still maintains the barrel-chested build author Howard Blum described in his 1990 book Out There. Moore now prefers T-shirts and leather jackets to stuffed-shirt suits, since he has no need for the appearance of respectability he cultivated when he was chasing down witness reports and government leads on UFO cases.

Bill Moore locks on to you with his eyes and probing conversation, and with a few well-placed queries quickly determines if a new visitor is sincere or simply interested in proving their own agenda. He has no time or patience for the latter type, and will let you know this in no uncertain terms. He considers most UFO researchers bumbling, ego-driven showmen, and their catcalls and condemnations purely the product of envy. Moore had never really had any patience with most of them. He left the crowd and was content to stand on his own. History teaches that the loner has a rough road to travel, and Bill Moore figures he was cut in the mold.

He had certainly been around. After graduating with a B.A. from Thiel College in Greenville, Pennsylvania in 1965, he went on to do graduate work at Duquesne University and Moorhead State University—both also in his native Pennsylvania. Later, he taught English, French, and humanities courses in junior and senior high schools in Minnesota, then became a labor-relations expert, before he decided to make writing his vocation. For someone who had always been averse to authority and especially its abuses, the UFO phenomenon offered a unique way to combine the two interests, since the saucers had always befuddled the authorities by pitting them against something over which they had no control. Moore moved his family to Prescott, Arizona in 1979 to pursue writing full-time, and to be closer to the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Tucson, where he had accepted a position on its board of directors.

His first book, coauthored with Bermuda Triangle author Charles Berlitz, was The Philadelphia Experiment, published in 1979. In the course of research for the book, he had met and befriended a strange character named Carl Allen. Allen, who also used the alias “Carlos Allende,” had been peppering UFO researchers with strange letters and tall tales for over a decade. He had marked up a copy of M. K. Jessup’s 1956 book The Case for the UFO with comments from three “gypsies” and sent it to the Office of Naval Research. The hoax was so convincing that a few of the junior naval officers contracted the Varo Electronics Company in Texas to produce a limited facsimile print run of the defaced book. The edition, printed in color to distinguish the three colors of ink that were scrawled throughout, included an introduction by two of the naval personnel. In it, they stated, “Because of the importance which we attach to the possibility of discovering clues to the nature of gravity, no possible item, no matter how disreputable from the point of view of classical science, should be overlooked.” Although (or perhaps because) the deception was discovered years ago, the book has achieved mythical status, and surviving copies routinely sell for hundreds of dollars. Author Jessup, for his part, came to attach much significance to the “Varo Edition,” and asked zoologist and anomalies researcher Ivan Sanderson to keep it safe in case anything should happen to him. Six months later, on April 20, 1959, Jessup was found dead in his car, a tube running up from the exhaust to one of the windows.

Another of Allen’s “stretchers” involved the U.S. Navy’s supposed use of Einstein’s proposed unified field theory in a 1943 experiment to render a destroyer invisible. Allen alleged that the run-through went awry and caused crew members on the ship to become invisible, go insane, and even cause a few deaths. After some dedicated digging, Moore found that the experiment was conducted to see if the Navy could make its ships invisible to radar or possibly simply to degauss the ship so that mines would not be attracted to the hull. The crewmembers’ sickness and need for a subsequent cover-up were caused by the high voltage/low frequency electromagnetic fields created around the thick cables strung throughout the destroyer’s innards to make the degaussing operation possible. Although Allen had a great story to tell, he was basically a low-level con artist, and Moore followed the story to its more mundane conclusion. The more gullible or conspiratorially-minded came to their own conclusions and a minor industry grew up around the story, which continues to this day.

To put it mildly, a major industry centers around a story that Moore and longtime UFO researcher Stanton Friedman happened to stumble upon while Moore was still publicizing The Philadelphia Experiment. On a visit to Baton Rouge, Louisiana on February 20, 1978, Friedman was waiting for an interview with a local reporter about his UFO research. The appointment was late, so Friedman got to jawing with the station manager. The man happened to know about a retired local Air Force Intelligence officer who claimed to have handled the wreckage of a flying saucer in July of 1947. He urged Friedman to look up a man named Jesse Marcel, who had retired to the Cajun country of Louisiana where he had been born and raised. Friedman found him in the phone book and paid a visit.

Marcel stated that in early July of 1947, as the ranking intelligence officer of the Army Air Force stationed at Roswell, he had been called out to investigate what looked like an airplane crash a number of miles northwest of the town. The story, which he had kept to himself and family members up to that time, would revitalize the sagging UFO research field (at least in the public eye) and give Roswell a most unique place in the history of small-town festival themes. In 1997, at a celebration for the 50th anniversary of the event, the town’s population swelled from about 20,000 to nearly 400,000 inhabitants, and included everything from a golf tournament to a “crash and burn”-themed UFO parade down the main street.

Eventually, Moore and Friedman would interview almost 100 witnesses, most of whom had not talked about, or even thought of, the event for over thirty years. Despite numerous attempts by everyone from groups of scientific skeptics to the Air Force itself to explain it all away as everything from high-altitude radar reflectors to crash-test dummies and Japanese secret weapons, the core of initial witnesses formed the basis of a mystery which has yet to be entirely solved, even if one even partially suspends belief or disbelief.

In 1985, the Roswell book came back to bite Moore in the behind. He was contacted by a lawyer representing Edwin A. “Buzz” Aldrin and told that he was the target of a lawsuit because of something that was apparently thrown into the book at the last minute by Berlitz. The offending passage had to do with Aldrin’s supposed sighting of a UFO while puttering about on the moon. Moore had done most of the research and Berlitz had been the chief writer, but both were named in the lawsuit. Moore recalls Berlitz saying that he would “take care of it,” but due to cold feet or the advice of his lawyer, he eventually hung Moore out to dry and face his part of the suit on his own. Berlitz was independently wealthy from a large inheritance as well as his successful language schools business and he had author’s insurance. With little money to hire a lawyer, Moore fought on, finally forcing Aldrin to withdraw his suit “with prejudice” and was left with $30,000 in legal fees. The episode wrecked his finances and contributed to the breakup of his marriage. Relations between Moore and Berlitz cooled significantly as a result of these events, and eventually Moore broke completely with him over Berlitz’s stated belief that his main purpose in writing books was to make money and that truth necessarily took a backseat in that process. “Tell your readers what they want to hear,” Berlitz once said to Moore over a drink at the Yale Club in New York, “and they will not only love you for it, but they will pay you for it. People want entertainment,” he said, “and I write my books to fill their need.”

If that wasn’t enough to sour Moore on the UFO subject, what happened in the meantime surely would. It turns out that one of the first baited hooks the AFOSI threw into the UFO community was to become the first snare directed at Moore. When caught, he would be reeled in slowly.

In July of 1980, a letter with no return address arrived at APRO headquarters. Jim Lorenzen read it with some interest, and passed it on to APRO administrator Bill English to send to Moore in Prescott for his reaction. Hundreds of letters from anonymous sources arrived every year, and most were easily discarded into the kook file or the wastebasket. Other than the identity of the sender, which was not mentioned, this one included names and locations that could be easily checked. It described the experience of Craig Weitzel, an eighteen-year-old who was then a member of the Civil Air Patrol, a program for Air Force cadets-in-training. The incident had taken place about twenty miles east of the state capital in the Santa Fe National Forest near the town of Pecos.

The two-page letter stated that the writer had to remain anonymous for his own protection, and told of a spectacular UFO sighting that had occurred on July 16, 1980. Weitzel and “ten other individuals” were on a midmorning training exercise when to their surprise they saw a UFO...


...land in a clearing approximately 250 yards NNW of the training area. Weitzel observed an individual dressed in a metallic suit depart the craft and walk a few feet away. The individual was outside the craft for just a few minutes. When the individual returned, the craft took off toward the SW.


The mystery writer also mentioned that Weitzel had taken pictures of the thing.

When the training group returned to Kirtland, Base Security officers debriefed them. The next day, “a man in a dark suit with black hair and sunglasses,” who said he was from Sandia Labs, visited Weitzel. He said his name was “Mr. Huck.” Weitzel was told to turn over his photographs, but informed the stranger that he had already given them to the Air Force. This dark and menacing figure fitted the classic “Man in Black” profile to a T. Jumbo-budget movies notwithstanding, the figure of the man in black visiting witnesses with threats of dire consequences if they talked has been a mainstay of UFO mythology ever since the 1956 publication of Albert K. Bender’s Flying Saucers and the Three Men, which spun tales of strange men in trenchcoats harassing UFO witnesses.

With the tone of an implied threat, and true to form, Mr. Huck told Weitzel not to mention the sighting or pictures to anyone. The writer concluded his letter by saying that he knew that the Air Force was keeping the remains of a crashed UFO in the Manzano storage complex.

Leonard Stringfield, who specialized in researching stories and reports of crashed UFOs, once called his work “a search for truth in a hall of mirrors.” Rumors, secondhand stories, and lies confronted him constantly, yet he was convinced that the government had indeed retrieved a few downed flying saucers. He was well aware that this may have been just the impression that his contacts in the intelligence world wanted him to have, but the stories were so consistent across a wide range of places and history that he could come to no better conclusion. The Weitzel letter contained all the classic earmarks of a good story that had actually happened, with a wealth of spurious details thrown in that made its funhouse reflection distort in just such a way that the curious would come running.

When Lorenzen sent the “Weitzel letter” to Bill Moore, he was almost convinced that the story was hogwash, but since there were names, places, and dates that could be checked out, he urged Moore to look into it. Moore located Weitzel, and talked to him briefly by phone. The young cadet confirmed that he had indeed sighted a strange, silvery object in the skies, but denied ever having taken any pictures, much less received a menacing visit from someone who told him to shut up about it. He also said that the incident had happened on a military range in the Southeast, not in New Mexico. The “Weitzel letter” was a load of manure with a rhinestone thrown in, and became one of the first lessons in the UFO disinformation game. Moore did not take the bait this time.

A few more details emerged years later when Computer UFO Network contributor Chris Lambright contacted Weitzel, and was told that he and his companions had been waiting for a helicopter to come pick them up at the end of a search and rescue exercise when they spotted an “unusual silvery object hovering high in the sky which left the area,” to use his words, “exponentially.” He reiterated that he had not written the letter.

The mysterious writer said that Weitzel had reported the Man in Black incident to a “Mr. Dody” who was apparently a Kirtland Air Base security officer. Whoever had written the letter had the wherewithal to know details of the incident and use them to titillate someone at APRO. The idea, as it turns out, was to put out feelers to see who could be used by the AFOSI as an “insider asset.” At this point, Moore had no idea that he was on the wish list. And Moore’s involvement with Bennewitz was still in the future.

An Air Force physicist who met with Bennewitz on a few occasions expressed impatience with his fellow scientists when confronted with anomalous data. “If you find one white crow, it means that all crows are not black. A lot of scientists intentionally ignore this.” In the rush to certitude, the white crow in the midst of a murder of his black fellows is routinely ignored. What would you do if a skyful of white crows was scolding and pecking at you? Paul Bennewitz had to decide, and perhaps his quixotic adventure may be considered in this way. The problem was that most of the crows were only dipped in white paint.

Moore could see some of the painted crows, but he would also come to believe that his cooperation with those who were doing the painting might give him an advantage.

chapter 9

SILVER SKIES

By late 1979, Moore and Berlitz had finished the manuscript for The Roswell Incident and mailed it off to the publisher. The Moore family began their move to Arizona and Moore waited for word to start a promotional tour. He had been in contact with APRO while he was working on the Roswell book, and Jim and Coral Lorenzen were so impressed with his work that they asked if he was interested in joining the board of directors. Moore quickly accepted.

The book arrived in stores in September of 1980. That same month, it happened that a debate on the UFO subject was scheduled by the Smithsonian Institution, so Moore set off from Arizona and conducted his own promotional tour along the way. After a radio interview (at station WOW, no less) in Omaha, Nebraska, a secretary stopped him in the lobby and said that there was a call for him. The voice on the other end identified himself as a colonel at nearby Orfutt Air Force Base and then said, “We think you’re the only one we’ve heard that seems to know what he’s talking about.” The colonel asked if Moore could meet for coffee and a chat. Since he was leaving for the next stop on the book tour in less than an hour, Moore took his number and said he would get back to him.

On the return trip, after another interview at Albuquerque’s KOB radio, Moore was again requested at the switchboard. He picked up the phone and identified himself. “We think you’re the only one we’ve heard that seems to know what he’s talking about.” This got Moore’s attention, and this time he had a couple of days open. A meeting was set up at a local restaurant. The enigmatic voice refused to identify itself, melodramatically instructing that he should look for a man who would be wearing a red tie.

Moore arrived about fifteen minutes before the appointment and parked across the street to keep an eye on things. He scoped out the area to see if the situation was some sort of trap. Just as he had satisfied himself that everything was kosher, a commanding tap came from the passenger window. All Moore could see from the driver’s seat was a bright red tie set against a crisp white shirt. Not knowing what to expect next, he carefully got out and faced his visitor, who smiled and in a voice tinged with the hint of an Eastern European accent said, “Don’t we have an appointment?” Moore followed the gaunt, besuited man inside. They took a booth in a quiet corner. (The isolated restaurant booth seems to be a favorite meeting place among spooks.)

“What makes you people think that I ‘know what I’m talking about’?” Moore asked. The rest of the conversation was primarily a monologue in which his new acquaintance told Moore that he represented a group of intelligence agents in the U.S. government who were tired of the secrecy surrounding the UFO subject and were eager to release more accurate information to the public. They wanted to do this through a reputable researcher. He would be given small bites of the story over time, and could do with it as he wished. Would Moore be interested in participating in such a program?

There was a catch. “Good deals” always have a catch, especially in the espionage world. To get at the UFO info, he would have to agree to give the government people something in return. The legal tender of intelligence and counterintelligence is information, and Moore would have to provide the kind that they couldn’t get on their own. He was not immediately told exactly what this involved, but after years of probing and guessing at what the U.S. government knew about UFOs, he knew at least this much: He was being offered a researcher’s dream—a pass through the closely guarded gate of intrigue and programmed confusion that had dogged the best minds on the subject since retired Marine Corps major Donald Keyhoe and his civilian UFO group, the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, had raised the UFO secrecy banner in the 1950s. With nary a qualm, or much time to think it over, Moore agreed to the Faustian bargain.

As he sized up this figure with the piercing eyes and began to absorb what was being offered, Moore was thinking (as he would later explain, repeatedly) that he would play the disinformation game and get his hands dirty just enough to lead those directing the process into believing that he was doing exactly what they wanted him to do. All the while he would continue to burrow his way into the defense and intelligence matrix to learn who was directing it and why. By the time the game was over, Moore would need more than a hand-washing to clear himself of vicious charges from other researchers and the conflicting and often false evidence that was passed to him over the next decade.

The two shook on the deal. Moore was told that he would be asked to appear at another clandestine meeting soon. Just before they parted company, a manila envelope was pushed across the stained red tablecloth at Moore, with the understated remark, “Here’s something you might be interested in.” As soon as he was safely outside, Moore carefully opened the envelope. A single sheet of paper fell into his hands. It described a project called “Silver Sky,” which appeared to have something to do with Air Force UFO investigations and reports back to the Pentagon regarding sightings and encounters.

The partially redacted report named names, dates, and places associated with a spectacular UFO landing in southern New Mexico that had occurred in 1969. Headed by the ubiquitous “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY,” “RESTRICTED,” and punctuated with “SECRET” caveats, the meat of the message said:


COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT

“SILVER SKY”


(S) OL1702A IS TASKED WITH CR FOR SILVER SKY. ALL REPORTING UNITS WILL PROVIDE OL1702A WITH DATA THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO CR REPORT 19107 DUE BY 31 DEC 69 THIS HQ’S.


(S) 1703 WILL CONDUCT 168 INTERVIEWS OF FOLLOWING PEOPLE PER MSG 012700Z SEP 69. A) MICHAEL STEVERS, ROSWELL NM B) DOROTHY ADAMS, SUNSET NM, C) EVELYN FUHRER, SOCORRO NM, D) MERRITT WINSLOW, HONDO NM. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO OBTAIN PRECISE DETAILS AS TO THE OBJECT THESE PEOPLE ALLEGEDLY SIGHTED. ALSO PERSUADE THESE PEOPLE TO SIGN SECURITY PLEDGE (DD FORM 1420) IAW NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950.


(S) FOR DET 1700: YOUR QUESTIONS REGARDING RECOVERED SPIKE CRAFT CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY THIS HQ’S DUE TO SECURITY RESTRICTIONS. QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO CIA/INO. DO NOT PROCEED WITH ANY OTHER SECURITY PROGRAM PROCEDURES UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED FURTHER GUIDANCE FROM THIS HQ’S.


(S) 1158 TECH OPS SQ HOLLOMAN AFB NM WILL BE USED TO REPORT ALL DATA TO THIS HQ. DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT UTILIZE BASE COMM CENTER TO TRANSMIT SILVER SKY INFORMATION.


(S) CAPT. WRIGHT IS PROJECT OFFICER, PLEASE DIRECT ALL FURTHER INQUIRIES TO HIM.


The witnesses named in the document all lived within fifty miles of Roswell, in towns with names like Hondo, Socorro (famous for a 1964 UFO landing), and Sunset. (“168 INTERVIEWS” referred to the type of interrogation, not the amount.) Perhaps this man and his intel colleagues thought of this exercise as some kind of inside joke, or they wanted to start their new recruit in an area that he knew fairly well. Moore has never found out what the precise reasons were, but within a month he paid a visit to these bumps on the road map to try to put faces to the names in the report. He stopped in at rural post offices and started to reel off his list of witnesses. Not one name matched the residents on file, or anyone that the postal employees knew of. They either didn’t exist, or had moved away or died since the Air Force had talked to them. (Moore eventually found out that the Air Force had spoken to the witnesses, but in connection with other sightings.) The Silver Sky document was a fake. Project Silver Sky itself may have never existed either. Moore was surprised and not a little annoyed that he had traveled the 500 miles or so from Prescott to a dead end, which had been deliberate from the get-go.

It was with a mix of confusion and anger that Moore arrived for his next encounter with the mysterious counterintelligence man in late October of 1980. In yet another Albuquerque eatery, they sat down with an AFOSI agent whom Moore had not seen before. The man was introduced as Special Agent Richard Doty from Kirtland AFB. After a few preliminaries, the questions started. “Well, what did you discover?”

Moore threw the paper down on the table and, trying to sound less annoyed than he actually was, replied: “This whole mess is a lie. None of these people exist.”

The agent and Doty looked at each other and smiled.

“What’s going on?” asked Moore.

“You passed the test,” said the man whom he would eventually refer to with the code name “Falcon.” Within a few years, Moore and his colleagues would begin to assign code names to their growing coterie of contacts so that they could talk freely about developments without fear of identification if they were overheard. All were given the names of birds, and were collectively referred to as the “Aviary.”

Many investigators would have immediately trumpeted their new find on an obscure but dramatic UFO landing case, but Moore had been careful. “We wanted to know that we could trust you,” said Falcon, “and you did exactly what we wanted you to do.” The intelligence people had even checked with the Hondo post office to see if Moore had shown up. The “spooks” knew that if they were going to recruit someone to cooperate with their schemes, they needed someone on the “inside” of the UFO community who would not only follow instructions, but could be trusted to keep things to himself while doing it.

The meat of the deal was finally laid on the table: Moore would keep an eye on selected UFO researchers and report on their opinions and feelings about rumors and cases making the rounds in their small community. The Falcon also revealed that he held a high position in the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is basically the military’s very own CIA. Elaborating on the offer from the previous meeting, he said that he represented a group of highly placed people who were unhappy with the secrecy surrounding the UFO subject, and wanted someone they could trust in order to release information to the public in a controlled way.

Falcon told Moore that Richard Doty would be his main counterintel contact. Moore remembered the Weitzel letter reference to a “Mr. Dody,” and things started to fall into place. The letter had contained not only references to an internal Air Force matter, but the misspelled name of the man on the inside who was going to be working with Moore to find out what was going through the minds of prominent UFO researchers. Many months later, Moore was talking to Doty in one of their many informal conversations and found out that “Huck” was one of the many aliases used by Kirtland AFOSI agents. (For his part, Moore says that one of the secretaries in the AFOSI office was named Mrs. Huck.) Doty told Moore that he had composed the Weitzel letter on orders, “as bait.” Years later, in the course of an interagency investigation, he maintained under questioning that Craig Weitzel had written the letter under orders, but had “kind of screwed it up.” The multiple stories were vintage Doty.

Falcon was a bird of a different feather. His misdirections always served a purpose and seemed to closely follow a master script. He would become Moore’s mentor of sorts over the next decade, providing information (or disinformation as he saw fit) and guiding Moore and his partners through the maze of U.S. government and UFO knowledge. They would be led down many passageways that came to dead ends or turned away from the secrets at the center, but as Moore began to negotiate the twists and turns, perhaps he could begin to map the territory and follow things as close to the center as he could. Falcon and his colleagues were happy to let out bits and pieces of the UFO puzzle (at least as they knew it) so long as sensitive defense projects like the ones going on at Kirtland were kept out of sight and mind of the public, and any other uncomfortably interested parties. At the same time, they could see what Moore did with the information, and how it flowed through the tributaries of the UFO rumor river. Moore was well aware that much of the material he would be seeing and hearing about would consist of lies upon lies, covering a smidgen of truth. He hoped that he would be able to “separate the shit from the candy,” as he put it.

“Falcon was truly an enigmatic person,” Moore recalled. “He hardly smiled, didn’t tell jokes, and there was no small talk. For instance, if you asked about his family, he would give a blank stare, and quickly move on to the subject at hand.” For the Falcon, time and words were valuable commodities, and neither were wasted. Moore was an asset, and nothing more. He was just another game piece on Falcon’s board.

If spies have a dictionary, the Falcon probably wrote the entry on “spooks,” and his backlit profile is next to it.

Project Betta: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security State And The Creation Of Modern UFO Myth 

Greg Bishop 

David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

 

Selected quotes

“Why are there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the American continents?  There is no belief of dinosaurs in the Native American religion or tradition.  For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world?  According to the World Book Encyclopedia, ‘before the 1800’s no one ever knew that dinosaurs existed.’  During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, large deposits of dinosaur remains were discovered …Why has man suddenly made all these discoveries?” 
**
“Discoveries and excavations seem not to be made by disinterested people, such as farmers, ranchers, hikers, outdoor recreationists, building construction industry basement excavators, pipeline trench diggers, and mining industry personnel but rather by people with vested interests, such as paleontologists, scientists, university professors, and museum organization personnel who were intentionally looking for dinosaur bones or who have studied dinosaurs previously.  The finds are often made during special dinosaur-bone hunting trips and expeditions by these people to far-away regions already inhabited and explored.  This seems highly implausible.  More believable is the case of the discovery of the first original Dead Sea scrolls in 1947, which were unintentionally discovered by a child, and which were all published by 1955.  In some cases of a discovery of dinosaur bones by a disinterested person, it was suggested to them by some ‘professional’ in the field to look or dig in a certain area.  Also very interesting to note are special areas set aside and designated as dinosaur parks for which amateur dinosaur hunters are required to first obtain a dinosaur hunting license.”
**
“‘Dinosaur’ bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure for academics to publish papers. Museums are in the business of producing displays that are popular and appealing. Movie producers and the media need to produce material to sell to stay in business. The mainstream media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige, fame and attention. There is the bandwagon effect and crowd behaviour. And then there are people and entities pursuing political and religious agendas. Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie, and media industries may cause sufficient motivations for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation.”
**
“A visual and a sculptural artist were promptly hired to invent a skull, and from the illustrations of another artist, who had depicted the Iguanadon, the two artists drew the same face for the Hadrosaurus foulkii.  The people involved could now technically defend the existence of this dinosaur, if someone were to ask.  The stunt worked out so well, and fooled the public so thoroughly, that they could later change the head of the creature without anyone noticing.  To this day, Hadrosaurus foulkii is on display at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.  The bones are said to be kept behind heavy, closed doors, but a plaster copy is exhibited in their place … So we learn of an iguana skull being substituted for the skull of a dinosaur on display. Was the public told at the time? What are we not being told today?”
**
“When children go to a dinosaur museum, are the displays they see displays of science or displays of art and science fiction?  Are we being deceived and brainwashed at an early age into believing a dinosaur myth?  Deep probing questions need to be asked of the entire dinosaur business.  There may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur ‘discoveries’ to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called the dinosaur.  Where bones from existing animals are not satisfactory for deception purposes, plaster substitutes may be manufactured and used.  Some material similar or superior to plasticine clay or plaster of Paris would be suitable.  Molds may also be employed.  What would be the motivation for such a deceptive endeavor?  Obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Christian Bible and the existence of the Christian God, and trying to disprove the ‘young-earth theory.’  The dinosaur concept implies that if God exists, He tinkered with His idea of dinosaurs for awhile, then probably discarded or became tired of this creation and then went on to create man.  The presented dinosaur historical timeline suggests an imperfect God who came up with the idea of man as an afterthought, thus demoting the biblical idea that God created man in His own image.” 
**
“The possibility exists that key dinosaur bones on display have been artificially modified through sculpture and carving.  Bone sculpture is not an unknown human activity.  Many cultures participate in creating man-made objects out of existing bones, totally unrecognizable from the original shape.  Is the dinosaur industry a customer of this sort of business?  Is it possible that dinosaur skeleton replica are secretly assembled or manufactured in private buildings out of public view, with bones artificially constructed or used from a number of different modern-day animals?  Why bother having any authentic original fossils at all if alleged replicas please the public?” 
**
“This idea of slow moving animals does not agree with the bio-mechanical analysis of dinosaurs, which indicate that the Dinosaurs were agile, active creatures.  This is the paradox between the Dinosaurs size and lifestyle.  Many displays and drawings of dinosaurs appear to be an absurdity, showing a two-legged animal that would be totally off-balance, with the weight of head and abdomen much greater than weight of tail, which is supposed to act as a counter-balance.  Is the dinosaur industry a case of science trying to meet public desires or expectations?  The movie Jurassic Park is an example of showing dinosaurs much larger than any current displays in museums.  After the movie came out, it is interesting to note that many articles were written asking ‘Is this possible?’ I can recall a report of dinosaur DNA being discovered preserved in amber, which later turned out to be false.” 
**
“During the nineteenth century a new world view of evolution was being pursued by then influential people such as Darwin and Marx. During this era of thought the first dinosaur discoveries were made. Were these discoveries ‘made’ to try to make up for inadequacies in the fossil record for the theory of evolution? The following issues raise red flags as to the integrity of the dinosaur industry and cast doubts as to whether dinosaurs ever existed: (1) dinosaur discoveries having occurred only within the last two centuries and in huge unusual concentrated quantities going against the laws of nature and probability; (2) dinosaur discoverers typically and generally not being disinterested parties without a vested interest; (3) the nature of public display preparation, calling into question the integrity and source of fossils, and allowing for the possibility of tampering and bone substitution, and the possibility of fraudulent activities on a systemic basis; (4) existing artistic drawings and public exhibits showing off-balance and awkward postures that basic physics would rule out as being possible; (5) very low odds of all these dinosaur bones being fossilized but relatively few bones of other animals; (6) implications of dinosaur discoveries to the theory of evolution and the belief that man was created in God's image, suggesting possible hidden and subtle political or religious agendas served on a naive and unsuspecting public; and, (7) a lack of funding for organizations and people questioning or being skeptical of each and every discovery and public display.  The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed.  The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked.  I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth.  The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible, anti-Christian agenda.  Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story.  ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.’ (1 Timothy 6:20).  The choice between believing the word of man, the evolutionists, or the word of God, the Bible, is a matter of faith.”  

Monday, April 6, 2026

International Space Station (ISS) Video Anomalies

 

A final question about “space” that needs to be addressed is the ISS. For context, the ISS has been around since 1998 and is said to be roughly 260 miles above Earth. This places the ISS within the thermosphere but below the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Claims that still images or footage from the ISS prove that Earth is a sphere would need to be evaluated for the same reasons discussed earlier. Is photoshopping being used? What kind of lens are they using? Is the “curve” that they show consistent with the specific amount—and type—of spherical curvature that should be there, based on the Globe’s radius value, at the ISS’s altitude? Does imagery or continuous footage of the entire Earth exist, or are we continually shown snippets of little parts of Earth?

But even beyond all that, careful investigation of the ISS’s footage reveals repeated anomalies, according to NASA skeptics. For instance, in April 2023, activist and public speaker Justin Harvey brought forth evidence of what he calls “potential fraud of an enormous scale” to a Brevard County, Florida County Commission Board meeting. He urged the panel to investigate this, since NASA has a significant presence in that county. His recorded public comments went viral because he concisely synthesized the anomalies that are causing a growing number of people to question whether the official story about the ISS is truthful.98 (Note: Harvey’s comments also went viral in May of 2024 after he presented anomalies to the Brevard County commission related to the Challenger explosion in 1986.99)

With modern technology, it’s always difficult to know whether background scenery in a video is legitimate or if it’s computer generated. Even on simple Zoom (video) conference calls, this technology is employed, whereby people can look as if they’re in a totally foreign setting. One can only wonder what kind of sophisticated technologies government agencies have. In fact, the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory included a 2012 episode with a fake ISS scene, in which the actor is floating around in a realistic  ISS-looking set.100 Also, in 2018, a Tesla vehicle was allegedly sent into space and was shown floating above Earth. As Elon Musk said in a press conference, “You can tell it’s real because it looks so fake.”101

In one ISS video, a female astronaut is shown floating inside of the ISS, and says into the microphone, “I want people…to understand why the science on the ISS helps us out, here on Earth.” She said “here on Earth” when allegedly in the thermosphere.102 As Austin Whitsitt critically remarks, “I thought you were in space.” This raises questions about whether she was simply in a studio simulation on Earth but accidentally “slipped” with her words. However, if one wanted to be generous, one might conclude that she included the thermosphere as part of Earth.

The next ISS anomaly is harder to explain away, though. As an astronaut is shown floating on the ISS with two other astronauts, he told a story that concluded with: “And all of that happened in a little town called York, Maine, across the United States from where we’re talking to you right now.”103 Were the astronauts actually in, say, Houston, while pretending to be on the ISS? [emphasis added]

In another ISS video, it can be clearly seen that an astronaut is being held up by a harness as he swings around a corner in the background.104 The implication is that the “floating” we see in videos might not always be due to “low gravity.” Instead, apparent “floating” might be induced by physical harnesses that are used in a normal environment. And there are many video examples that skeptics feel are suggestive of harness use.105 In fact, there is a paper coauthored by a NASA employee titled “Practical Applications of Cables and Ropes in the ISS Countermeasures System.” Thus, it’s clear that such technology is used in at least some circumstances.106

There are also cases in which things inexplicably fall while in an allegedly “low gravity” environment on the ISS. In one video, the astronaut explicitly addresses the issue. As he’s floating, he mentions, “Sometimes you find a pocket of gravity.” He keeps one  hand next to a hammer that’s floating in the air, and simultaneously he lets go of a playing card in his other hand. The card falls straight down while the hammer is still floating. Austin Whitsitt analyzed the tape and asks a good question: “If you found a pocket of gravity, aren’t you currently moving 17,500 miles per hour—so how could you determine beforehand that you were going to actually be within that pocket of gravity?”107 The astronaut would have needed to know that this tiny pocket was specifically located where it was, and he would have also needed to know that the floating hammer by his other hand was not in that pocket of gravity.

But in most video anomalies, the astronauts don’t provide a “gravity pocket” caveat. And objects fall anyway, even though they “should be” floating. In one such video, the astronaut was signing papers, and he dropped the clipboard, which fell straight down.108 When he dropped it, he looked around as if to make sure no one saw what had happened. It was a clear look of guilt. Similarly, in another video, an astronaut unscrewed something on the wall, and the screw fell to the ground.109 There are many other similar examples as well.110

One such case is more subtle but very telling. An astronaut is shown floating while his microphone is floating too. On the wall, several feet away from him, is a plastic bag. In that bag an object can be seen to start slowly falling down. So it’s falling down while the astronaut and microphone are floating. Whitsitt speculates that the astronaut might be on a parabolic flight that had unavoidable turbulence, which caused the mishap on the wall.111 Parabolic flights can be used to bring about “zero gravity” environments.

There is also a video of an astronaut floating while brushing his teeth. The video footage is fast-forwarded so that viewers don’t need to watch him brush his teeth for such a long time. However, as this is happening, there is a bag floating nearby that doesn’t change its speed. If the whole video were fast-forwarded, then the entire scene should have moved at the same rate. But that’s not what happened. Perhaps this suggests that part of the visual “background” was not really where the astronaut was being filmed. This has led to speculation that augmented reality technology is  sometimes employed and visually deceives viewers.112 NASA did in fact publish an article in 2021 titled “Nine Ways We Use AR [Augmented Reality] and VR [Virtual Reality] on the International Space Station.”113In one seemingly egregious mistake, an astronaut magically appears in an empty ISS room. The background has continuity all the while, which suggests that this was the product of video imagery. In fact, his body can be seen to fade in, which suggests that it’s a visual effect. In other words, there could be a “green screen” with CGI layering technology that makes the astronaut look like he’s part of the scene.114

There are also videos in which potential “bubbles” can be seen floating in space while the astronaut is filmed allegedly working on something in space.115 Skeptics speculate that such instances were faked space scenes that were really filmed under water—because NASA astronauts admittedly train in the “Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory” underwater.116 Adding fuel to the skeptics’ fire, astronauts have had helmet “leaks” during “spacewalks” on the ISS. A 2022 New York Post article reads: “Panicked NASA cancels spacewalks after ISS astronaut’s helmet ‘fills with water,’”117 and a 2022 CNN article reads: “NASA review underway after water leaks into astronaut’s helmet.”118The video “Bloopers From Space—Top 25 All Time Favorites” on the YouTube channel Flat Earth and Coffee shows some of the examples discussed here. Beyond that, researchers have compiled an extensive body of documentation of similar cases.119 In any video or image analysis, there’s always the possibility of a technical glitch that’s misinterpreted as fraud. But when there are so many anomalies, skeptics contend that it’s hard to “explain away” all of them.

Any single example of fraud naturally puts everything into question. As the saying goes in US law: “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.”120 [emphasis added]

98Censored Important Videos, “April 2023: Justin Harvey calls out NASA at Brevard County,” https://rumble.com/v2kkkmu-calling-out-nasa-april-2023.html.

99Paul Davis UnCancelled, “Are the astronauts from the Challenger disaster still alive? Justin Harvey has the evidence,” https://rumble.com/v52mvyw-are-the-astronauts-from-the-challenger-disaster-still-alive-justin-harvey-h.html.

100Pearlman, “How did CBS’ Big Bang Theory send Howard Wolowitz to space?” https://www.space.com/17891-big-bang-theory-space-set-design.html.

101Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 2:59:30.

102Ibid., 2:32:00.

103Flat Earth Dave Archive, “Houston, We Have Got a HUGE Problem! ISS HOAX,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la6ec1ay0II.

104Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 2:47:00-2:48:00.

105A few examples shown in Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 2:47:00-2:53:00.

106Moore et al., “Practical Applications of Cables and Ropes in the ISS Countermeasures System” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160012382/downloads/20160012382.pdf.

107Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 2:29:00–2:30:00.

108Ibid., 3:15:20.

109Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud – Episode 3,” https://www.youtube.com/live/_gpM5lmRVW8, 2:13:00–2:16:00.

110Additional bloopers shown at Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 3:19:00.

111Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud–Episode 3,” https://www.youtube.com/live/_gpM5lmRVW8.

112Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 3:21:50.

113NASA, “Nine Ways We Use AR and VR on the International Space Station,” https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/nine-ways-we-use-ar-and-vr-on-the-international-space-station/.

114Witsit Gets It, “NASA Fraud,” https://www.youtube.com/live/CJnwl5aiBSk, 3:36:50.

115See the YouTube channel “Flat Earth and Coffee,” https://www.youtube.com/@FlatEarthAndCoffee/videos.

116NASA, “Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory,” https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/neutral-buoyancy-laboratory/.

117Pettit, “Panicked NASA cancels spacewalks after ISS astronaut’s helmet ‘fills with water,’” https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/panicked-nasa-cancels-spacewalks-after-iss-astronauts-helmet-fills-with-water/.

118Erin Burnett Out Front, “NASA review underway after water leaks into astronaut’s helmet,” https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/08/06/nasa-halts-spacewalks-spacesuit-problems-water-leak-astronaut-helmet-iss-fisher-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn.

119Also available on Rumble at the channel Don’t Obey, “Bloopers From Space – Top 25 All Time Favorites,” https://rumble.com/v28x1v0-bloopers-from-space-top-25-all-time-favorites.html.

120Liverman v. McMurray, US Supreme Court, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-5808/176392/20210422160651080_20210422-160534-95753440-00001842.pdf, 2.

An End to the Upside Down Cosmos

Rethinking the BigBang, Heliocentrism,

the Lights in the Sky…

and Where We Live

Mark Gober