Hiroshima Revisited

Foreword

In this well researched and eminently readable book, Palmer has corralled the available evidence that the war-ending bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 were not atom bombs.

What? What’s that you say?

Your family and friends, like mine, may find this notion incredible. If they do, ask them to read the book; it’s free online (see URL on the imprint page). I predict that most of those who take your suggestion will agree that the conventional Manhattan Project history may well be a contender for the Greatest Hoax of all Time. During the reading, readers both old enough to have experienced and young enough to remember those times may experience some Ah ha! moments. Palmer kicks off his study by analyzing physical data that reveal the hoax. In this, he makes good use of the recent book by Akio Nakatani: Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax [1], which draws upon reports by those who have examined the scene and assert that the destruction of those two cities was, by all appearances, the result of fire-bombing, like that which had already destroyed most of Japan’s major cities.

Palmer reviews and expands on this convincing physical evidence, and then complements it by analyzing the effects of the bomb on people.

He concludes that the reported ‘radiation effects’ expected from an atom bomb are, instead, effects of sulfur mustard gas and napalm. It is not surprising that government documents regarding medical effects among victims and survivors remain classified for reasons of ‘national security’. Several chapters provide primers on elementary aspects of nuclear physics and human physiology that will be appreciated by those who aim for a critical understanding of Palmer’s thesis.

Thanks to this book, I can now understand a pair of perplexing conversations I had in the 1960s. The first, which took place in the new Institute for Molecular Biology at the University of Oregon, was with its founding director who told me that one of his activities in the Manhattan project was to collect soil samples from the site of the Trinity test a few hours after the explosion. An interesting story, but how come he was alive to tell it? Wasn’t the site lethally radioactive from a ground level explosion of a plutonium bomb?

The other puzzling conversation occurred during a flight to the west coast. A noted geneticist was angry with a world-famous chemist who, he claimed, grossly exaggerated the genetic damage from the Hiroshima atrocity. Why would the chemist, whom I knew and trusted, do such a thing? Palmer’s book provided the Ah ha! moments for both these puzzles.
The young director was not killed by intensely radioactive soil at the site simply because the test bomb had not been an atom bomb.

The chemist, relying on physicists’ estimates of the bomb’s radiation intensity, used experimentally derived relations between radiation dose and mutation rates to predict the genetic damage to Hiroshima survivors and their offspring. The geneticist, on the other hand, had made direct observations on children born to survivors and not found the level of damage that the chemist had estimated—in fact, such studies have found only slight and non-significant increases of genetic disease in the offspring of survivors.
Some readers will acknowledge that Palmer has made a strong scientific case for the fakery but will resist it without answers to “How was it done?” and “Why?”. In the final two chapters, the author takes on those questions with arguments that are, by necessity, speculative.

Please don’t cheat by reading these chapters first. Their conclusions are likely to appear reasonable only after you have acknowledged the possibility of the book’s primary conclusion, that We the People have been taken in by this enormous hoax.
Franklin Stahl

***
(...)
Yet, only one year after this venturesome experiment, American ingenuity emerged triumphant: the first ever uranium bomb, though never once tested before,3went off without a hitch to obliterate Hiro-shima. Does this really sound true to life, or rather like something out of Hollywood? Should we censure Heisenberg for spontaneously calling it a bluff?

Of course, this question cannot be settled by insinuations, but only by the evidence; and that is what I will attempt in this book. Before going any further, however, I should point out that the book before you is not the first one to argue that the ‘nuclear bomb’ in Hiroshima was a fraud. A recent work entitled Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax [1] makes the same case, yet goes beyond it to reject the existence of nuclear weapons altogether. Its author, Akio Nakatani (apparently a pen name), claims to be an expert in applied mathematics, and furthermore to have carried out his own computer simulations of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb designs, which show that these bombs could not have worked. He does, however, not describe these calculations in detail:

Though I could nuke the entire orthodoxy with the scientific result . . . unfortunately due to archaic USA national security laws . . . I cannot present that openly, [therefore] I am doing the next best thing, which is to compile . . . the voluminous circumstantial evidence.

Nakatani generalizes his findings to conclude that nuclear bombs are impossible in principle. He indeed presents ample evidence to demonstrate that the systematic fakery goes well beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I highly recommend his book. However, I will here take a somewhat different approach: instead of addressing the subject of atomic weapons in its entirety, which I am not competent to do,4 I will focus on the scientific and medical evidence pertaining to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I will examine at greater depth. The findings will neither supersede nor merely duplicate Nakatani’s work, but rather they will complement it.

Apart from some general works, several of which I hesitate to call ‘nonfiction’, the sources for this book are mostly scientific books and peer-reviewed articles, all of which are publicly available and have been carefully referenced. In this chapter, I will present some selected pieces of evidence; each of the topics thus introduced, and others, will be treated at greater length in later chapters.

(...)

1.4.3 Dispersal of reactor waste to create some fallout.

Finally, Nakatani posits that some radioactivity—probably reactor waste—was dispersed using conventional explosives, relating that such a device— known as a ‘dirty bomb’—had previously been tested in New Mexico.

Chapter 3 will show that scattered reactor waste fits the published scientific findings on ‘Little Boy’s’ radioactive fallout much better than does the official story of a nuclear detonation.

1.4.4 Use of mustard gas to fake ‘radiation sickness’.

Keller [10] reports that many Hiroshima victims suffered from bone marrow suppression and other symptoms that are commonly observed in patients exposed to strong irradiation, be it by accident or for treatment; and these statements are confirmed by many other medical case studies and surveys. The very low amount of dispersed radioactive material apparent from studies such as Shizuma et al. [6] cannot account for these observations.

Nakatani recognizes this incongruity and proposes that clinical reports of radiation sickness are mostly fabricated, although he suggests that a dirty bomb might have produced some real cases. I concur in principle that much of the science that surrounds this event is fraudulent, and I will discuss some specific examples in later chapters.

However, the medical reports are too numerous and come from too many independent sources to be so nonchalantly dismissed, and in fact they can be readily explained by the use of poison gas. Eyewitness testimony from Hiroshima is replete with references to poisonous gas and its deleterious effects. Among 105 witnesses who experienced the Hiroshima bombing as school age children, and whose memories were collected and published by the Japanese teacher Arata Osada [14], 13 explicitly mention poisonous gas or fumes.9 One of them, Hisato Itoh, died shortly after writing his account, which contains this statement:

Both my mother and I had been through a great deal of strain during this time . . . and then we also started to feel listless and began to lose our hair because we had breathed the gases when the atom bomb fell.

The possible use of poison gas was brought up early on by Dr. Masao Tsuzuki, the leading Japanese member on the U.S.-Japanese ‘Joint Commission’ of medical scientists convened to investigate the aftermath of the bombing. The historian Sey Nishimura [15] quotes from a 1945 article by Tsuzuki:

Immediately after the explosion of the atomic bomb, some gas permeated, which appeared like white smoke with stimulating odor. Many reported that when inhaled, it caused acute sore throat or suffocating pain.

According to Nishimura, Tsuzuki’s position concerning the gas attracted the attention of the U.S. military censors, who, for violation of their rule that “news must be factual, devoid of conjecture,” struck out the following passage from his manuscript:

Considering from various points, generation of something like poisonous gas accompanying the explosion operation is conceivable, and it is not hard to conjecture that there were perhaps war victims who died of these poisons. At present we have no clue whether it was devised on purpose so as to radiate something like poisonous gas. If I have a chance, I’d like to put a question to America on this matter.

Again according to Nishimura, Tsuzuki nevertheless reaffirmed his position in another report six years later:9
Several more of these are quoted in Section 13.4.2.

Everyone experienced inhalation of a certain indescribable malodorous gas. This may be considered city stench, which was induced by fierce wind from the explosion; a part of it might have originated from electrolytes generated by application of radioactivity to air. What this so-called “gas” is, is not clear. But it is not unthinkable that it could be invasive to the human body.

Tsuzuki’s conjecture on the radiogenic origin of the gas is sound in principle: ionizing radiation traveling through air can indeed produce pungent, aggressive gases such as ozone and oxides of nitrogen. However, assuming that no nuclear detonation actually happened, we can rule out this possibility, which means that any poisonous gas present must have been dropped in finished form during the air raid. It is interesting to note that the first independent journalist to report from Hiroshima, the Australian Wilfred Burchett [16],10 also brings up poison gas:

My nose detected a peculiar odour unlike anything I have ever smelled before. It is something like sulphur, but not quite. I could smell it when I passed a fire that was still smouldering, or at a spot where they were still recovering bodies from the wreckage.

But I could also smell it where everything was still deserted.
The gas plagued the people even four weeks after the event:
And so the people of Hiroshima today are walking through the forlorn desolation of their once proud city with gauze masks over their mouths and noses.

The Japanese interviewed by Burchett conflated it with radioactivity:

They believe it [the smell] is given off by the poisonous gas still issuing from the earth soaked with radioactivity released by the split uranium atom.

Their conjecture on the origin of the gas must be false, for there is no plausible mechanism by which radiation or fallout from a nuclear bomb could produce this sort of lingering fumes.11 However, this should not mislead us into discounting their perceptions altogether; surely no one toiling in hot summer weather will wear a face mask without reason. What kind of gas would fit this entire scenario?

The most likely candidate is sulfur mustard, which had been used as a chemical weapon in World War I, and which was so used again more recently by Iraq in its war against Iran. Sulfur mustard mimics both the acute and the chronic effects of radiation on the human body. In particular, like radiation, mustard gas damages the bone marrow, the hair follicles, and other rapidly proliferating tissues; and this commonality was already well understood at the time [17].12 An oily fluid, sulfur mustard can evaporate slowly over time; its smell resembles that of ‘garlic, addled eggs, or oil-roasted vegetables’ [19] and is also sometimes described as sulfuric. It can persist in the environment for considerable periods of time [20], which would explain that Burchett still noted its stench and its effects when he visited Hiroshima in early September.

(...)

1.5.4 Experimental evidence of the nuclear detonation.

The case for the nuclear bomb is, of course, supported by an endless stream of government-sponsored scientific studies. For example, there are dozens of reports on the formation of ⁶⁰Co and other radioactive isotopes near the hypocenter, which is ascribed to the capture of neutrons emitted by the nuclear detonation. Similarly, thermoluminescence in samples of ceramic materials is adduced as proof of theγ-irradiation released by the detonation.

Taken at face value, such experimental studies indeed prove that a large amount of bothγ-rays and neutrons was released at Hiroshima, which clearly supports the story of the nuclear detonation and flatly contradicts the negative evidence discussed above. We are thus forced to choose sides. On what basis can we make this choice?
If we assume that no blast occurred, then we must conclude that the evidence of neutron andγ-radiation is fabricated. This is not technically difficult; in fact, the studies in question commonly employ control and calibration samples that were produced by exposing inactive precursor materials to defined doses of laboratory-generated neutron andγ-radiation. The only difficulty is a moral one—we must accuse either the scientists themselves or a third party, such as a government or its secret service, of substituting artificial samples for the real ones. In this context, it is worth noting that none of the studies I have seen documents the chain of custody of its samples; it is not clear who had access to the samples at which times.

If, on the other hand, we assume that a nuclear blast did occur, and furthermore that only this blast occurred, then we have to conclude that some people inexplicably survived deadly doses of radiation, whereas others succumbed to acute radiation sickness without significant exposure. A third miracle is needed to explain that all people who looked at the flash of the detonation escaped with their retinas unhurt.17 Between moral embarrassment and scientific impossibility, the only sound choice is the former. We all expect the fortitude to make such choices correctly in the members of a jury; here, we should expect the same of ourselves.

1.6 A brief guide to the remaining chapters of this book

Most chapters in this book focus on various aspects of the relevant physical and medical evidence. These chapters are necessarily quite technical in nature. Some background that may help readers to better understand the physical arguments is given in Chapter 2. The most important physical findings are presented in Chapter 3; this evidence alone suffices to reject the story of the nuclear detonations.The remaining physical chapters mostly deal with data which are offered as proof of the nuclear detonation, and which seem to be largely fabricated.
As to the medical evidence, Chapter 7 provides background on mustard gas and napalm, the two key weapons used in the bombings.

The evidence presented in Chapters 8 and 9 is sufficient to prove the case for mustard gas and napalm and against nuclear detonations. I believe that they can be understood without much medical background, while Chapters 12 and particularly 10 are more demanding in this regard. Chapter 11 combines physical and medical aspects; its most significant contribution is to illuminate the scientific malfeasance that is used to maintain the deception.

The book concludes with two chapters on the methods and the mo-tives, respectively, of the staged bombings. The arguments presented there are of a more general, less scientific nature than those in the preceding parts. The case presented in the final chapter, in particular, is based largely on inference and plausibility; readers who disagree with its conclusions are asked to judge its merit separately from that of the other, more evidence-based chapters.

Michael Palmer

Hawking Isn't Talking

Isn’t it weird that E=mc² is the most widely recognised physics equation in the world? And yet it is literally of no use to anybody. This is the power of physics propaganda. Most people can’t convert miles to kilometres, but they sure know all about E=mc²!

Everyone knows about Albert Einstein, he’s the greatest genius who ever lived, right? Followed by Stephen Hawking, of course! You can’t argue with that, they are the two most brilliant minds in the entire history of the human intellect ever, their contributions are greater and more significant than all the other achievements of all lesser mortals combined! They are truly GODS AMONG MEN!!

Seriously though, you have to wonder why these two odd fellows are given such pride of place in the pantheon of academic idols. I used to admire them myself, but as I’ve alluded to previously, I was a naive young fool, an idealist.
The fact is, when you no longer worship atoms and gravity as your personal lord and saviour, and you’re no longer awe-struck by academic laurels, waffly explanations or synthesised speech, you start to see more clearly what is right in front of your face.

In the cold light of day, it is plain to see that neither Einstein nor Hawking achieved anything meaningful by tinkering with their tensors, it was all pure vanity, indulgent mathematical conjecture, mental gymnastics and CGI razzamatazz. Relativity is not reality, and absolute truth exists absolutely. Gravity and/or ‘bendy-space-time’ are not found in nature, they are mathematical models with no useful application in the real world, and this is what Stephen Hawking devoted himself to.

In 1963 at the age of 21 he was diagnosed with terminal ALS and given only 24 months to live, yet somehow he managed to press on for 55 more years. People with ALS (a.k.a Lou Gehrigs or Motor Neuron’s disease) only live 3-5 years max, he outlived them all by more than 10x. That is quite an achievement, something was surely working for him, he looked healthier and more plump in 2016 than he did in the 1970s, and he somehow developed golden blonde hair and grew a new set of teeth in his old age (despite being unable to eat solids since the 70s).

Now before I get accused of distasteful humour or ‘ableism’, it’s important to understand the reason for my sarcasm. It has come to light in recent years that the Stephen Hawking ‘phenomenon’ is actually something quite sinister and disturbing, so I’m using bits of humour to relieve the tension, otherwise it would be too depressing.

I am not the first to say it, and I won’t be the last, there have been several presentations about it online (banned from youtube of course, but search Bitchute or Odyssey), and even some coverage in the mainstream media‘. Most recently (2024) there were some bizarre revelations regarding his appearance on Epstein Island, so there’s a LOT of things about Hawking that just don’t add up.

The charge against him is that the man we see in the wheelchair is in fact not a scientific genius but merely a puppet, a stooge that gets wheeled out by the establishment to give intellectual credibility to political agendas. He is not the one programming the words on the computer, the voice is scripted by hidden hands, crafted behind the scenes then attributed to Hawking via the speaker on his wheelchair. We are expected to believe Hawking did all his greatest work by twitching the inside of his cheek in binary code to program a speech synthesiser with the words he wishes to say. Try to imagine that! Theoretical physics is hard enough when you have the ability to write and draw and communicate, how much more challenging must it be while in a state of total physical and verbal paralysis, limited to using 1s and 0s? The only conclusion, he must be a super-genius, right!?

Though severely disadvantaged, Stephen Hawking did have one big advantage over everybody else in the world; he can say anything, and nobody can challenge him. Nobody can argue with a mute in a wheelchair, it’s just not fair play, it would be cruel and ‘ableist’ to rebuke him, plus you'd be waiting forever on him to program responses with his cheek muscle.

But, can he even really do that? I used to wonder why we never saw him in live debate or conversation with people, but it makes sense now, all the words emanating from the computer voice are pre-programmed, he can’t come up with real-time responses on the fly, that would be crazy. At best he can select phrases from a preset list.

But does he even do that? How much input does he really have on the words that come out the machine? We have all witnessed him sat there with that gummy smile while the synthesised speech buzzes out science words, we may even have seen him twitching a joystick with his wrist a few times, but we've never seen him actually communicate.

Nevertheless, his extreme disability status gives him virtually unlimited credibility in academia and on the world stage. In the inverted realm of legacy media, it’s all about the victim, the more of a victim someone is, the more exalted they are. Stephen Hawking is the undisputed champion of the victim olympics.

We are told he was the greatest physicist in the world at just age 19, and experienced a lengthy decline in bodily functionality throughout the 60s and 70s and had to give up lecturing, but his mind remained sharp and his determination to uncover the secrets of black-holes was unwavering. However, something happened in 1985 that changed his life forever.

While at a conference in Geneva hosted by CERN, he fell ill with pneumonia and was rushed to hospital, put on a ventilator and given a tracheotomy which destroyed his throat rendering him unable to vocalise even the most basic groaning sounds (which he had been using to communicate through the 70s). Allegedly then he was shuffled off back to England to be managed by a team of professional carers.
A year later he emerged, reborn, like a phoenix from the flames, equipped with a highly advanced (for the time) custom voice computer and wheelchair, and in 1988 published his seminal work ‘A Brief History of Time’, the most successful and unmemorable pop-science book ever.

He then went on to be a celebrity science idol for the next 30 years, appearing in a myriad of TV shows, movies, adverts, pop songs and concerts, as well as touring universities lecturing, even going up in a “zero-g” vomit-comet aircraft in 2007 to experience weightlessness. For someone who can’t physically move or talk, he’s a serious ‘mover and shaker’, a super hero on wheels, he gets around!

He’s also a bit of a ladies man, and has been accused of fondling handlers and seducing nurses with his charming banter. His condition did not hold him back sexually, he got married and supposedly produced three children in the years after his crippling disability kicked in (try not to think about that too much), then in 1995 got divorced and hooked up with one of his carers, someone named Elaine Mason.

Now I don’t like to judge by appearances, but Elaine Mason is a very suspicious looking individual who comes with a very suspicious back story.

Elaine, as the story goes, was previously married to David Mason, the engineer who developed Hawking’s voice box. Think about that for a second; she divorced from a successful able-bodied engineer who can speak, and married a paralysed mute in a wheelchair who relies on her ex-husbands technology to talk! Before that she was just a humble nurse at an orphanage in Bangladesh, helping poor children out of the kindness of her heart.

After his divorce was completed in 1995, Stephen wasted no time getting right back in the game, Elaine had been one of his nurses/handlers for quite some time, so she was well familiar with his ... proclivities.

Though this was during the peak of his celebrity career, their relationship was reportedly strained, mired by rumours of abuse and cruelty, and only lasted until 2006, at which point “Elaine” dropped off the face of the earth, never to be seen again, probably back caring for the poor orphaned kids in Bangladesh.

Curiously, all the tabloids put out stories around the same time with headlines like “All you need to know about Elaine Mason”, where they lay out the whole list of sanitised, government-approved factoids. The spell being cast in those articles is clear; there is nothing more to know about her than what we tell you.

If I were a gambling man, I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Elaine Mason is an undercover agent, a military man in a ginger wig, possibly even a ‘catch & release’ criminal; serial liars like this have a very distinctive face that becomes easy to spot as you get wiser, plus you have to be seriously lacking in morals or under huge amounts of blackmail pressure to pull off a stunt like that.

The more you look, the more it starts to seem like the people surrounding Hawking are impostors and agents, bad actors playing a role in some twisted secret narrative, using him like a prop or a ‘cash cow’, a way to advance their careers and fill their pockets.

His alleged sprogs, Timothy and Lucy Hawking, are also quite suspicious, they have done the rounds on all the UK breakfast shows, tabloids and magazines, retelling their fond childhood memories about how he was the greatest dad ever, and cashing in on all the book sales and royalties of course. It must be said, they bear no similarity to Stephen at all, he was not exactly a handsome man but he had very distinctive primate-like features which did not seem to pass on to his children (lucky for them).

There is some video of Hawking “actually talking” prior to his accident, but I warn you, it is disturbing to watch, he is just groaning incomprehensibly, with nothing even close to words coming out of his mouth. Yet his trusty “interpreter” dutifully translates it all into perfect English “he says that no light can escape from the gravitational pull of a black hole” etc. It’s a very ballsy charade and I will admit, I fell for it, I was an ignorant fool for ever believing this man was a genius. When dealing with long-term media narratives like this, where information is based solely on testimonies of actors and compromised people, or something that was once uttered by a computerised voice machine, it can be hard to know what is true or genuine. However, when all the tabloids and breakfast shows are telling you the exact same list of ‘facts’, we know for sure it must be bought and paid for, a total fabrication.

Perhaps the most bizarre twist in the life of this “tortured genius” was his association with the Jeffery Epstein Mossad honey-trap operation, there are several pictures that have emerged with him on the island hanging out with some very unsavoury characters. It turns out Jeffrey Epstein was a big supporter of scientism, he branded himself as a ‘science philanthropist’, among other things. In 2012 he financed a conference in the US virgin islands’, with 21 of the worlds “top physicists”, including Hawking and his able-bodied Canadian counterpart Lawrence Krauss, and 3 Nobel laureates, with the purpose to “define gravity” (but wasn’t it defined 350 years ago?).

In January 2024 there was a large publication of files relating to the Epstein case, including transcripts of a conversation where it is claimed that one of Hawking’s proclivities involved ‘watching naked midgets try to solve complex equations on a blackboard too high up’. Of course this is pure gossip, information that could be easily fabricated, and actually totally ludicrous the more you think about it. There’s no way to know if he really said or consented to anything at all.

Understand that it can’t be determined whether Hawking was ever even sentient, whether he wrote any of the books or said any of the things attributed to him. There is no evidence that he was capable of communicating his ‘proclivities’ to anyone, in fact it is absurd to even think of a man in that position as having ‘proclivities’ and going to a sex island to partake in orgies etc, it’s pure mockery.

Quite possibly he has been inserted into the Epstein narrative to distract from the other living men and women who are implicated in it, or he was just brought out to the conference for ‘shits and giggles’. Epstein is said to have specially modified his personal submarine for Hawking’s arrival.

It’s entirely possible that the figure in the wheelchair was in some cases not even a living man, but due to the extremely limited degree of bodily movement on display, it could have been animatronics. It appears there were several different ‘models’ of Hawking used over the years, maybe 3-4 different versions of the body in the chair. People note the changing hair colour (from black to grey to golden blonde), weird teeth developments, ear size, nose shape, skin quality and so on.

The prevailing theory is that the ‘real’ Stephen Hawking died during the Geneva incident in 1985, and what emerged after that was some kind of Frankenstein’s monster, a state-controlled bionic boffin, the Robocop of Physics (curiously Robocop was released right around the same time).

A Brief History of Time was likely written by a team of ghost writers, it’s very waffly, and his computer speech would be programmed by whomever happens to be ‘using’ him at that time. This was evident in the later years as he began spouting globalist rhetoric and pushing political agendas, appearing in ever more bizarre places like Star Trek, Stargate, The Simpsons and Futurama. But his core message and philosophy was always essentially the same; there is no god, aliens are real, the planet is going to die from climate change and gravity will suck us all into a black hole.

We may never know exactly what happened with him, or who Elaine Mason really is, or whether Timothy and Lucy are really his children (his first wife Jane was admittedly having affairs), but we can be sure of two things; he made no fruitful contributions to science, and the official story of his life is a charade, a mockery.

It is a mockery of the idolatry of scientism, since the idolaters are essentially worshiping a ‘retard’ whom they believe is a genius, but he has no more capability than a vegetable. Its a mockery that shows how unscientific and gullible the majority of scientism believers are, and as someone who was very much involved in that world, I feel it deeply, it’s a cruel mockery but it perfectly illustrates the folly of idol worship.

I used to think Erwin Schrédinger was an idol, because of his legendary quantum wave equation and the infamous cat paradox, I even quoted him and used his image in presentations, then I found out he was a rampant pedophile! It would have been good to know that first, before quoting his work and associating myself with him, but the world is an inverted place, and it seems academia is generally unconcerned with morality these days.

It’s notable that the word ‘hawking’ means ‘selling in a public place by calling out to people’, as in merchants hawking their wares, or media hawking their narratives, or scientists hawking their theories.

If, as I suspect, this whole thing is a mockery, then the deceivers might have left a few little ‘easter eggs’ or clues for inquisitive truth seekers such as ourselves. Well, get this; it just so happens that Stephen Hawking died on March 14th 2018, also known as ‘Pi day’ (3.14), a poignant date for physics geeks, which also happens to be ...Einsteins birthday!

And if that weren’t unbelievable enough, we’re told that his friends at school used to call him by the nick name...Einstein’.

Of course, we’re expected to believe that this all happened by sheer coincidence on the edge of a giant spinning ball of atoms in an uncreated universe devoid of meaning and intelligent design!

To the discerning eye it is quite evident that the story of Stephen Hawking is a fabrication, and a profitable one too. There was never any real physics being done, nobody will ever use one of Hawking’s equations to solve any problems, it’s all complete gobbledegook designed to make gravity seem like this super complex thing that only the most tortured boffins can comprehend.

But actually it’s not so complicated, the plain truth is very simple to understand; gravity does not exist in nature, never has, never will, it has no place in true science and should be banished from our vocabulary altogether.

Hawking is to Einstein as Einstein is to Newton, they are the ‘gatekeepers of gravity’, nothing can be said about gravity without invoking them. They are gravity, and this is why they are held up above all other men of history, because without gravity, the Copernican model of the spinning globe earth and the Heliocentric solar system fall apart, along with the entire field of astrophysics and the whole state-sanctioned history of the universe; the big bang, the explanations of stars and galaxies, the planetary globe model, and even the theory of evolution - all of it collapses like a house of cards.

Steven A. Young
Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy

Geocentricity: The Debate

 

Introduction

 

This book consists of exchanges I have had with people on YouTube over the past few months (it is March 2016 as I write this). The subject was geocentricity. In case you don’t know, geocentricity is the theory that Earth is stationary at the center of the universe. Yes, believe it or not, in the modern world there are still people who actually advocate such a model of the universe. And as I’ve discovered, many people have an irrational hatred for anyone who dares to so much as utter the word “geocentricity.” Only stupid, whacked out, scientifically illiterate, Bible-thumping, delusional, insane, anti-science, murderous, pedophilic, ignorant, conspiracy-theorists could possibly believe Earth is at the center of the universe. Despite the fact that, according to Einstein, from the viewpoint of an observer stationary relative to the Earth, it is perfectly valid to say that Earth is stationary at the center of the universe. But of course, if you ask most modern relativists, I just told you a bald-faced lie. Einstein would never have said such a thing.

But I didn’t lie. I told you the bald-faced truth. It’s a truth which most of Einstein’s supporters do not like to admit. In some cases, they don’t even seem to be aware that their own theory actually supports geocentricity, because it MUST.

But this brief introduction isn’t the actual debate, so I’ll save the arguments for later.

A couple of the usernames herein have been reduced to initials, to protect the innocent and all that.

I myself do not know who any of the persons I interacted with are in “real life.” I don’t know their credentials or the level of their scientific literacy. So I make no claim as to the veracity of anything they say. If you’re uncertain of any of their claims, do your own research into what they’re saying. The same goes for anything I say. Never accept anything at face value, no matter which side is saying it or how much authority they appear to have. 

It should also be noted that, where possible, this book is being given away for free. I am not doing this book for money. The price of the paperback version is basically just the cost of manufacturing charged by the printer.

Also, the fact that my comments appeared in any given YouTube video’s comments section does not mean that I in any way endorse or agree with what is being said in any specific video. It just means that I watched the video and perused its comments section, and therein found comments to which I felt like responding.

Hopefully the format of the debates is easy to follow. I use the label “[someone] wrote:” and then present what they wrote, exactly as it is posted on YouTube, without any editing, spelling or grammar correction. In most cases, the statement of the opponent is in quotes, followed by the response. Should be pretty self-evident once you start reading.

Also, occasionally there will be instances of +ScottReeves, or +CoolHardLogic, etc. This is the Google+ system, and simply identifies the user at whom the subsequent commentary is directed.

For anyone who is interested, I have numerous videos of my own on my YouTube channel that further expand on my thoughts on the subject of geocentricity and the pseudo-science that is Relativity. That channel is Youtube.com/user/TheBigScaboo. The videos may also be found on archive.org, using my name as the search term.

I want to stress that this book is by no means a comprehensive treatise on the subject of geocentricity, and I urge every reader to do an in-depth study into the subject and come to your own conclusions regarding it.

I want to thank everyone who took the time to enter the arena with me. I had fun doing this, and the opposition helped me to clarify my own stance on geocentricity. I think these were good debates on both sides.

Lastly I would like to congratulate the obvious victor: absolute Geocentricity.

**

Appendix I

Geocentrists are anti-science.

Untrue. Geocentrists have very scientific and reasonable rebuttals for everything anti-geocentrists can throw at them. Geocentrists are very pro-science in their insistence that people who call themselves scientists should actually stick to science and accept the observational evidence at face value: Earth is at the center of the universe. Let’s have none of this pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about every point being at the center of its universe.

Modern technology wouldn’t work if Earth were at the center of the universe.

Why is that? Exactly which technology wouldn’t work if Earth were at the center of the universe? The prime one that is usually put forth in support of this foolish statement is GPS. But as shown previously in this book, the GPS corrections are predicted by absolute Geocentricity as well as Relativity, and both use exactly the same equations to correct the GPS clocks. So which other technology wouldn’t work if Earth were at the center of the universe? Tell me. Which technology? The answer is: ALL of our technology would work if Earth were at the center of the universe. If some of our technology wouldn’t work in an Earth-centered universe, then that means Earth is in a demonstrably inferior place in the universe, which is just as deadly to Relativity as Earth being in a superior place. So if even a single piece of our technology did not work in an Earth-centered universe, Relativity would be an invalid theory, which is okay by me, since that has been my contention all along. Either way, for me, geocentricity is a disproof of Relativity. Anyone making the statement that modern technology wouldn’t work if Earth were at the center of the universe is actually taking a stand against Einstein. If people are happy taking such a stand, more power to them. Welcome to the club, here is your ID card.

The fact is that all our technology would work if Earth were at the center of the universe. There would just be a different dominant theory used to explain the science behind that technology.

And anyway, you’ll often hear several versions of this argument. One says that modern technology wouldn’t work if Relativity were invalid. Another says that modern technology wouldn’t work if quantum mechanics were invalid. Yet another says that modern technology wouldn’t work if Earth were at the center of the universe. The latter statement sort of rolls into the one about modern technology not working if Relativity were invalid, since if Earth is absolutely at the center of the universe, then Relativity is invalid. So basically we’re left with the two statements about modern technology not working without quantum mechanics or Relativity. So which statement is true? Because, as physicist Brian Greene was quoted elsewhere in this book, “As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right” (The Elegant Universe, pg 3)

So depending upon which bit of technology you’re claiming is based upon Relativity, and which bit is based upon quantum mechanics, some portion of our modern technology should not be working. And yet it does. So any statement that begins “Modern technology wouldn’t work if…” is a fallacious statement, regardless of whatever follows the if. 

Geocentrists are all religious kooks who only believe it based upon their need for God and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This is demonstrably untrue. Myself being a prime example. Read back through this book and show where I presented a religious argument in favor of absolute Geocentricity. Geocentricity has plenty of non-religious arguments in its favor if one cares to look beyond his/her mockery and actually do in-depth research into the subject. I challenge anyone reading this book, who has what they deem to be a valid natural phenomenon that contradicts geocentricity, to actually search for the scientific, geocentric explanation for the phenomenon. Because I guarantee you it is out there, and presented in great detail. And it’s most likely an absolute Geocentric explanation, because relativistic geocentrists seem to have dropped the ball on finding relativistic geocentric explanations for a whole host of phenomena. To hear all the people I debated with explain it, they have no workable geocentric explanations for earthquakes, satellites, the orbiting sun, Focault’s pendulum, etc – all things for which relativists damn well better find geocentric explanations if they want to claim that Relativity is a valid theory. So get cracking, all you relativists reading this.

Also, it is no more true that all geocentrists are religious kooks than it is true that all scientists are atheists. And if all scientists did in fact happen to be atheists, it would no more constitute proof that their theories were correct than it would constitute a disproof of geocentricity if all its proponents were religious. Only the empirical support for a theory is decisive, not the number or philosophy of the theory’s proponents. And geocentricity is at least as equally well supported by the empirical evidence as any other theory. If you disagree with that statement, you are both an anti-Relativist and an anti-geocentrist. And if you are correct in your disagreement, I win, because being an anti-Relativist is what leads me to absolute Geocentricity. If they’re both incorrect, let’s start looking for the correct theory of reality.

**

Scott Reeves vs. Ex Epsylon

 

Comments on YouTube video Gravitational Wave Hoax - LIGO fake blind injection discovery by Russ Brown

 

https://youtu.be/0ed1Uqx9tQE

 

A quick note on the following. Ex Epsylon’s comment came in at the last minute, as I was formatting this book. At that point, I had pretty much decided I had made my points, was tired of debating, and so had decided to “hang up my hat” for the time being. Thus, I did not post my response to Ex Epsylon on YouTube, since as I’ve said I had already decided to take a break from debating, and figured that posting a reply would only elicit further response, responses to which I would feel compelled to respond…and the debate would continue. So the following “debate” is very short, and my response can be found only in this book. This isn’t any sort of a comment on Ex Epsylon; I would have welcomed debating him – if only he had chimed in earlier. Who knows? Maybe after a few months I will jump back into the fray, and further debate with Ex Epsylon will appear in a Volume 2.

Ex Epsylon wrote (in response to my earlier comments to MomoTheBellyDancer):

But of course Earth is the center of EARTH’s observable universe +Scott Reeves, as from somewhere in the Sombrero galaxy the center of the observable universe will be the Sombrero galaxy, nobody disputes your Lapalissade. 

But it has nothing to do with either the geometric or the gravitational center of the universe, that might or might not be in the same region, due to possible differences in mass distribution throughout the entire physical universe. But if we agree on the validity of the Big Bang / Big Bounce theory they should both reside in the vicinity of the point of origin of space-time.

You have quite an hypocrite attitude in this debate, you switch from hard science to points of semantics as it suits you best.

Try to maintain at least some intellectual honesty please, it’s very difficult not to dismiss your assertions out of hand otherwise.

Scott Reeves wrote (but didn’t post to YouTube):

“But of course Earth is the center of EARTH’s observable universe +Scott Reeves, as from somewhere in the Sombrero galaxy the center of the observable universe will be the Sombrero galaxy, nobody disputes your Lapalissade.”

That is what mainstream theories hypothesize. But that hypothesis has yet to be tested. Would an observer in the Sombrero galaxy be able to see 28 million light years beyond the edge of Earth’s observable universe? Or is an observer in the Sombrero galaxy just 28 million light years closer to the actual edge of the entire universe, and thus observably NOT at the center of his/her/its own observable universe? Let’s all travel to the Sombrero galaxy, set up a telescope and find out. In other words, let’s do some actual science, instead of sitting on Earth and making unsubstantiated claims about what non-Earth-based observers will see when they look at the universe.

“But if we agree on the validity of the Big Bang / Big Bounce theory”

We don’t. Unless the Big Bang theory can accommodate the observational evidence of Earth’s central position at face value. Which the standard version can’t, because it assumes, and depends upon, the validity of both the Copernican and the cosmological principles. Those are assumptions I’m not willing to make. The Big Bang theory as currently formulated depends upon the existence of a larger universe beyond Earth’s observable universe (i.e. “from somewhere in the Sombrero galaxy the center of the observable universe will be the Sombrero galaxy”). Therefore, for the Big Bang to be a properly scientific theory, scientists from Earth need to go to the edge of Earth’s observable universe and confirm that they can see a universe beyond. None of this unscientific attitude of, “Oh, we know what we would see if we did such a thing, so we don’t need to do it.”

“You have quite an hypocrite attitude in this debate, you switch from hard science to points of semantics as it suits you best.”

Give an example of where I am arguing points of semantics, please.

And anyway, semantics are important. For example, if you say you disagree with THE geocentric model, you’re saying something completely different than if say that you disagree with A geocentric model. Because there are actually two models: the relativistic geocentric model, and the absolute Geocentric model. If you say you disagree with the geocentric model, you’re being very imprecise. Which geocentric model do you disagree with? You could be illustrating your ignorance of Relativity, or you could be taking an anti-Relativist position, in which case you’re rejecting the relativistic geocentric model and advocating the absolute Geocentric model. So if that’s the sort of thing you mean by your claim that I’m arguing semantics, then you’re incorrect. I’m not arguing semantics. I’m exposing an imprecise choice of words on the part of my opponents that masks the fact that my opponents don’t actually understand their own position on the subject, and shows their ignorance regarding what the true argument is. The argument isn’t about the truth of geocentricity itself, but rather about exactlywhich sort of geocentric universe we live in

“Try to maintain at least some intellectual honesty please”

Since when does insistence upon strict adherence to the scientific method equate to lack of intellectual honesty? You’ve got it exactly backward. Anti-geocentrists, a group which should not include anyone who supports Relativity, but oddly enough, it does, are the ones who aren’t being intellectually honest.

***

Scott Reeves vs. Enorbet2

Comments on the YouTube video “Gravitational Wave Hoax - LIGO fake blind injection discovery” by Russ Brown

NOTE: When I went back to the above video to get the beginning of this debate with Enorbet2 for the Second Edition of this book, I found that the video had been deleted, so all the comments are lost as well. I present here the portion of the debate which I had previously saved as it was in progress. If I recall correctly, it began when Enorbet2 commented on one of my comments to another user, claiming that none of my arguments were valid because they were based entirely on religion and the Bible, which comment I obviously rejected.

Enorbet2 wrote:

+Scott Reeves - My apologies. I did misinterpret one of your responses here. I do see no evidence once I looked deeper that you are a religious zealot. That said, you can’t hold Einstein up to ridicule in one (actually more than one) post and then defend your position with him because of the point of view of the observer reference. Because it is impossible to test anything outside of the Observable Universe and the actual Universe could be vastly larger there is no way to refute geocentrism beyond that the odds are incredibly low EXCEPT “because it was Created that way”.. Perhaps now you can see why I did indeed jump to a conclusion. It still doen’t make your point and despite denial does remain a possibility that underneath it all, Religion is what drives your POV.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“That said, you can’t hold Einstein up to ridicule in one (actually more than one) post and then defend your position with him because of the point of view of the observer reference.”

I’m actually not using Einstein to defend absolute Geocentricity. I know Relativity forbids an absolute reference frame. I only use Einstein to get people to realize that to argue against any form of geocentrism is to argue against Relativity itself, which I assume most anti-geocentrists don’t want to do. Einstein KNEW that Relativity MUST allow a relative geocentricity, and that in Relativity, a geocentric observer is equal to any other observer. Einstein knew this, but most people who claim to understand Relativity DON’T seem to know this. We are either in an absolute Geocentric universe, or a Relativistic geocentric universe. I’m using Einstein in an attempt to get people to realize that the argument isn’t “Are we in a geocentric universe?” but “Which type of geocentric universe are we in?” Anti-geocentrists are making a mistake when they argue “No way, no how are we in a geocentric universe, and here’s all the reasons why Earth can’t be stationary at the center of the universe.” Excuse me, but the Earth CAN be stationary at the center of the universe. The only question is whether it is such only from the viewpoint of a geocentric observer, or whether it absolutely is at the center. If you can present observations that can’t be explained by a geocentric observer solely in terms of his geocentric frame, then you have just invalidated Relativity. Because as you say in your very next sentence:

“Because it is impossible to test anything outside of the Observable Universe and the actual Universe could be vastly larger there is no way to refute geocentrism”

It’s not that there is no way to refute geocentrism, but that there is no way to support Relativity. The only way we are in a non-absolute geocentric universe is if Relativity is a valid theory, and the only way that Relativity can be a valid theory is if we can empirically observe something beyond our observable universe, which as you have admitted is impossible. So we are at the center of our observable universe, and we can observe nothing beyond that. Therefore our observable universe is the entire universe as far as empirical science is concerned, and therefore Earth is observably at the center of the entire universe. Conclusion: we are in an absolute Geocentric universe, and Relativity is a pseudo-science, depending as it does upon the existence of a larger universe beyond our observable universe, a larger universe that cannot be empirically observed. 

“there is no way to refute geocentrism beyond that the odds are incredibly low EXCEPT ‘because it was Created that way’”

How do we know that the odds are incredibly low that Earth would be at the center of the universe? Unless we know all there is to know about how the universe works, we cannot possibly know the odds of Earth being at the center. It could be that for some reason currently unknown to us, the center of the universe is more conducive to the evolution of life than parts more distant from the center. In which case, it would be MORE likely that we should find ourselves at the center. Which would also explain why we’ve found no evidence of extraterrestrial, extra-solar, life. There might be no one else in the universe, because there is only one center, which could be a sort of “ultimate Goldilocks Zone.” Maybe a non-moving Earth provides a more stable environment in which life can evolve.

So “because it was Created that way” doesn’t even need to come into play, because we can’t possibly know if the odds are actually against Earth being at the center of the universe, UNLESS we work under the arrogant assumption that we have a complete and perfect understanding of how the universe works. As far as our current understanding of the universe stands, I have AT LEAST as much justification to claim that the odds are against life evolving anywhere but at the center as you do to claim that the odds are against Earth being at the center of the universe. If the center is the most conducive place for the evolution of life, then the odds are actually in favor of us being here at the center.

So again, with me, religion has nothing to do with my adherence to Geocentricity. I would believe in God either way. Earth’s position in the universe is completely irrelevant to my belief in God.

Enorbet 2 wrote:

+Scott Reeves - Thank you as well for your civility and at least attempting logic. However you do jump to conclusions prematurely and conveniently deny the preponderance of evidence in others.

Just as if we confine ourselves to earthbound systems Newton’s Laws work perfectly, if we confine ourselves to the Observable Universe Einstein’s Theories, including both General and Special Relativity, especially above the sub-atomic level, also work perfectly and have so for almost 100 years of incredible advancement he could not have imagined in his wildest fever dreams. Nobody has refuted Relativity, it does not depend at all on the Universe outside our view, and to bank on it’s being “pseudo-scince” is frankly absurd considering how many man/hours have been spent trying to falsify it.

Regarding the Observable Universe, please remember that it is 13.8 Billion years old, and due to Inflation appears in a sphere to us of a diameter of roughly 46 Billion light years - unimaginably vast -, and everywhere we look, in any direction, no matter how far distant in either Time or Space, everything is made of the same stuff and obeys the same rules with the single exception of...well, singularities. They don’t play a part in The Center. Even given our pitiful means of detection we have now catalogued over 1,000 exoplanets so it seems safe to assume that planets are commonplace which implies that trillions of planets must exist in our Galaxy alone..... and that’s just one galaxy of trillions. What are the odds that ANY ONE OF THEM is at the center, let alone ours? Yup, infinitesimally small yet you consider such odds little or no problem to any conclusion.

You just recently brought Life into the discussion and while we have no end result evidence just yet we do see the organic building blocks of Life, even only as we define it (likely a bit myopic and anthropomorphic) everywhere, even in nebulae, the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud, so the odds that Life is ubiquitous are rather high. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that within the next 20-30 years life will be found on Mars which will drive those odds up astronomically. It’s too soon to leap to conclusions yet, but so far, these are the odds and NONE of them point to Geocentrism.

Foe me calling that Science is just like the attempted switch from Creationism to so-called Intelligent Design, another religious ploy to bolster an institution that just can’t keep up outside of Blind Faith.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“if we confine ourselves to the Observable Universe Einstein’s Theories, including both General and Special Relativity, especially above the sub-atomic level, also work perfectly”

‘Relativity works perfectly within certain bounds’ means that Relativity does not work perfectly, period. And it doesn’t even work perfectly within those bounds. Dark matter and dark energy being prime examples. At the very best, Relativity, both Special and General, is a flawed theory, and likely won’t be in its present form when the so-called Theory of Everything is found. If it is ever found. Which it probably won’t be, given that mainstream scientists are working under faulty assumptions about the universe and Earth’s place within it. 

“Nobody has refuted Relativity,”

Assuming for the sake of argument that nobody has refuted Relativity, nobody has done such because doing so involves gathering observations from outside our geocentric reference frame, and at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Until that is done, any observations gathered that allegedly support Relativity actually only support a geocentric reference frame. That’s why nobody has refuted geocentricity.

“it [Relativity] does not depend at all on the Universe outside our view,”

It absolutely does depend upon the universe outside our view. As per the Copernican and Cosmological Principles, as well as observation, we’re at the center of our observable universe. And if our observable universe is all that there is, then an observer on a planet at the edge of our observable universe would not see a universe beyond our edge (or our horizon, as I suppose you would call it), in violation of both those Principles, and we would literally be at the center of the entire universe, thereby invalidating Relativity. 

“and to bank on it’s being “pseudo-scince” is frankly absurd considering how many man/hours have been spent trying to falsify it.”

Man hours that have been spent trying to falsify it from within a geocentric reference frame. The true question is whether we’re in an absolutely Geocentric universe, or a relatively geocentric universe. We’ve gathered a lot of observations from within our geocentric reference frame. Now let’s go out into the universe and try to falsify Relativity at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Until that has been done, Relativity has not been properly put through the scientific method.

“Regarding the Observable Universe, please remember that it is 13.8 Billion years old, and due to Inflation appears in a sphere to us of a diameter of roughly 46 Billion light years”

According to a theory that is in opposition to absolute Geocentrism. A theory that makes a lot of assumptions when measuring distances beyond a certain distance from Earth. And assuming the 13.8 billion year figure is correct, anything beyond 13.8 billion light years from Earth cannot exist as far as Science is concerned, since anything beyond that distance cannot be empirically observed. So this sphere of roughly 46 billion light years in diameter is nothing more than speculation, and that’s what it will always be. As far as Science can be concerned, Earth is at the center of a sphere roughly 27 billion light years in diameter. According to one interpretation of redshift.

So Relativity does indeed depend upon the existence of an unobservable universe beyond 13.8 billion light years, because if that unobservable universe does not exist, then we are at the center of the entire universe. To avoid this situation, Relativity must hypothesize that, if we were to consult with extraterrestrials on a far distant planet, we would find that they have always been able to observe a universe beyond Earth’s observable universe, and are at the center of their own observable universe. This hypothesis has not yet been tested. And since it has not been, there is no evidence that Earth is not at the center of the entire universe.

“What are the odds that ANY ONE OF THEM is at the center, let alone ours? Yup, infinitesimally small yet you consider such odds little or no problem to any conclusion. ”

That’s because I don’t accept your calculation of the odds. From a religious viewpoint, if God created the universe, then the odds of our being at the center make no difference. And from a non-religious, no-God viewpoint, we don’t know enough about precisely how the universe began, about what the exact initial conditions were, to calculate the odds with any degree of accuracy. Until we know exactly how both we and the universe got here, any talk of odds is worthless. Also, again from the no-God perspective, if we’re at the center of the entire universe, then either we won the cosmological lottery, or for some reason the odds weren’t actually against us being here in the first place. All the way around, the argument that it is against the odds fails.

“…so the odds that Life is ubiquitous are rather high.”

Maybe the odds are high given what we THINK we know now. But we don’t know what we don’t know, and we don’t know HOW MUCH we don’t know. And given how vast the universe is, the amount we don’t know is probably vast as well. Given that, I would bet that our calculations of the odds regarding anything in the universe are woefully inaccurate. There is just too much uncertainty in our knowledge to even remotely calculate the odds of anything, cosmologically speaking.

“It is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that within the next 20-30 years life will be found on Mars which will drive those odds up astronomically.”

It is possible. It’s also entirely possible that we’ll harness anti-gravity and Star Trek-level teleportation in the next century or so. But until those things, including the discovery of extraterrestrial life, actually happen, they’re not refutations of my arguments. Sure it’s possible I’ll be proven wrong in the future. But until I am, it’s equally possible that new evidence will come to light that will prove you wrong instead.

And even if life is discovered on Mars or anywhere else in our solar system, it really says nothing about my idea that the center of the universe could be some sort of Goldilocks Zone, since anything within our solar system is within cosmological spitting distance of the center, and the Zone could encompass nearby space. The true test would be the discovery of extra-solar life.

“It’s too soon to leap to conclusions yet, but so far, these are the odds and NONE of them point to Geocentrism.”

They are the odds as calculated by someone with a particular worldview and a foolish (in my view) faith that modern science has gathered enough knowledge of this vast universe to make a reasonable calculation about the odds. So it is no wonder that none of those odds point to Geocentrism.

On the other hand, if Life is as ubiquitous as you theorize it must be, then the odds are high that Life would evolve on Earth regardless of whether the Earth is or is not at the center of the universe. If Life is ubiquitous, then the odds are high that ANY planet at the center would have life. And asking why that life is us rather than some other life is pointless. It then merely becomes a question of what the odds are that there would be a planet at the center of the universe, if the universe indeed has a center. 

And if the universe has no center, then the odds that we would be there are irrelevant, since there would be no center to be at.

So the true question is, Does the universe have a center? Well, is there any physical reason why it wouldn’t or couldn’t have a center? No. Our observable universe has a center, and to get us out of that center, mainstream scientists must appeal to the existence of a larger universe that will never be observable to anyone from Earth. In other words, a larger universe that cannot be empirically observed, and is thus beyond the scope of rational scientific inquiry. Making any theory that depends upon the existence of that larger universe a pseudoscience.

Enorbet2 wrote:

I’m truly sorry to have to say so but your “logic” is so flawed I won’t even attempt to show you where beyond the dure contradiction that you indict scientists for embracing “flawed assumption” without enough evidence, yet you embrace flawed assumptions with almost NO evidence, not the least of which is that the Earth is not at the center of our Solar system and the Sun is not at the center of our Galaxy, let alone the entire universe.

Your arguments are Straw Men and your logic horribly flawed. Sorry. I won’t continue for “A mind convinced against it’s will, remains unconvinced still” and you simply resist anything that counters your Sacred Cows with zero regard for the preponderance of evidence, much like Native Australians resist the DNA evidence that shows they descended from brave explorers who crossed some 100 miles of ocean in dugout canoes in favor of “having sprung from the ground in Australia”.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“I’m truly sorry to have to say so but your “logic” is so flawed I won’t even attempt to show you where beyond the dure contradiction that you indict scientists for embracing “flawed assumption” without enough evidence,”

Don’t be sorry for saying it. Merely saying something does not make it objectively true. Without any attempt to show where my logic is flawed, your assertion that my logic is flawed is no more true than my counter-assertion that my logic is sound.

“…not the least of which is that the Earth is not at the center of our Solar system and the Sun is not at the center of our Galaxy, let alone the entire universe.”

So the only evidence you’re willing to give that my logic is flawed is that Earth isn’t at the center of our solar system, and the Sun isn’t at the center of the galaxy. Why would either or both of those conditions have to be true for Earth to be at the center of the universe? That’s like saying Lebanon, Kansas can’t possibly be at the center of the United States because it’s not at the center of Kansas.

“Sorry. I won’t continue for “A mind convinced against it’s will, remains unconvinced still” and you simply resist anything that counters your Sacred Cows with zero regard for the preponderance of evidence,”

That’s fine if you don’t want to continue. But you do realize that from my viewpoint, everything you said about a mind convinced and Sacred Cows actually applies to you? And I don’t mean that in a name-cally, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I sort of way. The very fact that you would make such an accusation shows that you entered the debate with the assumption that you were utterly correct and were expecting me to come around to your viewpoint. “Well, I presented all this inarguable evidence, and the nut just wouldn’t come around to my side.” It also is an implicit claim that you have no Sacred Cows of your own.

Perhaps you believe of yourself, “I’m open-minded and willing to change my stance on the issue if he presents me with convincing evidence for his arguments. But he’s obviously not willing to do the same, so there’s no point in debating him.”  

The flaw in that belief is that it entails that you have convincing, unassailable evidence on your side and I have rejected it, and therefore I must not be willing to give up my Sacred Cows.  But I have no Sacred Cows. And I have not rejected the evidence. I have rejected your interpretation of what little evidence you yourself have presented. 

It’s also important to remember that I hold the heretical position here, not you, and heretics are the ones willing to reject Sacred Cows, not the orthodoxy. 

Enorbet2 wrote:

+Scott Reeves - Not heretical when it’s based on religious dogma. Not logical when there can be no evidence of a center of the whole Universe, nor even of the Observable Universe when the odds are obviously so low. Your analogy of Lebanon and Kansas is flawed since, relative to Kansas, Lebanon does not move. The Earth, the Sun, the entire Milky Way galaxy moves. The Earth is on the outskirts of the galaxy approximately 26,500 Light Years from the rotational center so the deflection is the diameter or 53,000 Light Years, or roughly 300,000,000,000,000,000 miles. This doesn’t even include the motion of the linear motion of our Galaxy. Yet this one insignificant object out of likely trillions that didn’t exist when the Universe began, and won’t exist again in some 10-20 Billion years, moving such vast distances, is somehow magically at the center of it all? Seriously?  

Scott Reeves wrote:

“Not logical when there can be no evidence of a center of the whole Universe, nor even of the Observable Universe when the odds are obviously so low.”

Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Earth is at the center of the observable universe. The evidence is so abundant and irrefutable that mainstream scientists, because they can’t accept Earth being at the actual center of the universe, hypothesize that EVERY point in the universe will see itself as the center (Copernican and Cosmological Principles). It is this hypothesis that gives rise to the observable universe vs. the entire Universe thing. Currently, all observational evidence shows that Earth is at the center of the universe, with no evidence to the contrary. It is up to mainstream scientists to satisfy the scientific method by properly testing their hypothesis. They must go to the edge of Earth’s observable universe and demonstrate that a point on or near the edge can observe a universe beyond the edge of Earth’s observable universe. Until that is done, according to all available empirical evidence, Earth is literally at the center of the entire universe.

Earlier, you yourself said, “Regarding the Observable Universe, please remember that it is 13.8 Billion years old, and due to Inflation appears in a sphere to us of a diameter of roughly 46 Billion light years…” So you defined a boundary enclosing a vast distribution of mass. It is illogical, not to mention physically impossible, that such an enclosure of mass does not have a center of mass, let alone a geometric center.

You are correct that there can be no evidence of the center of the WHOLE universe, nor even any evidence that a “whole Universe” exists beyond the observable universe, because, obviously, we cannot observe anything beyond our observable universe from our current position.

“The Earth, the Sun, the entire Milky Way galaxy moves.”

To make that statement true, you must assume the viewpoint of an observer in a reference frame relative to which all three of those objects are moving.

As far as Relativity is concerned, it’s all relative motion. According to Relativity, which of those three objects is moving depends upon which observer you ask. An observer on Earth can correctly say that he is not moving, and that both the Sun and the Milky Way are moving relative to him and to each other. Likewise with an observer on the Sun, or an observer stationary relative to the Milky Way as a whole.

“The Earth is on the outskirts of the galaxy approximately 26,500 Light Years from the rotational center so the deflection is the diameter or 53,000 Light Years, or roughly 300,000,000,000,000,000 miles.”

Irrelevant to whether Earth is at the center of the universe. In a geocentric universe, the Milky Way would be orbiting the barycenter of the universe just as the Sun would be. A barycenter which is currently occupied by the Earth.

“This doesn’t even include the motion of the linear motion of our Galaxy.”

Does our Galaxy have linear motion, or is it orbiting the barycenter of the universe like our Sun, while the other objects move toward or away from our Galaxy? If you accept Relativity, you also have to accept that all motion is relative, and that from the viewpoint of an observer on Earth, Earth is not moving. 

“Yet this one insignificant object out of likely trillions that didn’t exist when the Universe began, and won’t exist again in some 10-20 Billion years, moving such vast distances, is somehow magically at the center of it all?”

This one insignificant object might not have existed when the Universe began (assuming a secular view of the universe’s origin), but the center of mass of the entire universe would have, and still will in some 10-20 Billion years. Why is it so inconceivable that if the universe has a center, a solar system might have formed near it sometime during the lifetime of the universe, and that some of the mass might have formed into a planet at the exact center of mass of the entire universe? There’s nothing magical about it, unless you mean in a philosophical or poetic sense.

Scott Reeves et al.

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