Welcome To The World Of Jack Parsons

 

A little-known history among the general public is that of the brilliant rocket scientist, Jack Parsons. And as per the quote under the chapter title, there were two sides to Parsons, his world of rockets by day and his world of the occult by night. In addition, these very same people will be surprised to learn that Parsons’ passion for rocketry practically paved the road to rocket technology that is still in use today. This is all the more amazing, given that Parson’s formal education was no more than a high school diploma.

His theories were incorporated into the overall design of rocket technology in general, which included the Apollo Moon missions (all of which went no further than Low Earth Orbit, if even that, as has been established in Part I of this series), and the Space Shuttle, which was retired in 2011. And in his spare time, Parsons, with an equal amount of passion, studied the world of the occult and the works of the well-known Satanist, Aleister Crowley with whom he maintained a close correspondence. His world of the occult eventually becomes his driving force which is apparent later on in his career, with many coincidences along the way that seem beyond belief.

 

 

Author John Carter:

In an ominous coincidence, Charles Taze Russell, whose “Russellites” now call themselves the Jehovah’s Witnesses, predicted the end of the world would happen on October 2, 1914, the day of John Parsons’ birth, and just a couple of months after the start of World War I. When Russell announced to his congregation in Brooklyn, New York, that the end had begun, he meant the finale was not an instantaneous end to all things, but rather the beginning of the end as outlined in the Book of Revelation – the appearance of the Antichrist and the harlot, Babylon the Great, being two of the key events. It is ironic that John Parsons, who would later attempt to incarnate Babylon and who would also sign an oath stating that he was the Antichrist, was born the very day of Russell’s eschatological event.1 

NASA tends to be hesitant in its recognition of Jack Parsons, presumably due to his unorthodox background and the fact that he wasn’t the usual academic or trained scientist. But there is some information about Parsons on NASA’s website, though very little, given his contribution to the aerospace industry.

Parsons had the look of a man who could easily have been mistaken for a Hollywood actor, rather than the usual look of the studious scientist deep in thought in a classroom or lecture hall writing down equations on a blackboard. Further, it’s not often that a man who not only lacked the recognized academic credentials but was also a passionate pursuer of the occult, would have the influence that he did on the whole area of rocket propulsion systems. This included the fact that he not only co-founded the Aerojet Corporation, later named the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, but also had a lunar crater named after him.

Figure 1.1- Jack Parsons

Source: Wikimedia

 

However, as will be discussed, Jack Parsons’ world by day, would eventually come in contact with his world by night. He would slowly move away from the industry he so passionately devoted most of his career to and immerse himself in the world of the occult with equal passion. Ironically, he would eventually find himself working in the film industry, not as an actor, but in the area of special effects. But as you’ll learn, both his worlds would inevitably collide, bringing an instant and early end to the world of Jack Parsons. 

This is a man who is just now being revered for his contribution to an industry dominated by the appearance of the stereotypical looking, suited, dark rimmed glasses academics.

History

Jack Parsons was born in Los Angeles on October 2, 1914. Soon afterwards in 1915, Jack’s parents, Marvel and Ruth Parsons divorced. He saw little of his father in years to come. This would haunt Jack for the rest of his life, compounded by the fact that he always strived to find that father figure he so longed for. It has often been said that brilliance and genius go hand in hand with emotional turmoil, leading to a complicated, insecure, sometimes insensitive and eccentric human being, which aptly describes the brilliant Jack Parsons.

After Jack’s parents divorced, his mother Ruth had agreed with her wealthy parents Walter and Carrie Whiteside that they should live together for the sake of young Jack. The Whiteside’s moved to Los Angeles and bought a home in the posh town of Pasadena. Jack was fortunate enough to grow up in a wealthy environment with servants, which gave him plenty of time for his wild and young imagination to flourish. It wasn’t long before he came across Jules Verne and his classic book ‘From the Earth to the Moon.’ This is a story about a group of American soldiers who designed a plan to send themselves into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and beyond on a journey to orbit the Moon. Then, the young Jack Parsons eventually found the popular magazine series Amazing Stories, which was the first magazine that concentrated solely on space-age fiction. Here, we see more than a hint of how this young Jack Parsons’ passion for rocket technology stood out from most children his age.

There was little inspiration in the 1920s and 30s for a child fascinated by rockets, to pursue this as a career. In fact, rockets were comic book lore and although they were written about in some nonfiction articles, they were not considered part of the scientific literature and therefore, were not to be taken seriously. Further, that meant that there were no courses on rocket science in the education system available at that time, so there was no guidance for anyone wanting to pursue a path to what is now known as the aerospace industry. But that didn’t deter Parsons with his passion for rockets as he was already dreaming of interplanetary travel, when most children his age were off chasing each other in hide and seek games and/or acting out their favorite movie idols.

Individuals like Jack stand out from the rest us, although to be fair, without the rest of us, there wouldn’t be a society for these exceptional people to flourish. More often than not, men and women like Parsons usually defy conventional thinking and walk a path to greatness that then leads people to ponder their greatness for centuries to come. We’ve seen many examples of this in history in areas such as mathematics, physics, philosophy, medicine (both conventional and alternative) and music, including classical, jazz, right up to contemporary genres. You occasionally see it in politics although not so much these days, as the message to anyone who dares to have a mind of their own is usually offered a fact-based report, other than the fictional Warren Commission Report, for their ‘reading entertainment.’ 

To add to Parsons’ mystic, he was not exactly a stellar student. In fact, he was considered to have been below average by an education system that more often than not, misses the real intelligence and potential in students such as Parsons. The education system tends to judge intelligence on how well students memorize and regurgitate their answers on paper. It makes one wonder how many seemingly and wrongfully labelled ‘unintelligent’ students, have been deprived of their rightful place in history and how society has been cheated out of their brilliance and genius. And to further compound the mystic about Parsons, he was considered to have had a learning disorder. It is now called dyslexia, a disorder that causes the individual to read words in sentences in different orders or to misspell them.

Author George Pendle writes:

Throughout his life he would misspell words, and his handwriting in particular -the words usually printed in capitals rather than written in cursive -indicates a learning disorder. At the time dyslexia was not considered a legitimate complaint and children who suffered from it were generally considered to be backward or stupid. For anyone, let alone such an avid reader as Parsons, the variable grades that resulted from this learning disorder would have only fueled a dislike for establishment education.2 

Thankfully, society is now recognizing that dyslexia is no determination of intelligence. In fact, in some cases, people with dyslexia have above average intelligence and creativity, as was apparent with Jack Parsons.

How ironic then that Jack, who was constantly being harassed and bullied in school, would be rescued on one such occasion by a fellow student who himself had dyslexia, Edward Forman. The two students would soon become lifelong friends and future collaborators in the pursuit of rocket science, producing work that would reverberate for decades to come.

If the idea of two people with dyslexia accidently meeting and then going on to make a major contribution to the aerospace industry seems coincidental, it gets even better.

Jack Parson’s World By Day

A well-known rocket scientist by the name of Robert Goddard had started writing his theories down long before Jack Parsons arrived on the scene, notwithstanding the Russians. It would take another book to discuss Goddard’s contribution to the world of rocketry. But where Goddard retreated into obscurity after being constantly ridiculed by the media for his theories on rocket science, Parsons was the opposite, who was much more confident, not caring all that much what people or the media had to say about it.

Parsons enrolled at Pasadena Junior College, but because of the great depression of the 1930s, their family’s fortune dwindled and he was forced to drop out after one term and find work. However, 18-year-old Parsons turned this unfortunate situation into an asset when he found work at the Hercules Powder Company in Los Angeles, which was known as the largest TNT production company for the United States during World War I. It was here that Parsons began to hone his skills in the mixing of propellants that he would incorporate into his theories on rocket propulsion systems in the future. It was here too that he became an expert on chemicals and explosives, two very important aspects of rocket technology.

Parsons’ friend Ed Forman also worked at the Hercules Powder Company as an apprentice and they eventually collaborated on developing rocket technology to the point where their trial-and-error approach to solving problems, now required the type of mathematical calculations that they both lacked. Even though Parsons was by no means devoid of mathematical abilities, as his papers with numerous algebraic calculations show, he lacked the necessary skills of differential calculus necessary for the complex calculations needed in rocket technology.

By chance, a set of circumstances that could only apply to Parsons and Forman, led to a direct connection to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Caltech needs no introduction and a quick google search will show the many famous scientists who were either students and/or employees there.

What’s even more amazing is Caltech’s acceptance of two seemingly uneducated individuals, Parsons and Forman, when they casually walked into this preeminent university in 1935, looking for the author of an article on ‘Rocket Technology’ published in the Los Angeles Times. It’s another example of Parsons’ confidence and refusal to be intimidated by the appearance of what many would consider, academic men beyond reproach. The author’s name of the article was William Bollay. 

A graduate student in aeronautics (the study of motion in air) named William Bollay had presented a paper at Caltech on the recent work of a member of the amateur Austrian Society for Rocket Technology, Eugen Sanger. Sanger, who had conducted most of his work apart from the scientific establishment and without any outside funding, spoke in strongly optimistic terms about the possibility of rockets being used to power aircraft. What the newspapers were most excited about was the mention of maximum velocities and breaching of the stratosphere.3

Parsons and Forman walked right into Bollay’s office and introduced themselves, expressing interest in his work. But what Parsons and Forman really saw in this article, was the potential for rockets to be used other than in aircraft. For them, they saw an obvious means of leaving Earth’s atmosphere for LEO. It’s an example of how Parsons envisioned a future for rockets as compared to his academic contemporaries who lacked the insight of a man like Parsons, going as far as to mock those who even suggested the use of rockets in any other capacity, besides aircraft. However, some of that mocking behavior from his peers would turn out to be justified, given the present state of NASA’s nonexistent manned launched capabilities to LEO, which is no fault of the brilliant Parsons.

Bollay was busy with his own research unrelated to rockets, but was impressed enough upon meeting Parsons and Forman for the first time, to recommend them to a graduate student named Frank Malina. It was this introduction that formed the team of Parsons, Forman, and Malina. 

Frank Malina had studied mechanical engineering and had an interest in interplanetary spaceflight. However, at the time he met Parsons and Forman at Caltech, he was working at the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT), specifically in the wind tunnel experimenting with scale model designs of aircraft submitted by several aviation companies. But he was so impressed with Parsons and Forman’s work that he immediately saw the possibilities, which rekindled his own passion for rockets. 

Since the 1930s was a time when rockets were not a part of any academic curriculum, this meant of course there were no scientists trained in any aspects of rocketry, or better put, there were no rocket scientists as of yet. Rockets were only taken seriously when seen on the big screen alongside Buck Rogers. This is all the more remarkable when considering the future achievement of Parsons, who had little more than a high school education, whose work would be credited with solving problems that eventually contributed to the success of the Space Shuttle program. 

But at the time, Frank Malina clearly saw Parsons’ potential, regardless of his lack of academic credentials.

Pendle, quotes Frank Malina:

It seems to me that at most he had finished high school. When I met him, he already had a certain amount of experience with the manufacture of explosives…but I think what was outstanding about him was that he was not of any fixed view on which way to go…He had a very flexible sort of attitude.4

Soon, Parsons and Forman would be working alongside the university educated Malina at GALCIT and in the process, the team acquired its skill for differential calculus. And this “flexible sort of attitude” would soon lead Parsons and his new-found team aptly called the Suicide Squad, due to their experiments and the occasional explosions that would reverberate throughout Caltech, on a path that would bring innovative technologies for the future of the aerospace industry. These technologies were then incorporated by an industry that would benefit most from Parson’s brilliance, even more so than the manned space program, that of the military industrial complex. Parsons, Forman, and Malina, would go on to influence the aerospace industry for decades to come.

The Suicide Squad

Although the Suicide Squad would add other members, Parsons, Forman, and Malina would be the foundation of this team. And now Parsons and Forman had access to GALCIT, a remarkable and unheard-of achievement despite the fact that these two seemingly uneducated members literally walked into Caltech from the street. This meant that they had access to the laboratory’s equipment regardless of the fact that Parsons and Forman were not even students, let alone formal employees of one of the most revered academic institutions in the United States. However, they soon developed a not so flattering reputation through their laboratory work which was compounded by their lack of formal education. They would never be fully accepted as equals into the ‘perfect’ world of Caltech, despite their obvious brilliance and their eventual acceptance by the scientific community in general.

Note: This is one of several red flags as to the official narrative regarding Jack Parsons. There are many examples of formally uneducated but very intelligent individuals, who have been written about in history. But few of these individuals have literally walked into a prestigious academic institution such as Caltech, only then to be accepted as faculty members.

(...)

Ordo Templi Orientis

Parsons was soon to be introduced to Wilfred Talbot Smith by another scientist, whose identify is unknown. But it would seem Parsons was not the only scientist at Caltech with some connection to Crowley’s Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO). Smith was Crowley’s representative in Los Angeles who introduced Parsons to Crowley’s mystical order, the OTO. This was the only OTO order in Los Angeles and in another of many coincidences, it was located only a few miles from Parson’s own house. 

There are many aspects to Satanic rituals which people find disturbing, which were now a routine part of Parsons’ life. This author will not indulge in writing about it here, however, as author John Carter says:

This enigmatic fusion of “sex and rockets” was to prove a fascinating development in the history of the aerospace industry in America.8

In yet another interesting coincidence, Parsons happened to meet L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology which needs no introduction considering its connection to Hollywood and the numerous stories that are so often sensationalized in the media. And as is typical of Parsons’ apparent vulnerability, Hubbard too had a major influence on him. And in one of many letters Parsons had written to Crowley, whom he referred to as ‘Most Beloved Father,’ he explained his friendship with Hubbard saying that he is the most Thelemic (explained below) person he had ever met.

Wikipedia: 

Within the modern system of Thelema, developed by occultist Aleister Crowley in the first half of the 20th century, Thelemic mysticism is a complex mystical path designed to do two interrelated things: to learn one’s unique True Will and to achieve union with the All.

Aleister Crowley’s work is now being taken seriously by historians, so there is plenty of literature in books and online for those of you interested in Aleister Crowley’s influence on celebrities and the power elite. 

Jack Parsons’ Worlds Collide

In 1944, both Parsons and Forman were forced to sell their stock in JPL. This eventually led to Parsons being ostracized by the scientific community, even though the rocket industry was now being taken seriously and more so by the military industrial complex. In their world, there was just no room for the unorthodox style of a scientist who lacked the formal education of an academic, despite the fact that Parsons’ innovation and insightfulness brought solutions which are still in use today. 

Pendle:

At the age of 30, Parsons was cut adrift from the world of rocketry for the first time in his adult life. It was plain to see that, like Goddard before him, he was left behind as the very science he had helped to create soared up and away from him.9

This led to Parsons’ deeper involvement into the occult and his increased use of black magic. This greatly disturbed Crowley, who saw black magic as nonsensical. Instead, Crowley preferred his own form of magic to be used for mental and mystical development. Parsons however saw it differently who preferred the version put forward by the media, that of evil rather than good. This shows another aspect to Parsons where he seems to have chosen a deliberate path to evil, which could be interpreted by many as a disdain for humanity. However, given the complexity of a man like Parsons, one can never be too sure as to what the path he chose meant for him.

The path that Parsons was on would lead those closest to him to worry as to what his real motivations were, and how far he was prepared to go in many of the rituals in which he immersed himself. His trusted friend and colleague Ed Forman was always there to support him in any endeavor, including the many magic spells and rituals Parsons was working on. However, it seems Forman too had his limits when one of these magic spells went horribly wrong, at least for the shaken and frightened Forman.

The story, as has been described, is that after one of these rituals with Parsons late one night, Forman claims to have felt the whole house shake. He then heard screams and a number of entities outside his window, which he claimed were banshees. He ran downstairs and asked if anyone else had felt the house shake and if they saw any of the entities, but no one did. Whether all of this was in Forman’s imagination or not, is a matter for debate among those in the Fortean world. But the fact is, something happened that night which would have a profound psychological effect on Forman for the rest of his life.

To add to Parson’s despair of being ostracized by the scientific community, he was now being investigated by the FBI for allegedly having a connection to a Communist Party. With this investigation, the FBI would inevitably come across his occult background as well. To make matters worse, Parsons was also being investigated for the more serious offence of espionage.

This was around the early 1950s when the country was in an era of paranoia over the fear of communist infiltration in government, the military industrial complex, educational institutions, Hollywood, and just about any other facet of society, as named by The House Committee on Un-American Activities. This led to Parsons’ security clearance being revoked as he was a member of the scientific community that was under close scrutiny given the importance of their work, especially in the military industrial complex. 

As a result of no security clearance, Parsons could no longer be employed in the aerospace industry. However, due to insufficient evidence of any espionage activity, Parsons’ security clearance was renewed by the Industrial Employment Review Board (IERB). But that didn’t last long, as the IERB revoked his security clearance yet again, this time permanently, due to his connections to the occult, which they used to judge his character.

Parsons was no longer involved in the OTO and now without a security clearance, he was no longer allowed to work within the military industrial complex. In essence, Parsons’ two worlds collided, which in a twist of fate, would annihilate one another and as we’ll soon see, Parsons along with them.

His Final Act And Demise

The early 1950s was an era of change for Parsons. He had taken on other projects for example, working in the film industry as a special effects expert on explosives. It was during the period, that he and his wife Cameron had already made plans to relocate to Mexico for at least several months. 

It was on the very day that he and Cameron had planned on leaving for their trip, that he received a call from the Special Effects Corporation for a quick project they needed done before he left. In fact, he had been storing his highly volatile chemicals in their warehouse at the time since he was on contract with them. But because someone had rented some space from the Special Effects Corporation, Parsons was forced to move his highly volatile chemicals and stored them in the laundry room of his house. 

Parsons had agreed to the Special Effects Corporation’s request. It was around 5 pm while Parsons was alone mixing various chemicals for their project, when the house shook from an explosion. When people rushed to Parsons’s makeshift laboratory, he was found seriously injured but conscious. His injuries included multiple fractures and serve burns. He lingered on in obvious shock for an estimated 37 minutes.

Jack Whiteside Parsons died at Huntington Memorial Hospital at the young age of 37.  After hearing of her son’s death, Ruth Parsons had gotten a prescription for Nembutal to help her cope with her understandable and obvious grief. However, in an obvious moment of intense grief, Ruth Parsons, who is alleged to have overdosed at the young age of 61, joined her son hours after hearing the tragic news.

There has been speculation over the years as to what led to the explosion that killed Jack Parsons. Some say that Parsons was careless and sloppy with his work, but that seems out of character for a man who was meticulous and organized about the work he did. Others say that there was something more nefarious going on which is intriguing given his background both personally and professionally. The more likely scenario is, it was an unfortunate accident, although we will most likely never know for sure.

Jack Parsons’ Legacy

It’s obvious to anyone with a basic background knowledge of Jack Parsons, why NASA is reluctant to discuss this man although even they can’t deny his proven methods, which as mentioned above, were included in the launch of the Space Shuttle. Further, his place in history has in part, been solidified by others including JPL. In an open house to the public once a year, JPL recreates a scene that depicts its founders Rudolph Schott, Amo Smith, Frank Malina, Ed Forman, and Jack Parsons relaxing after their first test of a liquid fueled rocket on October 31st, 1936, which is the very day of JPL’s foundation. Halloween day seems a fitting choice to officially start a company by a self-taught scientist who had as much passion for the occult as he did for rockets. And it was the International Astronomical Union in France, not NASA, who honored Parsons in 1972, by naming a lunar crater after him called “Parsons Crater.” The crater is appropriately located on the ‘dark side of the Moon.’

The Apollo Moon Missions

Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight

Part II

First Edition

Randy Walsh

ST. JOSEPH OF COPERTINO

 MERLIN-CLASS MAGICIANS

In a way, we are magicians. We are alchemists, sorcerers and wizards. We are a very strange bunch. But there is great fun in being a wizard.

—BILLY JOEL

Here we’ll consider three real-world examples of magical power far beyond anything that we typically see in the laboratory. All three of these individuals were observed to do mind-blowing things by dozens to thousands of multiple, credible witnesses. Evidence based on eyewitness testimony can never be as certain as measurements taken in controlled experiments, and there is always the problem that history embellishes a good story. But as you’ll see, there are persuasive reasons to pay attention to the documented evidence in these cases. Each involved many witnesses over long periods of time. In such instances the mundane explanations boil down to mass hallucinations, collusion, or blatant fraud. My take on these individuals is that they probably had genuine talents.

ST. JOSEPH OF COPERTINO

The first case is Joseph Desa, born in Copertino, Italy, in 1603. Like most ordinary people in the seventeenth century, Joseph was poor and born during a time of widespread poverty, plague, hunger, and war. The Catholic Church was the principal authority among European nations, and its power was enforced with an iron hand in the form of the Inquisition. The general population was constantly on the edge of desperation, quickly inflamed by rumors, and easily spooked. It was a time when the mass mind vacillated between moments of panic, dismay, and fanaticism.

Within this context, when Joseph was nine years old he fell ill from an infection, which led to gangrene. It crippled him for five years, much of it spent bedridden and in pain. Without access to the Internet (Wi-Fi would not arrive for another four hundred years) or even a book, Joseph escaped the prison and pain of his body through daydreams, reveries, and fantasies. In some of those states he was spontaneously transported into states of ineffable bliss.

Finally, a hermit with a reputation as a surgeon operated on the boy, and Joseph encountered his first miracle: he survived the surgery. But without schooling and stunted in social skills, Joseph was perceived as dimwitted. He easily fell into trances and gained the nickname “Boccaperta” (Gaping Mouth) for his tendency to look up with his mouth open when entranced by Church music. Hired and fired from many workaday jobs, he felt attracted to the contemplative life of the Church. After a harrowing series of failures and near misses, he was ordained when he was twenty-five years old.

The Church suited Joseph, but his special talents soon became a problem. Early in his career, if a member of the town displeased him, there were consequences. For example:

A certain Count don Cosimo Pinelli had an ongoing sexual liaison with the daughter of Martha Rodia; Joseph said that if the count didn’t desist from his amours, he would go blind. This turned out to be what happened, and Joseph bragged about his prediction, but later restored the man’s sight, this time getting him to leave the girl alone and pay reparations to the family! Before long nobody in Copertino dared enter the company of the friar unless their conscience was squeaky-clean; otherwise they shrank in terror from the gaze of the black-bearded friar.1Fortunately, Joseph’s tendencies toward becoming Lord Voldemort were suppressed.2 But as he grew older his abilities became stronger, more frequent, and more difficult to hide. He gained a reputation as a prophet and a miracle healer, and he exhibited telepathy, precognition, the odor of sanctity, power over animals and natural forces, and—the icing on the cake—when giving Mass he spontaneously levitated, not just once but hundreds of times in front of many startled congregations.3 This became a big problem, because living miracle-makers threatened to deflect the public’s attention away from Church authority. And that was strictly forbidden.

Church officials kept moving Joseph from town to town and tried to keep him away from people by prohibiting him from doing priestly duties. The strategy didn’t work. Besides hordes of ordinary people wanting to witness his feats, stories about him began to attract nobles, clergy, and royalty. And that in turn led to unwanted attention from the Inquisition. While on trial by the Inquisition in Rome, Joseph was ordered to say Mass in public to see if the rumors about him were true.

They were. He lifted off the ground in the presence of the inquisitors.

You can imagine how freaked out they must have been. But Joseph experienced another miracle that day. He was just given a stern warning to stop all this levitating nonsense, and somehow he escaped being burnt as a witch. But his abilities were not completely under his control and continued to persist, attracting more and more attention, until a second encounter with the Inquisition put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Still, given his history, he was extremely fortunate, for this was during the peak years of the witch-burning craze.

A century after his death Joseph was canonized by Pope Benedict XIV as St. Joseph. Pope Benedict, born Prospero Lorenzo Lambertini, had previously served as the Church’s Advocatus Diaboli, or “Devil’s Advocate.” This position was charged with arguing why a person nominated for sainthood was not worthy of that position. Any suggestion of fraud, exaggeration, or collusion regarding miracles attributed to the nominee was thoroughly examined. The materials amassed in the case of Joseph amounted to thirteen volumes housed in the Vatican Archives (they are still there today). They include the Inquisition’s trial records, biographies written over the years, diaries, letters, and official Church documents from the different cities and convents Joseph lived in or visited.

Joseph lived for sixteen years at Grotella Convent near Copertino, one of the longest stretches he spent in one location. During that time it was documented that he levitated at least seventy times in front of multiple witnesses. I’ll give just one example of the kinds of documented reports involving Joseph’s levitations:

April 30, 1639: After stepping inside the Church, Giuseppe [St. Joseph] glanced at a painting of the Holy Virgin located in the vault above the wooden frieze of the altar of the Immaculate Conception, a Madonna painted with the Baby Jesus in her arms in a way that strikingly resembled the Madonna of the Grotella [convent where Joseph had spent many years]. At the sight of her, Padre Giuseppe gave a huge scream and flew about thirty meters in the air and, embracing her, said, “Ah, Mamma mia! You have followed me!” It all happened so quickly that those present were filled with sacred terror, marveling to each other, and remaining in a stupor over the Padre’s performance.4For many more details about St. Joseph, I recommend philosopher Michael Grosso’s 2016 book, The Man Who Could Fly. Grosso reviewed the evidence for Joseph’s abilities and compared his case with similar instances of miraculous behavior recorded throughout history. Grosso concluded that Joseph was for real, basing his judgment on the written historical record: thirty-five years of multiple eyewitness testimonies from ordinary people as well as popes, cardinals, ambassadors, dukes, and kings from all over Europe. And that was just the formal written testimonies. An untold number of congregants, probably numbering in the thousands, had also witnessed Joseph’s abilities.5

DANIEL DUNGLAS HOME

Two centuries after St. Joseph, Daniel Dunglas Home was born near Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1833. He was one of eight children of Elizabeth McNeill, a descendant of a Scottish Highland family said to have the gift of “second sight.” Today we’d call that gift clairvoyance, or remote viewing.

Unless you’ve read about the history of psychic phenomena, you may never have heard of Home (it’s pronounced “hume”). But his psychic feats—including levitation—were just as prodigious and in some ways even more startling than St. Joseph’s.

The case of Home is especially interesting because his abilities were subjected to scientific tests. The testimony of Home’s abilities is also better than St. Joseph’s because the former’s performances were extensively covered in the newspapers of the day, and they were repeatedly observed by the most accomplished illusionists and conjurers (stage magicians) of the day, who naturally assumed he was cheating.

When he was nine years old, Home was adopted by his aunt and her husband and they emigrated to America, landing in a town near Norwich, Connecticut. Like St. Joseph, Home was an unusually sensitive child. As an infant he was so weak he wasn’t expected to survive, and he had a lifelong highly nervous temperament. Also like St. Joseph, the “feats Home performed were so extraordinary that when witnesses described what they had seen, they were dismissed as foolish, even insane.”6 That quote is from a 2005 biography of Home by University of Edinburgh historian Peter Lamont, entitled The First Psychic. The title of Lamont’s book refers to the first time that the word psychic was used in the popular press to describe someone with Home’s abilities.

Lamont’s book is especially useful in assessing Home’s feats because Lamont is a historian of psychology, an experienced illusionist, and a member of the Inner Magic Circle, a special branch of the London-based organization for magicians called the Magic Circle. One becomes a member of the Inner Magic Circle by invitation only, based on proven expertise and other significant contributions to the art of conjuring. Being a member of that fraternity, Lamont naturally regarded Home with a practiced, skeptical eye. But despite a strong inclination to regard magic solely in terms of tricks and illusions, that’s not what Lamont concluded about Home. He was just as puzzled as everyone else:

What are we to make of Daniel Dunglas Home? It is true that there were many accusations of fraud, but most of them were entirely without base, and actual evidence for fraud was both rare and inconclusive. He might have been a cheat, but if he was, then he cheated successfully for two decades, before hundreds of witnesses in thousands of séances. Many of the witnesses were hostile to spiritualism, and many remained unconvinced by what they had seen, yet time and again they admitted that they were unable to explain what had happened.7

The best conjurers of the day tried, and failed, to explain Home’s feats. Scientists investigating Home, including one of the most prominent chemists and physicists of the day, Sir William Crookes (1832–1919), reported evidence in support of Home’s claims. Crookes’s critics were reduced to making ad hominem attacks and misrepresenting the nature of his research.8

The phenomena produced by Home were in the context of a rising cultural interest in spiritualism, especially in the form of physical mediumship. These performances involved speaking to spirits via rapping sounds, levitating tables, invisible spirits playing musical instruments, sitters at the séances being touched by spirits, and so on. Many of these séances were conducted in rooms that were completely dark, or dimly lit by candles or gaslight. Demand for such performances was high, and because of supply and demand, many mediums were only too happy to perform séances for tidy sums. Many of them were subsequently unmasked as frauds.

It was in this context that Home was performing his séances throughout Europe, both for secular and scientific people highly skeptical of the claimed phenomena and for spiritually inclined people sympathetic to it.

Lamont’s book provides a full accounting of the kinds of phenomena associated with Home and the settings of his performances. To give a flavor of that history, I’ll recount one episode involving a group of highly skeptical Dutch rationalists who were openly hostile to spiritualism. They were members of the Dutch Radical School of Modern Protestantism, which virulently denied all biblical miracles, miraculous divine intervention, and the concepts of spirits. Like other skeptics, they had loudly dismissed Home’s claims without having seen them. But Home wasn’t intimidated by skepticism, so he agreed to perform a series of séances for them.

Home arrived in the Netherlands on January 31, 1858. The following day he conducted a séance for Queen Sophie of the Netherlands. A few days later in a hotel in Amsterdam, Home held a séance for ten of the Dutch rationalists, none of whom he had previously met. The group included a doctor of philosophy, a physician, a lawyer, an optician, and a Dr. Gunst, who reported the setup:

[The skeptics] sat round a large mahogany table, which they examined sufficiently to note that the top, column and base were “directly and immovably fixed” together….On top of the table were four [bronze] candelabras, with two more below, which “made it possible to obtain an undisturbed view of what was happening under the table.”9

The group placed their fingertips on the table in plain view, and Home told them that if they wished to remove their hands they could do so. They tested themselves to make sure they weren’t being manipulated by suggestion, were allowed to talk freely among themselves, and “laughed mockingly concerning the matter at hand.”10Within this context one would not expect much to happen. But then:

These expressions stopped soon enough. For as they mocked, “the table started to make a sliding movement,” and those towards whom it was moving “were requested to try to stop this movement; this, however, they could not do.” When the table stopped, raps began, and when raps were requested “in a certain manner, and as many times as we should indicate, [t]his wish was carried out to the full.” As Daniels’ skeptical witnesses watched in characteristic disbelief, the table “started to rise up on one side…so high that all of us were very much afraid that [the candelabras] would fall off.”11

Two more séances were held with this group, with increasingly inexplicable phenomena. Dr. Gunst later reviewed the normal interpretations that critics had offered as an explanation for Home’s effects. The first was that Home was using some sort of conjuring trick or gimmick. This was dismissed because, according to Dr. Gunst, the “Amsterdam séance room was well illuminated all the time the sittings lasted. Furthermore, the skeptical observers were crowded around Home (the performer) and not restricted in any movement or observation they desired to make.”12

The second explanation, that the table movements were due to unconscious motor movements by the sitters, was dismissed because the séance table was large and sturdy enough to seat fourteen people, and besides the thickness of the wood it had a very heavy central column. Despite the weight of the table, it was observed by multiple witnesses to levitate at least twelve inches off the floor.

The third explanation, regarding faked “spirit hands” touching the sitters, was deemed insufficient because the séance room was well lighted, so they were able to keep Home under constant surveillance and the sitters were still touched in quick succession, as they had requested, with one person being correctly touched after making requests mentally.

The fourth explanation, hallucination, was dismissed because, unlike claims that Home could perform only in front of “believers” who might be inclined to imagine things, these séances were conducted for a group of avowed skeptics, none of whom Home knew.

Other common interpretations, such as Home deflecting attention while using his feet to perform the trick, were excluded because the skeptics could easily see under the table and noted that Home had not moved. Still other objections asserted that the room must have been prepared by confederates in advance, using hidden wires and gimmicks. That too could be ruled out because “the séances were conducted in a hotel where Home had never been before and where he arrived only a few hours before the commencement of the first sitting.”13

Dr. Gunst concluded that strange things really had happened but could not be explained. He added, “And nothing could be observed that could give rise to even the slightest suspicion that Mr. Home was acting in a fraudulent manner.”14 This was consistent throughout Home’s career. No one ever brought forth evidence of fraud, nor was there any evidence that the effects were due to hallucination. In sum, Home, like St. Joseph, remains a genuine mystery.

So far we’ve discussed people who lived centuries ago. In such cases, even with excellent documentation it’s difficult to know with any certainty what happened back then. What about a modern Merlin?

Dean Radin

Real Magic 

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.