History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 15

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 15

Einstein’s Theories Examined

As you know this whole model of the heliocentric universe is based on the “research” of certain people, such as Newton and Galileo – among others. In this group includes Albert Einstein. This video shows another side of Einstein that most people don’t know. There is a lot more that I have on Albert Einstein but I don’t want to diverge too much from the article below.

(It looks like the video was taken offline by YouTube, but as of yet, it has not; just click the “play icon” to view.)

Whatever it is that Relativity is supposed to establish is to be disproved backwards, beginning with the example which Einstein puts forward— where an observer standing at the centre of a rotating disk is watching some one else on the same disk measuring the circumference of a circle round the observer by repeated applications of a small measuring rod; and afterwards measuring the diameter of the circle in the same way.

He says that because the disk is in motion, the small measuring rod will appear to the observer (at the centre) to be contracted, so that the person who is measuring (whom I will call “B” ) will have to apply the rod more often to go round that circle than he would if the disk was at rest. That is not true ! . . . If B actually lays the rod (or foot rule) down upon the disk correctly, the number of applications to go round the circle will be the same whether the disk is moving or not, and the observer at the centre will see that it is so, if he is not made too dizzy to count. On the other hand, if B does not lay the rod down and measure the circle as one would expect, but only walks around the disk with the rod in the air (as in diagram 27) then the rotation of the disk will disturb him, so that he has to make an effort to preserve his balance; with the result that he can not place the rod as accurately as he would if the disk were not in motion; and in that case it may take either more or less applications of the rule to go completely round than it would if the disk were still; and that difference would be seen by the observer at the centre— not as an optical illusion! (as Einstein implies) but in reality; a result that is entirely physical, and due to physical causes. When walking across the disk and measuring the diameter, B is not disturbed to anything like the same degree as in walking round the circumference, and so he measures the diameter more accurately. Most of us have at some time or other witnessed the antics of a clown trying to run or walk upon a spinning disk in a circus, and this enables us to understand how such a motion would affect our friends performing on Einstein’s revolving table.

His example is merely amusing, it serves no useful purpose, and proves nothing; unless, indeed, it proves by analogy that the inhabitants on a spinning earth would be rendered as incapable of acting and judging things correctly as his examples.

What we have always known as a “point” in the terms of Euclid, Einstein calls an “event!” but if words have any meaning a point and an event are two totally different things; for a point is a mark, a spot or place, and is only concerned in the consideration of material things; while an event is an occurrence, it is something that happens. . . . There is as much difference between them as there is between the sentence “This is a barrel of apples,” and “These apples came from New Zealand.”

While claiming “ time ” as a fourth dimension, Einstein explains that ” by dimension we must understand merely one of four independent quantities which locate an event in space.” . . . This is to imply that the other three dimensions which are in common use are independent quantities, which is not the case; for length, breadth and thickness are essentially found in combination; they co-exist in each and every physical thing, so that they are related— hence they are not independent quantities. On the contrary, time IS an independent quantity. It is independent of any one, or all, the three proportions of material things, it is not in any way related; and therefore cannot be used as a fourth dimension.

We know that an event is an occurrence; and we find that what Einstein really means by his fourth dimension is “merely the time by which we locate something that happened in space;” and that is just what time has always meant— the period between one event and another. . . Length, breadth and thickness, are proportions of each and every finite thing; while time is infinite. The dimensions are finite; while time is abstract.

Strangely enough, while Einstein claims that everything is in motion and nothing is stable, he allows one thing, and one thing only, to remain outside the realm of relativity, independent of everything else; and that is what he calls his Second Law, the Einstein “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light.” He claims that the velocity of light is constant under all circumstances, and therefore is absolute.

This is a blunder of the first magnitude, but I do not imagine that he fell into it through any oversight; for it is quite evident that he was driven into this false position. He was compelled to say that the velocity of light is constant, because, if he did not his new geometry would be useless; for after all his geometry amounts to this:

He begins by assuming that light is a material thing, so that it is affected by the gravitational attraction of any celestial bodies it has to pass on its way to earth, which causes it to deviate from its appointed course so that it comes to us with more or less curve, according to its distance, and according to the bodies it encounters in its passage. But it always travels at the same velocity, and so, if we can estimate — for example— how much the light of Canopus is made to curve by the gravitation of other bodies between it and the earth (which would be done by Kepler’s and Newton’s laws), we can calculate how much longer its journey is made by those windings, twists, and turns. Then we can time its arrival, because— although it has to travel so much further than its distance would be in a straight line— it always travels at the same 671,090,400 miles an hour; or 186,414 miles every second. It is true that Einstein uses a number of signs and symbols which are supposed to simplify the process; though it is probable that they do no more than merely make it more mysterious, but the plain English of it is as I have shown; and so we perceive that Einstein uses time pretty much in the same way as we do, and not as a dimension at all.

Thus we have discovered that the things which he re-christened an Event, a Fourth Dimension, and a New Geometry, are false to the titles he has given them; the words as he uses them are misnomers, therefore we dismiss them ; for they are no longer of any use or interest to us.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Getting People To See The Truth

Getting People To See The Truth

  Not long ago I came up with a way to get people to see the truth – at least to reconsider what they’ve been told concerning the medical profession. I did not read this or hear it from anyone else but had just thought of a way to tell others about alternative healing.

Now, we all know that the pharmaceutical researchers have lied to us when it comes to treatment. They say there is no cure for cancer, no cure for diabetes. They say that if you have cancer you must either have surgery, radiation or chemotherapy – depending on what your doctor recommends.

For many years now, I had found it hard to get through to people when it comes to holistic treatment to heal yourself. I’m sure you have had this problem, too. Then, again, there are Truth Seekers out there who know about government cover ups, the lies we have been told about history, the banking system, etc. but still believe in what they doctors and medical researchers tell us. I had found it hard to reach these people although they know of the other lies we have been told. Then, not too long ago, I came up with something so logical that if someone denies it, they would either have to be retarded (politically incorrect word, lol), are part of the problem, or they just came out of a cave.

Not long ago I was talking to one person that I know and we were discussing cancer. I said to Val, “We have had this “war on cancer” for about 40 years now. We have had other “wars” on poverty, drugs and crime. This is what various U.S. Presidents have announced starting back in the 1960s with Lyndon B. Johnson and his war on poverty. Well, tell me Val, has cancer decreased? Has poverty gone down? Are we winning this war on drugs?” And Val agreed with me.

Then I continued, “We allow businesses to take care of these problems. Right?”


“Now, when a person goes into business, he wants to make money, right? When a person is in business, does he want to make more money or less money than the previous year?”

Val responded, “More money.”

I continued, “This we look at as normal and natural; it’s what we call capitalism. If a company that makes handcuffs for police departments wants to continuing making them, that means crime has to continue. If crime went down quite a bit, the need for police equipment, like handcuffs, would be less. Therefore, they don’t want to see crime go down.

“Take cancer. If the cancer rates dropped substantially, the pharmaceutical companies would not make much money. If the cure, for example, was to eat raw vegetables and have plenty of fresh juices, doctors would not want to see this. After all, how much money can be made selling carrots?”

To this, Val laughed.

I added, “If you had notice that over the years our problems get worse and worse, not better. That’s because businesses are allowed to go in and make money. But when it’s in an area that revolves around a problem of some kind, the problem gets worse, and that includes the medical profession. After all, people will not want to start a business if they were told that their aim is to do less and less business each year until they have to close down, does it?”

Val had to admit that this is the situation and that is why things are not getting better. Now, Val was not the only person that I had talked to like this – there were two other people that I know that I used this same approach – and all had to agree that our problems are getting worse.

I hope this is helpful to you when you are talking to others who can not seem why we are not told the truth.

Note: Check out the video post at the bottom of the page under the Mind Control tab you see at the top of this page. It’s about who the real Gate Keepers are that are controlling our information.


Posted in mind control | Tagged | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 14

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 14


  The Theory of Relativity is so complicated, that when it first came to the public notice it was said that there were probably not more than twelve people in the world capable of understanding it. But public interest was aroused, partly by the novelty of Einstein’s hypothesis, and partly by the spectacular manner in which it had been received by the British Royal Astronomical Society on the night of November 6th, 1919, until Mr. Eugene Higgins, of U.S.A., offered a prize of 5,000 dollars for the best explanation of relativity, in the form of an essay, describing it so that the general public could understand what it was all about.

The prize was won by Mr. L. Bolton, London; and his essay can be found in the Scientific American (New York and London), June 1921, and also in the Westminster Gazette, London, June 14th, 1921. The editor of the Gazette found it necessary to remark, when publishing the essay, that “ Our readers will probably agree that even when stated in its simplest form it remains a tough proposition.”

That is just the trouble with it. It is about as far removed from ordinary “fact” and “plain English” as it is possible for anything to be; indeed it is so intangible that it may well be that Einstein can form a mental picture of it himself, while he is at the same time unable to convey his meaning to others through the medium of ordinary language.

The thing is elusive; abounding in inference, suggestion, half-truth and ambiguity; wherefore it follows that any discussion of it, such as we propose to enter upon, must of necessity be almost equally refined. It might seem tortuous to some readers, and yet be like a very entertaining game of chess to others; while it certainly will be useful to those who are willing to traverse the long and difficult labyrinth that leads to truth.

Relativity is clever; but it belongs to the same category as Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the Kant-Herschell-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, in as far as it is a superfine effort of the imagination seeking to maintain an impossible theory of the universe in defiance of every fact against it. . . . Let us see what we can do with it.

First, we will let Professor Einstein himself tell us what he means by Relativity, in the words he used in the opening of his address at Princeton University, U.S.A.

“What we mean by relative motion in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think of of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.”

That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, or if Mutt and Jeff had said it; but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still— and to believe it— when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity. . . . Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.

Throughout the whole of his theories there is evidence that Einstein was thinking almost entirely of their application to astronomy, but it was inevitable that this should involve him with physics, so that he had then to engage upon a series of arguments intended to show how his principles would work out on the plane of general science. The first may be said to be the motive that inspired him; while the second consists of complications and difficulties which he could not avoid. . . . And when he suggested that the street might be moving while the wagon with its wheels revolving was standing still, he was asking us to imagine that in a similar manner the earth we stand upon might be moving while the stars that pass in the night stand still. It is a Case of Appeal, where Einstein appeals in the name of a convicted Copernican Astronomy against the judgment of Michelson – Morley, Nordmeyer, physics, fact, experience, observation and reason. We, on the other hand, are counsel for the prosecution, judge and jury.

Under the general heading of Relativity, Einstein includes an assortment of new ideas— each of which depends upon another,— and each of which contributes to support the whole. He says that there is no ether, and that light is a material thing which comes to us through empty space.

Consequently light has weight, and, therefore, is subject to the law of gravitation, so that the light coming from a star may bend under its own weight, or deviate from the straight line by the attraction of the sun, or of any other celestial body it has to pass in its journey to the observer on earth. . . . In that case it follows that no star is in reality where it appears to be, for it may be even as suggested in diagram 26. . . Consequently the heavenly bodies may be much further away than they have hitherto been supposed to be, and every method which is based upon the geometry of Euclid and the triangulation of Hipparchus will fail to discover the distance to a star; because its real position is no longer known. Wherefore Einstein has invented a new kind of geometry, in order to calculate the positions of the stars by what is nothing more or less than metaphysics.

We have always been accustomed to measure things by the three dimensions of Euclid— length, breadth and thickness, but Einstein (thinking of astronomy), says that “ Time ” is a Fourth Dimension ; and proposes that henceforth things should be measured on the understanding that they have four dimensions— length, breadth, time, and thickness.

The introduction of “time” as a fourth proportion of things makes it necessary for him to invent a number of new terms, and also to change the names of some of those that we already know and commonly use, thus, for example— “Space” is changed to “Continuimi,” while a “point” is called an “event,” time— as we have always understood it— no longer exists, and is said to be a fourth dimension ; while there are no such things as “infinity” or “eternity” in relativity.

That is the case for Einstein. It is the essence of his Relativity, clearly stated in plain English. The details of it represent an immense amount of labour of a refined character, the whole thing is very imaginative, and the work of an artist in fine-spun reflections; indeed, it is of that double-distilled intricacy which finds favour with those who like mental gymnastics and hair-splitting argument; and are fond of marvellous figures.

But I can conceive that in the course of time this Relative Phantasmagoria might come to be regarded as science, and be taught as such to the children of the near future; and that is to be prevented only by dealing with it now! which I will do, though I grieve to give so much space to a matter which only calls for it because it is pernicious.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 13

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 13

The Earth Stands Still

It would seem that Copernican Astronomy had reached its highest development about the year 1882, and then began to decline, or rather, to fall to pieces. The first evidence of this devolution is to be found in the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, at Chicago; the result of which might have undeceived even the most devoted believer in the theory of a spinning earth.

Professor Michelson was one of the physicists foremost in determining the Velocity of Light, while he has recently been described in the New York Times as America’s greatest physicist; and it was he who— working in collaboration with Morley— in 1887 made the most painstaking experiments by means of rays of light for the purpose of testing, verifying, or proving by physical science, what really was the velocity of the earth. To express this more clearly. Astronomers have for a very long time stated that the earth travels round the sun with a speed of more than eighteen miles a second, or sixty-six thousand miles an hour.

Without in any way seeking to deny this statement, but really believing it to be thereabouts correct, Michelson and Morley undertook their experiments in order to put it to a practical test; just in the same way as we might say “The greengrocer has sent us a sack of potatoes which is said to contain 112 pounds weight; we will weigh it ourselves to see if that is correct.”

More technically, the experiment was to test what was the velocity with which the earth moved in its orbit round the sun relative to the aether.

A very well illustrated account of that experiment will be found in The Sphere, published in London, June 11th , 1921, and it is from that article I quote the following, verbatim : “But to the experimenters’ surprise no difference was discernible. The experiment was tried through numerous angles, but the motion through the aether was NIL!”

Observe that the means employed represented the best that modern physical science could do to prove the movement of the earth through ethereal space, and the result showed that the earth did not move at all! “The motion through the aether was NIL.”…But the world of astronomy has not accepted that result, for it continues to preach the old dogma; it appears that they are willing to accept the decisions of physicists when it suits their case, but reject them when otherwise. And so they still maintain the fabulous theory that the earth is rushing through space at eleven hundred miles a minute; which, as they would say in America, “Surely is some traveling.” It must be faster than a bullet from a Lewis gun.

What I have now to record, I do with regret, and only because my sense of duty in the pursuit of truth compels me. It is the circumstance that Sir George Airy, who retired from his position as Astronomer Royal in 1881, related— some nine years later— how he had for some time been harassed by a suspicion that certain errors had crept into some of the computations published in 1866, and that, though he had set himself seriously to the work of revision, his powers were no longer what they had been, and he was never able to examine sufficiently into the work. Then he spoke of a “ grievous error that had been committed in one of the first steps,” and pathetically added— “My spirit in the work was broken, and I have never heartily proceeded with it since.”

My sympathy goes out to Sir George in his tribulation of the spirit due to advancing age, while I am not unmindful of myself, for I realize that in him I have lost one who would have been a friend, who would have listened when I said that all was not as it should be with the science of astronomy; and stood by my side, encouraging and helping, when I, younger and stronger, strove to put it right. I do not know whether Sir George Airy was influenced or not by the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it is at least a noteworthy coincidence that he made those comments only three years later ; but in any case science has need of him, and of such evident open mindedness and sincerity as his, now.

Not content to believe that the earth did not move, further experiments were carried out by Nordmeyer in the year 1903, to test the earth’s velocity in relation to the Intensities of Light from the heavenly bodies, but he also failed to discover any movement.

Even then astronomers were determined to hold on to their ancient theories, and deny the facts which had been twice demonstrated by the best means known to modern physical science. They preferred to believe the theory that the earth was gyrating round the sun with the velocity of a Big Bertha shell, and tried to account for the physicists’ failure to discover its movement by finding fault with the aether (or ether).

It is not only difficult to understand why they should prefer theory to fact in this manner, and so deceive themselves; but it is strange also that the world in general could tolerate such nonsense.

However, the results of several years’ speculations concerning ether and space were set forth in the year 1911, in a series of lectures by Professor Ormoff, Onspensky and Mingelsky, at Petrograd.

It was suggested that light was not permitted to come from the stars to earth in a straight line, because some quality in ethereal space caused it to follow the earth as it moved round the orb it; and that might account for the failure of the experiments of 1887 and 1903. In other words it was suggested that we cannot see straight, or that the image of the star as we see it twinkling there is coming to us in a curve— following the earth like a search-light, while it describes the five terrestrial motions ascribed to it by Newton.

When stated even more plainly it means that when we think we see a star overhead we are mistaken, for that is merely the end of a ray of light coming to us from a star which— in the material body— may be millions of miles to the right of us, or it might even be behind us; as in diagram 26.

  N.B.— A much greater curvature than we have illustrated in the diagram has since been suggested in all seriousness by leading astronomers from the platform of the R.A.S. at Burlington House, Nov. 6th, 1919, in these words “. . . . All and if they travelled far enough they would regain the starting point.”

Moreover, Ormoff, Onspensky and Mingelsky had come to the conclusion that nothing was fixed in the universe; so that while the moon goes round the earth and the earth and the planets go round the sun, the sun itself is moving with probably a downward tendency, carrying the whole Copernican solar system with it. Further, even the stars themselves have left their moorings, so that the entire visible universe is drifting; no one knows where.

In brief, these Petrograd lectures of 1911 introduced many new ideas such as those which have become familiar to the reader in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, since the year following the great World-War.



Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 12

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 12

IT is for me, now, to show how the distance to the sun’ is really to be ascertained, and this may indicate the way to a new astronomy, and a saner conception of the universe.

The Copernican astronomy has been so hedged about with specious theories that it would seem to be impossible to obtain any kind of triangulation to the heavenly bodies that cannot be negatived by Perpendicularity, Geocentric Parallax or similar theories, nevertheless it can be done and that by two simultaneous observations taken from a base-line which is on solid earth; thus: Let two observers be placed on the same meridian; A in the northern hemisphere at about Mansfield, Nova Scotia, for example, 60 N, 74 W., and B in the southern hemisphere at Tierra del Fuego, Cape Horn, 55 S. 74 W., as shown in diagram 23.

As the two observers are on the same meridian they use the same north and south, while all lines which cross that meridian at right angles indicate east and west, and are parallel to each other; so that A’s east is parallel to B’s, and to the equator, as in diagram 24.



  The chord that is a straight line connecting the two points of observation A, B, will give them a base-line 6,900 miles in length, which runs in a direction due north and south as in diagram 25. The two observers will find their easts by the compass, when it will be seen that they form two right angles to the base-line. The two easts, with the base-line, make a sort of frame, or three sides of a square; and it is within this frame between the two dotted lines running east, that the triangulation will be made to the sun.

Now let our observers take their places at about 8 o’clock local time (1 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time) on a morning within a week or so of Christmas. The sun will at that time be in the zenith, and almost exactly overhead, at the island of St. Helena, off the coast of South Africa.

The observer at A in Nova Scotia will see the sun, blood red, just rising above the horizon to his east-south-east, while the observer at Tierra del Fuego will see the sun at the same time, about eight degrees to the northward of his east (east by north); and so the two lines of sight from A and B converge so as to meet at the sun, which is between the two easts, a little to the southward of A and to the northward of B.

A true triangulation is thus obtained, and the two angles may be referred either to the parallel easts, or to the base-line which connects them. No ” allowances” of any kind whatever are to be made, and none of the fantastic theories of astronomy are in any way concerned. It is a plain, ordinary, common-sense triangulation, such as any surveyor would make if we were buying a piece of land ; and that is good enough for us. The angles at the base-line will equal about 148 degrees, while the angle at the sun, or apex of the triangle, will be 32 degrees (approximate). When these are multiplied into the base-line by ordinary trigonometry, the sun will prove to be about 13,000 miles in a bee-line from A and 10,000 miles from B.

The stars and the planets are to be measured in a in similar manner, when it will be found that no star is at any time further than twenty thousand miles away.

As it is my intention to deal more fully with such measurements in another book sequel to this devoted to the reconstruction, or rather, to the creation of a new Astronomy I have been content here to say only sufficient to establish my case, and to show that Hipparchus was mistaken when he thought the heavenly bodies were infinitely distant. And that, truly, is my case, for at last I have shown that the “infinitely distant” hypothesis which has been the guiding star of astronomers for two thousand years, was indeed, an error.


Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 11

History of Astronomy From The Roman Empire To The Present, part 11

The Transit of Venus and the Distance to the Sun


There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd; they must be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd.


Not content with the work already done, all the world of astronomy set out to try to measure the distance to the sun again in the years 1874 and 1882, by observations of the Transit of Venus.

It was a most elaborate affair, ’tis said to be by far the greatest and most costly business ever undertaken for the purposes of astronomy. Men were trained specially for the work, equipped with all the most expensive things in the way of telescopes and instruments, and sent out by the British, French and German governments, all allied for the purpose, as expeditions of astronomers to all parts of the world in order to see Venus— like a small speck— pass across the face of the sun. We have it on the best authority that the 1874 transit was a failure; but, nothing daunted, the expeditions went out again in 1882, to the Indies, the Antipodes and the polar regions, but again the results are admitted to be unsatisfactory; though we may at least hope the astronomers found some entertainment by the way.

The Venus method has already been explained in an earlier chapter, and illustrated in diagram 10. It required that observations should be taken simultaneously by two observers placed as widely apart as possible in order to have the longest base-line obtainable; the ideal base-line being the entire diameter of the earth. From among a large number of observations taken in different parts of the world, two were selected as being better than the rest; they were the observations taken at Bermuda—those lovely little islands near the West Indies— and Sabrina Land, on the edge of the icy Antarctic regions; and from this pair the distance of the sun was computed, but the result obtained has never been considered good enough to take the place of the earlier figures of Gill. We will give it the coup-de-grace in short order ;— Bermuda is situated in 32° 15′ north latitude, and 64° 50′ west longitude; while Sabrina Land is 67° south, and 120° east of Greenwich. We must also mention the fact that both the sun and Venus were somewhere between these places, in the eastern hemisphere.

These common-place facts alone prove that the two observations were not taken at the same time, and consequently were useless for the purpose. I will explain how that is. In their endeavour to secure the longest possible base-line our astronomers separated themselves by 99 degrees in the north and south direction, and by 184° 50′ east and west, so it is perfectly plain that the sun had already set to the observer at Sabrina Land, before the observer at Bermuda could see it rise above his horizon at dawn.

   N.B.— The sun rises and sets at a distance of 90 degrees from the observer, so that the Transit astronomers should not have been more than 180 degrees apart even if they had wished to see the sun on the horizon; but our observers had exceeded the limit by nearly five degrees. (See dia. 22.)

The two horizons diverge from each other, and for some part of the time the sun is between them, and not visible to either observer, while as it must be above each of these observer’s horizons in turn in order to be seen at all, it is ridiculous to imagine that any observations taken by B and S in a direction toward the top of this page and above their horizons could ever meet anywhere in the universe. The whole business was a fiasco.

Of all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is the one we have just dealt with; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun; too egotistical to admit that they could have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new truths; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods, with always the same result, or thereabouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another…There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical; but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd; they must— for the moment-— be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then, when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge.

Any one of these means of estimating the sun’s distance might be made the subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like ” half-truths ” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood; but I do not wish to worry the reader with any more words than I am compelled to use, and so will deal with them as briefly as possible.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure “93,000,000 miles.”

I am not particularly concerned as to how or why this was done, nor is it my affair whether it seems incredible or not: but I do know that it is as I have stated, and that I am very well able to prove it. I am only interested in knowing the truth, and in proving it by reason and fact.

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary for me to dilate upon, because it has already been discredited, and is not considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves.

The computation of the distance to the sun by the “Aberration of Light” is based upon the theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and eighty-four million miles in a year.

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the figures— including the alleged “ velocity of the earth 18.64 miles a second ”— were deduced. The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun. That is why it is absurd.

The estimation of the distance of the sun by the “Masses of the Planets” depends upon the size, weight, volume or masses of the planets, which depend upon their distance; and the distances of the planets were calculated by Kepler’s, Newton’s and Bode’s Laws from Sir David Gill’s attempt to measure the distance of Mars; wherefore, as we have discovered that he did not find the distance to Mars, all the calculations which are founded upon his entirely erroneous conception of the distance, size, and mass of that planet, go by the board.

It will not do for anyone to say to us that the distance to Mars is 35,000,000 miles (when in opposition) and therefore it must be 4,200 miles in diameter, therefore the distance of the sun must be 93,000,000 miles, therefore its diameter must be 875,000 miles and its mass 1,300,000 times greater than the mass of the earth, or three million times greater than Mars, &c., &c., &c., and therefore it must be 93,000,000 miles away. It is neither good logic, good mathematics, nor good sense. If anyone seeks to show that the distance from the earth to the sun can be measured by weighing the sun and the planets let him do his weighing first, and not assume anything; and he would do well to remember that “The sun’s distance is the indispensable link which connects terrestrial measures with all celestial ones.”

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.” The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second.

N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions, with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 ¼ minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his 8 ¼ minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000 miles.” It is so simple; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 ¼ minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 ¼  minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three— or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result than if they had never been done; that is to say— that it is not to be supposed that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark; but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense of the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam. Indeed we have to forget all the romantic things that have been said since the time of Copernicus, and look at the universe, as frankly, and as fearlessly as he did : then we might acknowledge the debt we owe to such as he, for even though he was so greatly in error his originality stimulated the world of thought tremendously; and in that way furthered the world’s progress.

And then, tutored and encouraged by the shades of Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Copernicus; Kepler, Newton and all their kind, we might, with the added experience and advantage of our times, rebuild the science of astronomy as they would do it now ; true to the facts of nature.


Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From Roman Empire to the Present, part 10

History of Astronomy From Roman Empire to the Present, part 10

The fundamental principle of parallactic angles is unsound, while it is at the same time in conflict with quite a host of other astronomical theories, because the theories of Atmospheric Refraction, Perpendicularity, Geocentric Parallax, and the Aberration of Light, combined with the use of Sidereal Time, all go to prove that every observation taken from the surface of the earth to a star is exactly parallel with a line from the centre of the earth to the same star, and that B’s line to x is parallel to that of A.

Consequently if Mars were on the line O X (in diagram 15), as Dr. Hailey presumed when he invented this method, it would be perpendicular to both A and B, therefore neither one observer or the other would see it at any angle at a 11; as shown in diagram 17.

It is not possible for any observer on earth to see Mars to the right or left of a star that is perpendicular unless the planet is in reality to the right or left of that perpendicular. No apparent displacement could occur, but the displacement must be physical; and so the theory of parallactic angles is exploded.

Of course there will be some ready to contend that Sir David Gill really did measure an angle. That is true; but it will prove to be an actual (physical) deviation of the planet from the perpendicular, which is a very different thing than an angle of parallax.

But it was believed to be a parallactic angle, that is to say— it was supposed to be only an optical or apparent displacement due to the change in the position of the observer from A to B, hence a world of romance is built upon that little angle in this fashion: Angle of Mars 23″ = 35,000,000 miles, 35,000,000×2.6571 =93,000,000= solar parallax 8.80’ = distance of the sun; the sun’s diameter is 875,000 miles; weight X Y Z lbs., age 17,000,000 years, and will probably be burnt out in another 17 million years. 93,000,000 x 2 = 186,000,000 miles diameter of earth’s orbit, the distance to the stars must be billions of miles or even more, they must be a terrific size, and the earth is only like a speck of dust in the Brobdinagian Universe, &c., &c., &c.

But we have not yet done with that angle. Regarded as an angle of parallax, and considered to be equivalent to just such an angle as a surveyor would use in measuring a plot of land, it was of course presumed that the two lines of sight converged so as to meet at a point thirty-five million miles away. (See diagram 18.) This, however, is a mistake, for the two lines of observation, when placed in their proper relations to each other, and in the order as they were taken, should be as in diagram 19, which shows that they diverge.

We will prove this in diagram 20. A study of our earlier diagram 6— which gives a suggestion of a
small section mapped out with dotted lines to indicate latitude and longitude in universal space— reveals the fact that twelve hours’ rotation of the earth does not transfer the observer from A to the point B in space, because— according to Copernican astronomy— the earth is not only rotating on its axis during those twelve hours, but also rushing through space in a gigantic orbit round the sun at the rate of sixty-six thousand miles an hour, or thereabouts, and so when the observer takes his second observation he is something like three-quarters of a million miles away from where he started. He is at latitude G in diagram 6.

Now let us study diagram 20, which has been made as simple as possible in order to illustrate the principle involved the more clearly. The letter C is used in this diagram to take the place of G in the earlier diagram 6, because it is simpler to describe the movements of the observer by A, B, C than it is by A, B, G ; easier to convey my meaning.


All the principles and theories of modern astronomy have been carefully observed, and the parallelism of the lines is strictly in accordance with the theories of Greenwich. As I anticipate that in the course of time a battle-royal will wage around this question of the measurement to Mars, I wish to make it quite clear that diagram 20 is designed only to illustrate the principles; it is to clarify the whole proceeding so that the layman can follow the argument. If the Royal Astronomical Society have any objection to make, I will be happy to discuss these questions with them in a manner worthy of the subject. The discussion may then, perhaps, be more refined, indeed.

I foresee a very pretty debate, wherefore I advise them that I know that Sir David did not really take his observations with a twelve hours’ interval as proposed by Dr. Hailey— because it was impossible—but that he actually waited only seven and a half hours (hence my use of C in place of G in diagram 20), but that only elevates the discussion to a higher plane, while the principle and the net results remain the same. In the appointed time and place I will discuss the actual practice if desired, but here I am dealing with the principle; and talking to the layman and the judge.

Now let us get on with this diagram 20. The first observation is taken at A and the second at C. It was evening when the observer was at A, but it is morning when he arrives at C, so that his east and west are reversed, the sun remaining fixed far below the bottom of this page. (The sun is at the observer’s west in the evening, and to his east in the morning, while Mars is in the opposite direction to the sun.)

In this example I have placed the planet exactly on the perpendicular from A to the star of reference, thus “A MARS X.” That is the starting point, or first observation; taken in the evening to the observer’s eastward. Twelve hours later the observer is at C, and sees the same star and the planet both to his west; but Mars is at this time not exactly on the perpendicular, but a little, a very little, to the left of the star.

The planet is not quite as much west as the star, that is to say— being to the left— it is to the eastward in universal geography ; and to the eastward of the perpendicular line C X.

Now if we were not particularly careful, and had not this diagram to guide us, it would be quite natural to think that the first observation (to the east) should be on the left hand, and the other (west) on the right, so as to face each other, so that any angle that might appear, such as an angle of parallax, would be between the two perpendiculars to the star. In that case they would seem to be as shown in diagram 18; but that is wrong!

Referring again to diagram 20, where the observations are illustrated in the proper order as they were actually taken, and all in accordance with the theories of Copernican astronomy, we find that the angle of Mars is to the EASTWARD! outside of the two perpendiculars. This is more simply shown in diagram 19. A being the first observation, on the right, and C, the second observation, on the left; that is correct.

Starting, as we did, with Mars on the perpendicular at A, we know that whenever we shall see it again it must be to the eastward of the star which marks that perpendicular, because, while the star remains fixed in space the planet is moving every hour along its orbit to the eastward round the sun, and so, when we see it from C the next morning, it is as we have shown in diagrams 19 and 20. It has moved from the line A X to a position a little further east in universal space than the line C X.

Whatever displacement there is, is outside the two perpendiculars; so that the second line of sight to Mars diverges from the firs t; consequently no triangulation occurs, and nothing of any material value is accomplished.

  The so-called angle of parallax was a displacement due to a real movement of the planet during the night.

In conclusion, as A X and C X are one and the same perpendicular, and no angle, either real or apparent, occurs between them, the first observation A X and the base-line are entirely without value, and may be discarded as useless. (Diagram 21.) This leaves us with only the perpendicular C X and the second observation, which proves to be a narrow inverted triangle “ C X Mars,” where the displacement of the Diagram 21. planet X M— (hitherto known as the parallax of Mars) — indicates how much the planet has moved to the left of the star during the night; while the observer at C is at the apex. Just that, and no more.


Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From Roman Empire to the Present, part 9

History of Astronomy From Roman Empire to the Present, part 9


Ideas that have been familiar to us from our very earliest childhood, which we have heard echoed on every hand, and seen reflected in a thousand ways, are tremendously hard to shake. We seem to love them as part of ourselves, and cling to them in the face of the most overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So it often happens that men and women whose common sense and reason tells them that many of the statements of astronomy are as incredible as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, are still long to part with their life-long beliefs, and suggest that, after all, the modern theory must be true because astronomers are able to predict eclipses.

But the Chaldeans used to predict the eclipses three thousand years ago; with a degree of accuracy that is only surpassed by seconds in these days because we have wonderful clocks which they had not. Yet they had an entirely different theory of the universe than we have. The fact is that eclipses occur with a certain exact regularity just as Christmas and birthdays do, every so many years, days and minutes, so “that anyone who has the records of the eclipses of thousands of years can predict them as well as the best astronomers, without any knowledge of their cause.

The shadow on the moon at the lunar eclipse is said to be the shadow of the earth, but this theory received a rude shock on February 27th, 1877, for it is recorded in M. Camille Flammarion’s “Popular Astronomy” that an eclipse of the moon was observed at Paris on that date in these circumstances:” the moon rose at 5.29, the sun set at 5.39, and the total eclipse of the moon began before the sun had set.”

The reader will perceive that as the sun and moon were both visible above the horizon at the same time for ten minutes _ before sunset, the shadow on the moon could _____ not be cast by the earth. (See diagram 31.)

Camille Flammarion, however, offers the following explanation: He says, “This is an appearance merely due to refraction. The sun, already below the horizon, is raised by refraction, and remains visible to us. It is the same with the moon, which has not yet really risen when it seems to have already done so.” “

Here is a case where modern astronomy expects us to discredit the evidence of our own senses, but to believe instead their impossible theories. . . This Atmospheric Refraction is supposed to work both ways, and defy all laws. It is supposed to throw up an image of the sun in the west— where the atmosphere is warm, and at the same time to throw up an image of the moon in the east— where it is cool! It is absurd.

When speaking of the measurement of the distance to Mars by Sir David Gill, in the same year, 1877, Sir Norman Lockyer described it as “One of the noblest achievements in Astronomy, upon which depends the distance to and the dimensions of everything in the firmament except the moon.” Evidently a very big thing, worthy of our best attention. The method which Sir David Gill used was the “Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which we have dealt with in an earlier chapter. He adopted the suggestion made by Dr. Hailey, and took the two observations to Mars himself, at Ascension Island, in the Gulf of Guinea.

The prime object of the expedition was really to find the distance to the sun (though we remember “that that had been done by Encke fifty years before by the Transit of Venus), which was to be done by first measuring the distance to Mars, and, having found that, by multiplying the result by 2.6571 (roughly 3), as suggested by Kepler’s Theory of the relative distances of the sun, earth and planets, in this manner: Distance to Mars, 35,000,000X2.6571 = 93,000,000 miles.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The sun’s distance is the indispensable link which connects terrestrial measures with all celestial ones, those of the moon alone excepted, hence the exceptional pains taken to determine it,” and assures us later that “The first really adequate determinations of solar parallax were those of Sir David Gill— result 8.80”,’’ and that his measures “have never been superseded.”

He found the Angle of parallax of Mars to be about 23*, which made its distance to be 35 million miles, and this, multiplied by 2.6571, showed the sun to be 93 million miles in the opposite direction. We realize that although the sun’s distance is said to be the indispensable link, it depends upon the measurement to Mars, so that this is more indispensable still. It is the key to all the marvellous figures of astronomy, and for that reason we will give it special treatment.

The figure 35,000,000 miles depends upon the angle at the planet, which is an angle of parallax. That is—the apparent change in the direction of Mars to the right or left of the star x (star of reference) when both are viewed from the opposite ends of a base-line, which, in this case, is the diameter of the earth; see diagram 15. Theory; If Mars is much nearer than x, and both are on a line perpendicular to the centre of the earth, an observer at A will see the planet to the left or east of the star, while B will see it to the right or west of that star. (East and west are local terms, and change with the position of the observer.)

The star of reference is presumed to be billions of miles away, so far away, indeed, that it is supposed to have no angle at all, so that the lines A x and B x are really parallel to each other, and at right angles to the baseline, as shown in diagram 16. Even Mars is at a tremendous distance, so that the angle of parallax is the very small fraction of a degree by which the planet is less perpendicular than the star.

Nevertheless, however slight the apparent nj displacement of Mars may be, if it is between the two perpendiculars A X , and B x, the lines of sight A M and B M would meet L some where at a point.

So far we have supposed A and B to be making observations Motions at the same time, but Sir David Gill believed with Dr. Hailey that he might take the two observations himself, the first from A in the evening, and the second from B the next morning, allowing the rotation of the earth to carry him round from A to B during the night, and that these two observations would give the same result as two observations take by A and B at the same Greenwich time.

  Accordingly he took two observations at Ascension Island, one to his east and the other to the west, and, replying upon all the theories of his predecessors, failed to perceive that his second line of sight to the planet was on the wrong side of the perpendicular, and diverged from the first.




Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 8

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 8

The “Theory of Perpendicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as we see them from different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocentric Parallax.” . . If that is so, then every two observations to a star must be parallel to each other, the two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there can be no angle whatever at the star! But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. Moreover, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same point. The thing is false.

The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point of observation on the surface. (See diagram 13.) It would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.

So much for the theories; but Bessel believed in them, because they are among the tenets of astronomical faith; and he discovered that “61 Cygni” appeared to move by an 11,613th part of a degree, as compared with another star adjacent to it. So he deduced the parallax 0.31” as the angle of “61 Cygni,” the other star (the star of reference) being presumed to be so much further away as to have no angle whatever.

It appears that—in spite of the fact that the theory of Perpendicularity makes it impossible to obtain any angle to a star— Bessel is supposed to have found an angle by means of parallax; for although the two lines of sight are as nearly parallel as possible, the parallax 0.31′ indicates that they are really believed to converge by that hair’s-breadth.

Unfortunately for this idea, however, the theory of Perpendicularity is supported by another theory— that of Geocentric Parallax, which makes every line of sight taken at the surface of the earth absolutely parallel to a line from the centre of the earth to the star, wherefore astronomy has the choice of two alternatives, viz.: if these two theories are right, neither Bessel nor anyone else could ever get an angle at the star; while, on the other hand, if he did obtain an angle,— then the two theories are wrong. Still we have not done with this matter, for the triangulation was made still further impossible by the use of Sidereal Time.

Hipparchus had observed that whereas the sun crossed the meridian every 24 hours, the stars came round in turn and crossed in a little less, so that, for example, Orion would cross the meridian every 23 hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds. This is called a Stellar or Sidereal day. It is divided into 24 equal parts, or hours, each a few seconds less than the ordinary hour of 60 minutes which is taken by the sun, and it is this Sidereal Time which is used by all modern astronomers, their clocks being regulated to go faster than the ordinary clock, so as to keep pace with the stars as they pass. As Sidereal time is designed to bring every star back exactly on the meridian every 24 hours by the sidereal clock, it follows of necessity that the stars re-appear on the meridian with perfect regularity; (if they do not the clock is altered slightly to make them do so.) The agreement between the star and the sidereal clock becomes a truism, and a law invincible. It is certain, therefore, that if “61 Cygni” did not appear to be exactly in its appointed place by the astronomer’s time, the clock was wrong.

We have now two theories and the sidereal clock to prove that every line of sight to “61 Cygni” is parallel to every other; that they cannot possibly converge, and consequently that no triangulation was obtained. Let us illustrate it in a diagram: 14.

An observer at A sees the star 61 Cygni, and also R, the star of reference; both on his meridian. The earth is supposed to be moving round the sun in the direction of the arrow, until in 182 or 183 sidereal days the observer is at B, and then sees both the stars on his meridian exactly as he saw them before. The two meridians and lines of sight are parallel, so that if continued for ever they can never meet at a point, and the two angles at the base equal 180 degrees, yet the stars are on both lines.

It is obvious, therefore, that the stars have moved to the left (east), precisely as much as the earth has moved to the left in its orbit. If the earth has moved, so have the stars; that is clear. We have proved that Bessel did not get a triangulation to ” 61 Cygni,” because it is impossible to do so by the semi-annual method; and that the apparent displacement, or parallax 0.31″ was due to error. No such displacement could be discovered unless the clock was wrong, or unless Cygni itself had moved in reality, more or less than the star of reference; wherefore, as every astronomer since 1838 has used the same method, it follows that no triangulation to a star has ever been successfully made ; and that every stellar distance given in the modern text-books on astronomy is hopelessly wrong.

Though my case is now really won, and students of astronomy will see the justice of my conclusions, this chapter may not be quite complete without the following comments with reference to diagram 14:— Reasoning entirely from the standpoint of the Copernican Theories, we have seen that if the earth has moved from one side of the sun to the other (from A to B), so also have the stars; but astronomers know as well as I do that the stars do not move eastward, neither do they— in nature— even appear to do so; their movement (real or apparent) being beyond all doubt— to the westward. So it is established that the stars have not moved eastward from A to B, and this— added to the fact that they really would be in the same positions with respect to the meridian as shown in the diagram, proves that the earth has not moved eastward either. And as the earth has not moved from A to B, as Dr. Hailey and Bessel behaved, the base-line disappears, the orbit no longer exists; and with the orbit falls the whole solar system of Nicholas Copernicus.

N.B.— If the earth remained at A rotating on its
axis once in every sidereal day, the stars
would appear always as shown at A— on the
meridian at the end of every revolution ;
but then we could not account for the fact
that the sun is on that meridian at the end
of every solar day— which is nearly fom‘
minutes longer than the stellar day. On the
other hand, if we assume the earth to be
rotating on its axis once in every 24 solar
hours, we could not then account for the
stars being on the meridian every 23 hours
56 minutes 4.09 seconds, as we have proven
them to be ; and so we arrive at the only
possible explanation, which is— that the earth
remains always at A and does not rotate at
a l l ; but the sun passes completely round it
once in 24 hours, while the stars pass round
it (from east to west) once in every sidereal
day ; thus they re-appear on the meridian
at every revolution, including the 183rd;
and so we find that the star “ Number 61 in
the Swan ” (Cygni) was observed twice from
the surface of an earth which has never
moved since the creation. Thus we know
that the stars are not fixed, as Copernicus
believed; and the edifice of modern
astronomy— which Sir Robert Ball described
as “ the most perfect of the sciences ” might
be more truly described as the most amazing
of all blunders.


Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Truth Behind the Charlottesville, Virginia March

The Truth Behind the Charlottesville, Virginia March

I know that this video does not talk about the flat earth but it does talk about the lying media – which the flat earth truth is one of its victims. And I will be bring up such topics from time to time (as you may have already know). This is done so to expose those in power.

You have probably heard about the the march in Charlottesville, Virginia, about the planned taking down of the Robert E. Lee Monument, but you did not hear the truth if it came from the major media outlets. I just ask you to do your own research; listen to some Patriot that was there. Anyhow, I thought it appropriate to listen someone who spoke on the greatness of Robert E. Lee, whom this demonstration was centred around.

The reason why the media lied about what went on is, that they (the One Worlders) want to destroy the true history of the White race and the great heroes we had.

The person you’ll see in the video has others about the Confederate Government that you might want to check out. In short, don’t let the antichrists tear down and distort the history of the White race.


Posted in Hidden history, media lies | Tagged , | Leave a comment