A Talk on Gravitation, Part 1

A Talk on Gravitation, Part 1

What is gravitation?

  We are told a that gravitation exists throughout the universe is the reason why the smallest things fall down, such as a pebble to why planets remain in their orbits. Yet, scientists say we know very little about it. So, let’s explore this subject of gravitation in more detail.

But a difficulty meets one at the outset. How am I to write “something” about nothing? I cannot create, as some erroneously suppose the world was made, out of nothing. Paul says the things which are seen were not made out of “phenomena,” or things which do appear; but he nowhere teaches that they came out of absolutely nothing, except invisibility. Now, “Gravitation” has been created, not only out of invisibility, but out of nothing, except the vain imaginations of astronomical minds. I t was not “discovered,” but invented; and I shall proceed to prove that there is no such thing as the “attraction of Gravitation” in God’s universe, and that the phenomena supposed to countenance the theory are capable of other and more natural interpretations.

Of course, I speak of “Gravitation” in the astronomical sense of a universal power in all bodies, celestial and terrestrial, to attract, or pull one another together, with forces directly in proportion to their masses, and inversely as the squares of their distances. So that terrestrial attraction and phenomena will be seen to be only a small part of this question of Universal Gravitation. The former we may explain by weight and currents; but the latter we utterly deny. Let us try, in the first place, to realize what is meant by, and implied in the astronomical theory of gravitation, and its Universal Attraction.

According to this idea, every body in the universe, however large or small, has the power, by some means or other, to attract, or pull towards itself, every other body in the universe, however near or distant. Yea, not only is every body supposed to have this power, but the power is said to be in actual operation every moment of time for ever. So that, if I hold an apple in my hand, it is connected with, and pulling at all the apples in the world; all the pears and plums, all the trees, gardens, walls, houses, all the stones, rocks, rivers, and mountains; yea, and every separate drop of water in the ocean, and every grain of sand on the sea shore. And these are all pulling at the apple. Yet it remains passively on my hand, while I study gravitation, or decide whether I will eat the apple now, or leave it for further experimentation. This apple ought to dance about, or at least to show some symptoms of the awful internal struggles going on within it. Perhaps it has learned the art of appearing passive, an art which some astronomers seem to acquire, and to keep a quiet and serene countenance, while internally tortured with ten thousand doubts and pangs. Ten thousand! Yea, ten thousand times ten thousand gravitating cords or strings are pulling at it! For we must remember that sun, moon and stars, and supposed millions of millions of “ other worlds than ours ” are each and all interested in that apple; and they send out their innumerable long and filamentous fingers to clutch it out of my open hand. Yet it remains outwardly unmoved in serene and blushing passivity. I shall have to eat it, threads and all, with whatever tentacles, or other attractive matter may be attached to it! What a mission! But there is such an attractive force, either in the apple, or in the natural taste God has give us for common fruit, as well as for common sense, that I take all risks and disappoint the sun and stars. I am glad that Newton was led to muse over an apple falling to the ground by its own weight, when the stalk was rotten. He would have mused more had it “fallen” upwards.

(Why should an apple, or any fruit for that matter, fall from the tree it came from? Since the tree is a bigger mass, and the bigger mass attracts the smaller – as we are told – then no fruit should fall at all!)

To be continued.


Posted in gravity exposed | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Computer Generated Reality

Computer Generated Reality

Have you notice the words that are used in newspaper headlines? Here are some examples:

A work of art

A dream

A new form of space

Inventing reality

A new kind of experience

Virtual reality is liberating

Another gateway into reality

And it goes on and on. This is all subliminal conditioning to accept that which is not real. They have been doing it for years with fake news. And, it is no wonder that people are falling for it.

We are told by media and the scientists of what is real and what isn’t real, or insinuating this. The VR fans sees this as a paradigm shift in the role of computers. The ‘Powers-That-Be’ are dictating to us of what is real and what is not real. This includes:

what is in news

what’s in the sky

that the earth is flat

And, of course, they change the meaning of words to accomplish all of this.

There is an agenda and there are companies and government departments behind all of this. A prime example is NASA. These people are anti-Christs and the only way they can get others to accept their perversion of life and how to live it is by manipulation of what is real. Then they can get others to accept their agenda without too much rebellion. Otherwise, how else can the people remain docile while the criminals from the Middle East and Africa invade their land and commit crime without must protest from the people?





Posted in media lies, mind control | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Boasted Accuracy of Modern Astronomy Exposed

The Boasted Accuracy of Modern Astronomy Exposed

(Continuing our examination of modern astronomy.)

By Thos. Geo. Ferguson

The Science of Theoretical Astronomy makes a boast of its accuracy, and as it is best to “ prove all things ” a few of their statements shall be put to the test to see if they have any right to the claims they make, viz:— “ that Astronomy is the most exact of all sciences.”

Sir Robt. Ball tells us in his Story o f the Heavens, p. 510 (1893 E d .) We:

“ can determine the place of a planet with such precision that it is certainly not one second of arc wrong,” and he goes on to explain that “ a foot rule placed at a distance of 40 miles subtends an angle of a second, and it is surely a delicate achievement to measure the place of a planet, and feel confident that no error greater than this can have intruded into our result.”

The accuracy they vaunt so loud speedily disappears when the statements of two or three of the most “ eminent astronomers ” are compared with each other ! For instance, if we start with the problem which nearly all modern astronomers agree is the most important throughout the whole range of astronomy, viz :— The sun’s distance from the earth, we shall see what diversity of opinion (absolute contradictions— E d.) exist amongst them, so much so, that hardly any two of them agree about it. The late Mr. Proctor stated it was 91,500,000 miles, but Sir R. Ball gives it as 92,700,000. Surely a difference of 1,200,000 miles is not the “ precision ” Sir R. Ball speaks of in his work from which I have quoted ?

Again these distances differ very considerably from those given by other “ eminent astronomers” :— Copernicus gave it as 3,391,200miles; Kepler, 12,376,800 ; Newton (1st guess) 28,000,000; Newton (2nd guess) 84,000,000; Herschel, 95,000,000; Gould, 96,000,000; Cassini, 112,000,000; Mayer, 184,000,000.

Mr. Proctor in the opening remarks of his book The Sun, says :— “ The determination of the sun’s distance is not only an important problem of general astronomy but, it may be regarded as the very foundation of all our researches.”

How very far from accuracy must that science be which has such an uncertain foundation ? If modern astronomy depends upon the accuracy of the sun’s distance from the earth, then we are justified in saying that it is built on a sandy foundation, for, as we have seen, the astronomer’s theories about it, are against themselves.

Let us now glance at their theories about the planets, and I trust the reader will, from their own text books, compare the diameters and distances as given by the most “ eminent astronomers.” I shall only give one instance as a sample. Saturn’s mean distance from the sun, as given in Sir R. Ball’ s Story of the Heavens, is 884,000,000 miles, and the diameter 71,000 miles. Prof. Lockyer gives its distance as 880,000,000 miles; a difference of 4,000,000 miles. Prof. Olmsted gives Saturn’ s distance from the sun as 890,000,000 miles, and the diameter of Saturn as 79,000 miles. Others could be quoted equally at variance. Where, we ask, is the accuracy of this “most exact of sciences?”

No doubt some will say, “Well, how do the astronomers foretell the Eclipses, etc., so accurately?”  This is done by cycles. The Chinese for thousands of years have been able to predict the various Solar and Lunar Eclipses, and do so now, in spite of their disbelief in the theories of Newton and Copernicus. Thomas Keith in his “Treatise on the use of the globes” says:— “The Cycle of the moon is said to have been discovered by Meton, an Athenian, B.C. 433,” when, of course, the globular theory was not dreamt of. After a period of 18.6 years, the moon recommences precisely the same spiral path around the earth in relation to the sun, and so the Eclipse of the moon, which takes place on September 29th, will again occur in 18.6 years. We find in no other science (save perhaps Geology) such differences of opinion and such opposite statements existing amongst its professors, as among those of modern astronomy. Algebra, Arithmetic, Euclid or Geometry, may be called exact sciences, but certainly not modern theoretical astronomy.

That there are difficulties in connection with natural phenomena is not doubted, and that there are good men in the ranks who support these theories we do not deny, but we are prepared to show that at the outset assumption is called Fact, and consequently a multitude of errors have crept in which it is the duty of every lover of truth to warn people against and to expose. We may be thought to be fault finders, and had better be so-called than let falsehood reign and permeate society without an attempt to excise it. All we ask is that everything stated may be brought to the test of practical facts and common sense, then the truth will soon be evident. We have but very briefly touched this subject, but sufficient, we hope, to cause our readers to think, and to examine the matter for themselves.


Posted in Old flat earth news | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood

The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood

“ A second appeal to common-sense from the extravagance of some recent Geology.”

By Sir H. H. Howorth, K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S., F.G.S

  “One of the chief objects,” says Sir H. H. Howorth, “of this book, is to show that the Glacial theory, as usually taught, is not sound; but that it ignores, and is at issue with, the laws which govern the movements of ice, while the geological phenomena to be explained refused be equated with it. This is partially acknowledged by the principal apostles of the ice theory. They admit that ice as we know it in the laboratory, or ice as we know it in glaciers, acts quite differently to the ice they postulate, and produces different effects ; but we are bidden to put aside our puny experiments which can be tested, and turn from the glaciers which can be explored and examined, to the vast potentiality of ice in shape of portentous ice-sheets beyond the reach of empirical tests, and which we are told acted quite differently to ordinary ice. That is to say, they appeal from subsidiary experiments to a prior argument drawn from a transcendental world. Assuredly this is a curious position for the champions of uniformity to occupy.”

“I hold that the Glacial Theory, as ordinarily taught, is based, not upon induction, but upon hypotheses, some of which are incapable of verification, while others can be shown to be false, and it has all the infirmity of the science of the Middle Ages. This is why I have called it a Glacial Nightmare. Holding it to be false, I hold further that no theory of modern times has had a more disastrously mischievous effect upon the progress of Natural Science.”

“ I not only disbelieve in, but I utterly deny, the possibility of ice having moved over hundreds of miles of level country, such as we see in Poland and Russia, and the prairies of North America, and distributed the drift as we find it there. I further deny its capacity to mount long slopes, or to traverse uneven ground. I similarly deny to it the excavating and denuding power which has been attributed to it by those who claim it as the excavator of lakes and valleys, and I altogether question the legitimacy of arguments based upon a supposed physical capacity which cannot be tested by experiment, and which is entirely based upon hypothesis. This means that I utterly question the prime postulate of the glacial theory itself.”

We notice that although Sir H. Howorth offers a “widespread flood” in place of the Glacial Theory, he ignores and repudiates the Universal Flood of Holy Writ, and considers it “propriety to leave the Biblical account alone.” He quotes from Sedgwick’s Paraphrase of Bacon, “the impossible task of equating science and faith.” He says;—

“The Pleistocene Flood, though far from being universal, was certainly one of the most widespread catastrophes which the world has seen.” “The breaking up of the earth’s crust, of which the evidences seems to be overwhelming, necessarily caused great waves of translation to traverse wide continental areas, and these waves of translation as necessarily drowned the great beasts and their companions, including palaeolithic man, and covered them with continuous mantles of loam, clay, gravel and sand, as we find them drowned and covered.”

We tell Sir H. Howorth and the whole world of scientists that there is another Nightmare for them to face, in which there is no more truth than there is in the “Glacial Nightmare!” That Nightmare is the Globular Nightmare of Sir Isaac Newton! The world; were it a sea-earth-globe, spinning with seven-fold motion through “space,” never could have been flooded; no, not even to the extent required by the theory of Sir H. Howorth! Where did the water come from? Where did it go to? If the water came in the form of rain, how did it overcome the frictional resistance of the revolving atmosphere ?

There is no theory extant that has had, and is having, so mischievous an effect upon Natural Science as the Globular Nightmare. It is the fundamental error of all errors in existence, hence the present system of “educating the masses” by “University Extension” schemes, tendeth but to make the nation a nation of rabid infidels.

The science of Geology is but the outcome of the Globular Nightmare, or. Sir H. Howorth could not have spoken of “the breaking up of the crust of the earth.” It it sad to see those who once were ardent advocates of “a vast and universal Flood” cringing before the geological idol of supposition, and pleading on its behalf for “a greater latitude of interpretation of Scripture,” or, “ some modification,” or, “ a little concession on the part of literal interpreters.” We remember that it is written in the Scriptures of Truth, “ he that believeth not God, makes Him a liar.” Until Geology, Astronomy or Evolution, can be produce some distinct and conclusive proof of truthfulness; and by consequence, unmistakable and irrefutable evidence against the Mosaic Cosmogony, we shall testify against their systematic theories as vain jibberish of so-called scientists.

Take heed what you hear.


Posted in Bible and science, Old flat earth news | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Making Us A Mere Speck

Making Us A Mere Speck

By James Naylor

  It is the pride and boast of Modern Astronomy, that, compared with the ancient systems, it has introduced order for confusion, simplicity for complexity, and placed a comprehension of the universe within the reach of all. And the boast is not without some seeming justification; for if the modern system as ordinarily presented, be compared with the epicycle systems of the past, the former appears to much greater advantage.

Indeed, so much is this the case, that Sir John Herschel might well say in his “ Outlines of Astronomy.” “ We shall take for granted from the outset the Copernican system of the world, relying on the easy, obvious and natural explanation it affords of all the phenomena as they come to be described.” Now we are not concerned with a defence of the systems with which modern astronomy is contrasted, except in so far as they teach a plane earth, with the heavenly bodies in subordination to it. We are, however, concerned to show that, in spite of plausible appearances to the contrary, modem astronomy, both in its primaries and secondaries, is the most complex and confusing system ever palmed upon human credulity.

This is a strong statement, but we propose in this, and some following papers, to thoroughly justify it; and also to show, that if any will but put astronomical claims to an impartial investigation, they will inevitably conclude that these claims are but a confused jumble of unproven, contradictory, and self-destructive assumptions, that are utterly unworthy of acceptance in the name of truth. The scope of our labour is tersely expressed by our title, “ The pretensions and pretences of modern astronomy,” which also conveniently divides those labours into two parts, and gives to the “ pretentious,” a priority in the order o f examination ; these latter, however, need not occupy us long, for have they not been graphically portrayed by the great Sir John Herschell himself? Here are his words: “The earth on which we stand and which has served for ages as the unshaken foundation of the firmest structures, either of art or nature, is divested by the astronomer of its attribute of fixity, and conceived by him as turning swiftly on its centre, and at the same time moving onward through space with great rapidity.

The sun and the moon… become enlarged in his imagination into vast globes…The planets…are to him spacious, elaborate and habitable worlds . . . The stars . . are to him suns of various and transcendent glory, effulgent centres of life and light to myriads of unseen worlds, so that when after dilating his thoughts to comprehend the grandeur of those ideas his calculations have called up, and exhausting his imagination and the powers of his language to devise similes and metaphors, illustrative of the immensity of the scale upon which his universe is constructed, he shrinks back to his native sphere, he finds it in comparison a mere point, so lost . . as to be invisible and unsuspected from some of its principal and remoter members.”

It would be difficult for anyone to surpass language like the foregoing, in either the extent o f its pretensions or the graphicness of its diction. We will not, therefore, attempt it, but simply content ourselves by stating more formally the claims here asserted:

1 — The Earth, which naturally appears to us as the largest and most beautiful object with which we are acquainted, is viewed by the astronomer as a mere speck of the universe and so utterly insignificant as to be unsuspecting either by some of its principal or remoter members.

2 — O f the Earth’s motions of both rotation, and of translation through space are asserted, though its seemingly fixed and immovable character are amongst our earliest and most persistent impressions.

3 — The sun, moon and planets in astronomy become vast globes some o f which are elaborate and habitable worlds, though to the ordinary mind the two former appear but as centres of light or of heat, and the latter but as a variety of the objects with which the heavens appear studded.

4 — T h e stars, which from our earliest recollections have appeared to us as tiny, but withal, beautiful specks are enlarged by the astronomer into resplendent centres of systems ; in many cases vaster than the solar one, of which the Earth is asserted to be a member.

5— The Universe is of such immensity that it embraces myriads of unseen worlds, where existence is only asserted, or assumed, but not attempted to be proved, even by the astronomer.

To be continue

Posted in Old flat earth news, Sun Moon Stars | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Star Motions versus The Earth’s Shape

Star Motions versus The Earth’s Shape

  It is acknowledged as an axiom by good thinkers everywhere that all truth is harmonious, and that no one fact in nature can be contradicted or subverted another fact. It is not so with error, or even with plausible theories; these, owning to our limited knowledge, may appear harmonious for a time, but if one fact in nature, or in history, be found out inconsistent with and contradictory to those theories, this fact alone would be sufficient to stamp the theories as false. So it has been proved with globular theory.

As a correspondent lately wrote: “Satan the father of lies, has reduced the art of deception to a science, and he is at the bottom of the globular theory, which he has provided with hooks and eyes that fit in marvellously with some phenomena.” but one fact has been found out which is inconsistent with, and contradictory to the globular theory, and this fact, that water is level, absolutely level, is quite sufficient once and for ever to overthrow the globular hypothesis however marvellously some of its ‘hooks and eyes’ may fit.

If the world were a globe and the surface of all standing water would be convex; flat earthers proved that it is not convex; therefore, the earth is not a globe. On the other hand, if the earth were a plane the surface of all standing water ought to be level; practical experiments have abundantly proved that it is level; therefore the earth is a plane. The account of these experiments can be obtained by those willing to go to the expense of buying the literature, so it is not our purpose to reproduce them here.

What we wish now is to point out that until these practical experiments respecting the shape of the earth are properly disposed of, no other theories, or facts, respecting star motions or even the motions of the sun and moon, will be allowed to shake our confidence in the fact that water is level. This is one of our sheet anchors. The other is that the Word of Him who created the world, and who ‘cannot lie,’ is in harmony with it. So that our vessel has a strong anchor at both ends. Let friend or foe destroy these, if they can and dare to, and our barge will then be driven by the fierce winds about to blow over the earth, and will probably be wrecked on the sands of scepticism or the rocks of infidelity. But as long as either of these anchors will hold, and each alone is strong enough to hold, our position is unassailable and secure. Our only danger lies in the possibility of insensately slipping the anchors ourselves; but this may our chief Captain graciously forbid.

However, we write to warn at least one of our correspondents of this danger, and the lesson may be useful to others. If water has been proved to be level, and the earth therefore a plane, no manner of star motions, or sun’s motions either, can prove it convex or globular.

If you subsequently find out other facts you cannot explain you must wait until you can, or until someone can explain them to you, but no true flat earth believer will run away from the previously ascertained fact that water is level. It is inconsistent and illogical so to act; and no reasonable man will be guilty of such folly. Settle one foundation truth and stick to it, at least until there is some fair attempt to over throw it; and be assured that other ‘facts,’ if really facts, will ultimately be explicable in harmony with the foundation fact already established.

If the earth be a globe how is it that there is so great a difference between places of equal latitudes north and south? If the sun circles round a south ‘pole,’ as it does around the north why should there be this difference, evidence of which we cull from our opponents? Is the midnight sun regularly seen in extreme south latitudes? Do southern starts all circle round one southern point? Or, are there more magnetic star centres than one? Where are they? Careful observations ought to be made from different parts of the world at the same time. The sun, moon, and planets have somewhat different motions from the so-called ‘fixed’ stars. The former are sometimes directly over the northern parts of the equator and sometimes far south of the equator, according to the signs of the zodiac they happened to be in; whilst the ‘fixed’ stars have practically always the same declination, and remain in the same groups or constellations.

The motions of both these sets of heavenly bodies need carefully watching and accurately recording, especially at the times of rising, culminating, and setting; not however with the view of ascertaining what the shape of the earth is, but with the view of ascertaining the nature of the motions of those bodies which are actually seen to be in motion. Even then care will have to be exercised lest we confound the motions of light with the motions of the bodies emitting the light.

If our friends all over the world will help us by clearly and accurately record the observed motions of the heavenly bodies it would be of service. Our discovery relates to the behaviour and motions of light, as it comes from above and passes downwards through the atmosphere, a medium of ever increasing density. Let observations be made at different recorded times and places, say, when the sun or any of the heavenly bodies, is directly over the equator, or in its farthest north or south declination. When, and where, such body seems to rise, to culminate, and to set; what kind of a course it seems to follow; what altitude it appears to attain; and what are the supposed latitudes and longitudes of these places.

We must remember too that all these latitudes and longitudes are calculated upon the supposition that the earth is a globe; and they depend upon observations, however accurately taken, which are affected by the question as to whether light travels in straight lines or not when coming down upon us from the ‘lights’ in heaven above. If the moon be observed, let note be made of her apparent size, shape, and position. If a bright fixed star be selected, whether it always appear to rise and set in the same direction from the observer, or whether its position seems to be affected by atmospheric conditions. If the sun be observed, say next March when he is on the venal equinox, whether he seems to rise due east and to set due west in all parts of the world? We should then discuss what the terms east and west mean, and so might have some useful evidence for determining the motions of the heavenly bodies, or at least the eccentricities of the motions of the light as it falls upon us from above.


Posted in Sun Moon Stars | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Inconsistency of Limitless Space

The Inconsistency of Limitless Space

   A rational conception of the physical or organic form of the universe cannot be entertained in any logical mind consistent with any idea of the earth as a rotating globe. That which destroys conception of the centre and circumference of the universe also destroys the idea of its form— the assumption that space is eternal and illimitable prevents any conclusion that the cosmos or world of existence, has any centre, for how could a centre be conceived in a universe whose circumference infinite space! The principles of modern astronomy are thus suicidal— the hypothesis demands the action of tangential and centripetal forces to hold worlds in position— and this “law” of the two potential forces, logically analysed, refutes the system and destroys its claims.

If one sphere acquires the actions of these two forces upon it, there is no logic which does not lead to the conclusion that all spheres require them— it demands that the moon revolve around the earth, the earth around the sun, the sun around a larger and another sun, and that, in turn, another, and so on ad, infinitum with an eternity of geometrical progression, through a universe without a centre, without form, and consequently without existence, for how can there be existence without the two essential factors of form— centre and circumference ? But the idea of boundless space is a product of the astronomer’s mind— he reaches this conclusion by assuming the convexity of the earth’s surface, and thus loses himself, his science, and his reason in a whirling mass of worlds in a fathomless abyss of space— and agnosticism!


Posted in Sun Moon Stars | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Earth Rotating? Yea, Sure!

Earth Rotating? Yea, Sure!

“Whilst we sit drinking our cup of tea or coffee the world is supposedly rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator, whizzing around the Sun at 66,500 mph, hurtling towards Lyra at 20,000 mph, revolving around the centre of the ‘Milky Way’ at 500,000 mph and merrily moving at God knows what velocity as a consequence of the ‘Big Bong.’ And not even a hint of a ripple on the surface of our tea, yet tap the table lightly with your finger and … !” -Neville T. Jones

“I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton‟s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added – I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows – Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact” (1-2)

Posted in Flat Earth Experiments | Tagged | Leave a comment

Compass Proof

Compass Proof

One of a number of proofs that the Bible is the Word of God is the fact that no other book in the world can be translated into so many different languages, and lose so little of its native beauty and force. This fact indicates that it was written for all the Israelite nations. So we may equally say tht with regard to the truth of the world being a vast plane, and not a globe, we have amongst numerous other proofs the fact that a ship sailing on every known sea the mariner’s compass is not only an essential help, but it is a positive necessity. If the earth was not flat, what use would the compass be? If a vessel was, say 50° S. the compass could not possibly point to the North Pole. And where would it point of the ship were on the line? Let your readers try it on a pasteboard globe and see for themselves.
John Williams


Posted in Flat Earth Experiments | Tagged | Leave a comment

European-Japanese Flight to Mercury

European-Japanese Flight to Mercury

The BepiColombo Mission Fraud

  As you may have heard recently there is a planned satellite flight to Mercury by the European-Japanese space agencies. This is due to take place in 15 months. This is a continuing con of the public that there is actually flights to other planets. So, let’s take a look at Mercury.

We are told that Mercury is the closest to the sun and that the temperature reaches +400C and goes as low as -180C So, with these figures in mind, let’s take a closer look. The BBC article said that at these temperatures zinc and tin will melt but other metals won’t. Fine, but it goes much deeper than that. In fact, RT News says it’s like a flight into a pizza oven.

How can a satellite made out of other metals perform in such temperatures? Sure, there are many metals that melt a higher temperature but that is not the concern. How can there be insulation that would stop the tremendous heat from affecting the electrical circuitry? How and lubricants be protected? How can transistors be protected? The space agencies hope you don’t ask such questions. And, unfortunately, very few people ask in the first place.

We are told that there will be communication from the satellites, (there will be two of them on this mission), sent back to earth; that photos will be taken. This is not to mention the other delicate sensing equipment that will be checking the surface of the planet, such as volcanic eruptions.

  The surface of the Mercury satellite might be made out of titanium but what about protecting the inside from heat? Of course, titanium will not be used. If they say that it will, then how do they account for the tremendous weight? We can talk on 100 ways of why it’s impossible to send satellites into space. The first obstacle is the firmament or dome that seals in the earth. All other talk of space travel is mere fantasy.

Here is a challenge you can throw out to those who believe we can send a satellite to another planet and that is: let’s see a test right on earth in front of the public. This test will have the satellite in question in a room that can have the temperatures go from a low of -180C to +400C. Then, let’s see how it can do all the things that we are told it can do. This should not be too hard. After all, all tests have to be done on earth in the first place in order to prove that it works; tests in a lab has to be done so engineers know how to correct the design and make modifcations. So, why not for the public?

  The next time you hear your friend talk about some satellite going to a planet, and he says how amazing it is, you can answer back in a way that would say nothing of the flat earth. Just ask some simple questions such as:

How is it that the oil doesn’t break down in tremendous heat?

How is it that the oil doesn’t freeze in such tremendous cold?

How can they make insulation so good that it’s not effected?

If such insulation is so good, why isn’t it on the market?

How can a signal be sent millions miles and we get such good pictures when we can’t get a cell phone signal when we’re out in the country (although we have satellites supposedly being able to beam any place on earth)?

This should make a person think, IF they have any curiosity at all. You should be able to think of even more questions to make your globe earth friend doubt what he is being told. The aim is to make people doubt what they are told. Then, this might get them to think more before they agree with the newspapers and those in authority.

Posted in fake satellite flight | Tagged , | Leave a comment