005: Impossi-ball

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Nikola Tesla

Nothing is impossible. This notion used to be a longstanding disagreement with one of my childhood friends. We would bounce ideas back and forth, doing our best to stump the other. I would contest by smugly asking, “What if you had to build a car from scratch in less than 10 seconds?!” Only to be met with the retort, “Ah, that’s easy.. just build a time machine.” If I learned one thing from this mental exercise, it’s that there’s no limit to human imagination. As was often the case with this squabble, a theoretical solution was invented on the spot whenever a problem threatened the narrative [nothing is impossible]. This ad hoc approach to solving irreconcilable conundrums is reminiscent of modern-day cosmology. Theories can change over time but if the initial premise begins with a false axiom, everything that follows thereafter should be scrutinized. A tilted, spinning, wobbling, orbiting, hurtling, space ball from a godless and purposeless explosion (or expansion depending on who you ask), is a dogmatic belief millions are beginning to question. For whatever reason, the debate about the shape of the earth has been reignited with more vigor than ever. For those willing to ignore the social shame that goes along with it, the flat earth revelation is life changing. If such an idea is so preposterous, why does it persist? Is scientific consensus the truth? Can you prove the Big Bang or the globe without relying on NASA and other government agencies?

“The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in.”

Rupert Sheldrake

Scientism

The scientific method is something we can all stand behind: that which we can observe, test and reproduce. All three criterion must be met in order for the theory to be classified as “scientific.” What portion of the Big Bang, dark energy or dark matter theories have anything to do with science? All three have more in common with religion than anything. In fact, the Big Bang was invented by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, in 1931!

“There is a crisis in cosmology. Usually in science, if we’re off by a factor of 2 or a factor of 10, we call that horrible. We say, something’s wrong with the theory. We’re off by a factor of 10! However, in cosmology, we’re off by a factor of ten to the one hundred and twenty. That is one with 100 and 20 zeroes after it. This is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science.”

Michio Kaku

Dark energy, otherwise known as the cosmological constant, is claimed to be an evenly distributed force which cannot be seen or measured, that is presumably causing the universe to expand (allegedly). Unfortunately, the concept of such a force defies the law of conservation of energy which states: energy of an isolated system remains constant and can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe is expanding, how is dark energy constant? In this scenario, the universe would be a perpetual motion machine, creating more dark energy as it expands. Ah but you see, we could be just one universe of a multiverse and dark energy is a quantum particle that can exist in two places simultaneously! This kind of sophistry is commonplace in theoretical astrophysics. As for dark matter, Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best:

“Dark Matter is just simply what we call this thing about which we know nothing, responsible for 85% of the gravity of the cosmos… it is the longest standing unsolved problem in modern astrophysics.”

Gravity

The Big Bang, dark energy and dark matter deal with space. How about something closer to home? Gravity is the unsung hero of the helio-nonsensical model. It’s used as a stopgap for everything that defies an explanation. How does water bend? What holds the oceans to the underside of the ball? What causes the moon to orbit? What causes the tides? Gravity, gravity, gravity, gravity. First theorized in 1666 when an apple fell from the forbidden tree of knowledge and smacked a Freemason on top of the head. The story itself is suspect but the conclusion is even more ludicrous. We can observe objects falling to the ground and we have measured the rate of acceleration as 9.8 meters per second, squared. Fine.

The observation and measurements are every bit scientific however, when Newton extrapolated to assume that everything with mass has this attractive force, he effectively left science altogether and entered the realm of belief. Gravity, by its own definition is universal. Does this match reality? Dropping something on the ground is the only practical demonstration for such a force. Why couldn’t we suspend a granule of sand next to an oil tanker and witness attraction for ourselves? One could think of an infinite number of experiments to prove a universal force exists, yet it cannot be done.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Empty space or anything less dense than the surrounding air will immediately move to equilibrium unless a physical barrier separates the two competing systems. Not a single experiment to date falsifies this claim, yet we’re led to believe this takes place every second of every day. Earth’s atmosphere sits adjacent to the vacuum of space with nothing in between. Proponents will use word salad like “pressure gradient” or “a vacuum is the absence of matter,” to explain away what is simply impossi-ball: a pressurized system next to a vacuum without a physical barrier. Try and replicate this through experimentation. You will inevitably fail. The only explanation, as you might have guessed:

Mainstream science states that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. Contrarily, when dealing with general relativity, it’s not recognized as a force at all but simply the curvature of spacetime. Why are there two separate definitions with nothing in common for a theory that is touted as a fact by leading astrophysicists? Even more strange is the selective behavior of gravity. For example, if mass attracts mass then the only reason a 1,200 pound grand piano is fastened to the ground is because gravity is holding it there. Luckily for musicians, gravity ignores the piano keys which only require 50 grams of pressure to be held down. Whoops! Such an idiotic idea: a force that can hold quintillions of gallons of water to the underside of a ball but allows birds, bugs, animals and people to move about freely, unhindered.

How would you explain the following? Gravity is considered to be strongest when a smaller mass object is closer to the central mass of another, larger object. In other words, gravity has a greater attractive force on the surface of Earth than it does at higher elevation. If water is more dense than gas, how is it possible that the small vacuum created by my lungs through a straw, is able to pull liquid away from the surface of the Earth, yet the 10^− 8 Torr vacuum of space is incapable of ripping off the atmosphere instantaneously? If you’re having a hard time rectifying what gravity is, you’re not alone:

“…We can describe gravity. We can say what it does to other things, we can measure it, predict with it, but when you start asking what it is… I don’t know.”

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Most of us were shown the spinning water-bucket experiment during elementary school. The teacher filled a 5 gallon bucket two-thirds full of water and to the amazement of all the underdeveloped minds, spun it around 360° without spilling a drop. The same concept is demonstrated at carnivals across the country with the fallaciously named ride, “The Gravitron.” As an object rotates, the centrifugal force pushes objects away from the axis of rotation; the exact opposite of gravity. The only reason the water remains in the bucket is because it’s pushing against a container. The same concept can by applied to the aforementioned carnival ride as it pushes your back against the outer wall. Without a container, which the globe Earth does not have, the result would be similar to the image below. This brings up another curious question. How and why does the equator have any land mass whatsoever? Water is more malleable than rock so wouldn’t the oceans accumulate at the equator where the rotation of the Earth is greatest?

Motionless

Most people are unaware of all the beliefs that come packaged with the globe. For starters, the currently accepted circumference of the earth is claimed to be 24,901 miles at the equator. A full day as we’re told, is 23 hours and 56 minutes (more on this later). In order to complete a revolution, the surface speed of the earth (at the equator) must be traveling roughly 1,040mph. That’s nearly 275mph faster than the speed of sound! If a sovereign minded individual had never been told anything about the globe and someone made this claim, there’s several immediate questions that would arise. Consider for a moment why it’s not possible for a hot air balloon to hover above the surface of the earth and wait for the destination to revolve beneath it. Why not? Assuming angular momentum, the only logical explanation as to why this doesn’t happen is because the atmosphere is rotating with the earth. If this were true, flights traveling west would be going against a rotating atmosphere.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Abraham Lincoln

How could we simulate a moving surface with an atmosphere traveling in the same direction and speed in a scaled model? If we took a conveyor belt and set the track to run at 104mph, then took a fan and matched this speed, how could it be argued that this isn’t an accurate depiction of the globe model? A scaled-to-size plane flying against the wind (atmosphere) and a moving track would never work as it does in real life. This gets more complicated when you take into account the inverse relationship between altitude and a rotating atmosphere. As altitude increases so does the circumference of the trajectory. Thus, in order for a rotating atmosphere to keep pace with the surface, the speed at which it travels must become increasingly faster with height. Has this ever been tested, measured or proven? Perhaps the globe model would have been dead on arrival save for the fact that the first instrument of flight came nearly 400 years after the Copernican model started gaining traction!

Whenever you hear the phrase “it’s relative,” you can expect some philosophical nonsense to follow shortly after. Another argument is that the Earth is considered as an inertial frame of reference therefore, all manner of flight is not affected by a moving surface. For the globe believer, the argument of a plane flying over a moving sphere is akin to a ball being tossed inside a moving car. This commonly taught misconception is an egregious attempt to explain away your senses. The frame of the car is a physical barrier that protects against outside forces. What characteristic of the Earth represents the steel enclosure of the vehicle? In addition, an inertial frame of reference must either be motionless or travel at a constant velocity by definition. One problem: velocity cannot be constant if the orbital motion is an ellipse! It’s admitted that the speed at which the Earth orbits the sun fluctuates roughly 2,200mph throughout the year. Now that we ruled out “constant velocity”, what are we left with? Answer: motionless.

To make matters worse, physics of a spinning sphere dictate that the rotational speed is greatest at the equator but slows all the way to zero at direct north and south poles. For example, an observer in Alaska must rotate slower than someone in Brazil due to the smaller circumference they travel along in one solar day. As a rough estimate, let’s assume an observer in Alaska is spinning 500mph and they hop on a plane and fly to the equator that is spinning 1040mph. Where does the plane gain the additional 540mph to catch up with the equatorial spin? Why hasn’t anyone felt, measured or detected the increase in surface speed when traveling to and from different latitudes? Better yet, how do pilots land on moving runways that face in every direction? Remember, the 1,040mph is the surface speed at the equator; there’s no way around this. In an attempt to minimize this argument, some will claim that because the Earth is so massive we wouldn’t feel anything. Often times they will give an example such as a basketball, stating that if it rotated once throughout the day it would be imperceptible. What they forget, is that the observer must also be scaled to size:

• Earth Diameter: 12,742km
• Observer Height: 2m
• 12,742,000/2 = 6,371,000
• Observer is 6.731 million times smaller than Earth
• Basketball Diameter: 242mm
• 242/6,371,000 = .000038
• Observer height on a basketball would be 38nm
• For comparison, a red blood cell is 10,000nm across

In 2012, Felix Baumgartner ascended 128,000 feet over New Mexico and jumped from the “edge of space.” It took him nearly 2 and 1/2 hours to reach the appropriate altitude before making his leap of faith. Any guess as to where he should have landed on a spinning ball that is rotating east in excess of 500mph at the given latitude? If you’re honest, he should have landed hundreds of miles west in the pacific ocean but instead, landed just a few miles east in the wrong direction. Houston, we have a problem!

The Earth is still, just as it seems. In fact, no experiment in human history has proven the ground beneath our feet is moving. This includes the 66,600mph orbital motion around the sun, the 514,000mph orbit around the Milky Way and the 1.3 million miles per hour through infinite space. All manner of observations and experiments prove the exact opposite including Airy’s failure, Michelson Morley and the Sagnac experiments. Proponents will often point to the Foucault (faux cult) Pendulum and ring laser gyroscope as evidence of a spinning globe. These two devices can be deconstructed with one question: why do they only detect the slowest of the four motions of the Earth?

What most don’t know and what advocates of the spinning ball will never tell you, is that the Foucault pendulum remains in motion only because an electromagnet is maintaining the momentum. The contraption was specifically designed to show the Earth was spinning which is confirmation bias, not science. Who’s to say the electromagnet isn’t offset slightly so as to give the desired rotation? The conclusion is that the ground is rotating beneath the pendulum at a rate of 15 degrees per hour. If this is true, why doesn’t the ground beneath a blimp or helicopter or hot air balloon do the same? The ring laser gyroscope is another globe earth favorite. It was designed around the Sagnac effect which uses two single-mode laser beams that move in opposite directions to detect motion. In theory, this gyroscope measures the rotation of the Earth at 15 degrees per hour (just as the pendulum) but there’s a catch. It uses a helium-neon laser which can be manipulated with magnetism. This is important because the opposing theory to the heliocentric model assumes the Earth is an electromagnetic system. All the ingredients that make up a battery are present. The sun and moon represent the cathode (+) and anode (-) with a magnetic central pole. Additionally, the Earth is comprised of 70% water of which is mostly saline. As some of you may know, salt water is naturally electrically conductive. Thus, if the heavenly bodies above the motionless plane are electromagnetic in property, what’s preventing the ring laser gyroscope from detecting the motion of the luminaries? Besides, no other practical demonstration exists for any of the four alleged motions of the Earth. Period.

The Coriolis effect is primarily taught to cadets during basic training. The idea is that snipers need to consider the spin of the Earth when shooting at long range targets. For one, this is excepting authority as truth instead of the truth as the authority. I would pay a large sum of money for someone to correct their drill sergeant with this simple question: “Sir! If bullets are impacted by the axial rotation, why aren’t planes, blimps, helicopters, hot air balloons and every other instrument of flight impervious to such a force, Sir?!” Another aspect of the Coriolis is the idea that the rotation of the earth causes Hurricanes in the northern hemisphere to rotate counterclockwise and clockwise in the south. A simple experiment can replicate this phenomena as follows: take a basketball or plate and drag it through the surface of a pool. The wake created on either side will form two vortices that spin opposite of each other. Voila! Observable, testable, repeatable.

Helio-nonsensical

The jet stream presents another problem for the globe. Continuous winds as high as 250mph blow from west to east with the rotation of the Earth. This means the jet stream is outpacing the axial rotation of the globe which again, is in excess of 1040mph at the equator. How can this be rectified? Flights traveling against the jet stream (west) typically take longer due to the head wind. If the ground beneath the plane is moving twice as fast in the opposite direction (east), shouldn’t travel times be dramatically faster going west despite the jet stream? If a commercial flight is heading west at 500mph and the Earth is spinning 1,040mph to the east, the total speed at which they’re moving apart from one another would be the summation of the two or 1,540mph. Common sense would then say that any flight traveling east would never reach their destination unless it caught them from behind. None of this matches with reality and no experiment to date can say otherwise.

Much like the TV show, “The Big Bang Theory”, another programmed lie is the idea that we’re the “Third Rock from the Sun.” Below is one of the first images that sold the world to the heliocentric model. Avid sky watchers would immediately see a problem with this model. Since Mercury is closest to the sun, the only time we would ever be able to see it is during the day time. Once again, what we observe does not match reality. The fact that both Mercury and Venus can be seen at night presents a major flaw in the Copernican model. At night, the earth would be facing away from the innermost circuits, making these two planets impossible to see.

Over the years, the distance to the sun has changed dramatically. It’s permissible in science to adjust figures as they relate to scientific measurements. In this case, the numbers are all over the board to the point of embarassment:

• Copernicus: 3,391,200
• Kepler: 12,376,800
• Newton: whether 28 or 54 million miles (“either would do just as well”)
• Benjamin Martin: Between 81-82 million
• Benjamin Gould: more than 96 million miles
• Christian Meyer: More than 104 million

Exactly how were these figures computed? Primarily by using parallax. This method of measurement assumes the Earth is moving even though no experiment to date has proven so. Detailed measurements are taken 6 months apart and then the inclination or declination of the sun in the sky is measured and a figure is drawn out of a hat. Very scientific. Thomas Winship said it best:

“As the sun, according to ‘science’ may be anything from 3 to 104 million miles away, there is plenty of ‘space’ to choose from. It is like the showman and the child. You pay your money – for various astronomical works – and you take your choice as to what distance you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in for a few millions; but if you wish to be ‘very scientific’ and to be ‘mathematically certain’ of your figures, then I advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred millions. You will at least have plenty of ‘space’ to retreat into, should the next calculation be against the figures of your choice. You can always add a few millions to ‘keep up with the times,’ or take off as many as may be required to adjust the distance to the ‘very latest’ accurate column of figures. Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is like a farcical comedy – full of surprises. One never knows what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces if you did.”

A far more reasonable way to measure the distance of the sun is to study crepuscular rays. Light rays emanating from the sun create a pyramid shape when viewed from our vantage point. Using an instrument such as a sextant, it’s possible to determine the length of the base of the triangle and the two side angles. In geometry, this is known as an “ASA” triangle whereby the remaining sides and 3rd angle can be solved. Notice how there’s no assumptions with this methodology? The book, “Zetetic Astonomy”, provides calculations of the height of the sun over the city of London. It was determined that the sun’s distance is the opposite of modern cosmology in that it’s quite near and much smaller. This conclusion flies in the face of a globe earth proof. Eratosthenes is credited as being the first person to measure the circumference of the Earth. Allegedly, this character used two sticks in the ground that were placed a specified distance away from each other and then measured the resulting shadows. In theory, if the surface is curved, the angles from each stick would be different. What no one will ever point out, is that this same experiment works perfectly fine on a flat surface and a much smaller and closer sun. Due to perspective, the sun would drift toward the horizon like receding light posts do on a street, which will cause the light to come in at various angles depending on the distance to the light source (the sun).

Within the last few years, another clue was discovered. Independent, high altitude balloon footage has consistently shown a hot spot directly beneath the sun (bottom left image). If the sun was 93 million miles away as we’re told, this observation would be impossi-ball. The same holds true for crepuscular rays. Light coming from 93 million miles away should be coming at us in parallel lines, not top down as shown below.

Just like the sun, the distances to the stars are claimed to be measured using parallax. How about proving the Earth moves before assuming it does, in order for this methodology to work in principle? Despite four separate, simultaneous motions, Polaris has remained fixed for all of recorded history; the same is true for the constellations. We’re told by our trusted scientists that the Milky Way galaxy is hurtling through infinite space at 1.3 million miles per hour. In the span of one year, that equates to over 11.3 billion miles. If we multiply that by a conservative figure of 5,000 years which represents the oldest written records, that would equate to over 56.94 trillion miles! All the while the solar system would have been revolving around the galaxy at the proposed 514,000mph and yet, absolutely no measurable changes to the constellations or Polaris? Really?

Even if we use a more practical example, the figures don’t add up. Our “average” star that we call the sun, is a mere 8 light minutes away from us. Assuming Neptune is 2.78 billion miles from the sun, or 4 light hours, how large would the sun appear in the sky from this distance? Would you still be able to see it? What if we doubled that distance (8 light hours)? If we doubled the distance again, we wouldn’t even be at a single light day, let alone a light week, light month or a single light year. How is it that we can see stars at all when the nearest one is claimed to be 4.22 light years away? Because science, right? Light travels infinite distances in a vacuum? Can you prove space is a vacuum? Refer back to the conundrum about our atmosphere butting up against the vacuum of space if you’re still confused.

The latest absurdity according to mainstream science, claims the Earth is an oblate spheroid where the difference between the equatorial and polar radii is roughly 13 miles. That’s higher than the Mariana Trench is deep and Mt Everest is tall, combined. According to Wikipedia, the equatorial bulge also impacts sea level and credits the centrifugal force from Earth’s rotation. Shouldn’t we be able to measure this increase in sea level? For example, a plane traveling from Greenland down to the equator should have to more than double their cruising altitude over the course of the trip so as to remain at a constant altitude. It’s safe to assume this does not happen and has never been observed by any pilot in human history.

Curvature

On the subject of flight travel, another interesting aspect to consider is curvature. The math to calculate the drop due to curvature is so easy, a ten year could figure it out. It’s an equation we’re all familiar with but were never taught to use it in this manner: the Pythagorean Theorem or a² + b² = c². The equation places “a” as the assumed value of R, or the radius of the Earth which is 3,963 miles (at the equator), “b” as the distance of the object in question and “c” being the drop due to curvature.

The short hand equation breaks down to 8 inches per mile, squared by the mile. Here’s the long hand version for calculating curvature in 1 mile using the radius at the equator of 3,963 miles:

• 3963² + 1² = c²
• 15705369 + 1 = c²
• 15705370 = c²
• c = √15705370 or 3963.00012162
• 3963.00012162 – 3963 = .00012162 miles
• .0001262 * 12 * 5,280 = 7.99 inches

As an example, something 5 miles away should be obstructed by over 16 feet of curvature (5² * 8 = c in inches, then divide by 12 to get feet) at sea level. The spherical trigonometry can be recreated in popular programs such as AutoCAD and thankfully, earth curve calculators such as this, also consider the height of the observer. Because the Earth is dropping away from an observer in all directions, a pilot should have to constantly dip the nose down in order to remain level with the surface. If the pilot flies in a straight line at any point on the earth, they would find themselves in outer space in a matter of a few minutes. DoUCwhatEyeC?

Despite all the spherical CGI/composite images of the Earth, oddly there is no visible or measurable curvature anywhere to be found. According to one study, the state of Kansas was described as being “considerably” flatter than a pancake. With a perfect flatness ratio of 1, Kansas clocked in at .9997 flat whereas the measured pancake was .957 [flat]. If we use an earth-curve calculator and plug in the length of the state of roughly 400 miles, we should have a drop from one end of Kansas to the other of over 20 miles. How does that work out? I’ve personally driven across this state several times and failed to detect the 20 mile bulge I was supposed to see. What’s more, Kansas doesn’t even rank in the top 5 of flattest states in America. The order is as follows: Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, Louisiana, Minnesota, Delaware and then Kansas. How many flat states does it take to make a curved surface?

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.”

Leonardo da Vinci

The Nile is credited as being the longest river in the world. It stretches over 4,000 miles along the eastern portion of Africa. What’s strange is that the river seemingly flows in the wrong direction – south to north instead of north to south. That would mean water is flowing up and over the curve of the Earth, would it not? This observation violates the physics of water as we know it. Water, in large quantities will always seek and find its level and under no circumstances does water flow uphill, naturally. Also, no one has observed or demonstrated water conforming to a convex surface. The absurdity of such a notion is known as De-Nile: The inability to believe one has been fooled when presented with an obvious fallacy.

What many skeptics have discovered and perhaps what is the main reason behind their conversion, is the innumerable observations that are impossible on a ball with the given dimensions. For example, the Statue of Liberty stands 326 feet tall and has been sighted on a clear day, more than 40 miles away. Using an earth curve calculator that considers height and assuming the best case scenario of an observation height of 120 feet (average mast height), that puts lady liberty behind a 470 foot curve. Other examples include viewing the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan. At an observation height of only 10 feet and a viewing distance of 45 miles, the Chicago skyline should have been obstructed by over 1,100 feet of earth curvature. Below is a series of observations that are only possible on a flat earth. The “Black Swan” image was taken at an observation height of less than 3 feet. According to spherical trigonometry of a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the physical, geometric horizon distance should have only been a little over 2 miles. The furthest oil rig was more than four times that distance with the horizon further still. To date, the only rebuttal for this is refraction. In other words, what you’re seeing is not actually there, simply the image is being bent up and over the horizon.. which is flat, no less. This observation is not only irrefutable but can be reproduced consistently.

Coincidences

The coincidences of the heliocentric system are almost too numerous to mention but it’s worth noting. Earlier, it was stated that a solar day is 23 hours and 56 minutes. The reason they claim a 4 minute difference (which is arbitrary, give or take a few minutes) is because in 6 months time, day would become night and night would become day. Turns out, if we take 4 minutes and multiply by 180 days and then divide by 60 to get hours, we end with exactly 12 hours or 1/2 earth rotation. It just so happens that this 4 minute difference per day is the reason that our day and night cycle remains fixed as opposed to flip-flopping once every 6 months. Another example that defies all odds is the fact the moon perfectly eclipses the sun like two machine cut quarters. The explanation is that the sun is exactly 400 times larger and exactly 400 times farther away from the moon. Imagine that! From a purposeless explosion, that’s quite the coincidence, wouldn’t you agree? The odds of either occurrences are less than zero.

Did you know that the moon also rotates about on its axis? How else would we only see one side of the moon if it’s orbiting the Earth? In fact, the moon rotates at the precise speed required as it orbits the Earth so that we only ever see one side. If the angular speed of the moon about its axis changed even a quarter of one degree, over time we would eventually see the other side. The same is true with the speed in which it orbits the Earth. If this was out of step with the axial rotation, this too would cause the face of the moon to slowly turn. Luckily, science has coined the term “tidal lock” so that the average person doesn’t need to give this any more thought. To add insult to injury, they tell us that the moon is moving away from the Earth at roughly 4cm per year. This minuscule amount of change in distance would cause the whole system to be out of sync. How does it all stay in perfect harmony? Answer: because you believe in magic.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20

Everything about the heliocentric model including its counterpart, evolution, is diametrically opposed to Scripture as well as all the ancient civilizations that subscribed to an enclosed cosmology, including the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Egyptians, Norse, Hindu, Chinese, Babylonian, Navajo, Hebrew and more.

• Purposeless explosion vs deliberate creation
• Infinite in size vs relatively small in scope
• Open system vs an enclosed cosmology
• Moving 4 simultaneous motions vs motionless
• 20 billion year timeline vs 6,000 year timeline
• The solar system and galaxy are flat and the earth is round vs the earth is flat and the sky is round
• Sun before earth vs earth before sun (Genesis 1)
• Death brought man into the world (via evolution) vs man brought death to world (via original sin)

The deliberate inversion of the biblical model is obvious. Especially when we consider the 666’s built into the system. For example, the tilt of the Earth’s axis was taught to me as being 23.4 degrees off center. What is “center”? That’s the perpendicular line that represents 90 degrees. If we subtract 90 (-) 23.4 we end up with 66.6 degrees from horizontal (flat). Suspicious? The speed at which the Earth orbits the sun is typically rounded to 67,000mph. However, there’s scientific journals that give the figure of 18.5 miles per second. Why would they give us miles per second, a figure we’re not familiar with? To convert this speed to something we can wrap our minds around, we multiply 18.5 by 60 to get minutes and then multiply by 60 once more to get miles per hour which ends up being exactly 66,600mph. What are the odds? On top of that, the expected drop in one mile due to curvature on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference is 8 inches. Again, 8 inches is 2/3 of a foot or .666 feet! The statistical odds of all 3 measurements ending with 666 is astronomical to say the least.

Conclusion

A photograph of the Earth from space would certainly dispel all of this nonsense in an instant. I’d wager a large number of people didn’t make it this far before googling their beloved globe. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. To date, there are only two genuine photographs (i.e. not composite and non CGI) of the earth from space. One from the 72′ Apollo mission and the other from 2015. Without getting into the fraudulent moon missions, you can search for a documentary called “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon”, where leaked footage shows astronauts forging an image of the Earth through a circular window in low earth orbit. The footage was taken when the astronauts should have been roughly half-way to the moon. It’s pretty damning evidence and something that lacks a genuine explanation. The photo of Earth from 2015 was seemingly a direct response to the flat earth movement. Apparently NASA couldn’t help but put “SEX” in the clouds when the image is inverted. What’s the statistical probability of 3 consecutive letters showing up in the correct order in a cloud formation?

It’s been more than 50 years since the first successful moon landing (allegedly) and we haven’t been back since. If they can beam back images from mars through their yet-to-be-released million mile internet, there’s no excuse why we shouldn’t have 24/7 video footage of the Earth from the moon. If you’re a NASA fanboy or an avid Star Wars fan, this video clip dismantles the ISS/space narrative. The compilation, if not subject to internet censorship upon viewing, showcases augmented reality errors, green screen glitches, evidence of wires, water bubbles in official space walk videos and much more. In the case of internet censorship, this should help you on your way:

There’s a perfectly logical explanation behind the “global” sun cult religion. It was founded by Freemasons who believe that Lucifer, the light bearer, is the supreme ruler of this world. Is it any wonder that the physical bearer of light (the sun) has been placed in the center instead of God’s creation? Have you considered what the masonic square and compass represents? Albert Pike explains in his book, Morals and Dogma:

The Square is a right angle, formed by two right lines. It is adapted only to a plane surface, and belongs only to geometry, earth-measurement, that trigonometry which deals only with planes, and with the earth, which the ancients supposed to be a plane. The Compass describes circles, and deals with spherical trigonometry, the science of the spheres and heavens. The former, therefore, is an emblem of what concerns the earth and the body; the latter of what concerns the heavens and the soul.

Carl Sagan once said, there’s more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all of the Earth’s beaches. To believe this lie means life outside of our world is a foregone conclusion based on statistical probability alone. Instead of looking up at the sky and seeing God, we now see infinite possibilities. At the same time, space as they explain it, is incredibly vast and mostly empty with distances and sizes we can only imagine. It’s the ultimate spell that has been cast upon humanity to take away our divinity. They want you to believe that we’re a random spec, orbiting around an ordinary star, flying through infinite space with no one at the wheel. This breeds nihilism, atheism and materialism which is the opposite of a loving creator.

What you believe determines how you live your life. If you’ve been lied to, perhaps what awaits you in your final hour isn’t what you signed up for. The Freemasons certainly believe in Lucifer, whom they worship; this much is obvious. Revelation 9:11 names the angel from the bottomless pit as “Apollyon” who is also known as the destroyer. It’s fitting that the “Apollo” missions were used to bridge the gap between reality and science fiction. Ask yourself, do you find it odd that an inordinate amount of Freemasons are the ones pushing the heliocentric lie? What’s more, there are dozens of confirmed astronauts that are part of the brotherhood, past and present and they brag about it.

“When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy.”

Manly P Hall, Famous 33rd Degree Freemason

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2: 11-12

Where does that leave us? If you made it this far, you’re either intrigued or pissed off. When confronted with evidence contrary to our beliefs, the response is typically an emotional one. Why? What we choose to believe creates the foundation for our lifestyle. When our way of life is threatened, it triggers a fight or flight response. Either this information is ignored (flight) or it’s fought tooth and nail. It’s as simple as that. If you believe the cosmos was created from a random, purposeless explosion and your life is meaningless, you will more than likely indulge in temptation and materialism. If this writing causes you to question what we’ve all been taught, you might consider changing your lifestyle. That’s the entire premise behind “Created State of Mind.” This deception is Biblical. According to 2 Thessalonians 2, it’s God who sends the “strong delusion.” It’s one helluva litmus test if you ask me. Do you love the truth or would you rather believe the lie? It’s your choice, it always has been. Choose wisely!

 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

2 Corinthians 10:3-5