Dark Matter, a result of the heliocentric doctrine [Archive]

View Full Version : Dark Matter, a result of the heliocentric doctrine

rmstock

13-06-2007, 04:38 PM

Dear David and fellow brethren,

Times are changing very fast indeed. Recently i got my hands on two books :

"Calculate Primes"
by Prof James M. McCanney, (c)2006,2007
http://www.calculateprimes.com/
http://crashrecovery.org/primes/calculate_primes_cover-s.jpg
http://crashrecovery.org/primes/calculate_primes_back-s.jpg
http://crashrecovery.org/primes/calculate_primes_content-s.jpg
http://crashrecovery.org/primes/calculate_primes_dvd-s.jpg

"The Earth is not Moving"
by Marshall Hall,
Fair Education Foundation Inc. Third Printing, (April 2005)
http://web.archive.org/web/20051228012247/www.fixedearth.com/order.htm

http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/earth-not-moving-cover-s.jpg
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/earth-not-moving-back-s.jpg

Anyone into the subject of Prime numbers knows that since old
times mathematicians want to understand the patterns inside prime
numbers. Well guess what? Prof James M. McCanney recently
discovered the secret behind primes, and made his work available
to the public. With the book he supplies a 3 hour long DVD whiteboard
presentation which is very easy accessible for anyone who is
able to addup the amount of money inside his wallet. There will be
no more secrets behind prime numbers after you've read/watched
"Calculate Primes".

The second book is a astounding scholarly work debunking the
BIGGEST DECEPTION laid upon the grand public by the Science
Establishment ever. What Deception? The Heliocentric system turns
out to be a fabricated model of our planetary system, which started
around the year 1600, whilest the King James Bible was getting
translated. Marshall Hall starts of by mentioning that all NASA
calculations which should deliver the highest accuracy are based
on non-moving earth!!

The below email i sent to Prof McCanney:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:52:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann <stock@stokkie.net>
To: James M. McCanney <jmcc@jmccanneyscience.com>
Subject: Dark Matter, a result of the heliocentric doctrine

Dear Professor McCanney,

With much delight i have worked through your latest book "Calculating
Primes" by means of your brilliant and easy accessible DVD whiteboard
presentation.

At the end of the DVD a radio report is added, discussing things like
repeatability in gathering physics measurement results, in patterns of
prime numbers and inside todays scientific survey of the galaxies. As
you state, with such astounding patterns and beauty in our surroundings
on all scales from atomic, micro biology, snow flakes, nature and in
space, todays atheists and accompanying scientific establishment view
on this, is starting to look like that of science being deliberately
buried in vague theories like "dark matter", "the big bang",
"Darwinism" and as such resulting in the "capstone" philosophy of
Humanism.

I fully agree that these views are unsatisfactory regarding the hard
facts and physics measurement results which clearly point time over
time into a different direction where to search for a more logical
explanation.

Much of todays established scientific view on the universe is based on
the work of Albert Einstein. But it is precisely his work, the
Relativity theories, which today have embarked in complicated phenomena
like, dark matter, black holes, Big Bang theories and much alike.
Phenomena which are very hard to measure and are not backed up with
scientific evidence. Moreover, the mathematical models which describe
our universe can only survive by making such phenomena a mandatory add
on. The word repeatability in this context has become a forgotten
concept. Physics has become a insider only discipline where things like
string theory have degraded it into a exotic math only cult.

Only a year ago I wrote the following to a radio show host who had
brought up some doubts around the work of Einstein :

"I am a graduated physicist myself, and have never found any reasons
or leads which could raise the slightest doubt over the physics
publications by Albert Einstein. The fact that he was a Jew has
nothing to do with his work as a physicist."

But here's where i recently have changed 180 degrees in opinion.
Mounting evidence has shown up which allows the conclusion that
Einstein, the Bern patent office clerk, was hired to white wash the
Physics and Science establishment...

Albert Einstein, a Zionist no doubt, was highly awarded for his
Relativity theories because he gave the scientific community of our
Masonic/Illuminati elitist rulership a very brilliant way out of a very
nasty problem which was posed during the 1890's and early 1900's. The
Michelson Morrison experiment which could measure the speed of the
aether using light rays and some mirrors turned out to become a total
nightmare for the scientific priesthood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

The Michelson Morrison experiments, carried out all across the globe
proved one thing without a shatter of a doubt : the speed of the aether
on our planet earth was zero, ALL in coexistence with numerous Bible
verses which state that The Earth Is Motionless and is at the center of
our geocentric planetary system, where the sun and moon are rotating
around the earth and not like the heliocentric system which Copernicus,
Kepler, Newton, Galileo and last but not least Einstein successfully
have foisted upon the worlds.

Why did Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo and Einstein foist this
heliocentric deception into mainstream science? Very simple, because
they then as atheists (or even canaanites?) have discredited the Bible
with its geocentric system on page zero, and next have a easy task
promoting Darwinism, Humanism, The Big Bang etc.

A week ago i stumbled across a almost vanished book from the website
www.fixedearth.com, which has been put offline recently by the
same people who have promoted Einsteins deceptive math curiosities.
Last Wednesday Jun 6, 2007 i received that book :

"The Earth is not Moving,
Over 400 years of deception exposed!
The bible told the truth all along."
by Marshall Hall,
Paperback: 328 pages
Publisher: Fair Education Foundation Inc. Third Printing, (April 2005)
ISBN-10: 0-932766-20-x
http://web.archive.org/web/20051228012247/www.fixedearth.com/order.htm

Order from:
FEF, Inc.
Box 866
Cornelia, GA 30531
Email: fefinc@hemc.net

$20 in U.S. (P & H incl.)
Outside U.S. $30 (P & H incl.)
(Check, Cash, or M.O. only.)
(FEF, Inc. is The Fair Education Foundation - est. 1973)

On May 29 I used PayPal and sent $30,= to their paypal email address
at fefinc@hemc.net. On June 6 i received their book. Good service by the
The Fair Education Foundation for sure. I recommend this book 1000%, as
Marshall Hall proves without a shatter of a doubt that :

The Earth is not Moving!!!!

Please find attached scanned images of the cover and back of this book
"The Earth is not Moving". Make sure to read the backside, as that will
for most NASA insiders be enough evidence to start scratching behind
their ears...

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

bigus_dickus

14-06-2007, 04:24 AM

what does he mean the earth is not moving? when you are moving and you say "i am moving" you are not saying anything. not unless you describe some background or some texture that the movement will exist in relationship with. the earth is not moving, but in relationship with what?

i live on the earths land surface. not just on the surface, because most of the surface of the earth is covered by water. so to me, the earth is not moving and it looks flat. but when i am moving, there has to be a ground that i walk on or a vehicle that i fly in and i am the point of reference to the whole environment around me. but i am not really moving you see. all i am doing is flexing some muscles and the whole universe moves around me as i do that.

it looks interesting though.

earthseed

14-06-2007, 05:41 AM

If this reality is holographic and is being projected by a technology/source/creator/us what have you can it move? Or does it just vibrate which gives us the feeling of moving? I'm thinking of Robert Monroe's experience of seeing the projector. It could be anything really. :rolleyes:

rmstock

14-06-2007, 09:20 AM

earthseed wrote :

If this reality is holographic and is being projected by a technology/source/creator/us what have you can it move? Or does it just vibrate which gives us the feeling of moving? I'm thinking of Robert Monroe's experience of seeing the projector. It could be anything really.

Well a couple of together binded pieces of paper, i.e. a book,
unfolding a new view on our planet earth and its planetary system,
won't change our real world and planetary system. The only thing the
book does is prove that the heliocentric model (the Copernicus/Kepler
model where the earth rotates around its axis in 24 hours and rotates
around the sun in 365 days) is a carefully crafted HOAX interpretation.
The book claims with a shatter of a doubt that the earth does NOT
rotate around its axis, in fact it stands still.

To interprete our view and collected data from the Universe, one needs
to know its reference point, i.e. the position, speed, orbit and axis
rotation speed of the earth. Marshall Hall simply claims proof that the
earth has no rotation around its axis. Next he observed that NASA uses
a non-moving earth (no orbit and no rotation) inside its modeling to
calculate the most precise data for envoy missions to the moon and mars.

Its likewise not very difficult to see that if the earth does not move
or rotate, the mathematics equations of the Relativity theories would
simply become void, as the concept of Relativity becomes void, when
explaining our measurement results from the Universe as collected here
on planet earth......

What Einstein deliberately did was to NEVER question the validity of the
Copernicus/Kepler planetary model, i.e. moving and rotating earth. In
fact Einstein and the Physics elite made carefully sure this question
was never asked or published! But he was bold and brave enough to a)
define a constant speed of light independent of ANY physical
conditions, b) remove the concept of aether when it concerns light
waves/particles . These two hypothetical starting points were never
questioned by the Physics science establishment, despite the fact that
the Maxwell's Equations could only work if there was a aether for
light/electricity. Rest assure to mention that the Maxwell Equations
are the ones most used inside Applied Physics and even Applied Science!

The Physics elite went even sofar to support Einstein by accepting him
to turn around the interpretation of the Michaelson Morley experiment.
That is, brainwash the public that the speed of light is constant by
design (We tell you so!) Why? Because Albert Einstein also declared as
given fact that there is no such thing as aether for light waves, which
was also accepted by the Physics elites with no questions asked.

In fact, if you carefully look at 20th century Physics books, there is
never ever a question posed which allows the possibility that the earth
could simply be standing still, hence bypassing the most
straightforward explanation of the Michaelson Morley experiments (the
aether speed on earth is zero), and never ever even mention or hinting
such a thing.

Strangely enough somewhere in the 1920's Einstein suddenly sees some
possible trouble, and quickly mentions that the concept of aether for
light waves (or particles) cannot simply be abandoned, as then the
Maxwell Equations would fall apart. What then follows are most
complicated mathematical theories to explain more fine detailed
phenomena in outer space, whilest silently sticking to the
Copernicus/Kepler heliocentric system as starting point and never write
science publications which could hint readers to the geocentric model.

My question is very simple: was the Michaelson Morley experiment, which
measures the speed of the aether, ever carried out on a fast moving
Space-shuttle??

Robert

edelweiss pirate

14-06-2007, 02:10 PM

bigus_dickus

14-06-2007, 02:17 PM

My question is very simple: was the Michaelson Morley experiment, which
measures the speed of the aether, ever carried out on a fast moving
Space-shuttle??

Robert

i suppose the results would be the same. the aether speed would be again zero, so that would mean that either there is no aether (it is still hypothetical and not proven), or that the shuttle does not move in respect to aether.

but, let me think about it a bit. if there really is aether, then the universe must be filled with it up to 80% of the visible matter in it. which means that since light goes everywhere, aether is literally everywhere, ever present and penetrates everything solid or not, resembling God.

but since earth does not move in respect to aether, that would mean that the earth and the universal aether is fixed together. this also means that the only "stuff" in the universe that are stationary that we know of, is earth and the aether and everything else just swims inside the aether dragging it along. but there seems to be a problem with this theory, it just doesn't add up. this theory would also mean that if there are other planets similar to earth, with the properties of earth that allows life to exist, they must be fixed to the aether too. so what we would have to do to find them, is to find planets in the universe that are static and don't move in respect to earth. are there any that we can observe?

the above is by assuming that aether exists as a medium. but the existence of aether is an assumption that derives from the other assumption that says that no energy (waves or particles) can travel anywhere without the existence of a medium. but why does this have to always be true?

so, if i assume that light does not actually travel as waves or particles, but in a mysterious way yet unknown and i assume that all space is literally empty without any substance or medium contained, then what we can observe is that no object or body in space moves in respect to it. that means that earth does not move, but also the moon does not move and the sun and none of the bodies in space move in respect to it, but only in respect to each other. this is easy to understand. imagine a single object in empty space. does it move? where does it go? since all space is empty, there is no direction, no orientation, no point of reference.

another assumption would be that aether slows down and gets dragged along with earth, so that its speed is found zero. but that really doesn't say anything, it's like trying to invent an entity that does not exist, to prove an assumption of ours, because we need to assume that light needs a medium in which it is being propagated.

rmstock

14-06-2007, 07:01 PM

"Back to the Bible movement"?

Dude, we never left it.. we have just been made to think we have.. So how can we go back to a matrix control system that we are already involved in...?

Unless this is disinfo.. I think it might well be.....and what's this brethren business..?

Yours
Frater Pirate

The year is 2007 AD and the Bible is the matrix source code that our civilisation is in controlled deviance from. According to Bible prophecy we will be burned, poisoned, tricked and killed, until we can all learn to be perfect Christians.

David and his fellow brethren, uhh ain't that the people who watched
David Icke's videos and read his books and dig it? Well i surely do.
The evidence spotting some reptilians might be a little skinny, but
maybe this thread on a Dutch forum might help out here :

http://www.niburu.nl/niburu.nl/www//phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10483

How can we go back to this evil matrix control system? It will just be
dismantled, but we sure need our planetary system, earth, nature,
animals and plants in order to survive. The Bible might be written
during this evil matrix control system, but it was God himself who made
the prophets write a concerted and coordinated endresult, disregarding the fact
that these prophets were separated through both time and space....

This idea is covered inside pantheism. It was Ivan Panin who studied
numeric patterns inside the Hebrew and Greek 'received' scripture. He
wrote a booklet called 'Inspiration Of The Scriptures Scientifically
Demonstrated' and spent 40 years studying number patterns inside
scripture.

The main challenge by Panin which still stands untaken today is that he
proceeded to prove that every book of the Bible carries the same
patterns and features, that each one is necessary to cause the
numerical scheme of the entire Bible to work out correctly, and that
nothing can be added to or subtracted from the Bible, as we have it,
without spoiling these patterns and features. As the various authors of
the Old and New testament had no detailed knowledge of each others
books in both time and place, e.g. the author of Genesis could not have
had earthly access to Matthew's or Mark's writings, only a single
collective mind could have been the author of the Old and New Testament.

That's why i think the recent unveiling of the secret behind
prime numbers is telling. Gods hand is at work for sure.

Robert
PS.
1899: Inspiration Of The Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated - Letter to the New York Sun (http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/The_Inspiration_of_the_Scriptures_Scientifically_D emonstrated.html)
( archived copy of a webpage previously hosted at http://trf.org.au/The_Inspiration_of_the_Scriptures_Scientifically_D emonstrated.asp as last seen on May 30, 2007 and now very recently also forced from Google's cache )
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

edelweiss pirate

14-06-2007, 08:40 PM

I used to believe quite strongly in the Bible. Then I saw 'beyond' it and realised that IT is actually the source of most of our problems today.

You see we actually live in a crypto theocracy.. The secret societies are God's punishment squad. They punish us and each other according to Bible doctrine.

I wonder how many more many more times the world has to end before we can actually throw the goddamn evil book of revelations in the bin of history and actually start trying to make the world a better place rather than looking for an opportunity to destroy it.

How many times do you think the book of revelations has been used to manifest an apocalypse? 10 20... more....It's still going on...

There isn't just one big apocalypse there are a series of them throughout history... First one was Rome I guess, then you have the man made fire of London (check the facts a PRS), WW1 WW2, they were making much the same noises back then about apocalypse and the end of the world as they are now.

The Bible is all about temptation and punishment. This is their program. Why do you think if we live in a nominally 'Christian' world there is so much unchristian behaviour encouraged by the media?

They then punish society for its loose behaviour, whether faithless, immoral or corrupt....

The arch tempter at work, only there is no devil, just men who discovered there's no old testament God to talk to so they decide to do it themselves....

Just reread the old testament and tell me that you don't think some of so called "Gods'" tricks are a bit sick! Poor Job eh?

rmstock

19-06-2007, 02:41 AM

David and his fellow brethren, uhh ain't that the people who watched
David Icke's videos and read his books and dig it? Well i surely do.
The evidence spotting some reptilians might be a little skinny, but
maybe this thread on a Dutch forum might help out here :

http://www.niburu.nl/niburu.nl/www//phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10483

How can we go back to this evil matrix control system? It will just be
dismantled, but we sure need our planetary system, earth, nature,
animals and plants in order to survive. The Bible might be written
during this evil matrix control system, but it was God himself who made
the prophets write a concerted and coordinated endresult, disregarding the fact
that these prophets were separated through both time and space....

This idea is covered inside pantheism. It was Ivan Panin who studied
numeric patterns inside the Hebrew and Greek 'received' scripture. He
wrote a booklet called 'Inspiration Of The Scriptures Scientifically
Demonstrated' and spent 40 years studying number patterns inside
scripture.

The main challenge by Panin which still stands untaken today is that he
proceeded to prove that every book of the Bible carries the same
patterns and features, that each one is necessary to cause the
numerical scheme of the entire Bible to work out correctly, and that
nothing can be added to or subtracted from the Bible, as we have it,
without spoiling these patterns and features. As the various authors of
the Old and New testament had no detailed knowledge of each others
books in both time and place, e.g. the author of Genesis could not have
had earthly access to Matthew's or Mark's writings, only a single
collective mind could have been the author of the Old and New Testament.

That's why i think the recent unveiling of the secret behind
prime numbers is telling. Gods hand is at work for sure.

Robert
PS.
1899: Inspiration Of The Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated - Letter to the New York Sun (http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/The_Inspiration_of_the_Scriptures_Scientifically_D emonstrated.html)
( archived copy of a webpage previously hosted at http://trf.org.au/The_Inspiration_of_the_Scriptures_Scientifically_D emonstrated.asp as last seen on May 30, 2007 and now very recently also forced from Google's cache )
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

Sadly enough during the weekend, niburu.nl was forced offline by its hosting providers, due to
exceeding bandwith limits. The new link to view the above niburu.nl thread is at

http://floor.neostrada.nl/~niburun/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10483

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

whitenight639

19-06-2007, 03:05 AM

rmstock

20-06-2007, 06:24 AM

If the earth is infact stationary where does this leave night and day and the seasons, as if the earth is stationary and the sun orbits us then this would make night and day possible, but what about the seasons, also are there images of other solar systems like this, or indeed not like this as it would seem logical that the body with the largest mass would be the stationary one, much like if an adult and child were to hold hands and spin around each other, the heavier one always ends up moving the least (like an achor). :confused:

If the earth is stationary, then it must be the Sun, the moon and the
stars who rotate around the earth. The authors introduce a new concept
called : the heliocentric parallax hoax. Searching for parallax in the
online dictionary's we find :

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Parallax Par"al*lax, n. Gr. ? alternation, the mutual
inclination of two lines forming an angle, fr. ? to change a
little, go aside, deviate; para` beside, beyond + ? to
change: cf. F. parallaxe. Cf. Parallel.
1. The apparent displacement, or difference of position, of
an object, as seen from two different stations, or points
of view.
1913 Webster

2. (Astron.) The apparent difference in position of a body
(as the sun, or a star) as seen from some point on the
earth's surface, and as seen from some other conventional
point, as the earth's center or the sun.
1913 Webster

3. (Astron.) The annual parallax. See annual parallax,
below.
PJC

Annual parallax, the greatest value of the heliocentric
parallax, or the greatest annual apparent change of place
of a body as seen from the earth and sun; it is equivalent
to the parallax of an astronomical object which would be
observed by taking observations of the object at two
different points one astronomical unit (the distance of
the Earth from the sun) apart, if the line joining the two
observing points is perpendicular to the direction to the
observed object; as, the annual parallax of a fixed star.
The distance of an astronomical object from the Earth is
inversely proportional to the annual parallax. A star
which has an annual parallax of one second of an arc is
considered to be one parsec (3.26 light years) distant
from the earth; a star with an annual parallax of
one-hundredth second of an arc is 326 light years distant.
See parsec in the vocabulary, and stellar parallax,
below.

Binocular parallax, the apparent difference in position of
an object as seen separately by one eye, and then by the
other, the head remaining unmoved.

Diurnal parallax or Geocentric parallax, the parallax of
a body with reference to the earth's center. This is the
kind of parallax that is generally understood when the
term is used without qualification.

Heliocentric parallax, the parallax of a body with
reference to the sun, or the angle subtended at the body
by lines drawn from it to the earth and sun; as, the
heliocentric parallax of a planet.

Horizontal parallax, the geocentric parallax of a heavenly
body when in the horizon, or the angle subtended at the
body by the earth's radius.

Optical parallax, the apparent displacement in position
undergone by an object when viewed by either eye singly.
--Brande & C.

Parallax of the cross wires (of an optical instrument),
their apparent displacement when the eye changes its
position, caused by their not being exactly in the focus
of the object glass.

Stellar parallax, the annual parallax of a fixed star.
1913 Webster

When we mention parallax in a astronomical context we have the
heliocentric parallax with the sun as reference point and the
geocentric parallax with the center of earth as reference point.

It turns out that all distances and movements in our stellar system can
only be defined with a parallax definition (heliocentric or geocentric)
as prepositioned starting point. Apparently the astronomers never
abandoned the geocentric parallax inside the dictionaries.

from page 282,283 :

Let's determine the distance to the star Alpha Centauri from the Earth
and from the sun and see how great the difference can be even for this
closest of stars. Note:

"Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the Sun,
parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two
are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking at
an Earth circled by the Sun the distance turns out to be less than
one twentyfifth of that amount. Now these values cannot both be
true ...." {23} (Emph. added)

Hmmm. That's real interesting .... What it adds up to is that the stars
could be a whole lot closer then we are indoctrinated to believe! A
WHOLE LOT CLOSER is right! Note again:

"... In the Copernican estimation we observe the stars where they
were from four to many thousands of light years ago. According the
geocentric convention we see the starry dome in the position it had
almost two months ago. Or less if light's travel slows it down!"{24}

That's a biggg difference!! All the way from thousands of light years
at 186,282 miles per second to two months at the same speed! So how
thick is the shell of stars if we calculate from a non-moving Earth, I
wonder ...? Van der Kamp tells us :

"... a simple trigonometric calculation gives us the radius of the
Stellatum, the shell in which the stars have been placed. That
radius turns out to be about 58.1 light days, i.e. one twentieth of
a parsec." {25}

Howfarszat in miles? About one trillion ....

So bottom line it turns out that our galaxy with a geocentric parallax
definition as starting point is a lot smaller. Now to the seasons.
According wikipedia :

Season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The seasons result from the Earth's axis being tilted to its
orbital plane; it deviates by an angle of approximately 23.44
degrees. Thus, at any given time during summer or winter, one part
of the planet is more directly exposed to the rays of the Sun

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Seasons2.png

Inside the geocentric model, the sun orbits the earth in 24 hours,
where the Sun's orbit obviously makes a precession of 23.44 degrees
with respect to the earth's North-south pole axis during the year.

For the rest of this chapter see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.VI.pdf

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

rmstock

02-07-2007, 03:11 AM

Sadly enough during the weekend, niburu.nl was forced offline by its hosting providers, due to exceeding bandwith limits. The new link to view the above niburu.nl thread is at http://floor.neostrada.nl/~niburun/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10483

niburu got its forum back online and the new url is at

http://www.niburu.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10483

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

whitenight639

02-07-2007, 03:18 AM

WOW cheerz rmstock, your an intellegent bloke and your post cleared it up for me, i'm going to check out the links in the morn, i wonder if it will explain the freak weather were having.

rmstock

02-07-2007, 03:39 AM

WOW cheerz rmstock, your an intellegent bloke and your post cleared it up for me, i'm going to check out the links in the morn, i wonder if it will explain the freak weather were having.

Here's what i sent to BBC newsnight :

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:26:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann <stock@stokkie.net>
To: BBC NewsNight
Subject: Weather Warfare in June 2007?

Hi,

Anyone who has seen the latest weather reports has seen that a strange
rainshower terror is crawling across certain _fixed_ areas of Europe,
America and Asia these days.

What is striking is that its not rain showers who showup and pass by
quickly, but that the rain terror is somehow trapped inside certain
fixed regions for elongated times. And that all in June 2007, when we
all should be inside our beach outfits getting some brown tan ....

A successful precursor for the start of a real war is to make the
weather behave in rather weird ways. The idea of Weather Warfare has
been known since the Cold War and it turns out that NATO and the USSR
had even signed a Weather-Warfare treaty which states not to attack each
other using Weather Warfare [1][2]. Inside [2] the following quote
stands out :

"Weather Warfare: A Corporate Bonanza

HAARP has been operational since the early 1990s. Its system of
antennas at Gakona, Alaska, was initially based on a technology
patented by Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary
of Atlantic Ritchfield Corporation (ARCO). The first phase of the
HAARP Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) was completed by APTI.
The IRI system of antennas was first installed in 1992 by a
subsidiary of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) using the APTI
patent. The antennas beam into the outer-atmosphere using a set of
wireless high frequency transmitters.

In 1994, ARCO sold its APTI subsidiary, including the patents and
the second phase construction contract to E-Systems, a secretive
high tech military outfit with links to the CIA
(http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html [5]).

E-Systems specializes in the production of electronic warfare
equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, including
"highly sophisticated spying devices":

"[E-Systems] is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the
world, doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations,
and others. US$1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these
organizations, with $800 million for black projects-projects so
secret that even the United States Congress isn't told how the
money is being spent.( http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism.html )

"The company has outfitted such military projects as the Doomsday
Plan (the system that allows the President to manage a nuclear war)
and Operation Desert Storm." (Princeton Review,
http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/profiles/internshipGenInfo.asp?internshipID=998 )

With the purchase of APTI, E-Systems acquired the strategic weather
warfare technology and patent rights, including Bernard J.
Eastlund's US Patent No: 4,686,605 entitled "Method and Apparatus
for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or
Magnetosphere".

It is worth mentioning that the Eastlund /APTI patents were based
on the research of Yugoslav scientist Nicola Tesla (many of whose
ideas were stolen by US corporations). (See Scott Gilbert,
Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of
Mass Destruction,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html )

Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:

"causingtotal disruption of communications over a very large
portion of the Earthmissile or aircraft destruction, deflection or
confusion weather modification"
( http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm [4]),

Not surprisingly, the patent had previously been sealed under a
government secrecy order.

Barely a year following the E-Systems purchase of APTI's weather
warfare technology, E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, the
fourth largest US military contractor. Through this money-spinning
acquisition, Raytheon became the largest "defense electronics" firm
in the World.

Meanwhile, ARCO which had sold APTI to E-Systems, had itself been
acquired by the BP-AMOCO oil consortium, thereby integrating the
largest oil company in the World (BP).

Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary now owns the patents used
to develop the HAARP weather warfare facility at Gakona Alaska.
Raytheon is also involved in other areas of weather research for
military use, including the activities of its subsidiary in
Antarctica, Raytheon Polar Services."

So something is IMHO going on for sure, where i have seen in my direct
neighborhood metal posts or domes which look in shape much alike
Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower located in Shoreham, Long Island, New York [3].
Not as big, but are rather more tiny models and don't look exactly the same
but do have the same Tesla function no doubt.

On Monday BBC's Newsnight reported about Gordon Brown taking residence
inside Downing street 10. Interesting enough, it was concluded that
communications from the press to Gordon Brown were effectively impossible.
Moreover Gordon Brown will be confronted with a very nasty lawsuit where
BAE systems is charged for bribery and misconduct, where even Dick
Cheney might be brought down [6][7][8] ...

Did we not hear Dick roar, I'm above the Law! ?

Best Regards,

Robert
PS.
[1] "Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy:
The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction
by Scott Gilbert, www.globalresearch.ca, January 2004
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html

[2] "Beneath the Debate on Climate Change: Weather Warfare and the
Manipulation of Climate for Military Use"
by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 31, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3653

[3] "Nikola Tesla"
Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[4] "Angels Don't Play This HAARP"
by Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Begich
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060422105817/http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm

[5] "HAARP"
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20060524130346/http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

[6] "Will BAE Scandal of Century Bring Down Cheney?"
Sunday, June 24, 2007
http://spiiderweb.blogspot.com/2007/06/will-bae-scandal-of-century-bring-down.html

[7] "Corruption In The Camp of LaRouche-Haters Cheney and Blair"
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/06/08/corruption_in_camp_of_larouche_haters_cheney_blair .asp

[8] "Update: The BAE Systems Affair and The Anglo-Dutch Imperial Slime Mold"
by John Hoefle,
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/06/25/bae_slime.asp
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

ashyr

02-07-2007, 03:56 AM

whitenight639

02-07-2007, 04:12 AM

If you really sent that to the BBC then be carefull mate,

http://www.hks.demon.co.uk/jpegs/orange_tree.jpg

http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/jpegs/voda_lamp_post.jpg

http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/jpegs/tiny_t_pole2.jpg

http://www.prattfamily.demon.co.uk/mikep/jpegs/tiny_t_pole3.jpg

even chemmies in the air on this last one!

rmstock

02-07-2007, 04:13 AM

your blimmen mad!

from looking at this makes me wonder, have they gone back to the catalogs of the halls of great plots and ploys that checking all there confiscated material. released it again and using it as the latest WOW to make us stop also?

hey! How about some blimmen tittle's for his Dickness?

The weather which tortured holland and the uk during the last weeks, made
me think of weather warfare. Then i remembered that this LaRouche guy keeps
promoting his Anglo-Dutch Liberal banking system theory. He also calls it
a 'Slime Mold'. Also remember that the oil sjeiks have the Anglo-Dutch bankers
by the balls, as we now see all kind of Islamic banking offerings show up
in London and Amsterdam.

Enough ongoing events to get a couple of very powerful people raving mad.
Blimmen mad if ya like ;)

tejas

02-07-2007, 01:13 PM

I don't understand -
Firstly
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the centre of the solar system or that it is motionless? Ive read the bible several times and the only reference I have is that of a vague description of the suns movement in the sky somewhere in isiah
Secondly
Are you saying that every planetary system revolves around the earth??
One of the major challenges to the geocentric model of the solarsystem -
was that you can see the "phases" of venus - if the earth is the center then
venus would not have any "phases"

Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to show that Venus went through phases, just like the Moon. This observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system.

Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun (between the Sun and Mercury), but this was arbitrary; he could just as easily swapped Venus and Mercury and put them on the other side of the Sun, or made any other arrangement of Venus and Mercury, as long as they were always near a line running from the Earth through the Sun. In this case, if the Sun is the source of all the light, under the Ptolemaic system:

If Venus is between Earth and the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be crescent or all dark.
If Venus is beyond the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be gibbous or full.

But Galileo saw Venus at first small and full, and later large and crescent."

(Note that the ptolemaic system IS the geocentric system)

???!

rmstock

02-07-2007, 08:50 PM

Ptolemaic System vs. Modern Geocentrism
----------------------------------------

I don't understand -
Firstly
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the centre of the solar system or that it is motionless? Ive read the bible several times and the only reference I have is that of a vague description of the suns movement in the sky somewhere in isiah

".. Sun, stand thou still .... And the sun stood still ... "
Joshua 10:12,13

" ... the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
I Chronicles 16:30

" ... The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved."
Psalm 93.1

"HE ... hangeth the Earth upon nothing."
Job 26:7

for more references into the Bible and a discussion see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.I.pdf

Secondly
Are you saying that every planetary system revolves around the earth??
One of the major challenges to the geocentric model of the solarsystem -
was that you can see the "phases" of venus - if the earth is the center then
venus would not have any "phases"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system

"In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to show that Venus went through phases, just like the Moon. This observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system.

Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun (between the Sun and Mercury), but this was arbitrary; he could just as easily swapped Venus and Mercury and put them on the other side of the Sun, or made any other arrangement of Venus and Mercury, as long as they were always near a line running from the Earth through the Sun. In this case, if the Sun is the source of all the light, under the Ptolemaic system:

If Venus is between Earth and the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be crescent or all dark.
If Venus is beyond the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be gibbous or full.

But Galileo saw Venus at first small and full, and later large and crescent."

(Note that the ptolemaic system IS the geocentric system)

???!

Well the Ptolemaic system is NOT todays geocentric system. The
development and perfection of the Ptolemaic system basicly was halted
with the arrival of Copernicus :

" ... The Ptolematic system dominated astronomical thinking until the 1500's" [2]
[2] Isaac Asimov, The Double Planet, (Abelard, etc., 1960), p. 88.

Although "The Earth is not moving" doesn't discuss Galilei's
observation of Venus's evolvement through moon alike phases, its not
impossible to explain this lighting behavior of Venus by sunlight
inside a Geocentric model. According

"APOD: 2006 January 10 - The Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060110.html

it takes several months For Venus to complete a full Phase cycle.
A full Phase cycle of the Moon takes roughly 1 month. According

"APOD: 2004 May 21 - Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040521.html

half a phase cycle takes roughly 2 months, hence a full phase cycle
takes 4 months. It might be interesting to see if the full phase cycle
time of Venus is a constant, like that of the Moon, or if the full
phase cycle time (fpct) of Venus, fpct[Venus] is changing as years
evolve.

If the earth is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] should
be a constant value, as our observation point (Earth) is not moving.

If the sun is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] is
most probable not a constant value of 4 month, as our observation point
Earth _is_ moving according the heliocentric system.

Please note that fpct[Moon] can only be a constant because the moon is
rotating around our observation point Earth.

Next from Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the disproven theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it.

The wikipage however doesn't mention a specific scientific paper where
a refutation is presented. As the Ptolemaic description was abandoned
during the 1500's, it is not updated according the latest astronomical
observations. There are however two wikipages which describe a updated
geocentric model :

Modern geocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geocentric orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that the above two wikipages mention scientific proofs, like
'Quantization of redshifts' etc. Compare this with the heliocentric
wikipage :

Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric

In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical or physical implications.

Hence, even the followers of heliocentrism, i.e. the Astronomical and
Physics establishment, inserted some gross reservations with the
ABSOLUTE implementation of the heliocentric model inside Astronomic
research.

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

tejas

02-07-2007, 09:26 PM

".. Sun, stand thou still .... And the sun stood still ... "
Joshua 10:12,13

" ... the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
I Chronicles 16:30

" ... The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved."
Psalm 93.1

"HE ... hangeth the Earth upon nothing."
Job 26:7

for more references into the Bible and a discussion see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.I.pdf

Most modern biblical scholars would agree, and as would I that these are taken out of context to the original text if used to show that biblically the earth was the centre of the solarsystem, universe or whatever.
For example your Joshua quote does not necessarily render to the interpretation that the earth is the centre of the universe, only to the fact that "god" lengthened the day and indeed it would appear from Joshuas perspective that the sun would "Stand Still" it doesn't have anything to do describing the nature of the solarsystem or whatever.

I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion about your above quoted verses, regardless to say that the bible is an archaic fallback from mans dark ignorant past, its like still believing that the earth is flat because some mystic text from greece says so. [Although I still hold firm that no where in the bible does it out-right say that the earth is the centre]

Well the Ptolemaic system is NOT todays geocentric system. The
development and perfection of the Ptolemaic system basicly was halted
with the arrival of Copernicus :

" ... The Ptolematic system dominated astronomical thinking until the 1500's" [2]
[2] Isaac Asimov, The Double Planet, (Abelard, etc., 1960), p. 88.

Although "The Earth is not moving" doesn't discuss Galilei's
observation of Venus's evolvement through moon alike phases, its not
impossible to explain this lighting behavior of Venus by sunlight
inside a Geocentric model. According

"APOD: 2006 January 10 - The Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060110.html

it takes several months For Venus to complete a full Phase cycle.
A full Phase cycle of the Moon takes roughly 1 month. According

"APOD: 2004 May 21 - Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040521.html

half a phase cycle takes roughly 2 months, hence a full phase cycle
takes 4 months. It might be interesting to see if the full phase cycle
time of Venus is a constant, like that of the Moon, or if the full
phase cycle time (fpct) of Venus, fpct[Venus] is changing as years
evolve.

If the earth is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] should
be a constant value, as our observation point (Earth) is not moving.

If the sun is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] is
most probable not a constant value of 4 month, as our observation point
Earth _is_ moving according the heliocentric system.

Please note that fpct[Moon] can only be a constant because the moon is
rotating around our observation point Earth.

Next from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system :

In a geocentric model, there is NO explanation as to why Venus would have a phase system to begin with!

Have a look at some pictures of OTHER solar systems that exist in our galaxy, where we can clearly see that the 'sun' of these systems is in the center

ashyr

03-07-2007, 01:05 AM

rmstock

07-07-2007, 12:33 AM

i remember at one stage it was hard to convince people that every star was a sun. and ever sun had a solarsystem or planets inside.

many people used to think OUR sun was the only one. now what im in partial to believe that the earth doesnt move. but yet i need more evidence. perhaps i shall read that book & dvd. see what happens.

well ill ask you now. to provide me with your best FACT that supports the claim that the earth doesnt move? im ears.

cheers

btw that other stuff i typed earlier was in relation to how david describes peoples reactions. but you would know that already wouldnt you?

Marshall Hall claims today's integrated ballistics software on air
defense/attack systems does not incorporate error correction for
Coriolis force effects. Any person into this branch of IT business and
access to that software should be able to confirm or deny this. Plain
simple. Marshall Hall's quote on this :

http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/BigBertha.jpg

When Big Bertha shelled Paris during World War I,
Coriolis effect would have deflected shells about a mile.

the Big Bertha gun is not the correct name according wikipedia, its
called The Paris Gun aka Langer Max (long Max), a World War I German
cannon officially called 38cm SKL/45. Marshall Hall adds the following
discussion :

" In addition to what was printed under the drawing (which was a lie)
, the article had this to say about Big Bertha :

"In 1918, the Big Bertha shells were in transit for three minutes, time
enough for Paris to move about a mile."{8}

{8} Linn, "Spin," Smithsonian, Feb. '83, p. 68.

In another place we read a little more about the same account:

"In World war I, German gunners manning the 'Big Bertha' shelled
Paris, 76 miles away. At that range and at the velocity at which the
shells traveled, the Coriolis effect would have deflected them about a
mile to the right. The huge gun was so inaccurate, however, that it was
merely aimed in the general direction of Paris and the gunners did not
bother to correct for the Coriolis drift ..."{9}

{9} Ibid., p. 67.

Three minutes in the air .... Hmmm .... If the earth did rotate, how
far would Paris move in three minutes, Bo Bo?
Well, it would be going about 680 MPH at that latitude, so that it
would go just over eleven miles in a minute ....
Call it 34 miles in three minutes.
So, if the cannon was 76 miles due north of Paris, its
railway-car-launching-pad would be located at over 1o latitude closer
to the North Pole and would be (in the heliocentric myth) moving about
14 MPH slower than Paris. Thus, in three minutes Paris would move 34
miles to the East and the railway-car location and the shell fired from
that point would miss by over a mile .... Iszat right?
That's what the concept demands. And it's the same idea if the cannon
was located due south ....
But then if the cannon was due west or east of Paris
the Coriolis effect would be canceled out??
Yes, Let's stress that point, Vern. From an encyclopedia we read:

"On the Earth ... an object that moves along a north-south path, or
longitudinal line, will undergo apparent deflection to the right in the
Northern Hemisphere, and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere ....
Thus, if a cannon were fired northward from a point on the Equator, the
projectile would land to the east of its due north path. This variation
would occur because the projectile was moving eastward faster at the
Equator than was its target farther north. Similarly , if the weapon
were fired toward the Equator from the North Pole, the projectile would
again land to the right of its true path. In this case, the target area
would have moved eastward before the shell reached it because of its
greater eastward velocity .... The Coriolis deflection is therefore
related to the motion of the object, the motion of the Earth, and the
latitude." {10}

{10} Britannica,, Micropaedia, Vol. III, p. 152.

So, if the Earth were moving, the deflection would only occur on a
north-south longitudinal basis and there would be no deflection on a
east-west latitudinal basis?
That's what the books say --
And the Germans "did not bother to correct for the Coriolis
drift"??
Yeah. You know how the Germans are a little slow when it comes to
guns and technical stuff ...
Hah! Joke!
Joke is right! All they needed to do to get around the Coriolis
problem was to line old Bertha up due east of Paris and cut loose! But
the simple fact of the matter is that they didn't pay any attention to
that nonsense because they did know about guns and they knew
that, in reality, it didn't matter what latitude the gun was on.
There were a bunch of real factors that made a weapon that massive
inaccurate and these were understood and accepted. But correcting for
Coriolis drift because Paris was going to move part of 25 miles in
three minutes from firing to impact was not one of the factors they
bothered with. And, for the best of reasons, i.e., they knew it wasn't
a factor! "

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

rmstock

16-02-2008, 03:31 PM

An image from wikipedia went missing, so here comes again the last part of
posting #11 (20-06-2007, 04:24 AM ) :

So bottom line it turns out that our galaxy with a geocentric parallax
definition as starting point is a lot smaller. Now to the seasons.
According wikipedia :

Season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The seasons result from the Earth's axis being tilted to its
orbital plane; it deviates by an angle of approximately 23.44
degrees. Thus, at any given time during summer or winter, one part
of the planet is more directly exposed to the rays of the Sun

http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/davidicke/images/Seasons2.png

Inside the geocentric model, the sun orbits the earth in 24 hours,
where the Sun's orbit obviously makes a precession of 23.44 degrees
with respect to the earth's North-south pole axis during the year.

For the rest of this chapter see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.VI.pdf

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

cruise4

19-02-2008, 12:17 PM

"Marshall Hall claims today's integrated ballistics software on air
defense/attack systems does not incorporate error correction for
Coriolis force effects. Any person into this branch of IT business and
access to that software should be able to confirm or deny this. Plain
simple."

How is this relevant? The Gun placement and any firings are relative already? The Gun is moving already before its fired. Your assertion seems to ignore this?