O OP PE EN NL LE ET TT TE ER RS SS SE EN NT TT TO OA AD DV VO OC CA AT TE ES SF FO OR R T HE E L LE ECTR RIIC CU UN NIIVER RS SE A AN ND D

T HE E EXPA AN NS SION N TE ECTO ONICS T TH HE EOR RIIE ES,

A AN ND DE EX XP PL LO OR RIIN NG GH HO OW WT TH HE ES SE ET TH HE EO OR RIIE ES SC CO ON NN NE EC CT T

David Goben
Lady Lake, FL, USA

Updated 6 July 2012 (original 9 September 2011)

This document features the core letters and relevant supporting research essays

Photo credit: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope (PIA01322: Chaos at the Heart of Orion)

OPEN LETTERS SENT TO ADVOCATES FOR THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE AND THE EXPANSION TECTONICS THEORIES, AND EXPLORING HOW THESE THEORIES CONNECT
By David Goben.
Copyright 2011-2012 by David Goben. All rights reserved. A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes. Albert Einstein, Princeton University, 1935, when he was asked what he would require for his study. When faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions. Occams Razor; a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead. Aristotle, 384322 B.C.E. Note that I personally consider the educated to include those who are amply self-educated. Be careful when you look down your nose at someone because you may be standing on your head. David Goben, Chariton, Iowa, 1970 (age 15).

Table of Contents
Notes to the Readers ......................................................................................... 3 Abstract ............................................................................................................. 5 Introduction........................................................................................................ 8 The Letters ...................................................................................................... 18 Letter of 13 August 2011............................................................................ 18 Letter of 12 August 2011............................................................................ 26 Letter of 8 September 2011........................................................................ 33 Introduction to Supplementary Background Resources Developed and Employed as I Constructed This Document .................................................................. 50 Regarding the Impossibility of Black Holes................................................. 61 Exploring What Happened During the Solar Eclipse of 1919 ...................... 69 Einstein, the Stumbling Manufactured Hero................................................ 74 Prelude................................................................................................ 74 Part One: Einstein as a Stumbling Hero ............................................... 85 Part Two: Concerning Those Who Made Einstein Great....................... 91 Notes Regard Mythematics...................................................................... 115 Important Resource Lookups ................................................................... 118 About the Author............................................................................................ 119

Page 2 of 119

Notes to the Readers Dear Reader, if instinct or experience compels you to dismiss material shared herein, I beg you to grace me with an enormous favor of intellectual generosity: Instead of simply discarding this document out of hand, please take a moment to use this PDF documents Comment option so to embed within it notes regarding points you feel grate your senses and kindly explain to me why you feel so. Cite as much evidence or links as you feel is requisite to support your opinions. The latest version of Adobe Reader allows you to highlight text in PDF documents, add comments, or add comments to highlighted text. Save that edited version and email it to me at david.ross.goben@gmail.com. I would very much be interested in those opinions, and I am especially excited to explore different and opposing viewpoints. If you have trouble downloading a PDF copy, I will be most happy to direct you to a freely and easily downloadable copy (such as https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_Dj_dKazINlZTFjOW ZmMWItNTg3ZS00MDcxLWE3NDctNDhhZGY2Y2JkOTRk). I will also be just as happy to simply answer any questions you might have.
Thank you so much to those of you who have already submitted opinions and arguments, some repeatedly. Your invaluable input has most certainly helped shape the present form of this document and has resulted in a deliciously robust expansion of it, making the details for many points so arresting and detailed that they now probably read more like a Dostoyevsky novel. Information is the sweet nectar upon which I feed. Some of you submitting arguments, some of them quite passionately, I think were often unexpectedly surprised that I actually do truly relish opposing opinions. I am not one to rail or ridicule; posturing is such a pointless drivel a primitive defensive contrivance for those with no real leg to stand on, so I do not care to indulge it. My views are but liquid, never cut into stone, because a view can change with just a word that is spoken in Truth. And Truth is more important than our personal opinions. I will rectify such errors if you are correct, though I may first choose to argue them using the sources I drew from to make my points in order to bolster my stance if they are proof against your dispute. I ask only that you return such calm congeniality. Sometimes, to protect our inner sense of understanding, we are compelled to simply cease reading when our sense of knowing is challenged. This is owing to our protective animal instinct of intuitive pessimism awakening, which we use to block out anything that does not conform to our beliefs by giving us a sense of discomfort and threat; thus allowing only that which agrees with our sense of Truth to pass through us with a sense of peace and tranquility. But if we are never willing to listen to each other, especially to opposing views, then we can never actually learn anything!

Page 3 of 119

To truly understand something, we must look to all sides of it. Thus, when seeking for the Truth of a thing, we should hunger for ALL of its facets, no matter if they agree or disagree, inspire us or trouble us. In the end, come ruin or rapture, all that matters is TRUTH. Be aware that many, sometimes long supplementary notes or digressions are embedded throughout this document to both clarify ideas and to act as sidebars to more fully elucidate a concept, a history, or an opinion. Ideas may be simple, but the particulars surrounding them that make them simple seldom are, and to explain a simple position can often illustrate how multifaceted a presumed simple point can truly be. And as you are about to discover, I am a glutton for the minutiae of facts. Facts are the unyielding foundation upon which the legitimacy of an idea stands. Finally, In March 2012 I decided to append a few of the essays I had written to test research trails as I developed this open letter. They explore the shadier side of science, and the darker and less-known side of those promoting Einstein. I have added them to more fully explain background details to answer a number of queries that have been submitted regarding this open letter. These additions have expanded the document by about 80 pages. Ignore them if you prefer. Details. Details. Details
Now, prepare yourself for a Gnostic rollercoaster ride through an extremely thick ocean of information and history, a great deal of which had in the past been intentionally hidden from us. It had been hidden in order to obstruct its otherwise easy access by us, the curious masses. Those obscuring it would prefer that we not ever see it, that we not ever be aware of it, unless we are first fully indoctrinated to their point of view, to prejudice us against competing, sometimes more valid views, but to make them instead seem like the ravings of mad men. This is not because such guarded knowledge is treacherous to our knowing. They fear that we might grok it; that we might understand that the house of cards upon which their tenures and funding and reputations are founded may in fact be tattered, outdated, or even irrelevant. Think about itTRUE scientists do not squabble over a point of view; they approach it logically and with reason, testing it, not vomit distain and ridicule upon it without a moments hesitation. Anyone doing such should immediately be made suspect. They are afraid that we will become emboldened enough to once more become independent and original thinkers, empowering us to extricate the stranglehold they otherwise grip on the throat of our thinking, thus letting loose the greater edification of our wisdom.

David Page 4 of 119

Abstract Since their initial proposals, gathered evidence has only strengthened the Electric Universe and the Expansion Tectonics theories. In spite of this, each time additional evidence surfaces, or another noted scientist declares favor for either, select advocates for competing theories pop up as if on a queue to respond with typically scripted salvos of protest, too frequently droning the same old and practiced slogan-laced retorts like Gregorian Chants, as though their need to deny the publics access to, or worse, their acceptance of such information was a matter of personal or professional survival. And it may be no wonder. In these last few decades, tenures, funding, and reputations are often decided wholly upon which theories are accepted by the general public. The Electric Universe, also known as the Plasma-Based Universe, is a theory proposing that, exactly as in biological, environmental, and nebular venues, and reflected in a comets plasma coma, solar plasma activity, and spectacular galactic plasma displays, all galaxies and indeed the entire Universe is structurally bound by electricity through the application of electrodynamics and circuit theory, not by gravity. Electricity is a force that is a thousand billion billion billion billion times more attractive between bodies than gravity, whereas the force of gravity fails entirely within the square of the distance between objects, being famously the weakest force known to science. Further, because of this tremendous force of attraction, a plasma-based model also has absolutely no need of the yet unverified presumptions of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, or any of the other expanding list of conjectures that must be assumed in order to sustain a gravity-based model. Expansion Tectonics proposes to explain why the Earth and other heavenly bodies, such as the Moon and Mars, expand, as is made evident by observed, analyzed, and measured geological evidence. Further, it has absolutely no need to rotate plates, no need to collide them, and no need to subduct them at sites of inter-plate ridges as is fundamentally required by the Plate Tectonics theory, but for which there has so far been found little empirical evidence to support such requisite assumptions. In spite of there being little or no verifiable evidence to support the currently popular Gravity-Based Universe or the Plate Tectonics theories, the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics theories have been slow to acceptance. This is not because the evidence is not there to support them, but for the fact that they threaten the currently comfortably-held views of modern relativist sciences, which depends more on mathematics and Page 5 of 119

thought experiments, which deal more in hypothetical universes and imagined scenarios than they do on an actual universe and physical events. Worse, observations made of the actual universe and physical events have a historical tendency to disprove or cripple most mathematical models. I will compare the evidence between the Electric Universe and the Gravity-Based Universe, and between Expansion Tectonics and Plate Tectonics. I will also explore the developing Prime Matter (Aether) theory that can strengthen the shaky ground upon which Particle Physics now finds itself, and also strongly links the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics to each other, making these models even more plausible.
NOTE: Electromagnetism is responsible for all interactive phenomena in daily life, with the exception of gravity. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that what we interpret as a force of gravity is now looking to be just an effect of electromagnetism. For greater elucidation on this increasingly important matter, see, for example, Physicist Wal Thornhills online articles Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe (www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs) and Newtons Electric Clockwork Solar System (www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s), or the many articles and research papers found on the late Harold Aspdens Energy Science Reports website (www.haroldaspden.com).
NOTE: In the 1905 un-annotated paper on the special theory of relativity (actually called On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), Albert Einstein (or his wife, Mileva, who had actually signed this Annalen der Physik submission, being among the first woman physicists in the world, and who Albert Einstein himself admitted exceeded him in intelligence, though Relativists constantly try to hide or downplay this fact) made the assumptionbasing it on the now-disproved assumption that the speed of light is constantthat the Aether did not exist, stating The introduction of a luminiferous ether will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an absolutely stationary space provided with special properties... This, however, in the real world, is not the case, and for several very important reasons. The primary of which is that Einsteins premise was entirely mistaken, because the special and general theories of relativity absolutely require the Aether to exist. Aether, ther, or Ether, yet now called Zero-Point Energy and by its original name, Prime Matter, previous to Relativity causing so many to lose sight of it amidst Relativitys confusion of paradoxes, had been crucial to physicists for making sense of the strangely structurally ordered dynamics of the universe, constituting the fundamental state of matter (the original Particle Physics). Indeed, Physicist James Clerk Maxwells theory of electromagnetism, upon which Physicist Hendrik Lorentz based his 1899 theory of relativity (Maxwell's partial differential equations, together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of electrodynamics, optics, and electric circuits), and the 1900 theory of relativity of Physicist Jules Henri Poincar, and upon all of which Einsteins special theory of relativity is wholly based, fundamentally requires the existence of the Aether, for without it the very structure of relativity had no basis. This was especially understood by Hendrik Lorentz, because his own theory of relativity (to include Physicists Marcel Grossmans and David Hilberts general theory of relativity, from which Einstein also filched) was rooted in his own 1892 Lorentz Aether Theory.

Page 6 of 119

Hence, Einstein was discounting what was actually fundamentally essential for the very feasibility of the theories he had taken credit for. But Einsteins action, which his followers happily emulate, removed his or his followers from ever being able to find a link between electromagnetism and gravity, even though Einstein did nothing to explain how the force of gravity operated under his own models; never bothering to explain the one critical element upon which his theories depend, but simply left gravity to somehow be its own explanation, which in the end explains nothing (though even Sir Isaac Newton famously admitted that he did not understand what constituted gravity he simply defined laws under which it appeared to operate). Given that Einsteins physics requires of gravity such a preponderance of proof, one would think it almost obligatory for relativity to fully explain and prove its special assumptions on gravity. Is it their much-touted, though assumed and yet-unfound massless graviton spin 2 boson (which, in the end, actually proves nothing about Relativity), or is it instead an echo of the tremendously more powerful forces of electromagnetism, such as through a process of radially-oriented electrostatic dipoles inside an objects protons, neutrons and electrons, as discussed in the above links for Wal Thornhill (which, in the end, actually makes Relativity unnecessary)?
SUBNOTE: In the first paragraph of the 1905 submission, Einstein noted, regarding the observed (though this is not a real physical effect) reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor, that if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighborhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives riseassuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussedto electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. I am just as puzzled as Nikola Tesla that Einstein apparently could not grok such a simple process, but instead chose to turn such logical causal events into bemused paradox. And this is fully one half of the postulate that defines his premise for Special Relativity. The other half, of course, is simply, as stated in the second paragraph that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Considering that the speed of light has now been demonstrated to be variable in accordance to the amount of matter, or rather electromagnetic fields from matter near its path, ignoring that Prime Matter (Aether) might actually determine the speed of light by the rate at which it can uniformly propagate this energy outwardly from a standing wave source, I think that this other half could also start falling apart. Further, the idea of gravity being capable of noticeably affecting electromagnetic forces, when electromagnetic forces are 1039 times more powerful than gravity simply leaves me amazed that so many people will still often blindly accept it (I must admit that Einstein at that time believed that electric and magnetic fields could not exist on their own, but required matter as a charge-carrier, though we have now known for decades that this is not the case, and that it is in fact the other way around but Relativists usually ignore this because it would tear Relativity asunder). And this is on top of the fact that good ol Newtonian Physics can actually explain everything that Relativity only claims is new physics (even though they also deny, but cannot disprove this assertion). In closing these notes, also be sure to visit Bruce Harveys most fascinating website,
www.bearsoft.co.uk, which will also help you understand much of this in laymans terms, allowing

you to select viewer comprehension to Easy, High School, or to Physicist levels.

Page 7 of 119

Introduction Imagine living in a Universe bound by Electricity rather than Gravity, and on an Earth that had once been the size of our present Moon 700 million years ago, along with a likewise smaller Moon, and both of which somehow grew by means beyond accretion of asteroids and comets. Such a vision may strike one as utter fantasy and go far beyond reason if we blindly pay heed to the proclamations chanted solemnly by the high priests of science. I must confess I had once also nodded obedient accord to their incessant incantations about what we must venerate as Scientific Truth and what we must disdain and ridicule as Heretical Anathema, I naively assuming their credentials put them into positions of superior privileged knowledge that would absolutely safeguard them from the bane of reproof. But one day, twenty years ago, I had an epiphany (it seems so obvious now) that their sacrosanct theories were not long ago also declared utter fantasy and far beyond reason. Indeed, the idea of an Electric Universe and an Expanding Earth seem outside such reason only if one will consciously ignore the swelling catalogs of empirical evidence that clearly verifies them, and at the same time to also fail to recognize the sheer lack of the empirical evidence necessary to support two of the currently beloved icons of science; a Gravity-Based Universe and Plate Tectonics.
NOTE: According to Expansion Tectonics, the Earths continental crusts were not likewise smaller, but were of their present size, save for select areas of obvious crustal stretching (the crust is nominally plastic), because continental plates are physically incapable of drifting or twisting, ever (as will be explained on page 14 ). Only the much younger oceans and sea beds could possibly expand, and even then only at the sites of mid-oceanic expansion ridges, which were at first narrow cracks in the original stretched primordial crust of the planet. As these cracks expanded, they filled in with molten basalt and quickly hardened beneath the water that naturally drained into them from the shallow seas on the higher, original crust, initially covering the whole Earth. This can similarly be seen on the surface of the Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, and other bodies that can be clearly examined, every one of them showing a higher, primordial crust, and a newer, expanded lower crust. Note further, however, that this can only be fully observed in the southern hemisphere of Mars, because the original crust of the northern hemisphere of that planet, down to several miles deep, appears to have been almost completely excavated away from the planet, as many scientists have remarked, and much of this material looks to have then been scattered across the entire surface of the planet as uncountable, sometimes titanic boulders. If ancient legends are to be believed, which have been recorded in every sacred text across the whole Earth, this destruction had been the work of the planet Venus, when, during an apparent solar upheaval, Venus for a time broke free and roamed the heavens as a great and terrible comet with a waving coronal mane like a dragon, breathing electrical interplanetary thunderbolts, striking cataclysmic destruction all across Mars and Earth, instilling such primordial fear that into the 20th Century some people were still afraid of even innocent comets.

Page 8 of 119

SUBNOTE: It is evident by satellite inspection that a large percentage of Mars northern hemisphere had been somehow stripped away from the surface of the planet. This could easily explain the presence of the Asteroid Belt and comets. However, ancient Sumerian legends also say that the Hammered Out Bracelet (the Asteroid Belt) formed when a moon from a rogue planet collided with the ancient planet Tiamat, whose upper half formed the Asteroid Belt and its lower half gelled into the Earth, though it did manage to retain its own Moon, one quarter its size (one eighth Tiamats original size). Yet, considering that the material strewn across Mars does not remotely constitute the mass lost from its northern hemisphere, it could be that it at least significantly contributed a large percentage of the asteroids, comets, and meteors. Many who study ancient world-wide legends note that the ancients claim that Saturn, or Helios as the Greeks called it, was once not just the distant bright pin-point of light we see today, but by their accounts it was once a huge globe that dominated a large portion of our ancient sky ( we will revisit these sacred legends, later). They also say that Venus and Mars were large, clearly visible objects in their primordial sky. Indeed, these ancient legends hold that Earth, Mars, Venus, and Saturn were once in constant close proximity to each other (synchronous or collinear orbits?) during a primordial golden Age. Assuming that ancient Modern Man, who was equally as intelligent, as inquisitive, and as thoughtful as we are now, were accurately reporting what they saw, they still did not report the presence of a ringed disc about Helios. It is possible that Saturn did not have rings until recent history; modern astronomers have concluded that Saturns rings are extremely young, and this is evidenced by the rate at which they are in fact fading and disappearing. To accept this, to include modern conclusions, one must also consider the possibility that a part of Mars missing mass, which was said by those legends to be raked away by fierce thunderbolts hurled from a warring Venus, might now possibly comprise the principle mass of Saturns admittedly young rings before all these planets finally resettled into their present orbits.

With knowledge comes power. With education, an open mind, and original thought comes reason and discovery. The accompanying letters will explore this evidence and clarify the many arguments that must be made within this document, such as the following:
Were you aware that the so-called soundly proven Gravity-Based Universe is no such thing, its so-called proof principally consisting of purely mathematical calculations and fantastic invented speculations where one must often accept absolutely astounding unverified assumptions to explain how such a gravity-based Universe might actually be able to work, such as the invented but yet to be verified presumptions of Black Holes, Black Hole Ejections, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or the rapid rotation of Pulsars? Did you know that Neutron Stars, which were invented to justify Pulsars, cannot actually exist? Did you know that Gravitons, a fixed Speed of Light and even Antimatter cannot be proven, contrary to loud claims made by CERN and sensationalized in Dan Browns Angels & Demons? Nor can the muchrevered Big Bang Theory or Singularities. Did you know that the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun can be soundly dismantled? Throw into that mix six types of Quarks (sub-electronic particles carrying either a 2/3 or 1/3 electron volt as positive or negative), six types of Anti-Quarks, six types of Leptons (though including electrons), thirteen Gauge Boson force carriers (virtual particles that carry the interactions of nature), and a plethora of other supposed particles and concepts, such as the Higgs Mechanism, or the massive Higgs Boson particle, which is desperately hoped to actually exist, for without it the present constructs of Particle Physics will begin unraveling. Page 9 of 119

NOTE: Antimatter is not proven, but simply assumed, and this assumption is based entirely on the detection of positrons (electrons with a positive charge), which are ejected from the center of a proton when it is dismantled. Anti-protons have never been detected, and I now strongly believe that anti-protons cannot possibly exist. As you will learn as we delve deeper into the world of Prime Matter, positrons are not anti-electrons, but they complement electrons, and together they could much more easily define the fundamental state of Matter.

All these many assumed concepts by Relativists are yet to be proven anomalies that can boggle the mind and are justified only through creative mathematical gymnastics, which are often, though surely not intentionally, contaminated by incorrect assumptions. But even so, they cannot yet be proven through laboratory verification as can an Electric Universe through the application of robust, repeatable Plasma Physics experiments.
Sadly, mathematics can be too easily contorted to prove anything, and errors accidentally embedded within them can often take decades to realize, making it more mythematical (see page 115) than being reflective of any reality. Albert Einstein even cautioned physicists about this. I like quoting Geoff Haselhursts perceptive interpretation of Einsteins effort: Mathematics does not describe reality, just its quantities. In typical wit, Einstein mused in 1920, As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

One of the reasons Albert Einstein, who believed only in purely mathematical endeavors, or thought experiments as he called them, disdained laboratory experiments were because they tended to disprove his theories, as his own early endeavors into them demonstrated. This is why he gave up and settled into exclusive, obsessive mathematical activities. Though supremely arrogant, which might surprise those who have been lulled by his widely promoted, publicly humble persona, Einstein nonetheless claimed that he was not averse to being wrong, and to his credit he argued against ideas some physicists extrapolated from theories he proposed, often through mistakes in application. The adherents to modern science-by-consensus claim that if you do not fully understand their complex, convoluted rules and laws, then you are simply too stupid to argue against them. And that premise is simply too stupid in and of itself. When science becomes a realm of pure mathematics and not of observation, evaluation, and verification, then science ceases to be science, but rather it becomes a make-believe playground of mythematics, where anything can be proven if given the optimal obfuscating complexity. Page 10 of 119

In fact, the actual gathered and meticulously documented evidence that is currently amassed by eminent data-gathering agencies, such as NASA, plus the meticulous observations made by astronomers, astrophysicists, and others, cannot yet verify their own established Gravity-Based Universe theories, even though the ambassadors for these theories (and mind you, they are simply theories), perhaps in a state of self-righteous (or closed-minded) determination, maintain that it does, sometimes beyond all evidence. Worse, we are expected to accept their pontifications without question, as though argument equals ignorance, even when all data clearly points to a simpler and easier-to-understand Universe that is bound by Electricity. But this massive body of rock-solid evidence supporting a plasma-based universe has been somehow deemed unimportant by relativist science, all because it does not support theories they assume to be fact, and so you will hear them argue that there may be yet one more calculation that must be made, or one more particle that must be invented and named to truss up support for their own vision of the universe. How embarrassing it must be for these scientists to spend billions of our tax dollars in efforts to verify their theories, when the returned data flatly denies them, instead proving ideas they condemn as heretical. News articles usually report that they are mystified by the results and/or they must go back to the drawing board, whereupon they are forced, typically by a need to remain relevant, to invent a new subatomic particle or property or principle, backed up by all sorts of complex mythematical formulae to prove something that might not actually be provable, but they will accept it and defend it with unconditional fervor as long as it can be used to prop up their own revered suppositions (just look at the spaghetti mess that Particle Physics now finds itself in, for example). Consider that the recent close examination and study of comets and asteroids by NASA and other agencies have resulted in nothing but an overkill of impasses for relativist science because none of the gathered results have so far fit their expectations, such as their data actually disproving that comets were the loosely packed dirty snowballs they had for so long believed them to be (though such a supposition makes little sense to lay persons with just a nodding understanding of astrophysics). Starting with the many probes sent to Halleys Comet by the Soviets, ESA, and Japan in 1986, and more remarkably of the Deep Impact probe sent to comet Temple I in 2005, the gathered data totally mystified them because none of their theories or predictions was verified. However, everything was not only expected, but predicted by Wal Thornhill, an Australian Page 11 of 119

physicist and a protagonist for the Electric Universe (www.thunderbolts.info), when observing these events based on a model of electrodynamics and circuit theory (but not on the notion of electrostatics, which many detractors of the Electric Universe naively surmise).
NOTE: The Dirty Snowball Theory was proposed in 1950 by Astronomer Fred L. Whipple. At the time, scientists mistakenly believed that electric and magnetic fields could not exist without the presence of sufficient matter as a charge-carrier (this explains why cosmologists ignore the immense electric currents required to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields) and they thought a comet was too small to store sufficient energy to generate such an effect, not yet understanding how the Sun is able to electrically charge it. Hence, in order to explain a comets coma and tail, he developed the idea that they might be made up of water and gas jets. As this idea slowly grew to become the consensus standard model, it was realized that such comets would very rapidly degrade and quickly run out of fuel. Hence, it had to further be assumed that the solar system must therefore periodically re-supply them, so Dutch Astronomer Jan Oort proposed that a vast hoard of icy objects (the Oort Cloud) might encase the solar system that was a thousand times more distant from the Sun than Pluto. This idea appeared the most plausible to explain these presumed icy comets in light of the Solar Nebula Theory, which assumed the solar system formed from a collapsed gas cloud, where lighter elements, such as water, stayed on the outside (an idea still debated because the faltering but still-supported Thermonuclear Model of the Sun places lighter elements on the inside). In 1992, because all known new objects orbited the solar system much closer than the Oort Cloud, the Kuiper Belt was proposed, which assumed a loose disc of left-over planetary material from the orbit of Neptune out to 30 AU, from which all short-term comets were assumed to arrive. The 2004 Stardust mission to Comet Wild 2 spelled the end of the Ort Cloud, because the comet dust collected and returned to Earth could not possibly have formed in the presumed Oort zone. For more details, see the video When Planets Gave Birth to Comets at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iky2k8MtMno.
SUBNOTE: It was also thought icy comets were necessary to explain the presence of water on Earth and Jupiters moon Europa, but this, if you really think about itthat comets could somehow miss all the other planetoids and collide exclusively with those two bodiesis ridiculous. SUBNOTE: Fred L. Whipple (1906-2004), whos career in astronomy spanned 70 years, confirmed in 1931 that meteors originated within the solar system, not from interstellar space.

Considering that 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe is highly energetic electrified plasma and that electricity is 1039 times more powerful than gravity, it is hard to understand why establishment science still claims the effects of the Universes pervasive electrical nature is nil when weighed against the truly pathetic, weak forces of gravity, when the entire universe is literally crackling with electricity. In comparison, the entire force of Earths gravity can hold a steel ball bearing to the ground, yet a childs toy magnet, which was polarized (magnetized) by an electric field, and against all that force of gravity, can easily pick it up. Page 12 of 119

NOTE: In their book, The Electric Universe, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott reported that Hannes Alfvn, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1970 for his fundamental discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics (he is the acknowledged founder of the study), erroneously theorized early in his career that magnetic fields appeared frozen-in to superconducting plasma, isolating such electrical processes, because it was assumed sufficient matter needed to be present to act as a charge-carrier so that electric and magnetic fields could exist, although this has been proven not only to be wrong, but it was in fact the other way around, which makes electric and magnetic fields essential for understanding the orderly make-up of the Universe. Even so, this mistaken premise still underpins cosmologys modern interpretation of magnetism in space, somehow giving them permission to ignore the unimaginatively immense electric currents needed to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields, regardless that this assumption has been disproven, in addition to their wrongly assuming electrodynamics and fluid dynamics work alike, even though, due to the presence of its charged particles in powerful electromagnetic fields, cosmic plasma behaves entirely unlike neutral gases. Alfvn, later realizing his early theory was monumentally shortsighted because it was discovered that matter was not required to act as a charge-carrier, but that plasma itself acted as that carrier, used the occasion of receiving the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier mistaken work. He said that magnetic fields are only one component of plasma science. The electric currents that generate magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents and circuits will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis.
SUBNOTE: Space has been proven not to be electrically neutral, as is made evident by the display of the Aurora Borealis, which results from electrical discharges from the Sun, specifically electrically charged particles that move along magnetic lines. Further, magnetic lines are created only by electric currents, and electric currents are required to sustain them. But even so, for some reason certain scientists handily ignore this proven evidence because it simply is not conducive to their own opinions which assume gravity is the more powerful affecting force.

NOTE: Another reason classical cosmology ignores Plasma is that the Big Bang assumes that there was not enough energy in the Universe to have created and maintained significant numbers of loose ions and electrons through ionization of atoms, which means that Plasma should not be saturating the universe, even though it does , being that Plasma constitutes 99.99% of all matter. Yet, mainstream science will brush aside this fact because it does not conform to their theories. The Big Bang assumes charged particles of electrons and ions formed first (which strangely sounds like Plasma to me ). Next, all these protons and electrons later combined to form primordial atoms. Later, some of these primordial atoms ionized (separated and became charged particles) to form the Plasma we have today. Given that premise, it can easily be argued that a colossal amount of energy would naturally be ejected when charged ions and electrons (Plasma) combined into atoms, and their dispersed energy would in fact be readily available to re-ionize massive quantities of atoms, rendering Big Bangs argument totally groundless. Even so, it makes much more sense that most of these free electrons and ions did not initially form atoms in the first place, but rather they simply remained in the initial, primordial Plasma state.
SUBNOTE: 99.99% of all detected matter is Plasma. The rest of matter is atoms, of which 90% of these atoms is Hydrogen, 10% is Helium, and all other elements constitute only trace amounts.

Page 13 of 119

Likewise, gathered geological evidence in no way supports Plate Tectonics, which postulates that an original super-continent called Pangaea once existed on one side of an Earth that was about the same size as now, later breaking up and twisting in all manner of directions, sliding about on deep viscous mantle through oceanic crust, often going against the laws of hydrodynamics and geology, and resulting in its present formation. And this is on top of the fact that the oceanic basalt the granite continental plates are supposedly twisting around in and plowing through is much denser than the continental crust, making such drifting and twisting impossible. Granted, South America looks like it was once butted up against Africa (as a child, I had even noticed this), and North America against Eurasia. And that is because they did, and geological evidence, such as the Mid-Atlantic Expansion Ridge, supports that, but not in the manner that Plate Tectonics advocates surmise, simply because there is more than this single ridge, but many mid-ocean expansion ridges across the planet, making the world look like the outer surface of a geode stone, which cracks and fills those cracks with silicates as its insides crystallize and grow. Besides, if continents actually did drift about on a supposed viscous, liquid mantle, fluid dynamics would force continents to sink in order to maintain equilibrium with an oceanic crust that is half as thick as the original crust of the planet. However, this so-called soft, fluid mantle is in fact twice as dense as the granite of the continental crust, also making such willy-nilly continental drifting impossible. Further, this supposed original Pangaea Super-Continent in a world ocean can actually be proven to be physically unworkable using simple laws of hydrodynamics. Put simply, the central half of Pangaea would have had to have been submerged below the surface of the world ocean, and there would also have been a large swath of exposed ocean bottom, about the size of that which had sunk on Pangaea, but on the exact opposite side of the planet (this explanation will be elaborated on and more succinctly explained on page 37). In contrast, actual existing geological evidence and scientific measurements do support an expanding Earth through meticulous satellite and ground-based measurements of its slowly expanding diameter that cannot be attributed to the much slower accretion of asteroids, comets, and space dust, forcing periodic GPS updates, which can easily extrapolate to an expanding Moon, Mars, Sun, and everything else, to include galaxies, galactic clusters, and progenitors of all other celestial bodies. Page 14 of 119

NOTE: In August 2011 NASA again declared the Earth is not expanding (see www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254), even though their data flatly states otherwise. This is an annual event. But you have to understand their need to stay in good graces with relativist science and so continue to be heralded as the solid bastion of science, and so they must consequentially support Plate Tectonics as a theory that provides a model for a static-sized Earth, even if accepted geological evidence does not support it. But even so, in that very same statement they then turn around and conclude that the Earth is in fact expanding at a rate of 0.1 millimeter each year. Such expansion is still greater than the average annual accretion of meteors, asteroids, comets, and space dust. Worse, the 0.1mm value only results after they first zero out the ~18 millimeter annual increase that their satellite measurements report (which is something they often forget to report). When confronted about it, they claim this annual ~18mm value is an error in atmospheric correction. But this is odd, considering that the previous years base-level Earth diameter they use to compute the current years diameter strangely reflects the diameter they had to reject during the previous year, but they must now accept it in order to keep the margin of error of their current correction narrow. Further, independent measurements of seafloor spreading clearly show as much as a 22 millimeter per year increase in Earths diameter. This 18mm to 22mm expansion rate is right in tune with estimates made by Expansion Tectonics. These readings are not exclusive, for they can only compliment each other. If one shows an increase, the other must reflect it.
SUBNOTE: NASAs argument for the Earth not expanding fails to explain why GPS satellite data must still be periodically updated to offset all oceans slowly increasing their dimensions. Were Earth not expanding, as they publicly maintain, none of those updates would be necessary. And if continental plates drifted, they would also narrow at some points, but such evidence does not exist. Further, if continents actually subducted to offset an expansion, there is as of yet no evidence for that. Likewise, the assertion that the Himalayan Mountains are an example of such subduction is wholly unscientific speculation and it so far has no supporting geological evidence. To see why, also be sure to see Neal Adams video on this matter at www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html.

As an interesting mental exercise, consider taking a spherical map of the Earth and cutting out all of its seas and oceans, and then simply fasten the remaining land masses together. Strangely enough, they fit and close up almost perfectly on a much smaller Earth. This is true on all sides of it. Australia and Antarctica fit together and fill up and nearly close the Pacific, neatly joining Eastern Asia with the Western Americas. The land masses fill in and close up, all without drift or subduction, showing what the earth looked like about 70 million years ago. Also, if many areas of the continental shelves that were clearly stretched by this global expansion were again recompressed, the globe would close up perfectly. How does one explain that? Where were the oceans? How does a planet grow? Do massive asteroid impacts, generating colossal explosions of energy, somehow initiate planetary mass expansion? Why are the ocean floors generally from 1 year to 70 million years old, and the oldest small portions of them being from 185 to 280 million years old, when the currently existing continental crust is billions of years old? Why is that? We will also explore those questions in these letters. Page 15 of 119

NOTE: See Neal Adams video at www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html to see what a smaller Earth looks like, basing those images on actual measured geological data.

NOTE: The Earth was initially a shallow ocean planet after it cooled enough to hold free-standing water on its flat, smooth crust. But when the Earth finally expanded beyond the stress limits of this original granite crust, the crust cracked, and the shallow seas began to drain off into these new expanding rills, which after tens of millions of years eventually formed broad ocean beds (the tremendous force of this draining may also be the cause for catastrophic landslides that fossilized vast swaths of early sea life within those original shallow seas). Once significant dry land appeared, about two-thirds of the Earths total surface remained submerged. Indeed, until about 60 million years ago, some tracts of the presently exposed continental crust of the Earth remained submerged as what we now call shallow inland seas. Being that the earliest crust of the Earth is now almost all exposed land, save for what we presently call the continental shelves, portions of which had been exposed land during recent glaciation periods, this would also explain why no very ancient aquatic fossils are ever found in the much younger oceanic crust, but only on what is now dry land. This also means that until about 70 million years ago mountains did not exist, which resulted from natural crustal compression and buckling as the Earth expanded. This also means that many mountain ranges might not have had to evolve over millions of years, as it is generally assumed, but some may have actually formed in a matter of days, weeks, months, or years as dramatic, cataclysmic events. Also consider the Appalachian Mountains. For years they were thought to be eroded, worn down mountains, much older than the Rocky Mountains, yet new data shows them to be in pristine condition, but they are simply buried beneath soil hauled over them by frequent glaciation, which did not occur as frequently in the Rocky Mountains.

The distressing news to the ears of the professors of modern science-byconsensus is that there is now more scientific evidence supporting an Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and there is likewise an utter dearth of evidence supporting their own suppositions, rendering their current consensus theories more and more irrelevant. Indeed, larger and ever-growing bodies of scientists are now turning to the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics simply because there is actual science to support them, not just empty assumptions. The current, aging consensus theories are now looking more and more like the emperors new clothes.
A true scientist is naturally skeptical, though they hunger to understand everything. Their goal is not to simply verify theories, but to test and perhaps disprove them so that better theories can be developed. But modern postgraduate education is not designed that way, where you must follow rules that border on religious doctrine, accept and chant existing theories as Rote and Truth, and take anything else as heretical and worthy of ridicule. Interestingly, just 50 to 100 years ago these present established theories

Page 16 of 119

were just as heretical. Why was it that back then it was the students who challenged the established and older and credentialed academics with new concepts in science? But now it seems to be the older academics who present the revolutionary ideas, challenging the idealism of the younger generation of academics who have been somehow trained to be locked into a fixed universe of rigid rules of collective reason, and especially when many of these elder academics were once the source of the rote these young academics chant?

Science used to be all about breaking from older theories and exploring new concepts. Indeed, one used to make their mark in science by exploring new avenues that often went against the grain of the sciences being taught in the halls of academia. This once even gave one notoriety and consideration, but seldom distain (though maybe some quizzical looks). Science used to rightly be a culture of doubt and dissent. But that was before science became a religion. Now, science will not tolerate doubt or dissent. Modern academia has become a creed whose adherents believe that they are the inheritors of Ultimate Truth, and nothing new can exist that can break these hallowed laws. What kind of real scientist still holds to an idea even when all evidence will go against it; when their own evidence of proof may sometimes contradict their own theories? Cases in point are the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun, the Big Bang, and Black Holes. We will explore the fallacies in these theories as well. And science is not about proof by consensus. As the late Professor Sam Warren Carey once told Dr. James Maxlow, both protagonists for Expansion Tectonics, if 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy. Sadly, many of the academics with whom I discuss such issues, who promote the ideal of an open, considerative mind, thinking it a most noble and admirable quality, expect that the open mind should be an asset required of those who will oppose their opinions, but not something requisite of themselves. As the late Sir Lawrence Gardner once said regarding such elemental thinking, Intuitive skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely nothing. Were you on board a ship over a deep ocean abyss and were given a choice to wear a life preserver or to have a granite bolder tied to your ankle before you were to be tossed overboard, but you were first informed that the life preserver, under certain very rare circumstances, might actually make you sink faster, which of them would be your choice? This is the choice we now face in science. Page 17 of 119

The Letters The following are letters originally dated 12 August, 2011 to 8 Sept, 2011, featuring additional notes, expansions, corrections, and research, and are stored here for reference, which explores the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and how I believe that they are in fact inexorably connected. As stated in a separate reply to Dr. James Maxlow, in an attempt to clarify grammatical anomalies in my initial quickly posted emails, my mind sometimes races so fast that my grammar suffers for it when I attempt to pin it to text, such as when I accidentally run sentences together, and particularly when I frantically seek to keep pace with my speeding streams of consciousness and I skip the last half of one sentence and the first half of the next, or my (stupid) word processors autocorrect function misrepresents my intent. As a result, I typically make a habit of editing a document to absolute death before I feel that I finally have got it right. But at the same time I keep adding, altering, or trimming its details, adjusting it to satisfy my incessant need to give my text a rhythmic cadence, to give it a Gnostic structure, and to give it, as needed, an abundance of supporting details, so it always grows much longer and much more detailed when compared to the original draft. I generally do not try to transmit my writing until I can review it entirely and not feel the slightest need to alter anything (as can be attested to by this document, originally 16 pages, growing constantly since it was first published), which sometimes takes weeks or even months. The following is an example of what can transpire in just a matter of a few months, and may give you a hint of the work that I put into even a simple email. God knows what this would look like in a year. More than once I have written short papers that have in time become books of several hundred pages. Letter of 13 August 2011
The following elaborations are based on a 13 August, 2011 letter, which had the 12 August 2012 letter (see page 26) appended to it, sent to British geologist James Maxlow (www.jamesmaxlow.com) :

This letter regards the possible explanation for the Earth, and hence other celestial bodies, expanding on web page 2 of your Expansion Tectonics paper found on your detailed and most informative website, located at
www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=5&MMN_position=4:4

under the heading, What is causing the Earth to expand? Even as a child I was aware of the Earth expanding, primarily due to my total fascination with Earth Science and space exploration, but I had initially assumed that Page 18 of 119

it was due to meteoric and asteroid/comet accretion, and compounded by the constant attraction and accumulation of dust and comet-tail debris that permeates our orbital space, but all of this still did not compensate for the much greater rate of planetary expansion that satellite measurements taken by NASA and physical measurements taken by geologists have reported.
NOTE: Since this letter, Dr. Maxlow had sent me a copy of his new Extended Expansion Tectonics paper, which he was at the time preparing to present in Sicily.

In hindsight, I recall thinking that gravity had to be weaker in the far distant past so to support the more gigantic dinosaurs. Even though most dinosaurs were of a smaller sort, and that even Velociraptor was actually half the size that Steven Spielberg depicted in his Jurassic Park movies, perhaps mistaking length for height (but likely for dramatic effect), those of giant Theropoda (Beast Feet ) origin, such as the carnivourous Allosaurus, Gigantosaurus, or Tyrannosaurus, a suborder of bipedal Saurischian (lizard-hipped) dinosaurs from which birds descended, they still had avian skeletal structures, albeit greater bone size, but that still did not translate to less hollow bones, and which, having hollow bones, those bones could not have supported them in our present gravity. For example, if an elephant, normally having solid, dense bones, instead had non-avian dinosaur bones, even if those bones were proportionally scaled to match elephantine length and girth, the elephant would simply collapse as those bones not just simply broke, but shattered. I have made a point to introduce the ideas of the late Dr. Samuel Warren Carey, and the continuation of his work through yourself and Neal Adams (www.nealadams.com/index.php/science/read-watch-learn), to Wal Thornhill and David Talbott (www.thunderbolts.info), protagonists for the Electric Universe Theory. Their theory is gaining strength through the data gathering by all related fields of science, though it is largely ignored because that data, time and again, is not proving what the establishment scientists know that the data should be proving, basing those judgments on their own consensus speculations of reality. Self-imposed blinkers can be a terrible thing, especially for those who in fact know the bearing that this data actually has on their own theories, but must deny the results or else find their funding and tenures drying up, or fearing that their lifes work will simply evaporate. For example, Classical Cosmology is plagued by anomalous quirks and contradictions that require a plethora of invented assumptions in order to sustain its gravity-based model, such as black holes, dark matter, dark Page 19 of 119

energy, singularities, and other oddities. On the other hand, the Electric Universe neatly and clearly explains the natures of galaxies, the sun, and the planets, to include being able to easily explain all the many anomalies that cannot be explained by a gravity-based model. Indeed, all research that NASA and the ESA have conducted regarding asteroids and comets have done nothing but validate the Electric Universe model.
NOTE: As we shall explore later in a much more detailed collection of notes (see page 61), and as shocking as this may sound to many of Einsteins greatest advocates in mainstream relativistic science, Einstein, nor his equations, allowed for, nor did they ever permit the existence of black holes!

Personally, I believe the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics are solidly connected by Neal Adams Prime Matter theory. To me, this theory can fully explain how celestial bodies grow (and even if it does not, something is making them grow, even if we cannot explain it). Other theories are too inadequate, such as asteroid/comet/dust accretion, because it is not substantial enough to reflect actual measurements; or pulsating planets, because there is a marked lack of evidence to reflect contraction; or an initial super-dense core, because it implies a too large surface gravity up through the Late Paleozoic, and contradicts ancient life form densities, which all would imply a much lower gravity. Further, none of these theories address the apparent increases in plasma mass within isolated nebulas that do not appear to be accreting from other decomposed stars. The Electric Universe easily explains why stars are powered by the natural plasmoid at their galactic centers (which is not a black hole) through interconnected, naturally-occurring Birkeland Currents (powerful but typically invisible spiraled streams of electricity electric circuits in space, and also in the lab, will twist around each other in polarized pairs, operating something like Galactic Plasma Ejections), recognized by their signature hum. The planets are likewise powered from the Sun in the same manner. And so too are the Moons from their planets, which sometimes have several currents. From this, I firmly believe that it is the Electric Universe that is the actual medium for the creation of Matter from Prime Matter.
NOTE: Prime Matter was first posited by Aristotle as a raw stuff that is the matter of the elements and makes elemental change possible; a possibility that can exist only as actualized in some determinate matter, and is what persists when one contrariety is replaced by another and the nature of an element changes. In later times this mysterious, invisible substance was called the Aether, and even more recently as Zero-Point Energy; the material from which all Matter derives. This differs from the cosmological assumption of Dark Matter, which is presumed to be composed of sundry sub-atomic particles, but in a different state from Standard Matter in that it will

Page 20 of 119

not reflect or impede light (which would be impossible because its subatomic particles will emit electromagnetic fields, which will reflect or impede light). It also seems their definition for a Primal Matter (Particle Physics) is also much too complex, being populated by an enormous glut of elementary particles and their antiparticles, all of which goes against a natural order of existence that consistently dictates that nature will always derive more complex constructs from less complex components that are few in diversity. Bricks are not made from brick houses .
SUBNOTE: Einstein denied the existence of the Aether, even though his own relativity theories are critically dependant upon its existence. See the SUBNOTE on page 6 for details. This is why the field of Particle Physics was developed, to explain the fundamental state of matter in terms of Einsteins physics, even though it is now faulting and is in constant need of new assumptions.

Neal Adams proposed that there is only one prime element, which is Prime Matter (see http://continuitystudios.net/prime.html, or www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jRcZx6LCA). Prime Matter, like magnets, has a positive and negative charge, but has an inward-facing electromagnetic field, thus making it outwardly charge neutral; hence invisible and undetectable. As such, it is in fact, unlike the assumption of Dark Matter, not able to impede light or to reflect it, but unlike the assumption for Dark Matter, it will not distort space, all simply because of its inward-facing electromagnetic field. The Omniverse is filled with this stuff, each particle being billions of times smaller than a Hydrogen atom (whose volume is like having a baseball stadium-sized space for matter that is the size of a baseball). It is the outwardly bloomed EM field of an atom that gives it this greater field of volume, because a Prime Matter particle only has just twice the density of an Electron.
SUBNOTE: A Prime Matter particle (I prefer wave, but that is harder to visualize) has inwardfacing electromagnetic fields because its positive charge is at its center, and its negative charge is wrapped around it like a shell. As such, it is outwardly charge neutral and therefore cannot be detected by any of our current instruments, which all so far detect only electromagnetic energy.

Because Prime Matter can interact, such as transfer energy, it tends to interact, which will cause eddies and currents. As such, our Universe is likely a small collection of this stuff caught between two rotating layers of Prime Matter, looking like the atmospheric bands around Jupiter or Saturn, much like a bubble trapped between two layers of water currents traveling at different speeds. In such a circumstance, our Universe will begin to rotate, inducing tremendous torque, which inevitably causes collisions, friction, and energy interactions, any of which can split the charges of a Prime Matter particle apart into two charged half-particles as an Electron and a Positron; two half-particles of equal mass but of opposite charge. They are naturally attracted to each other and tend to reunite, releasing the incredible energy that had split them, becoming once again a Prime Matter particle. But it is what can happen in the interim that is important to us, which we now are about to get into. But if you are too anxious to find out, explore Neals overview document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58869775/Prime-Matter-The-Explanation-for-Atoms-Neal-Adams.

It must be noted that when Prime Matter is separated by a tremendous force, such as torque, it splits into charged components as an Electron and a Positron (there is no actual need for Antimatter, which a Positron is traditionally viewed as simply being a positively charged Electron), thus blooming outwardly their electromagnetic fields, giving them detectPage 21 of 119

ability and a greater apparent mass. The Positron is quickly coated by multiple layers of Prime Matter, which is abundant and attracted to the cohesive charge of the Positron, to the extent of the Positrons bonding field, resulting in a coating of 918 particles of Prime Matter, yielding 1838 electron weight, which is adding the central positron and the equallyweighted electromagnetic energy separating the positron from its electron. This becomes what we call a Proton (we will examine Particle Physics view on this in a moment), and would precisely explain why a proton is 99.9456% of the mass of a Hydrogen atom (the electron is 1/1838th the total weight). The central Positron attracts a free Electron, an opposite half-particle, but the coating of Prime Matter acts as a buffer and shields the Electron from reconnecting with the Positron at their core by implementing the energy that separated the Electron and Positron, which would normally be released if the Electron and Positron reconnected. Hence, matter is acquired, first as Plasma, then as an atom of Hydrogen, to be exact, out of what appears to our sophisticated electromagnetic measuring equipment as nothingness.
NOTE: The 918 Prime Matter particles, plus the free positron and an equal weight of electromagnetic energy, have a combined electron weight of 1838, which is 919 x 2, indicating that each Prime Matter particle has two half-particles that are each equal to 1 electron weight. This can also explain exactly why the gravitational acceleration between two free protons is 1836 times greater than between two free electrons.
SUBNOTE: Although it is clearly more logical to consider this acceleration as electromagnetic rather than gravitational, it is from this that we acquire what we normally interpret as gravity. SUBNOTE: Having a universe comprised of Prime Matter, itself composed of electrons and positrons (balancing out one-to-one), then the only energy in the Universe is the Electromagnetic Energy that separates free electrons and positrons, yielding a perfectly balanced universe.

To beat an exhausted (or dead) horse, in order to drive this idea home, it is my view that the nature of an Electric Universe can be the only force within our Universe that can be behind such matter conversion. This impression, which Electric Universe advocates seem to have yet to become aware of, or at least to openly recognize, would work hand-inhand with it, and like the Electric Universe Theory, denies any need for a Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, pulsars, or even quarks.
NOTE: Quarks, along with electrons, according to currently accepted theory from the Standard Model of Particle Physics, are what make up Matter. This theory states that a proton is made up of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark.
SUBNOTE: The above generally accepted assumption still does not explain why the gravitational acceleration between two free protons is 1836 times greater than between two free electrons. It does, however, make the argument for the Prime Matter theory stronger, which can explain it.

Page 22 of 119

The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a theoretical framework developed to describe all its assumed elementary particles, to include the speculated Higgs boson. A Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that the Standard Model desperately hopes to actually exist, because its existence could resolve critical mathematical inconsistencies in Particle Physics, not to mention it would justify the speculated Higgs field, which is the crucial underpinning of the entire field of Particle Physics, in addition to being a critical requirement for the viability of the so-called Higgs mechanism, which is used to explain how most known elementary particles obtain mass.
SUBNOTE: An outwardly bloomed electromagnetic field would explain this so-called Higgs mechanism much more simply, because the outward blooming of their electromagnetic fields would also affect the expression of the fields constituting the separated electron and positron.

According to Particle Physics, sub-electronic quarks supposedly come in six flavors, named Up, Down, Strange , Charm, Bottom, and Top, to include their anti-quark counterparts, even though none have yet been detected and all are still hypothetical.

But, because Prime Matter has intertwined and inward-facing electromagnetic fields, the transfer of energy across clumps of interacting Prime Matter particles may be what scientists are misinterpreting as Quarks, Gluons, etc. In consideration of this, the Standard Model of Particle Physics is very likely making what should be a very simple process a whole lot more complicated than needs require, which would also clearly indicate that the structure of matter plainly needs review and revision. Even more details on Prime Matter are forthcoming throughout this document.
SUBNOTE: Considering the trouble that Particle Physics now finds itself in, one has to wonder how they can justify spending billions in tax dollars building particle accelerators and colliders in attempts to prove assumptions that do stand up to scrutiny. I am still trying to understand why they assume that the central positron, which holds a proton together, is somehow an anti-electron. And were that it was in fact an anti-electron, how can this extrapolate to the possibility for anti-protons?

NOTE: Pulsars are clearly electrical, working like simple Relaxation Oscillators, not spinning at physically impossible rates as is assumed by Classical Cosmology, which is typically 300 revolutions per second; dentist drill speed. Classical Cosmology responded to this impossible rotation challenge by claiming that these super-spinning Pulsars therefore have to be super-dense Neutron Stars, being so dense and with such a powerful gravity that they cannot fly apart.
Neutron Stars were invented by Classical Cosmologists to be a special type of black hole Pulsar that is said to be a highly magnetized collapsed star composed of very densely packed neutrons. Yet, a foundational principle in Neuclear Physics called the Island of Stability states that an atomic nucleus outside the range of 1.5 neutrons to 1 proton in heavy elements, or 1-to-1 in light elements, will spontaneously decay (a subdued term that actually means that it will instantly fly apart) in order to remain in a stable state of equilibrium. Thus, according to the laws of Nuclear Physics, a Neutron Star quite clearly cannot possibly exist.
SUBNOTE: Electricity is the only force that is capable of creating and sustaining magnetic fields in space. There are absolutely no exceptions to this rule.

NOTE: The possibility or impossibility of Black Holes, because it is an extremely touchy subject of profound scientific politics, will be better examined on page 61.

Page 23 of 119

Being that electricity is 1039, or a thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than gravity (gravity is the absolutely weakest force known to science), it is clear that it is the naturally powerful force of electricity, not gravity, that binds the universe. The mysterious force that is presumed to be gravity, which is still not understood (Newton never even claimed to understand it), may simply be a misunderstood effect of electromagnetism, and can explain why the massless hypothetical graviton (a presumed spin 2 boson force carrier) has never been found. A Universe based on electricity can be used to discount any physical need for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or the Big Bang Theory, where these inventions play like last-ditch cover stories for the failure of gravitational theory.
NOTE: Dark Matter was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for what was assumed to be missing mass in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters (not required in an Electric Universe), and is also used to make the Big Bang possible (even though there is still no conclusive proof, save for speculation about redshift presuming a Doppler effect, which will soon be argued, that the universe is expanding at all), and is required to justify the prevailing view that gravity and inertia are the constructs that hold the Universe together. However, unlike charge-neutral Prime Matter, were Dark Matter present, its gravitational fields would affect Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which Prime Matter does not, being charge neutral. The CMBR was discovered in 1964 and is itself touted as evidence proving the Big Bang because of its assumed smooth distribution of temperature, even though it clearly does no such thing. The Big Bang would require the black body temperature (an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation) of the CMBR to be 5-7 Kelvin, but it is 2.725 Kelvin, too low for the Big Bang to even be possible, but which is almost exactly the 2.8 Kelvin predicted for a Plasma/Electric Universe. Further, the Big Bang requires an abundance of, and an even density of the light elements Helium-4, Lithium-7, and Deuterium (Hydrogen-2; Hydrogen with an added neutron), when if all the required Dark Matter were present, it is not possible to produce as much Deuterium as is detected. Also, the even density of ordinary matter based on these light elements is crucial to the Big Bang, but this is busted because light element abundances predict contradictory densities. Further, even with all the Dark Matter required to support the Big Bang, it only supports a Universe that is a maximum of 8 billion years old, which is odd when you consider that we have observed stars that are precisely calculated to being 13.7 billion years old. Therefore, the only two things that this CMBR, light element density, and temperature evidence proved was that there was no such thing as Dark Matter and the Big Bang did not occur. That and the Big Bang had the rate of universal expansion off by an astounding order of magnitude of 10108 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), which is by any measure most definitely an error that cannot be ignored.

Page 24 of 119

However, Big Bang advocates then countered by then proposing a further assumption of an undetectable Dark Energy that might accelerate Universal expansion so it would be older than it appears, thus adjusting the calculated age to 15 billion years, though they now state its maximum age at 13.7 billion years.
I just wonder what they will do if it is discovered that the Universe is 70 billion, or even trillions of years old? Will they then invent Strange Matter to slow it back down? How long can it go on until the Big Bang collapses under the weight of its growing list of unproven assumptions? As it is, based on all current evidence, according to the best estimates made by Physicist Dr. Eric Lerner, the chance that the Big Bang Theory is actually true is only 1 in 100,000,000,000,000, or 1 in 100 trillion.

NOTE: Eric J. Lerner (http://bigbangneverhappened.org), President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., stated The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.
SUBNOTE: The Big Bang claims the universe can only be a maximum of 27.4 billion lightyears across (13.7 billion lightyear radius for an equal number of years of existence), but it has been shown and also widely reported to actually be as much as 156 billion lightyears across, and likely larger. That gives it a radius of 78 billion lightyears or more, and so an age that would be about 64.3 billion years longer than the Big Bang theory can account for. Theoretical physicists reacted by assuming the possibility of faster-than-light inflation in the early universe. Such an assumption might be possible if Singularities even exist, which is now looking to be extremely unlikely. Being that all data indicates that there is only a 1 in 100 trillion chance that the Big Bang even happened, black holes, which are supposedly justified by singularities and spawned the Big Bang (though it cannot yet be explained how one could possibly explode), are just as unlikely (see page 61).

So, how old is the Universe, especially if it is even expanding, which is not yet verified? It is becoming clear that the observed redshift, used by Hubbles Law to calculate the speed of galaxies, like a Doppler Effect, has more to do with ages of objects, such as scientifically sound photon-photon collisions in denser, more energetic bodies, under a youth-redshift-degeneracy model (see the paper by Katherine M. Blundell and Steve Rawlings of Oxford University Astrophysics, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910157v1.pdf), developed to explain how high-redshift objects, like Quasars, can be closer to us than low-redshift objects, like galaxies, that are clearly shown to be behind or even connected to Quasars, which Halton C. Arp, a modern day Galileo (see www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm, or www.haltonarp.com), outlined in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (see http://arpgalaxy.com for details), which ultimately deposes the presumption of the redshift Doppler premise. Also be sure to review the paper, The Redshift Revisited, by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227...13A. We will also explore Edwin Hubbles serious doubts about his very own redshift-distance law on page 35.

Based in part on John K. Harms work (see page 27), among others, such as Geoff Haselhurst, I believe Electrons and Positrons are never particles but always spherical waves of energy (also see my notes on page 67). Harms proposed that Electrons were waves of energy because all electrical phenomenons are wavelike. But it is only natural that its exact reflection, a Page 25 of 119

Positron (not Antimatter), is likewise a wave of energy, though it might be better to describe them not as waves, but rather more visually as spheres of energy , or knots of energy, self-bound by strong intertwined electromagnetic fields, maybe like a torus (donut) or most likely a plasmoid (standing wave). This concept of Prime Matter would also eliminate and render moot the need for antimatter.

A strangely romanticized concept of particle physics, a Positron as Antimatter was labeled as such three generations ago when scientists found that when a Positron and an Electron united, they released a lot of energy and disappeared. This is because when they join, the tremendous energy that held them apart is released, and when the two half-particles rejoin as a single Prime Matter particle, their electromagnetic fields again fold inward and render them undetectable to instruments, this being misinterpreted as annihilation. But this is clearly a misunderstood notion. Letter of 12 August 2011
What follows is based on a letter dated 12 August, 2011, that I sent to David Talbott and Neal Adams, and appended to the previous letter to James Maxlow, regarding this (itself a corrected rendering of the original letter sent 11 August, 2011, which was an unedited version the curse of the SEND key). The following version is corrected and more detailed. Though I am a fan of Dr. James Maxlows work, and his work had convinced me of Expansion Tectonics, in the following letter I appear to favorably highlight Neal Adam's material, but it is because of the more graphical 3D animations (totally, like, eye-candy, dude) that he has produced to more graphically drive the Expansion Tectonics Theory:

For some time I have been observing two sides of things that I now clearly believe is in fact the same side, but simply viewed and interpreted from different observational perspectives. For me, the evidence proposed for the Electric Universe Theory, championed by Wal Thornhill and David Talbott (www.thunderbolts.info), have me absolutely convinced of it. Interestingly, it now seems obvious by simple observation that the whole Universe is naturally electrical. Add to this the mounting evidence gathered by NASA in its probing of the sun, planets, asteroids, and comets. Their data also reveals their electrical natures, though mainstream science still seems oddly mystified by these findings, but maybe this is due to the fact that the foundations of their own belief systems are not being upheld by it, which for them, often due to their zealous belief in their own theories, would be puzzling. All biological processes of life are also by nature electrical. Observation of galactic phenomena appears quite clearly electrical and can be demonstrated. Indeed, it is becoming clear that everything in the universe is electrical. Page 26 of 119

John K. Harms Electricity and Magnetism, published in the 1999 issue of the General Science Journal (an updated version was released in mid2001, found at www.wbabin.net/physics/harms2.pdf), shows that Electrons are likely not particles, but are waves of energy, which to me would help explain both how they can change orbits instantly without intermediate transition and how they can jump quantum frequencies. I believe it would also greatly enhance their ability to absorb, store, and transfer energy through harmonics principles in tandem with such quantum frequency changes.
NOTE: It should also be pointed out that Prince Louis de Broglie showed that every particle has wave aspects, arguing that every particle has a frequency; something only waves have (see www.physics.uiowa.edu/~umallik/adventure/quantumwave.html).

NOTE: You should also look up Australian physicist Geoff Haselhurst and his exploration of The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space (www.spaceandmotion.com). I wish I had found him before figuring all this out.

I note that in contemplative extrapolations on such ideas, and considering the electrical nature of the universe, which Albert Einstein, contemptuous of experiments and putting all his faith in pure thought, totally ignored in all of his theories, theories which he himself admitted did not reflect reality at all, and the fact that even electromagnetic forces operate at least thousands of times faster (if not infinitely faster) than the speed of light (if it did not, the whole universe would be incoherent; lacking its observed interconnected order), it may show that he was wrong in his assumption of E = mc2/td, where td is Time Displacement ( 1 v 2 / c 2 ), and that it may be correctly expressed as E = td/mc2, and could explain why, when a heavy block is dropped onto a solid surface, the block temporarily loses a small part of its mass for about 20 minutes. This could prove Einstein did in fact get his math wrong, because if his theory was true, the block would have temporarily gained mass (I am still wondering about why 20 minutes).

We could also digress to the production of superconductive exotic matter by a process of electrical arcing, such as high-spin monatomic gold from base gold, which is the origin of Alchemy, where 56% of this material exists in this universe, but 44% exists elsewhere (the Far World or Hidden World, according to ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians).
When a Prime Matter particle is split by collision with an energetic force, it becomes split into a Positron and an Electron, which is separated and hence blooms their electromagnetic fields outwardly. The Positron is attractive to Prime Matter particles, which will coat the Positron with even spherical layers of Prime Matter up to a boundary of its attractive field, thus resulting in a collection of 918 Prime Matter particles. This collection becomes what is known as a Proton. A Neutron includes an additional Prime Matter particle.

Page 27 of 119

When the separated Electron tries to return, ignoring intervening unaffected free Prime Matter particles, it is prevented from rejoining with the Positron by the now-energized Prime Matter particles it has coated itself with. As a result it is held at bay, yet due to the attraction to the Positron, it sheaths itself around the Proton in an open envelope (it is assumed open because a surface cannot touch itself without folding). And because its electromagnetic field is now outwardly bloomed, it becomes detectable (its apparent mass also increases billions of times due to their electromagnetic fields blooming outward), becoming a hydrogen atom (if the separating charge does not keep them in a plasma state). This all happens seemingly out of nothing. Hence, a primal universal singularity is not required, rendering the Big Bang moot.
NOTE: The properties of Prime Matter will be later elaborated upon. See, for example, http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39, or check out Neals recent explanation at www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jRcZx6LCA.

I have also been exploring the Expansion Tectonics Theory, championed by the late Professor Emeritus Samuel Warren Carey, a brilliant Australian geologist, who, among his many accomplishments, was an early protagonist for the development of Plate Tectonics. Later he realized how unrealistic this concept was (though now sometimes considered fact by many academics), because continental plates, of their present curved shape, did not fit very well at all, even though as school children, fueled by our more forgiving imaginations, we all thought that the seams between Africa and South America would fit perfectly, albeit this is not actually true they fit very poorly together, but only on a planet of its current size; but they do fit just fine on a much smaller Earth. As a consequence, after extensive evaluation and study, in 1956 he developed Expansion Tectonics (originally commonly referred to as the Expanding Earth Theory).

Although the idea of an expanding Earth, and hence, an expanding celestial system, seems at first glance preposterous, I took notice because, being a student of all aspects of science, I observed early on in life that the land masses in the Pacific also seemed to fit together if Australia and Antarctica were joined and were once in Mid-Pacific about 100 million years ago, which is exactly where they would be on a planet half its present size (mind you, the continental crust, which is billions of years old, was not likewise smaller, but was of their present size. It is the thin, newer oceanic crust, only averaging about 70 million years old that is growing, centering at the present mid-oceanic expansion ridges). Odd, but it was not until this moment that I realized that as a child that I had assumed that the Earth was half its size during the time of the dinosaurs. Page 28 of 119

That, and NASA and geologists have confirmed that the Earth is in fact expanding through precise satellite and geological measurements of the Earth, close to the rate predicted by Expansion Tectonics, which results in required periodic updates to GPS data, yet cannot be attributed solely to too-insubstantial accretion of asteroids, comets, meteors, and space dust.
The decades-long work conducted by James Maxlow ( www.jamesmaxlow.com), a distinguished British geologist based in Australia, and the eye-popping and thirty-plus years of work by the American Neal Adams (www.nealadams.com/sciencedown/sciencepremium.html); his long career, or day job as a visual artist gives him a profound visual approach to this data. Neal's work is eye candy, and is the most convincing work I have seen on the subject. Thanks to the United States Navy and other agencies conducting global oceanic core sampling to precisely determine the age of the ocean floors (see www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/slide_shows/sea_floor/crustageposter.jpg ), the Expansion Tectonics Theory is soundly substantiated (Dr. Carey, unfortunately, did not have access to such maps when he proposed this theory, which, if he had, science would not have adopted the Plate Tectonics theory in the first place).

Interestingly, this massive collection of geological data was originally gathered in order to help prove Plate Tectonics, to which end it failed miserably. It failed so miserably, in fact, that those who actively promote Plate Tectonics typically ignore this data. Yet, if they do use it, they will use only the Atlantic-side view, or direct the reader's focus only to it, hoping they will not pay to much attention to the other mid-ocean fissures around the world. In that way it only appears to support them, though in the final analysis it certainly does not. The only two things all this data does prove is that the majority of the oceans are on average 70 million years old, compared to the land masses, which are billions of years old.
NOTE: Very much smaller oceans, little more than seas or massive lakes, have a scientifically measured age of up to 185 million years. Very small zones, focused primarily in the sturdy bedrock of the present Mediterranean Sea, have a measured age of up to 280 million years.

An expanding Earth might also better explain why the dinosaurs, which were all migratory, almost all died off, because the majority of them were no longer able to migrate to their traditional, hard-wired migratory destinations when the Earth expanded enough to open broad fissures in the crust that were filled in by deep bodies of water, drained off from inland oceans and accretion from the mantle, which is a vast storehouse of saline water. Mammals, lizards, and the like survived because they did not migrate. The only dinosaurs that did survive the extinction event were Page 29 of 119

birds, because they could fly. Other larger flying dinosaurs, such as Pterodactyls, were unable to fly by 60-65 million years ago due to the gradually increasing gravity as the Earth slowly expanded. Even modern engineers who have studied them will tell you that flight in modern Earth would be impossible for Pterodactyls because they required lighter gravity and denser oxygen. You might also want to see Neal Adams short video at http://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html.
NOTE: The belief that engineers say bumblebee flight is impossible is urban legend, started at a dinner meeting in Germany in the 1930s between a biologist and an engineer. To answer the biologists question about bumblebee flight, the engineers quick calculations on the back of a napkin failed to offer an explanation, but this was entirely due to him having a lack of relevant data. NOTE: As recent studies pile up, they are all showing that some large-bodied herbivores, like the Triceratops, were already in decline prior to the famous meteor impact in the Gulf of Mexico 65 Million Years Ago (MYA) at the end of the Cretaceous period (146-65 MYA). Yet others, like many thriving two-legged theropods, survived until around 60 MYA within the Tertiary Period (65-2.6 MYA).
SUBNOTE: It is generally assumed that the only mammals that survived the Cretaceous period were small shrew-like rodents. It is also generally assumed that all land creatures greater than 6 feet in length became extinct, but this is not true. And the nuclear winter from the asteroid impact, if any, would not last as long as initially assumed (the Earth heals itself rather quickly). For example, most species of quad- and bi-pedal apes had already developed by the end of the Cretaceous.

NOTE: I also wonder, as pointed out earlier, if massively energetic meteor impacts can also generate the level of force needed to initiate conversion of Prime Matter, which permeates and moves through everything (much like neutrinos), to Matter, and maybe the meteor impact of 65 million years ago did instigate the general extinction of Dinosaurs, but not as we would typically think of it; that it caused expansion, which in due course impeded land-based migration once the expansion rills widened, like in the Mediterranean Sea, becoming water barriers.

People can argue until they are blue in the face about where this new mass is coming from so that celestial bodies are able to somehow expand, but the simple fact remains, even if the root cause were to be a mystery to the end of time, that the Earth and other celestial bodies are clearly expanding, whether or not we will ever understand the real mechanics behind it. Neal's visual aides, along with his detailed research, to include his theories on Prime Matter, were sufficient enough to keep me investigating. I am now utterly convinced that it is in the nature of an Electric Universe that engenders the creation of this new matter from Prime Matter. However, many of the ideas ventured by the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics seem, at least at first, to conflict. Nevertheless, after careful and detailed study, I am now absolutely convinced that not only do they not conflict, but that they in fact fully complement each other. Page 30 of 119

Consider Neal's videos linked to www.nealadams.com/index.php/science/read-watch-learn. If you view Clip # 2 (www.continuitystudios.net/clip02.html), he makes a sound argument for expansion on Jupiter's Moon, Europa. But if you view Clip # 5 (www.continuitystudios.net/clip05.html), regarding the Martian Valles Marinerus, you may find conflict with the Electric Universe. EU considers this a scar due to planet wandering and inter-planetary electrical arcing, due to near proximity, yielding a huge, US-sized scar on Mars. However, Neal demonstrates Expansion Tectonics in the video quite convincingly as the most significant cause of the scar (the 3D animation is extremely compelling).

However, I am convinced that both of these theories, Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, regarding Valles Marinerus are right. I focused into this solution because Neal Adams does not simply demonstrate academically and visually that, based on solid scientific evidence that the planets do in fact grow, he also has sought and devoted considerable research into how this is all possible (see http://continuitystudios.net/prime.html for a graphic example). I fully concur with Neal's notion that an atom does not contain the glut of imaginative hypothetically-presumed sub-atomic particles that most working in Particle Physics presently assume, but that it simply consists of Electrons and Positrons, together appearing as particles, possibly because of their bounding potential fields (electromagnetic fields). This may, in the final analysis, spell an end to Quantum Theory; a theory that also separates cause from effect, which is not observable and is also quite impossible. This leaves Plasma Physics as the only viable contender that can satisfactorily explain both macro and micro universal physics, making it look more like the much sought-after Universal Theory of Everything. Because the attraction between plasma filaments is linear, its effects are scalable over many orders of magnitude, so laboratory experiments can easily model what is observed in galactic space, which gravity models cannot do. The force of gravity, being 39 orders of magnitude weaker than Plasma and also the weakest force in science, totally fails within the square of the distance between celestial objects, which is why Fritz Zwicky had proposed Dark Matter in 1934. The Prime Matter theory removes the idea of antimatter, though CERN says they have created it, and other say it is used in medical technology, they have yet to prove that what they have is not simply Positrons. However, they claim that a Positron is antimatter, when it is simply the opposite-charged half of an Electron, which can combine back into a Prime Matter particle and simply releases the immense energy separating Page 31 of 119

them, though they interpret this as annihilation because they can no longer detect the resulting Prime Matter object, but this is because Prime Matter would have inward-facing electromagnetic fields, thus evading instrument detection. I have the strongest feeling that the electrical arcing between planets did indeed generate an initial and very impressive planetary scar, as can be demonstrated by a stick welder on a grounded metal plate. It is also plainly evident in the dendritic pseudo-tributaries that in no way conform to the standard rules of erosion and river formation theory, such as crossing each other with absolutely no effect, all with telltale scalloped edges and crater chains, and all of which can be electrically duplicated in the laboratory.
NOTE: One also has to wonder about the absolutely alarming nature of the northern hemisphere of Mars, where almost the entire upper crust of Mars northern hemisphere is missing. Detailed examination shows what appears to be colossal electrical excavation of the crust that extends miles deep. This would also easily explain the absolutely pervasive debris fields that densely saturate Mars entire surface with chunks of rock that often weigh in the hundreds of tons.

However, I am also convinced that this tremendously intense and powerful arcing also initiated matter creation within the core of planets, let alone perhaps locally at zones of electrical contact. Being that all planets, stars, and galaxies are connected and powered through Birkeland Currents, as easily explained by the Electric Universe, this may also have a natural side effect of gestating matter at the electrical focal points at their cores from the free and abundant Prime Matter permeating these bodies. Who knows? Alternative speculations abound. For example, one idea proposes that if electrical arcing can convert platinum metals into superconductive exotic matter, pushing 44% of its matter into an unseen dimension, could it not also pull matter from that unseen dimension? Another asks if it could it be Prime Matter reacting to Consciousness, which Quantum Mechanics is so crazy about, which posits that waves of energy, suspended in superposition of potentiality, collapse into particles when Consciousness observes it? Or could it, as I believe, be Prime Matter converting to Matter, initially as Plasma and Hydrogen? Is it possible that the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics are moving hand-in-hand? The universe powers the galaxies, which power the stars, which power the planets. Can all this energy and mass be accounted for? Is it possible that matter generation is in fact a result, colliding Prime Matter with electricity (Electrons) at electrical focal (arcing) points, which, in an electrical system, is focused in the center of such bodies? Page 32 of 119

Letter of 8 September 2011

The following are elaborations and expansions based on an 8 September 2011 letter to advocates of both the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics:

I have written to all of you, but no one has yet taken the time to respond (note that responses did come after this letter). This is no big deal, because I know that all of you have to be busy, being that, at present, you are either preparing to travel to present papers, or to attend important conferences. Besides, I do not feel that I am all that important, anyway, or important enough to make you stop whatever project upon which you are working. I am perfectly happy to sit on the back burner. Or maybe you all think Im a loon (20 years ago, I might have agreed). So it goes. I grok it. But regardless, I think that those in the Electric Universe camp and the Expansion Tectonics camp should quite sincerely be having a reasonably serious dialog with each other. Who knows? Maybe you think that each other are loons, but I doubt it. However, consider that the science behind an Electric Universe works. Also consider that the science behind Expansion Tectonics works. And finally consider that the math Neal Adams has put forward for Prime Matter works (well I did find what amounts to a minuscule flaw in structural layout, but Michael Netzer, with Keith Wilson (writer/producer of Expanding Earth Knowledge (www.eearthk.com)), did much to clear it up in an article named New Hydrogen Nucleus Structure; see http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39 ). The entirety of everyones math and, probably more importantly, their observations work, and are also neat and simple. On top of that, all of your works clearly compliments the other, to me anyway, and almost every day I examine them I happen upon more and more correlations between your works, and have yet to encounter disagreements that are anything more than differing interpretations of common observations. Indeed, it now screams so loudly that my mind is truly boggled at the thought of you NOT talking to each other.
NOTE: Neal Adams Prime Matter model is simple and elegant. Instead of depending on additional particles like six types of quarks, six types of leptons, thirteen gauge boson force carriers, and a plethora of other supposed components and bound states, it is instead simply composed of Prime Matter, which is in turn made up of an Electron and Positron half-particle. Add to that, I further propose that each of these components are not particles, even as Quantum Physics defines the borrowed term particle, but as spherical waves of

Page 33 of 119

charged energy, which can more easily exchange energy, and the effect of each of these individual components is electromagnetic energy, which may be apparent, and may not be restricted by time, and which is closed and selfcontained when expressed as a complete Prime Matter particle, and separation naturally forces their fields to bloom outwardly even as their entanglement seeks to reunite. Pure energy as a causal wave may also need to be added to this model, though electromagnetic torque and tension are likely sufficient-enough causal forces because Prime Matter can interact and transfer energy, and the exchanges of this energy between clumps of Prime Matter is simply mistaken for quarks, much as when a proton, made up of a Positron encased in an attracted shell of Prime Matter particles (that in turn keeps the Electron at a distance), when the Prime Matter shell is shucked off, the Positron is ejected from its center and joins with a balancing Electron, which is currently mistaken as annihilation when the tremendous energy required to separate them is released. Neals Prime Matter model is based on squarish layers of Prime Matter surrounding a Positron core, and then removing corner particles, but making calculations using this model always seemed to leave the result with one additional Prime Matter particle than its Electron weight should have allowed for, and also set the central Positron off-center. Michael and Keith implemented a hexagon model to address this and solved the Electron weight issue (see above link), but even this model is not natural. However, if you instead use a spherical model that places the Positron at the exact center, and then wrap spherical shells of Prime Matter evenly around it, binding them within what might be looked upon as a charged potential field envelope, or the absorbed energy that in turn keeps the Electron at a distance, the math for its Electron weight still works perfectly, but a physical model (or a computer model, in my case) also looks more logical and natural. Additionally, because Prime Matter particles have inward-facing electromagnetic fields, they will not hold each other off at any significant distances as what outwardly-facing electromagnetic fields, and in like turn atoms will, but may be able to pack themselves tightly together, close to the point of touching each other, to include the charged particle they are attracted to. Additionally, and this is eating at the back of my head, I wonder about the energy bound to it to keep the Electron at a distance (and everything in the universe must be balanced), that this varying level of energy, just as there are varying levels of tension, should also define the extent of the potential field envelope, thus allowing for varying degrees of Prime Matter layers, therefore easily allowing for the creation of such composite items as a Tau or a Muon. This variable frequency capability likely has to do with the rate of spin of an electron or positron. The faster it spins, the higher its frequency, charge, and tension. NOTE: Neal Adams addressed queries to his structural layout in a recent video, which you can see at www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jRcZx6LCA. However, he performs this demonstration using steel magnetic Bucky Balls (www.getbuckyballs.com), each exhibiting both positive and negative polarities. Because these magnets have North-South poling, just like bar magnets, of course they can be laid in even sheets and stacked into blocks. Yet, even though a Prime Matter particle contains an intertwined Electron and Positron, which have negative and

Page 34 of 119

positive charges, they have inward-facing electromagnetic fields, not outwardfacing as Bucky Balls have, and so they will not interact in any way as the ball magnets will, because when they are bound as Prime Matter, they are Charge Neutral, not blooming outwardly their electromagnetic fields as will the Bucky Balls, otherwise they would be detectable. This is why I maintain that the Prime Matter particles are wrapped around a centrally-positioned Positron in layers of spherical sheaths, which is simply more natural, and would also be natural for charge neutral particles that are naturally attracted to a positive charge through such things as energy transfer mechanisms. The spherical shape also allows for direct interaction between adjacent Prime Matter particles, both laterally in their sheath layer, and vertically, allowing for minimal transfer routing of energy from any particle to any other, the fractal path looking a bit like lightening. NOTE: The polarized energy separating Electron from Positron is likely electromagnetic energy, which is an integral part of Prime matter and its components. Also, electromagnetic energy, for it to even work, has to be almost infinitely faster than light (though some will be more modest and state only thousands of times faster), and hence it would appear to not be confined by any element of Time, which might indicate that Time, in the final analysis, is not a dimension as Einstein proposed, and may be an effect of observing a series of possibility potentials collapsing into an observed state that we might view within a singular NOW reality. In the strictest sense, Time is not a dimension, anyway.
NOTE: In light of this Prime Matter to Matter conversion, I am speculating rather strongly now that the super-bright Quasars may actually be highly energetic electrical focal points where Prime Matter is actively converted to Matter on an absolutely colossal scale, gestating galactic mass. Classical astronomy assumes them to be exceedingly distant because of their high redshift, traditionally used to calculate a rate of recession based on a Doppler Effect model using Hubbles Law, but evidence shows many of them are actually in front of nearby galaxies, and in rare cases even adjacently connected to lower-redshift galaxies, and so the redshift now is more likely to have to do with their age, following a youth-redshift-degeneracy model.

Even Edwin Hubble, who proposed the redshift/distance correlation in 1929 put forth in Hubbles law, later reconsidered that the redshift might not have anything to do with recession. In 1947, he said It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination. (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349). Cosmologists ignore this later statement. He died in 1953. See also http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090513faster.htm and http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091217light2.htm. The problem with Hubbles law (also called Lematres law ) is the expression v=H0D, where v is velocity, H 0 is the Hubble Constant, and D is the distance. The proportionality, or Hubble constant, H0, is anything but constant, being periodically recalculated when new observations disagree with it. Even so, it is always expressed with a wobbling variance for accuracy, so calculations can be adjusted to fit observations through a safety window. Worse, the relationship between recessional velocity and redshift depends on the cosmological model adopted. But even then, the recessional velocity is not established except for small redshifts. Large redshifts, which are typically observed, do not work.

Page 35 of 119

NOTE: From Wikipedia: In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann equations from Einstein's field equations, showing that the universe might expand at a rate calculable by the equations. The parameter used by Friedmann is known today as the scale factor which can be considered as a scale invariant form of the proportionality constant of Hubble's law. Georges Lematre independently found a similar solution in 1927. The Friedmann equations are derived by inserting the metric for a homogeneous and isotropic universe into Einstein's field equations for a fluid with a given density and pressure. This idea of an expanding spacetime would eventually lead to the Big Bang and Steady State theories of cosmology.

According to the Marine Geology & Geophysics Images of Crustal Age of the Ocean Floor, (www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html) produced by the National Geographical Data Center in 1977 (an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and managed by the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS)), and updated in 1988, which is based upon a colossal battery of core samples taken by the United States Navy, scientific research expeditions, and others whose purpose was to completely map the age of the ocean/sea floors (and which also conclusively proved that the ocean floors are only a maximum of 185 million years old, though you would quickly notice that the age of the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the initial site of crustal separation, reaches all the way back to 280 million years), by itself clearly shows the Earth had doubled in size in the past 100 million years, and by itself can also be used to validate the premise of Expansion Tectonics, and also, in consequence, to disprove the current Pangaea Hypothesis that is based on Plate Tectonics. Unlike Expansion Tectonics, which can trace Earth history back 4 billion years, Plate Tectonics, a theory which can track Earth history back only to 750 million years (the middle of the Neoproterozoic), it also critically depends upon current ocean basins existing 565 million years before the time that sound geological measurements have determined that they actually existed, and on a planet that it assumes to be relatively consistent in size. Plate Tectonics fails right there. Worse, Plate Tectonics quickly runs into numerous technical problems the further it wanders away from the central South America/Africa joining point, and must, as a consequence, implement impossible-to-prove migrations and twisting of plates that also clearly lack evidentiary migration-paths cut through the much more dense ocean floor crust, which consequentially makes such drifting impossible, but which, if possible, would still be present as evidence even after all this time, which would reflect such geologically impossible migration, rotation, subduction and Page 36 of 119

reduction, if they had actually occurred. And these scenarios are absolutely requisite for the Plate Tectonics premise to be viable. However, such effects can be better, more easily, and more logically demonstrated by crustal cracking, buckling, and compression as crust is slowly flattened out on an extremely slowly growing Earth (averaging only a miniscule 1820 millimeters of diameter expansion each year) without depending on subduction, reduction, or plate rotation at all. Indeed, the only evidence left in the basalt structure of the ocean floors is only for world-wide planetary expansion. Period.
NOTE: As demonstrated by Neal Adams (see www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html ), the Plate Tectonics model of Pangaea is unworkable, because the crust would be on one side of the Earth, two miles higher than the remaining ocean portion of a non-expanding Earth. Assuming the crust extends on average one half mile above the water, this would mean that the Pangaea side outweighs the water side 4 to 1. So, the center of the Earths gravity would have to shift to the Pangaea side by 4 or 5 kilometers, and water, being opportunistic, will shift with the center of gravity, and as a result the middle of Pangaea would sink below the water, submerging easily half the land-mass. But it would also expose to the air equivalent ocean bedrock on the opposite side of the planet. But this is not what advocates of Plate Tectonics say happened, nor is such evidenced by geological data, which means that this central sinking of Pangaea did not happen, but which also means that the Plate Tectonics model of Pangaea did not occur. NOTE: As an interesting note, if you look at a crustal map of the Earth, such as that shown at www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/slide_shows/sea_floor/crustageposter.jpg, you may notice that the Pacific Expansion Ridge moves up through California and is part of the San Andreas Fault. What this means to an Expanding Earth is that the western side of the fault will not in time break off and slip beneath the Pacific Ocean, as so many are too quick to predict and sensationalize, but rather that California is actually growing and may in time possess more and more overpriced real estate. However, in considering what is happening to Baja California, California will grow, but in tens of millions of years it may eventually bisect, perhaps one day in the far distant future flooding Death Valley in the process.

Expansion Tectonics, on the other hand, is based on sound geological science and actual physical evidence, verified by the completion of worldwide scientific projects to perform complete oceanic magnetic mapping, plus radiometric and palaeontologic age dating of crusts beneath all Earth's oceans, like the Bedrock Geological Map of the World, originally produced by the National Geographical Data Center in 1996, and can be used to trace Earth history back quite easily to 4 billion years, and can do so without the need for plate migration or subduction, which, as just stated, both are geologically impossible if examined through the lens of existing geological evidence. Granted, very minor subduction can and will Page 37 of 119

occur, but not on the scale that Plate Tectonics advocates claim or can prove that it must. Most of them claim the forming of the Himalayas is by subduction, but it is actually due to surface compression because of the curved crust flattening as the planet expands. This is exactly like Northern Italy, where the Alps form by compression even as the Mediterranean is clearly being pulled apart, not being collided into by Africa. Geological evidence show that Africa is actually pulling away from Europe.
NOTE: See also Neal Adams video at www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html for more details on the Himalayas and Italy comparison.

According to advocates for Expansion Tectonics, though it took the past 100 million years for the Earth to double in size, the evidence shows that it took the previous 600 million years for the Earth to double in size. I note that a great deal of the expansion has clearly been in the past 10 to 20 million years. I am sure if they could fine-tune readings enough, it might show that some significant expansion took place in the past 40,000 years, easily within the myth-memory of Mankind, and perhaps also when, according to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, Venus finally settled into its current orbit (Dr. Velikovsky claims that this happened within the past 4,000 years), previously no doubt having frequent electrical encounters with the Earth, acting and looking like a gigantic comet that would clearly rain horror and cataclysmic disaster in the racial memory of Mankind. I can only imagine the Birkeland Current reactions or Faraday effects witnessed within the magnetospheres of both atmospheres as seen from the surface of the Earth.
NOTE: The evidence that Velikovsky presented, especially with Wal Thorhills amendments, corrections, and enhancements due to continued research, who admittedly also strongly disagreed with some of Velikovskys assertions, is too compelling to ignore entirely. Although I am a natural skeptic (believe it or not) when I approach any new idea (as any scientist should be), the ties that link this bold idea tightly to ancient oral traditions and myths just leans too far in favor of something like what Velikovsky described, especially considering that Venus still has a weak comet tail, to include long filamentary Birkeland Currents (stringy things as scientists describe them) extending out to near to Earths own orbit. Current data from NASA and the ESA are proving that comets are no different from asteroids, except they have a long elliptical orbits, which allowed for greater electrical charging, and hence, they develop plasma tails when these negativecharged bodies pass through the strong positive-charged solar ion fields so not made up of ice and water vapor, which is being accumulatively disproved, though NASA scientists tend to keep their blinkers on and simply choose to instead continually exclaim mystification, when Plasma Physics, the brainchild of Hannes Alfvn, has long proven, and even predicts those exact effects.

Page 38 of 119

The advocates for Expansion Tectonics maintain that the process of Earths expansion is accelerating, which might seem to be the case, as evidenced above. But, in light of the Electric Universe Theory, I would not be so quick to make that assumption, because I think that this appears only to be true within the framework of significantly enhanced electrical interaction during those periods of growth, and I might also venture to guess that expansion does not occur except when there is sufficient electrical interaction, and might indeed be directly relational to the level of electrical interaction. Because planetary electrical arcing (granted, most of it being invisible, being beyond the range of human-visible light, though it would be evidenced by radiological measurements) seems to me to be the source for engendering expansion among the planets, as is made evident on Earth, the Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, etc., perhaps it is simply so because there has been significantly more electrical interaction on/with the Earth in the past 100 million years, and especially in the past 20 million years (simply take note of the amount of ocean-bed expansion that has taken place by merely observing how a significant portion of the expansion shown on the maps indicates a sea/ocean bed age of within just the past 10-20 million years), and on up to the conveyable memory of Mankind.
Such intense electrical arcing, which could be responsible for certain minor or even major extinction events, might also explain the generation of abiotic oil.

Science has yet to discover authentic forensic evidence for petroleum, or oil actually being fossil fuel, or biotic fuel, that so many profess, their argument based upon previously presumed, but unsubstantiated conjecture that has no actual science behind it, typically referred to as a scientific guestimation, or a Scientific Wild Ass Guess (SWAG).
NOTE: As a side-note, I often wonder why environmentalists are so dead-set on preserving this readily available resource, or even demand its total non-use at all (I would love to see all those same advocates get along in a world without all their smart gadgets, not to mention general mundane utilitarian objects and even foods that are based upon or enhanced by polymers derived from petroleum), where most such hydrocarbon sources do not pose marginal threats against wildlife or ecosystems, especially in light of current and developing extraction technologies, when all real-world science indicates that it is likely not the finite supply that environmentalists shout, but rather it is, contrarily, more abundant than Mankind can or will ever exploit. This is especially poignant because evidence increasingly favors the possibility this resource does not take millions of years to develop, but may take only a few months or years, and may also explain why some bone-dry wells have suddenly been found to have filled up again, even though there may not be evidence of seepage-filling from saturated layers of

Page 39 of 119

adjacent bedrock. Just consider the once-dry wells along the Pacific Expansion Ridge in Baja California (also note that most of the largest oil fields are clearly located along global expansion ridges and known fault zones). This is especially puzzling when you understand how much Environmentalists themselves exploit these so-called fossil fuels even as they put such use down.

The only evidence that actually exists is for abiotic oil, and specifically detected where hydrogen-rich fluids vent, such as at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field, some 2,100 feet below sea level and 20 km west of the Mid-Atlantic Expansion Ridge, which it is shown to have been produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the Earth (the second such find in recent years). There, they found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor. Besides, biological layers would have to be impossibly thick, on top of which it would have to be able to readily oxidize, which it will not do at great oceanic depths. Further, land-based sources would have wasted away or been removed long before enough pressure-inducing layers of earth could cover them. The more you think about it, the less biotic oil makes any sense.
It is theorized that abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat. Ultramafic or Ultrabasic Rocks are igneous and meta-igneous rocks with very low silica content, and are ideal for sequestering carbon, such as CO2. What is interesting about this is if you look at a world-wide map of the ocean bottom that details natural carbon production (typically from radiocarbons, such as Carbon-13, seeping up from the mantle and decaying into common Carbon (Carbon-12) ), you will find that, though the carbon map is far from complete or so detailed, it exhibits coincidence to the Bedrock Geological Map of the World that measures in great detail the ages of the sea floors.
NOTE: You may also want to look at the Mediterranean Expansion Ridge that cuts east of Saudi Arabia, through the Middle-East oil fields, which is stretching the land masses, such as Greece, as Africa pulls away from Europe, though it is presently slightly pivoting the stretching on a solid, binding Saudi Arabia.

But the above digression takes us to the next step of hydrocarbons, which is carbon heavily saturated by hydrogen. Hydrogen is the typical stablematter state of Prime Matter blooming its electromagnetic field outwardly, creating matter from the aether, after the energy has seeped off so that Electrons can interact with protons. This seeping off of energy, is, well, highly energetic, and could easily be responsible for the molten cores of planets and moons, such as is the case with our own Moon, which, Page 40 of 119

contrary to earlier scientific guestimations, is now understood to have, or once had a molten core, based upon clear evidence found in Moon rocks brought back to Earth by the Apollo missions that exhibited magnetic qualities, not as a result of meteoric impacts, which have only short-lived magnetic effects, but the evidence in the lunar rock showed it must have remained in a magnetic environment for a long period of time (millions of years) and the field had to come from a long-lasting magnetic dynamo.
NOTE: It has been believed that Earth emits heat energy because radioactive elements decay in its depths. However, if you can accept the electrical activity observed in all the heavenly bodies to be naturally driven by electricity, the next step is to accept the required consequence that these celestial bodies operate on electrical circuits, and thus their cores would be powered by electricity, not nuclear decay, which was originally a conjecture that made sense during the height of the Atomic Age. Actually, if you do the math, such nuclear fires would have quieted long ago, except for an electrical force that can create radiological elements. For more, see www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01/19/forty-four-trillion-watts/.
NOTE: Immanuel Velikovsky was very adamant in his best-selling work, Worlds in Collision, that when the Earth passed through the tail of Venus as Venus crossed our path, it left heavy deposits of hydrocarbons across the Earth in the form of oil and tar. Scientists are now concluding that there are in fact singificant quantities of hydrocarbons in comet tails. Investigations of the luminescence of comet halos have been carried out and indicate the presence of frozen hydrocarbon particles.

NOTE: Velikovsky predicted that, due to steep wandering through the highly positive charge of the Solar Ion Field, Venus should have a surface temperature of at least 800F. Scientists scoffed, saying that the temperature would be naturally warmer, but it could not be so hot, and they predicted 100F. Space probes and satelites later sent to that planet have confirmed Velikovskys higher temperature prediction, citing 872F. Although environmentalists are quick to cite the presence of Carbon Dioxide in its atmosphere as the root cause, which is primarily Carbon Dioxide (96.5%) and Nitrogen (3.5%), along with other trace elements like Sulfur Dioxide and water vapor, this has no practical or comparable relationship to Earths own atmosphere. NOTE: Global Warming advocates claim that it is the Carbon Dioxide in the Venus atmosphere (where Global Warming was discovered) that is responsible for its, and Earths temperatures. But this is ridiculous, because CO2 is the weakest and least prevalant of the Greenhouse gasses on Earth (water vapor is the strongest and most prevelant). CO2 is not substantial enough to significantly affect global temperatures. Actually, it is global temperatures that affect the amount of CO2 that is present in the atmosphere, being absorbed or released by the world oceans in kind, and CO2 levels lag, not precede global temperatures by as much as 800 years. Further, warmer temperatures yield more water vapor in the atmosphere, yielding more clouds, which in turn reflects heat back into space, not trapping it, which in turn yields lower temperatures, and the result is less water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, that yields fewer clouds. This implies a natural cycle, not an anthropological cause.

Page 41 of 119

NOTE: Until recently, scientists all thought that a comet was made of light elements, such as dust and rock particles and mixed with frozen water, methane, and ammonia. However, based on recent observations, it is clear that they are no different from asteroids, except that they have steep elliptical orbits, being mostly tightly packed chunks of rock, and simply gain a plasma tail when they pass through the highly charged ion field closer to the sun at a steep angle. However, some scientists, insisting on holding to their beloved consensus theories, try to imagine how this carefully collected data could be wrong, such as ice being inside them, even though measurements made indicate that this is not so, and that comets are dry and void of ice, as dramatically demonstrated in observed disintegrations of comets Wirtanan and Biela Bambert (1957), West (1976), Holmes (2007), and SchwassmanWachmann and Elenin (2011), coinciding with collisions with charged particles from huge Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun, indicating an electrical power surge. See www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ADWYHJpqg&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA&index=1&feature=plcp. Even so, comets observed coronal jets can be easily demonstrated in a laboratory implementing plasma theory, which is known to be at work in inner solar space.
SUBNOTE: Halleys comet may be breaking up. In 1910, it had flared dramatically, showing many large chunks of rock separated from its body. Although it was disappointingly unspectacular in its passing in 1986, five years later in 1991, out past Uranus, it suddenly erupted with a coma that was 180,000 miles across when charged particles from heightened solar winds collided with it, maybe weakening it, so it might spectacularly disintigrate during its next pass by the Sun in 2062.

NOTE: Velikovsky speculated that Venus might have been ejected from Jupiter and may be responsible for its big red spot; that it had knocked Mars out of an inner orbit, below Earth, settled into that orbit, and Mars took its current outer orbit, at around 1500 BCE. This seems to wash by traditions all over the world, upon which Velikovsky based his theory. As hard as it may seem to believe, and I really struggle with it, so far many other suppositions made by him, based on his study of these ancient traditions, have become accepted by science. And if something like this did not occur, then what in the heck were all these world cultures writing about, all at the same time, about major cataclysmic disasters and celestial doom from both a wandering Venus and a wandering Mars?
SUBNOTE: The late Carl Sagan (1934-1996) argued against the idea of Venus ejecting from Jupiter, thinking the energy of such an ejection would vaporize it. I agree with him on this first part, I doubting very much that Venus actually erupted out of the mass of the gas giant Jupiter, but I am not quite so sure about the vaporization part. Also, he thought that the current smooth circular orbit of Venus would be impossible and that it would probably still have an unstable orbit even now. However, computer models clearly indicate that a stable orbit could take only a short time to attain, as demonstrated by modeling of the ejection of the Earths Moon by a collision with Earth by a Mars-sized body, and which also did not vaporize it, and it took only a year to coalesce and stabilize its orbit (see www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibV4MdN5wo0&feature=related , a segment from The Universe on the History Channel, entitled, The Moon). Indeed, planetary ejections are now more acceptable than previously since computers have become much better at physics simulations.

NOTE: (I offer this with great caution because it can so easily be misunderstood ) Though I have immense respect for Dr. Velikovskys incredible body of work, I, after considerable consideration and long years of detailed research, have come to strongly agree with David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and Ev Cochrane that Velikovskys Jupiter-origin of Venus, based upon his interpretations of ancient traditions, is more than likely wrong. Ancient world-wide tradition holds that, among many things, Saturn was referred to as our Original Sun, occupying a consistent

Page 42 of 119

position in our northern sky on our polar axis, and orbited the Sun at about where the Earth is now. Further, if these ancient legends are to be believed, then celestial mechanics would require the Earth, Mars, and Venus to have originally orbited Saturn, which is also consistent with world-wide traditions. They also hold that the planets Venus, Mars, and Earth, in that order, moving outward from Saturn, were in perfect synchronous orbits during the much-revered times of the Golden Age (Paradise), and that they were very close together. As incredibly hard as what this is to imagine, though it is all entirely astrophysically possible, and I have done my fair share of deep soul-searching on the long road to coming to terms with it (I think Velikovsky finally settled on his Jupiter-origin of Venus model because he was simply having too much trouble with coming to terms with these ancient traditions ), all ancient legends from all over the world tell this very same story about the very same period in time through almost embarrassingly rich, extensively detailed volumes of documents, from the Hindu Mahabharata, the Mayan Popol Vuh, Touism, the Chinese Bamboo Books, Zoreastianism, Plato, to Norse and Sumerian Legends (indeed, the ancient Greek term for what we read in English as the Sun, was actually Greek Helios, which specifically refers to Saturn, and linguists, when translating the ancient texts, and not only of the Greek, simply assumed that this word was somehow a lingistic mistake and so they automatically corrected it to read as Sun). Check out the Saturn Theory link at Ev Cochranes website, Maverick Science: www.maverickscience.com. You can also see a low-resolution video of David Talbotts Symbols of an Alien Sky, Episode One at www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7lrjixaNA, or his Remembering the End of the World at www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGCqcckYvDQ.

One question I have long pondered is the astrophysical notion that a single exploding star can engender the creation of massive star clusters on its own. If this were so under the current popular gravity-based cosmology, are we to imagine that the resulting stars, to account for the massive star clusters that supposedly result, are no bigger than golf balls or beach balls (or must we take Expansion Tectonics to a ridiculous extreme)? How can one star yield so many other stars of similar or larger volume and mass? Examination of new star clusters look to be like bright knobs along immense fractal-webbed electrical filaments, like Christmas lights on a strewn string, looking like lightening bolts, with its bright points at its angular joints, like it is reacting to intermediate connections along its path to its ultimate grounding point.

And why, after a star has presumably exploded, over time it appears to exhibit greater volume, and more importantly, greater mass in its plasma fields, where its combined mass is relatively infinitely greater than the original mass of the star, whose core is observed as still existing, which is often cited as a normally functioning star, or even of being a Quasar, even though consensus theory states it should collapse into a Neutron Star? Consider the example of Cassiopeia A, which went supernova 300 years ago (see www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/01/the-biographies-of-cas-a). Will Cassiopeia A also engender a Quasar in time because it is not becoming a Neutron Star (Neutron Stars are not possible, anyway, according to Nuclear Physics)? Page 43 of 119

NOTE: As I pointed out much earlier, might a Quasar be a focal point for intense electrical interaction, gestating colossal volumes of matter, initially as highly energetic Plasma, on massive scales, and could, based upon its level of energy, gestate not only a single star, but also star clusters, or even entire galaxies?

Has it occurred to anyone that we may be witnessing the generation of matter in the growing bodies of plasma masses and/or Quasars? When a Prime Matter particle is split so that it separates into an Electron and a Positron, and its electromagnetic field blooms outward, once Prime Matter particles settle in around the attractive positive charge of the Positron to form a Proton, it naturally assumes a state of Plasma, before the energy separating the Electron and Proton can be drawn off and allows an Electron to wrap a wave envelope around a Proton, forming an initial Hydrogen atom. Has anyone considered that when these stars explode into hyper-energetic electromagnetic blooms, that massive collisions with Prime Matter will naturally occur, which would engender new Matter (as Plasma in most cases)? And because the Electron is now on the outside, in harms way, and because there is enough energy, its can bond with other newly-formed photons and neutrons to create a wide variety of atomic elements from its plasma/hydrogen base to sufficiently engender new star clusters and even galaxies, especially when there is sufficient energy to spawn a new plasmoid at its center of electromagnetic equilibrium something that gravity-based cosmology imagines to be an improvable super-massive black hole. But this cannot account for an active galactic nucleus, which is impossible according to the presumed physics behind black holes. However, it is perfectly accountable and also expected in an Electric Universe, where the centrally-located plasmoid will occasionally release its stored energy through huge light-years-long jets along its spin axis.
NOTE: The observed formation of stars have hydrogen, helium, and lithium forming around the heavier elements that actually form the centers of stars, thus denying the thermonuclear model of the sun, which requires that these lighter elements form at its center, and the actual data in fact instead promotes an Electric Sun as a positive anode in an electric field. The currently accepted thermonuclear model of the Sun is fraught with a long list of contradictions that cannot possibly exist within a thermonuclear model, such as solar wind, solar atmosphere, the corona, coronal heating, sunspots, sunspot migration, sunspot cycles, sunspot penumbra, helio seismology, solar spectrum, solar density, equatorial plasma torus, differential rotation by latitude or depth, even surface magnetic fields, magnetic field strength, heavy elements, neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, and a laundry list of other paradoxical issues; but all of which are fully compliant and even expected in an electrodynamics model.

Page 44 of 119

NOTE: Billions of Prime Matter particles can fit into the space resulting from Prime Matter blooming its electromagnetic field outwardly, much like an electron-neutrino, allowing it to pass through an atom as though it was itself a single atom passing through our solar system at faster-than-light speeds. Because the electromagnetic field of a Prime Matter particle is inward-facing, Prime Matter occupies an almost infinitely smaller space than Matter the outward-bloomed field of Matter, which is caused by its Electron half being extended outwardly, away from the Positron and into harms way, is what gives Matter its apparent greater mass in consideration to the actual mass of its subatomic particles. NOTE: As previously stated, Prime Matter has inward-facing electromagnetic fields, which would be natural when the charged waves comprising the Prime Matter particle are tightly bound, basically orbiting each other at high velocity and likely, just like electromagnetic waves, traveling several thousands of times, if not infinitely faster than the speed of light. Also, as stated previously, all we have to do is divide Time Displacement by the Mass to Energy ratio to make this feasible, which can be proven by the simple experiment of dropping a heavy object onto a solid surface, which I had also previously outlined. Einstein had instead divided 2 S. Tover Prestons 1875 mass to energy ratio (E=mc ) by Time Displacement 2 2 ( 1 v / c ), which have results that are not possible, such as an object attaining infinite mass and infinite volume at the speed of light, which just does not make practical, or common sense, and is totally impossible in a real world, even if the object traveled several thousand times the speed of light. When the heavy object collides with a solid surface, the heavy object actually loses part of its mass, and so also part of its weight, for a period of about 20 minutes, after which it returns. So, Einstein, where did that mass go? And why did it not get heavier, as your theory supposes? Einsteins supposed mass to energy ratio (E=mc2) was in the end, after 10 long years of pondering the problem, a claimed wild guess, which would mean he made it up! Or worse, like so much else, he plagiarized it, because the equation can actually be attributed to S. Tolver Preston in 1875, who formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb, and superconductivity, calculating that one grain could lift a 100,000 ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles, which yields the equation E = mc2. It can also be attributed to Jules Henri Poincar in 1900 (where the formula E = mc2 was actually presented, and which Einstein was known to be familiar) and to Olinto De Pretto in 1904. And even Sir Isaac Newton was keenly aware of the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). After all, Einsteins original 30page 1905 treatise, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Krper or "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (also referred to as the Special Theory of Relativity or as the Lorentz-Einstein Theory of Relativity), was published in the German Annalen der Physik vol XVII 1905 (891-921) without footnotes to give credit to his sources. It never acquired footnotes until 1922, when it was republished in the German Das Relativatsprinzip, 4th ed., by Tuebner, and in its English translation in the book The Principle of Relativity, published in 1923 by Methuen and Company, Ltd. of London. But even then, he did not give credit for the equations he used. Further, he had introduced symbols such as X, H , and Z

Page 45 of 119

for the co-ordinates of the moving system k without explicitly defining them, until they were republished in 1922. But even then, a misrepresentation of one equation in the 1923 edition was not corrected until a 1999 edition; the subexpression (uv sin a/c)2 was accidentally misrepresented as (uv sin a/c2). Granted, at the time, the general assumption by the majority of the scientific community was that the speed of light was variable, but Einstein posited that the speed of light was instead constant. However, science is now questioning the validity of this simple iconic equation, because to many it does appear that the speed of light is in fact variable, which can be shown by light passing through various densities of matter, because an absolute vacuum does not exist.
SUBNOTE: Also see Physics Without Einstein, Physics Unified, and Tesla Versus Einstein by the late British Theoretical Physicist Harold Aspden at www.haroldaspden.com. From Testla Versus Einstein, Aspden stated, Whereas the general public, including almost all of the scientific community, accept Einsteins theory without question, essentially because that has become the popular opinion in the light of E = Mc2 having significance connected with the atomic bomb, that formula relating energy E and mass M by the speed of light in vacuum is easily derived without any use of Einsteins doctrines.

NOTE: Albert Einstein was once quoted to say, The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. Even more, Jewish Historian Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in his heavily researched tome, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf), said in his opening paragraph of Chapter Nine, The Priority Myth, It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority. Indeed, Einstein even believed he had the right to plagiarize ideas if he was able to put a new spin on them, as he asserted in 1907, such as the work of Jules Henri Poincar in his 1900 paper, from which much, to include E=mc2, was taken, and of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz in his 1904 paper, which his own theory depended very heavily upon and which first made a decisive investigation into the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and which Einstein openly admitted his own theory was a generalization of. Indeed, the marked difference from Lorentz work was his adding relativistic equations and the abbreation of the Doppler-Fizeau Effect. Yet, he also rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron. But, when it was corrected, it became a duplication of Lorentz equation. If that was not enough, there is ample evidence Einstein did not write his 1905 paper alone, such as is evident in its original submission to the Annalen der Physik, which is clearly submitted by M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, and indeed, the submission was actually signed by her. Also, because his wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, is named first in the author list, it is evident, by convention, that she had been the lead-author of the work, or, according to the D. Trbuhovi-Gjuri 1983 study, and by those of several others, that she may have even been its sole author. However, my present opinion is to consider as plausible that she may have simply helped him make his work presentable (though more details may clearly change my opinion, one way or the other). I have to consider that for as intelligent as was Einstein, he was nevertheless not a very good speaker, even though he is among the most quoted men of all time. By his own admission to Hendrik Lorentz in a letter of 19 January 1920, he was not gifted at lecturing (quoting from Bjerknes above book ):

Page 46 of 119

Nevertheless, unlike you, nature has not bestowed me with the ability to deliver lectures and dispense original ideas virtually effortlessly as meets your rened and versatile mind. This awareness of my limitations pervades me all the more keenly in recent times since I see that my faculties are being quite particularly overrated after a few consequences of the general theory stood the test.
SUBNOTE: The above quote from Christopher Jon Bjerknes 2800+ page book, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, can also be found in a shorter Bjerknes book, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, which draws some chapters (for example, Chapter 9, The Priority Myth, becomes Chapter 1) from the aforementioned book and puts them into a more digestible form. You can find details for the book at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm. This site also features many interesting extracts, quotes, and reviews. SUBNOTE: Mileva Einstein-Marity, formerly Mileva Mari , was one of the first women to study mathematics and physics in Europe. She was Einsteins fellow student and also a close friend at the Zurich Polytechnic, where they shared an interest in Lorentz work and even corresponded on the subject, and she later became his first wife. Albert also admitted Mileva was smarter than himself.

I think that together, through a collaborative effort between the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, these issues could be addressed. Maybe you are reticent to deal with each other because there is fear of ridiculing repercussions in that direction from the establishment or from conflicting views regarding particular points. Well, let me tell you about the establishment. I have an educational trust that will pay for any and all university education I could ever wish to have, even if I were to pursue 27 PhDs. But I had previously earnestly pursued the university system, attended the lectures, labs, classes, etc., and the only thing it convinced me of is that their goal is to produce pre-programmed automatons who puppet and chant sacred belief systems, and do all that they can do to quell original thought. They tell you to be free, but you can do so only if you do not dare tread on their own pet theories or you will be crushed (or at least you will get a failing grade or no letters of recommendation or introduction). As such, I resolutely abandoned that particular venue and have spent the past 40 years relentlessly developing my own education program, trying my best to at least attain some degree of being a Universal Scholar, learning how to conduct stringent research, to toy with new ideas and perspectives, and to test them for validity. According to my last IQ test, it is 184 on the Terman Index, so I am no dummy. Or, at least I do not think that I am. However, my brother would say that if I am a genius, then I am the moronic part of being a genius. But, gadzooks, most of the currently accepted theories do not stand up to scrutiny, which clearly means that they are in fact not theories, or even hypotheses, and some even lack substance as conjectures. Page 47 of 119

I research everything that catches my eye. It is my passion. If I find holes in a theory, I am going to point out where I find them, giving their authors the opportunity to conduct their own research in order to reconfigure the hypotheses into more viable theory. For years I was what people called a scientists scientist, because I tended to research everything to death. But the more I examine many of the accepted theories, from the presently unworkable mechanics currently pontificated by advocates of evolution, to what is supposed to be passed off as history, to the flaws in Special and General Relativity, and in Quantum Physics, the more I found them to be in often grave error, and are in desperate need of new viewpoints in order just to remain relevant. And do not get me started on the convoluted field of Medicine, or mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus, as I refer to it.
Currently, too much of science is founded on that which is called theories, but this is in name only, because they are often shown to not always be true or even verifiable, which used to be the hammer that removed them from being called theories, but labeled them as what they really are hypotheses. And why is science now defined so pervasively by hypotheses, but not by actual testable theories? The answer to this seems to be that the new breed of scientist is reactionary rather than activist. I have also noticed that new views and ideas no longer seem to be the domain of students, who once challenged the precepts laid down by their mentors, but rather of late, it is the mentors themselves who are sparking new views and theories, who were often once the founders of the very belief systems of the younger generation.

I am finding the original thought processes of science is grinding to a halt. I feel it is primarily due to the current generation no longer being disciplined to pursue original thought, and so they join the ranks of the general population, who seem to stop developing original ideas at about age 24, when they have developed a sufficient library of predefined neural networks (which WERE initially fashioned by original thought) so that they eventually cease implementing imagination, but in time resort to using those pre-programmed neural pathways exclusively, thus just reacting to the world instead of acting on it. It seems that original thought is, unlike with previous generations, now a distained human quality. Maybe that is why Dementia and Alzheimers disease is on the rise? A tool unused is a tool that will be lost. It is only made worse by a government school system, namely the useless money-pit and misnamed U.S. Department of Education and its Orwellian curricular agenda that achieves nothing for the youth of America but to curtail their access to real knowledge, that, from the 1950s, seems only to Page 48 of 119

teach students how to be government-dependant worker-ants, not free thinkers exercising original thought (as Albert Einstein once said, Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.). Although I was a child of government schools, I was bright enough to recognize the limiting, substandard, and dumbed-down educational curriculum I was expected to accept and proclaim as intellectually well-rounded, and thanks to my being insatiably curious about everything, I endeavored to home school myself on a quite challenging, extremely broad base of subjects, often ignoring the especially wasteful, mind-numbing coursework given me by government-restricted teachers. That being said, thanks to a generous blessing of such teachers as Mrs. James, Mrs. Primm, Mr. Curtis, Mrs. Yocum, Mrs. Krutsinger, Mr. Clarke, and others, who, largely quietly rebelled against this inadequate, dumbed-down curriculum, instead gave us incentives to endeavor to fully round out our education. And it is not just myself who thinks so, but virtually every person I have talked to, and every parent who has had to put their children through a public school system and wondered what the hell is being taught to their children. For example, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is a freelance writer who served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), in the U.S. Department of Education during the first term of President Ronald Reagan, and as a staff employee of the U.S. State Department (South Africa, Belgium, and South Korea). When she returned to America after serving her country abroad for 18 years, she put her two children into a public school because she did not know how horrible it had become and what had been going on in this country. When she found out, she was absolutely horrified. She wrote a brilliant book which every parent should read without fail, called The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Barnes and Noble #1 Bestseller in its History of Education category, and she has now posted this most informative book on the internet, freely downloadable so it can be read by every parent and every concerned citizen at www.deliberatedumbingdown.com. I have come to the sad conclusion that everything we know may be wrong regarding some of our most sacred cows in science. For the life of me, I feel like I just woke up and the year was 1300. It is time for a new Renaissance, and you and those like you are at the forefront of what can be that movement. David

Page 49 of 119

Introduction to Supplementary Background Resources Developed and Employed as I Constructed This Document I have expanded this document to include a selection of personal essays I had written to round out my research into the connection between the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, conducted as I composed it to more fully explore and test background data (in a Quest for Truth, digressions are valuable tools in ones arsenal, helping us to discover critically relevant facts that might otherwise go unnoticed, hence causing a mystery to remain such). There are essays explaining the impossibility of black holes, my views on mythematics, and other often historically ignored or hidden events, such as the particulars of the 1919 Solar Eclipse that brought about Einsteins rapid rise to fame (regardless of the fact that most people did not understand or care what it was all about, except that they were incited to be excited), of his embarrassing faltering as a hero of science in 1921, the new world order that still slithers behind him, and of the shadowy people driving its mechanization. We all hold endearing images of Einstein in our minds, and I believe that most of them are well deserved. But for all that, and as wonderful and as abundant as his pleasant, philosophical anecdotes were, which I think made him one of the most quoted men in history, I also believe you must truly understand the man whose heart beat behind those pleasing prose.
Even in my early adulthood, with Einsteins demise still so recent (he died 18 April 1955, four months after my birth) that propaganda was still reverently intoned about this man who they loftily heralded as the smartest man in the world (make no mistake, he was intelligenta mathematical prodigy, regardless of the myth started by Robert Ripley that he had failed math tests in his youthbut he certainly was not the smartest), I just could not shake the impression of a disjointedness about him that made him seem not quite so real, like he was a puzzle with too many pieces still missing. The puffery broadcasted about him, some so dated they are now comical, conveyed to me the sense of a set dressing for an entertainment, like a 1970s Las Vegas casino faade. Perhaps it was simply the narrators words when I saw all those newsreel clips, but they seldom set easily with the image of the man I beheld. My other problem with this literal deification of Einstein was that scientific findings that did not prop up this relativist perspective were immediately ridiculed by often over-zealous advocates. Failing such reactions, esteemed talking heads marched out as if on cue to proffer opinions to defend the established relativist view, regardless of the fact that today too many of those once loftily-held views are now tattered, too frequently challenged by more relevant views, or simply disproven. Page 50 of 119

I saw my belovd Science slowly muffled and contorted by this new oddly medieval view of the universe. The marvelous sense of wonder in discovery that defined Science for centuries was slowly being crippled, blinded, and suffocated by a reordered and dogmatic universal paradigm that was too often patched together from literally made-up terms for made-up notions, the insane practice of treating tenuous, even incredulous assumptions as though they were rock-solid fact, and using paradox as an explanation rather than a conundrum for observations that did not kowtow to relativist tenets. To me this was sad, because using such truly anti-intellectual dogmatism would only cause the more interesting questions in science to be left unanswered. Indeed, most scientific discoveries made in the last few decades, though seeming great, are but shadows of discoveries of previous centuries. The only new discoveries that do not conform to the new dogma are those that simply cannot be denied, though some are leaked to the public in measured amounts, often by rebels who have been forced to work from within the system. One must consider that in the past, academics would explore any plausible alternative explanation to any scientific mystery, seldom flippantly discarding it without due consideration. Only dogmatic ideologues do things like that. Too many people consider our ancient history to be filled with nothing but superstitious gomers who believed that everything was simply a mystery. The truth is, the further into the past we dig, the more sophisticated mankind seems to have been. Even the Greeks were masters at pulleys and levers that we cannot today match, considering that they knew how to move gigantic stones that our heaviest and most sophisticated machines cannot. They even used navigational computers devised from highly complex clockwork that rival our Global Positioning Satellites. Indeed, if you dig deep enough, you will learn stories of men, not gods, building flying machines, using complex powered machines, able to control immense reserves of energy, and were able to freely transmit such energy through the air to power remote devices. One can only speculate what they needed it for, but it was not just so they could say that they could do it. Considering the tales passed down by most ancient cultures on Earth of a time in our primordial past when highly sophisticated civilizations, commanding unimaginable technology, were destroyed by interplanetary cataclysm, one is forced to ponder its plausibility. I have often wondered if the many tales of so-called ancient astronauts were not in fact actually of fellow earthlings who had lived in the broadly recorded Golden Age, before the Great and Terrible Dragon, the planet Venus, looking like a massive comet with a long plasma tail, for a time slid from its orbit and rained inestimable desolation upon the Earth, wiping out all high culture from our planet and regressing our level of sophistication backward by millennia, and causing countless generations to fear the mere rumor of a comet. Page 51 of 119

Consider Cro-Magnon Man, long thought to be cave dwellers, yet they actually built complex cities and homes, had concrete, asphalt, modern clothing, and were social, sophisticated, and tactical. Considering that 120 thousand years ago they were equally as intelligent, as curious, as inventive, and as mentally capable as we are today, we have to wonder if they truly were so backward or stupid as we naively assume. And if so, why did the Bronze Age precede the Iron Age, when iron is so much easier to work with; bronze requiring substantial skill and an advanced knowledge of alloys, as well as extremely intense temperatures to render it (not to mention the tin used to produce bronze from copper must first be refined from raw material), and this practice was clearly universally common among such primitive people.

One must consider the legends of upright walking Cretaceous Apes surviving into recorded history (upright bipedal primates were more common than previously thought). Like all common apes, they had flat hands with pulled back non-opposable thumbs, had fur instead of hair, had furry backs but no furry chest, broad flat noses, nocturnal eyes in deep eye sockets, flat sloping forehead, no chin, no neck, they had the typical pinched upper rib cage of all apes due to immense upper-body musculature (humans have rounded rib cages), bones several times denser and muscles six times stronger than Mans, a stocky build, limited tool use, long meridian crest at the crown of the head to anchor powerful jaw muscles, arms very much longer than Mans, had primitive social skills, and finally, like all great apes, his throat and windpipe were configured so that he could actually breathe and swallow food simultaneously.
The above could closely describe a gorilla or a chimpanzee, but I was not describing either. I was describing the controversial Neanderthal Man, who was not man-like, and certainly not pre-man at all. Critics are just in their caution, even as each new piece of evidence comes to light, the more distant from Man moves the Neanderthal. He has a much better chance of being a Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch, or an Alma than he now has of being human. You must consider the funding for primate discovery. It goes to finding prehumans. If you can strip it of fur, give it a human musculature, even if it is alien to the muscle signatures in the bone, squint at it and see something human, then that can be your ticket to financial security, as observed by Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com), an alternative-view author and meticulous researcher, who is all too familiar with the treachery that dishonest motivation, inflated egos, and personal agendas play in the empirical sciences, which too often twists true science into abomination, basing much of his often controversial views (some call them out there) not upon simple whimsy or unverified rumors, but upon the honest conclusions of many scientists of important note.

Page 52 of 119

As an example of how our thinking is altered by those charged with providing us with knowledge, did you know that when Columbus sailed in 1492, it was actually common knowledge to the people of Europe (and of the Americas) that the Earth was a globe? The flat-earth myth was a story device inserted decades later to make the telling of the journey more heroic. What they did fear were their sailors, sailing beyond sight of land, sometimes not returning.

This is why the solidly-founded Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics theories are slow to accept. Instead of science investigating such new views as was done ut assolet in centuries past, the protagonists for these theories have had to struggle through almost unbearable criticism, ridicule, censure, and exile in the name of discovery. Take Halton C. Arp, one of the greatest astronomers since Galileo, who you may never have even heard of, who is denied telescope time in the USA because his inyour-face discoveries do not kowtow to relativist views. Or Stephen J. Crothers, who had to defend his views so ardently that they came close to driving him to madness. So much so that he gave up physics research for a time in order to regain his mental equilibrium; this all because his research and discoveries did not bend its knee to established relativist decree. If you doubt that such goes on in this so-called new age of science, then you had better look once again with more steadfast eyes. When I sink my teeth into a subject, I will not let go of it until I have leeched all the data that I can extract from it, often having to dig deep within almost forgotten, or censured, or even covered-up history. Such dogged, unrelenting digging had even turned a simple 10-page synopsis of discovery into a 712-page exploration of history in my seminal work, A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity; the culmination of 30 years of research. This revolution in the structure of science reminds me so much of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. After successfully inciting revolution and erasing their opponents, the Bolshevik overlords made a law declaring that anyone even suspected of counter-revolutionary thought (meaning, all who resisted them or that they simply did not like) would be liquidated.
NOTE: The paradox was that the leaders of the Bolsheviks Socialist Revolution were not themselves socialists, but agenda-driven autocrats who lusted after absolute power and control over all, simply using socialism as a tool to build a national following through empty promises of free goods, services, and prosperity for all. Sadly, this model works only as long as there is wealth to pilfer and redistribute, ultimately dragging everyone, rich and poor alike, save for those at the top who are gripping power, into poverty, apathy, and moral corruption. This would make the bourgeoisie the Bolsheviks overthrew actually a much better choice for leading the people. Of course, the bourgeoisie included not only royalty, but also writers, poets, the educated, and anyone else of thoughtful or bohemian proclivity.

Page 53 of 119

Much of what the protagonists for the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics have to fight is this revised sphere of science that looks to have almost completely turned away from true science, and now exists almost wholly within an empire of thought experiments; the Thought Revolution; a world of mathematical make-believe whose advocates trust that their theories actually do not require testing, just verification. And you know what happens when you specifically design experiments to offer only a specific result? The brave souls bearing the torch of true science have since suffered, and some severely, but they persevere so that science will not forever be trapped within its present viscous quagmires of personal agendas, politics, and egos. Those still alive to recall the controversy over Einstein during the early decades of the 20th Century may remember him accused of being a radical, of being a racist, of being arrogant, of him being accused regularly of plagiary, of him lying, and even of revisionist recollection. But as time passed, as is the nature of things, most witnesses began to forget those unflattering episodes as they instead beheld the puzzling paradoxical image of a small, stooped, shuffling old man with a frazzled white mane. This national amnesia over Einsteins failings is much like how America has also all but forgotten that President Franklin D. Roosevelt almost managed to destroy America in an attempt to fulfill his and President Woodrow Wilsons dream to transform America into a socialist utopia, which is now known, but known only secretly back then, to be financially unsustainable, and will always face a fatal end, dragging all down with it. In 1930, when the American economy was actually in the natural process of recovery, one year after Herbert Hoover became President (being unaware, just like the brightest financial wizards on Wall Street, that financial bubbles even existed, because models of such concepts had not yet been realized), with unemployment creeping to 8.7%, government assumed control of most everything through legislation under the promise to relieve financial burdens on business and citizens, but which had the natural, and some say fully socialist-inspired consequence of forcing unemployment to 23.6% by 1933, and thanks to FDRs later and often unconstitutional action, he extended the depression for years, recovering instead in 1944 (1.2%). By 1937 he transformed this ordinary depression into a Great Depression. (see www.christianpost.com/news/time-to-get-real-aboutroosevelt-s-new-deal-36546/, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-ProlongedDepression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409, or www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson154.html). Page 54 of 119

NOTE: Some claim full recovery did not take place until 1954, when the Dow Jones industrial average finally exceeded the pre-crash peak of 381.17, but that was actually just a minority of companies, and at that time most Americans did not invest in the stock market. Most stocks, including those that suffered, would have recovered by 1932 had it not been for excessive government intervention. Indeed, stocks began recovering shortly after the crash, but increasing government interference in business unraveled all recovery efforts, causing stocks to again tumble.

Although FDR did not take office until 4 March 1933, one must carefully look at the mechanizations at work that built up to his presidency that fully facilitated his goals, as exemplified later by his completely bypassing congress, issuing strings of executive orders after taking office with the excuse that congress acted too slowly, such as Executive Order 6102 on 5 April 1933 (see www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html) that required all citizens to surrender their gold coin, bullion and certificates to the federal government, and he quickly launched the greatest socialist programs ever enacted in America; collectively called the New Deal. Although this had an initial positive effect, giving 10 million government jobs to unemployed workers (who were also encouraged to organize into socialist labor unions), it put an incalculable strain on business and those who otherwise generated paychecks and jobs, because the government taxed them, some at rates from 63% and to near 100% after just $25,000 of income, thus discouraging private entrepreneurship and made government the only stable employer, and sinking the economy into an extremely deep recession, creating the Great Depression, even as other countries were concurrently recovering from the initial 1929 crash. See also The Success of the Great Depression Tax Revolts by Mark Thornton and Chetley Weise (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/thornton1.pdf).
NOTE: The principal people who suffered from the actual 1929 Share Market Crash were shareholders on Wall Street, mainly traders seeking to get rich quick through margin buying, which, since the trading boom of 1928, had formed a huge bubble, along with the formation of closed-end investment trusts, augmented by a broker loan interest rate bubble, and the sharp, clearly excessive rise in stock prices through September 1929 not being addressed. Most of this was ultimately due to unregulated speculation trading, which naturally inflated the bubbles, much like the free-for-all petroleum price speculation of today. Most other citizens did not suffer, unless they worked for such publicly traded companies, until the government takeovers. As a result of this mounting increase in government control of business operations, by 1933 stocks had finally tumbled anywhere from 65% to 85%.

But in order to understand why and how true science came to be in the crippled state it now finds itself, to understand how rigid its redefinition and how unyielding it now is to new concepts, we have to lay it all at Einsteins feet, no matter how much affection we may feel toward this philosophical old man who everyone treated like their favorite uncle. Page 55 of 119

Or was that just a manufactured image that had been promoted so ardently by those who had so very much to gain by making him the king of science?

I do not desire in any way to shred our perception of him out of spite or personal frustration. I seek only to understand the truth of why, when he stood at the very cusp of science coming into its own, his rise made it become a run-amuck. To do that, we have to stop wearing the blinkers that we often don to filter out those things we may not want to see or hear. Those who will not have or face Truth will not hear or know Truth.
For an example of science run-amuck, consider the hole in the ozone layer. The Earth is not perfectly round, nor is it oval, but it is actually shaped vaguely like a pear. The South Pole and its atmosphere naturally recess into a very large and deep dimple. This explains why it is much colder there than the North Pole. Yet, aided by the violent winds along the so-called Roaring 40s it forces a cyclic, down-blowing vortex that naturally pulls the upper atmosphere, to include the ozone, straight down to the surface. Hence, the hole in the ozone layer over the South Polar Region is a natural phenomenon.

The popular and impassioned environmentalist ranting over CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) creating this hole in the ozone layer by mundane devices, such as aerosols from household cans, automotive exhaust, and Freon refrigerants is based wholly upon junk science. Considering that CFCs are several times heavier than air, how can spraying them out of a hand-held can, or leaking out of automotive air conditioners cause these very heavy gasses to somehow rise ten kilometers up into the air and then migrate to the South Pole? They cannot. I have also heard the whimsical theory that it can possibly be caught in an unknown and improvable swirling atmospheric vortex, but this is a clear case of whimsy (a theory without foundation is not a theory, but a simple unfounded presumption).
If there were indeed such a mysterious and untraceable atmospheric vortex forcing the heavy chlorine gasses upward from their emission sources, then would it not also be logical that holes in the protective ozone layer would be located relative to those same sources? For, if that scenario was so, then how is it possible that these gasses can bypass the ozone that it would actually have to collide with in the local upper atmosphere before it could migrate to a Polar Region? Besides, due to the manner in which air currents work, gasses from the Northern Hemisphere travel to the North Pole, not to the South Pole. Where is the huge hole over the North Pole? Granted, there is a tiny, but natural one. However, logically, because most pollution is in the Northern Hemisphere, such a hole should be much larger in the north than in the south if such reasoning was true.

Page 56 of 119

It has been known since the 1970s that a single volcanic eruption can spew more CFCs into the upper atmosphere than all the CFCs that Mankind has ever produced. Why was it that in 1954, when CFCs were not widely used, that the hole in the ozone layer was then at its absolute broadest? Yet later, when mankinds use of CFCs increased it shrank. Environmentalists might assume from this that CFCs were in fact good for the environment. So, how is the ozone layer created? A gamma photon-B particle dashes from the Sun into our atmosphere, collides with an oxygen molecule (O2), creating two oxygen atoms (O1), which both in turn collide and bind with two other O2 molecules, creating two ozone molecules (O3). So, suppose that, by some miracle, all the ozone in the upper atmosphere were to be magically broken back down into O2 molecules and/or O1 atoms. Poof! What would happen? Well, the photon-B particles would continue to stream into the atmosphere from the Sun, collide with the O2 and O1, and create a fresh, new ozone layer. And how long would this wholly natural ozone regeneration process take to complete, to repair a lost ozone layer? It would only take a fraction of a second. You could better save ozone by turning on a photocopier.
Who can talk about the environment without discussing global warming? The Earth naturally goes through many warming and cooling cycles before anything resembling an actual ice age comes about. Why is the Earth generally warming up (well, it has actually been steadily cooling during the past 15 years)? It is because there was a documented mini ice age spanning from around 1300-1350 CE through around 1850-1900. Therefore, the Earth was pulled out of a mini-ice age around the beginning of the 20th century. It appears the Earth would have to warm up, and would naturally continue to do so for uncounted decades, in order for it to pull out of such a cooling period. This is ignoring completely what sunk it into this mini ice age in the first place, though I guarantee that it was not because of medieval automotive exhaust fumes, industrial pollution, cows and pigs farting, or people using cans of pit stop. And what about the many times in the past when there were little or no polar caps? Indeed, most of Earths history lacked polar caps. Is Mankind or Nature responsible for those conditions? I vote Nature.
NOTE: Though you constantly hear environmentalists crying about the loss of sea ice on both poles, they both have more ice now than in any period previously recorded (see www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html). Indeed, even the alarmism about Polar Bear survival in the Artic is unfounded, being that Polar Bear populations, contrary to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, have actually been exploding, and are now far higher than in any other period previously recorded (see http://heartland.org/editorial/2007/09/11/polar-bear-scare-thin-ice?artId=21966).

Page 57 of 119

NOTE: Stanford researchers are now coming to the conclusion that American Indians were so good at deforestation and burning wood that they may actually be responsible for the above mini ice age in Europe, contrary to the impressions we might get from recent touchy-feely movies that portray American Indians as being so at one with Nature (see http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html ). Prior to the pre-Columbus pandemic that wiped out easily 90% of the American Indian population, they had previously outnumbered Europes population of 70 million with a population as high as 100 million. My Cherokee cousins related to me that most tribes were nomadic because they would consume local resources until the area became utter desolation, and so they would then migrate to greener, more resource-rich pastures (this might also help explain why the socalled untamed wilderness of America was in fact so easy to traverse that pioneers often remarked that it was like moving through parks and gardens, seldom needing to move rocks or cut paths). The common warring and enslavement, and even periodic cannibalism between tribes were once legendary. Even the mighty, fearsome Vikings, who were the scourge of northern Europe during the Medieval Warming Period, greatly feared the North American Indian when their populations were at full strength, seriously kicking the Vikings buttocks during every encounter, thus preventing permanent mainland settlement for over 500 years, until the pandemics that weakened the American Indians ability to fend off invaders (see www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believeabout-founding-america.html). If you have any opportunity whatsoever, be sure to read historian James W. Loewens most jaw-dropping book, Lies My Teach Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.

From these examples you may see the problem I have with public-schooled history. Frankly, I often come to the cynical conclusion that just about everything that I have been academically taught about history in such institutions are simply wrong (but since when has the government been good at running anything? Just consider the massive monetary sinkholes called the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, versus what they actually do). If this or that reflects poorly on whoever is in authority, then the facts are often tweaked so that they are rendered more politically correct by not shining such a bad light on those in the responsible positions. If I had my way, political correctness would be expunged from our lexicon. I am very passionate about looking into the meaning behind everything. In the course of this I have repeatedly heard people warn me that topics can be robbed of their spiritual or scientific Truth by looking too closely at them. Stop and really think about that. Lose spiritual or scientific Truth? If we rob them of anything, then we may be robbing them of a phony mask of pretended Truth. What is left is more to the bone of what it truly is; which is sometimes more enlightening than the twisted manufactured faade that had been draped over it. My feeling is that they either reveal Truth, or they do not. Truth is not like the proverbial gift horse; its light will not diminish when you look at it with scrutiny.

Page 58 of 119

Only those things that are fashioned to assume a faade of Truth are exposed for what they are. In the Gospel of Philip, Jesus said, When a blind man and a man who sees are together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness. He was also pointed in noting with immense wit that, If the blind lead the blind, they will both end up in the ditch. I believe the philosophically blind only claim to crave the light, but in truth they hate the light and love the darkness; for in darkness, the ones who see will admit, I am blind, but the ones who are blind may say, I see. It is the light of Truth that will in the end expose their shame.

We seek for Truth because we each need something to believe in. We absolutely, desperately need the world around us to make sense. This is why children believe in magic and fantastic notions: it is a basic human instinct to possess a complete worldview. As a child, we are incapable of knowing little beyond the small, protected world surrounding us, so we must fill these knowledge gaps in our worldview with explanations that, based upon our limited, meager experience, seem to make sense to us.
As we grow older and become more experienced with the wonders of the world around us, we slowly replace those invented explanations with facts, and often later replace even those filled-in facts with more wholesome facts. This explains why young people believe that they know everything and that their parents, who might not see eye-to-eye with them on a point, normally due to wiser knowledge that comes with their years, are seen as brainless idiots. The children have their answers, but they do not possess Truth.

But what are answers, and what is Truth? Too often we assume that when we find answers we also find Truth. Yet, answers are actually things that can be true or false; things that merely seem to settle the confusion in our psyches. They make us feel as though we understand this world around us.
Truth is that which simply is; that which never changes. All else is that which only seems to be the distortion and twisting and hiding of Truth. When we bend Truth, even with but the slightest, most insignificant of dimples, we do not truly remold it: we simply form a crusted imperfect shell around it that blinds us to it, that fools our own personal viewing of its true nature.

We all begin on a path seeking Truth. However, in the course of it we often form entrenched opinions. When we form such stoic ideals, we have taken the first step toward constructing a trap for our minds. For, once we have those opinions, we often lash them to our self-esteem, and so to damage them is to chink the armor we had built to ward against the world. Thus, we jealously shield them, staving off all who threaten. Page 59 of 119

In our desperate effort to protect our opinions, we often have to become selective in the answers we find; accepting only those answers that lead to a confirmation of that which we piously assume to be Truth, ignoring all else by the blinkers we too often unwittingly don; presuming opposing views to be, by default, baseless and false. This is the trap in seeking only answers: we end up no longer seeking Truth. These webs we weave, these masks we wear, these shells we envelop ourselves in become so thick and suffocating that we do not realize that we are made numb to the world, twisting ourselves in a blanket of shadow so muffled and opaque that outer sensation is all but lost. We must understand that only we can unstring those webs, peel off those masks, and breach those shells.
To seek Truth, we have to understand that which makes us who we are. We must discover why we have our opinions. The inscription on the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi admonishes us ; to Know Thyself. This is Gnosis; this is Knowing. Without it, we will be just one more speck in a vast ocean of specks, stretching out beyond the horizon like a blanket of disease. Unyielding and unrelenting, we will fight and squabble over our own little pieces of territory, protecting opinions that are not the end of our road, but only a small pebble in the roadbed that, as a result, we may no longer tread.

This is where I see the new elitists within the new Scientific Establishment. They are too often so afraid of being wrong, their grants and tenures and self-esteem are strung so tightly to them being right, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their opinions, no matter how wrong they may truly be. They do not realize that if they simply accept the truth, no matter how it falls, they will have actually taken a step toward achieving the Truth to all the really interesting questions in Science. Never be afraid of being wrong it is more so through our errors that we in time become wise, not through bulling others into accepting our opinions, no matter how ludicrous, so as to not tarnish our self-esteem. My father had a solution for most problems that troubled our self-esteem. His words of wisdom were: Deal with it! With fame I become more and more stupid, which is, of course, a very common phenomenon. Albert Einstein, 1919. But, however all this ends, I will forever love Einsteins anecdotes. David Page 60 of 119

Regarding the Impossibility of Black Holes I saved my discussion regarding the impossibility of black holes, and by consequence, singularities, in Einsteins equations to trail my letters because the subject is often heatedly contentious, some opinions fought with zealotry so intense they border on being fundamentally religious. Though the science and math against black holes are flawless, as they have been since they were first calculated in 1915, many will point to some of these same solutions and declare that they are proof that black holes exist, even though they may reject the solutions actual conclusion, which may in fact deny that possibility. Indeed, I had originally struck this section (and another later larger section to fill out some details on Einstein) from this open letter because of the political volatility they incite in certain scientific circles that will believe in black holes no matter how reliable the evidence is to the contrary.
NOTE: My late and dear Aunt Eleanor often said Dont confuse the issue with facts.

NOTE: So far, only David Hilberts 1916 solution has actually revealed a black hole. However, having said that, his solution cannot be described by admissible coordinate transformations, which consequentially renders his solution invalid.

As a flip argument, and as stated earlier, in an Electric Universe black holes are entirely unnecessary because it will operate just fine without them. Apparently this universe gets by just fine without them, as well, because nothing we have observed has been affected by these unproven things, not to mention that in every instance where they might be suspected, Plasma Physics had a better, simpler, and more logical answer. One of the best arguments against black holes that I have found and I think also the absolutely best resource for obtaining most associated documents and topics on this subject is embodied within a very short Thunderblog by Stephen J. Crothers on the www.Thunderbolts.info website, entitled, Big Bang Busted! (The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics) (see www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/022108_guest_sjcrothers.htm).
NOTE: It should be noted that Crothers was expelled from his PhD program at the University of New South Wales for submitting a report that challenged black holes. He was also insulted and threatened by professors at the university (one even altered his work and then claimed that he was in error). Over this matter, Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora claimed that his University and his professors did no wrong, and told Crothers that his report was insulting to UNSW, its professors, and himself. For a time this betrayal gave Crothers great mental distress, eventually driving him from physics research in order to calm his nerves. See www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html for details of how this all came about, and see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/hora.pdf for an interesting email exchange between Crothers and Professor Hora after the fact. This all demonstrates how far Black Hole Relativists will go in order to protect their sacred cows.

Page 61 of 119

Consider the fact that the whole argument for black holes supposedly hinges on Karl Schwarzschilds work. His 1916 memoir relates how he, in 1915, the same year that Einstein first introduced his adaptation of the previously published work of Gauss, Riemann, and Mach on general relativity, provided the first exact solution to Einsteins field equations for the limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass. His paper, On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einsteins Theory (see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf), which outright invalidated the black hole, is often contrarily cited by pro-black hole physicists as providing the so-called Schwarzschild Solution, which they claim is the smoking gun that realized black holes. It is said to make use of Schwarzschild coordinates and the Schwarzschild metric that in turn leads to the widely-publicized Schwarzschild radius. This radius is said to be the extent of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole. However, this radius is an error due to a bad asumption, as we will see.
NOTE: A first red flag should have already been raised. It is increasingly accepted that black holes rotate, because non-rotating black holes, which all solutions so far support, are in fact simply a mass point (singularity) in a vacuum that cannot possibly exist outside a hypothetical universe. Rotating black holes, which also feature collapsing gravitational fields, use neutron stars as a model, even though Nuclear Physics has soundly proven that neutron stars cannot exist. This is on top of the fact that no valid solution yet exists that is capable of justifying the possibility of a rotating black hole, regardless of neutron stars.

Later, Johannes Droste developed his own solution in 1916, which also denied the possibility for black holes. By the time his paper, The field of a single centre in Einsteins theory of gravitation, and the motion of a particle in that field (see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Droste.pdf) was published in 1917 he had learned of Schwarzschilds 1915 solution and promptly added an acknowledgement to it in a footnote of his paper (After the communication to the Academy of my calculations, I discovered that also K. SCHWARZSCHILD has calculated the field). Even Marcel Brillouin's 1923 solution, The Singular Points of Einsteins Universe (see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/brillouin.pdf) demonstrates quite categorically that black holes are nonsense.
It is unfortunate that the Droste and Brillouin solutions are ignored. But many may be surprised to learn that the Schwarzschild solution is also ignored.

The much-heralded Scwarzchild Solution, as opposed to his actual solution, was not even written by Scwarzchild, but rather by David Hilbert. Hilberts solution (see Salvatore Antocis paper, David Hilbert Page 62 of 119

and the Origin of the Schwarzschild Solution, which describes Hilberts solution in detail at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/hilbert.pdf), was not derived from Schwarzschilds flawless mathematical physics, but was in fact a flawed adaptation of the Droste solution. Even so, you will frequently see misquotes like the following, this one taken from Wikipedia, The first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 Granted, and as is argued by many of its supporters, it should not really matter who actually developed this solution, but the fact that it exists. I say that if indeed that was just the case, and the solution was valid, then there really should be very little argument over the matter. The problem is that Hilbert had made a fatal error in his solution, and this has only been exacerbated by enthusiastic supporters in the field of physics who have perpetuated the error more dramatically by not fully understanding the actual nature of the problem these solutions were meant to in fact solve, let alone recognize Hilberts mistake. See the late Leonard S. Abrams 1989 paper that researched this subject, Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error, at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf, and also to his later paper written in 1996, The Total Space-Time of a Point Charge and its Consequences for Black Holes, at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1996.pdf. It is a matter of clinical fact that Hilbert derived his solution from Droste. Nonetheless, it critically differs from Droste in that the range of values that are allowed for Hilberts incorrectly assumed radii variable, R, (see below), which describes how far the event horizon is located from the center of the gravitating mass. It is even more interesting that Droste himself had actually anticipated this mistaken mathematical procedure that would lead to the imploding black hole solution, and made an effort to point out in a communication to fellow physicist Hendrik Lorentz that such a procedure is not permissible because it would actually lead to a non-static solution to a static problem, and as such, it must be omitted. By the way, static solutions do not involve gravitational collapse. The underpinning of Hilberts error was his misunderstanding of a realvalue parameter by which the true radii in the space-time manifold of the gravitational field is calculated, and he (and others) assumed the parameter was the radii itself. To quote from Stephen Crothers excellent paper, A Brief History of Black Holes, from the April 2006 issue of Progress in Physics, (see www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF ): Page 63 of 119

It is this incorrect range on the incorrectly assumed radius variable by Hilbert that enabled the black hole to be obtained. The variable on the Hilbert metric, called a radius by the relativists, is in fact not a radius at all, being instead a real-valued parameter by which the true radii in the spacetime manifold of the gravitational field are rightly calculated. None of the relativists have understood this, including Einstein himself. Consequently, the relativists have never solved the problem of the gravitational field. It is amazing that such a simple error could produce such a gigantic mistake in its wake, but that is precisely what the black hole is a mistake for enormous proportions. Of course, the black hole violates the static nature of the problem, as pointed out by Droste, but the black hole theoreticians have ignored this important detail. NOTE: I suggest you also read pages 171-172 (7.2.1 What is a Black Hole?) in the fundametal theories of physics textbook, Is there a Temperature? (Conceptual Challenges at High Energy, Acceleration and Complexity), by Tams Sndor Br, preview available at http://books.google.com. This textbook, published in 2011 by Springer Science+Business Media, New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, and London, and written by Tams Sndor Br of the Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics at the Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Acadamy of Sciences in Budapest, is interesting in that this is the first textbook I have ever read that does not hold anything back, and does not try to whitewash any of the conveyed details. Consider the following excerpt: Precisely, this critical radius, R = 2GM/c2, occurs in an ansatz of Schwarzschild solving Einsteins equations for general relativity. As a matter of history, Schwarzschilds solution was not a black hole, either. He considered a static solution to the Einstein equation, with vacuum everywhere, except a mass point. He communicated this to Einstein on a military postcard in 13 January 1916. Einstein was so surprised, that he immediately published this communication to him. Then on 24 February 1916 Karl Schwarzschild communicated a solution outside of a homogeneous sphere filled with an incompressible liquid. Actually, he himself never considered gravitational collapse, he was looking for static solutions. Johannes Droste was the first who anticipated the imploding black hole solution, by finding the solution of Schwarzschild independently of him in December 1916 and communicating this to Hendrik Lorentz. He stated that this would be a nonstatic solution to a static problem, and as such, it has to be omitted. The Schwarzschild solution, as referred to under this name since, was actually presented first by David Hilbert, regarding R just as a real valued parameter in the solution. In 1922, the possibility of gravitational collapse, as an admissible solution to the Einstein equations had been discussed, but no mathematical proof of the existence of such a solution arose. Marcel Brillouin has obtained a new exact solution in 1923 by a valid transformation of coordinates in Schwarzschilds solution. It still describes a static vacuum solution with the boundary condition of a point particle with mass M at r=0, not a black hole. The collapsing black hole solution with an event horizon is derivable from Hilberts solution; it just cannot be described by admissible coordinate transformations. NOTE: Karl Schwartzschild, a German physicist, died 11 May 1916 while serving on the Russian Front from a painful skin blistering disease called pemphigus.

Page 64 of 119

Even more disturbing is that most of these brilliant physicists have clearly failed to understand the nature of the problem the solutions were meant to solve, and that is that all the so-called black hole solutions to Einsteins field equation were actually for a hypothetical universe that contained only a single mass point, or singularity, in a vacuum, which was the black hole itself, being a non-rotating homogeneous sphere filled with an unidentified incompressible liquid, and which can only exist at the exact center of this hypothetical space. They were never meant to solve for an independant black hole in a universe filled with other matter, such as plasma, stars, planets, and galaxies, let alone two or more black hole masses, even though cosmologists now-a-days seem to pepper them all over our universe, especially anywhere where their gravitational physics do not seem to solve observed phenomenon, to include at the center of each Galaxy as presumed Super Massive Black Holes, to some who even speculate that one might be a binary companion to our own Sun (and I will rub in once again that Plasma Physics would solve those issues quite easily and without black holes). From this we can see that there are grave problems with the current model. First, there exists no solutions for a hypothetical universe that contains more than one black hole. The reason for this is that the physics for two or more such masses in a single universe, or even within a universe that contains more than just the black hole itself, is so far impossible because such a solution does not yet exist, even though physicists and cosmologists seems to go around assuming that such a theory does exist, which is plainly understood from how they carry on and on about them and sprinkle them like fairy dust everywhere, as though peppering a steak.
Second, one must consider the nature of a black hole, and that is if they indeed had infinite densities, light could never escape from the surface of the black hole because infinite density will also have infinite gravity. However, I have heard physicists proclaim that light can emit from this gravitational object, but it will always be pulled back to the gravitating body. But this is in fact describing a Newtonian Michell-Laplace black body , which is in fact not a black hole (see page 66). Twisting this further, some physicists claim that the escape velocity from a black hole is the speed of light in a vacuum. This is regardless of the fact that anything within its event horizon can only pass inward towards the black hole. So a layman might surmise from this that the physicists are in fact saying that light therefore can escape from a black hole because they have declared an escape velocity. But at the same time other physicists allege that light cannot escape (even from its surface, let alone travel outward within its event horizon), that would mean that that there is in Page 65 of 119

fact no escape velocity from the black hole. The above illustrates the confusion of facts that are argued within the presumed unified community that believe in them.

Third, no solutions yet exist that can define a black hole as other than a single non-rotating mass point that exists in anything other than an entirely hypothetical, thus non-actualized universe. Fourth, the glaring error in the black hole solutions is that they solve a static problem with a non-static solution, which all existing black hole solutions, therefore, yield invalid conclusions, regardless of anything else. Much is written on this, to include Einsteins own rejection of black holes. For example, in 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of Mathematics named On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses (see www.jstor.org/pss/1968902). Einstein endeavored to prove in his paper that celestial objects so dense that their gravity prevents light from escaping were impossible. Unfortunately, non-consensus material like this is usually suppressed or ignored by a community of physicists and astronomers who have bought into Hilberts flawed black hole premise so completely that they will not even heed the words of their own revered icons.
Many theoretical physicists have alleged that Newtons theory of gravitation either predicts or indicates black holes, stemming from a suggestion made in 1784 by John Michell that if a body is sufficiently massive, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return to it by its own power of gravity. However, this so-named Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole at all. The term derives from a description of what an observer, who is located at an infinite distance from the gravitating source, would see. It is basically described like this: if you are observing the gravitating source from an infinite distance away, then if an object emits from that gravitating source and subsequently returns to that source because its gravity has pulled it back, or emits from that source and then, at a certain distance, will become static in motion and no longer move, in either case it will never be seen by the observer because the object will never reach or pass the observer (see the previous link to A Brief History of Black Holes for fuller details of this). I find it sad that black holes, which have been sensationalized and reported widely upon, featuring prominently in popular culture through countless wellliked cinematic features and television programs, is entirely due to a mistaken interpretation of mathematical data that too few scientists, it seems, especially among black hole supporters, have taken the time to test and confirm or deny.

Strange, but is it not the task of a true scientist to test reported findings? Page 66 of 119

NOTE: (I apologize for this notes length. It began as a single paragraph, twice the size of this one, but you know how much I love details) In considering the above and thinking about objects moving from a central point, I was reminded that in July 1971, when I was 16, I once thought about the fact that a light source can be observed from infinite locations surrounding it. Just imagine a microscopic but visible light source suspended in the center of a glass sphere, and you were to attempt to mark every point on that sphere at which that light source is observable.

So, if each beam of light, each being a charged photon, will each pass through one of those infinite points around the light source, I wondered if there were in fact enough photons to fill the rest of the universe because it would seem to me that the entire universal supply of photons will clearly be exhausted to simply report that single point of light into all possible directions. Was this a paradox?
From this I reasoned, therefore, that photons could not possibly be particles, but had to be waves, which can propagate its frequency in all directions through transference. So, at age 16, I had discovered the fundamentals of spherical quantum waves, and did not know it. Too bad somebody else had already realized it long before me.

So, even at that age I was already concluding that all electrons and protons and neutrons are waves, never particles, because the above would only be possible if a photon was always a wave. As a result, infinite observers could in fact be witnessing effects or ripples from a single spherical photon wave of light from any of their respective observation points, and the universe would remain intact. Years later I wondered if I should pursue Quantum Physics. They talk like that.
Quantum Physicists say a wave will collapse to a particle when monitored, but the above analogy makes it evident this is not the case, or practical; for it continues to be simultaneously a wave at unmonitored locations. In other words, if a wave is observed as a particle at one observation point, how can it still act as a wave in any locations not so monitored, or be detected as a particle at all other monitored locations? It cant. This even goes beyond the idea of quantum superposition, which is rendered invalid by the spherical wave model, anyway. It must be one or the other, and so it can only therefore be a wave, never a particle, contrary to the paradox quantum physicists claim observing. The sad thing about a paradox in quantum physics is that most quantum physicists will simply throw up their hands and say, It is just one of those weird, mysterious things that happens down there below the Planck scale.
SUBNOTE: They call this a wave collapse. Whenever they measure the position of a particle, they say the range of locations narrows so they never see the wave. Have they thought enough on this to see what is going on? It is still a wave with an electromagnetic signature, but the fact they use an electromagnetic detector tells you how such observation might alter the experiment, even regarding the famous double-slit experiment. Is it really a particle, or energy transference? SUBNOTE: There is an axiom, If someone says that they understand quantum physics; they do not understand quantum physics. That is one of the stupidest things I ever heard. If you fill a field of study with pixie dust and paradoxes, of course no one is going to understand it, but that is because there is no clear definition of what is going on. It seems that scaleable plasma physics can blow away most of that pixie dust, and it should be accepted that paradoxes are simply conundrums that are yet to be resolved, and Occams razor should be able to help narrow down most of those. SUBNOTE: The Planck scale is an energy scale of about 1.22 1019 GeV, below which effects of gravity become undetectable in that the description of sub-atomic particle interactions breaks down due to the non-renormalizability of gravity. Face it: if gravity exists, it does not just stop working.

Page 67 of 119

Electromagnetic forces do not stop working. Perhaps its side effects are not strong enough to be detected, or its electromagnetic forces are blooming inward, hence becoming undetectable.

I think the real question here is how a single charged photon can distribute this mysterious wave principle that Quantum Physics claims that it does. I think the questions that must be asked are these: What is the actual physics of a quantum wave? How exactly is this wave transferred? And why do most people imagine them and illustrate them as being 2-dimensional? Quantum Physics describes a wave to be like circular ripples dispersing from a point in a pond in all directions. But what is performing the function of the water so that this wave effect can be detected or even actualized? In other words, what is the medium transferring the frequency energy from that central causal event to all points outward in 3 dimensions? Is it really matter as we define it? And if so, can it account for the function of light? It cannot be an absolute vacuum, because energy cannot be propagated in an absolute vacuum. Even light cannot function in an absolute vacuum, even though Einstein, et al., carry on about the speed of light in a vacuum. But I think that it is a safe assumption that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Besides, the paradox here is that if light entered into an absolute vacuum; the vacuum would no longer be absolute.
It seems to me that a surrounding crushingly dense ocean of Prime Matter, which has inwardly bloomed electromagnetic fields and therefore are electromagnetically undetectable, transfers this energy, and being incredibly small, can transfer it incredibly fast, likely working many times faster than the speed of light (which would not be a limit if light were a result of it transferring energy between fellow Prime Matter nodes), creating the spherical wave frequency effect observed, and is a piece to the puzzle that can demonstrate that Prime Matter does in fact exist, and is also an important component for a much simpler and more logical model for Particle Physics.
SUBNOTE: It is possible for billions of Prime Matter waves to exist within the space defined for an outwardly bloomed electromagnetic field generated by a single atom of Hydrogen. That is how small a Prime Matter standing wave is, having only twice the weight and mass of an electron.

Prime Matter theory makes few assumptions, compared to chains of interdependent assumptions made for the current Standard Model of Particle Physics, and therefore has more likelihood of being correct with respect to Occams Razor.
SUBNOTE: To kick-start your inner scientist, I suggest you read the work of George P. Shpenkov, retired professor of physics, whose current interest include an analysis of basic concepts of physics and their reconsideration to conformity with dialectical logic and philosophy. The main achievements of this analysis are a series of discoveries related to primordial problems of physics such as the nature of mass and charge of elementary particles, the shell-nodal structure of atoms, microwave background radiation of atoms, dynamic model of elementary particles, and etc. You can find his work at http://shpenkov.janmax.com. And if you REALLY want to awaken your inner genius, read the brilliant work of Geoff Haselhurst with the help of the equally brilliant Karen Howie. All I can say is WOW! Any kind of introduction from me would not do their work justice, so I will let the work speak for itself. Also be prepared to enjoy many quotes, poetry, and art. If anything is going to be able to help answer my questions on the true nature of quantum waves, it is likely in their exploration of the spherical standing wave structure of matter (WSM) in space. See www.spaceandmotion.com.

David Page 68 of 119

Exploring What Happened During the Solar Eclipse of 1919 Has anyone ever wondered how a poorly-equipped and in fact muddled expedition to observe the 29 May 1919 Solar Eclipse had managed to somehow catapult Einstein with his obscure theories onto the world stage, making him an overnight superstar? Until then, Einstein was largely unknown and was regularly criticized by peers for several mistakes and blatant plagiarism. What was it that made these things change?
NOTE: Many scientists will still defend the Royal Geographic Societys 1919 and 1922 solar eclipse expeditions, stating that because they were professional scientific expeditions, they could not possibly be so ill-equipped or have its results so skewed. I appreciate their desire to give their profession a face of integrity, but the sad news is that politics infests almost everything, and bureaucrats behind desks, pushing pencils, are always making mindless decisions regarding mindful things, and anyone who has ever had to fight the bureaucratic red tape within the scientific establishment well knows that this field is widely corrupted by political alliances, personal agendas, and overblown egos.

Arthur Eddington, made world famous for his many popular expositions explaining, interpreting, and indeed evangelizing Einsteins 1915 theory of general relativity (which was in a corrected form by 1916), led the 1919 expedition with the expressed goal of proving Einsteins theory correct (a red flag should have gone up right there). He had a vested interest in declaring it verified, not only because his public reputation was dependant upon the premise that Einsteins theory was correct, but also because to make Einstein the king of science would in turn solidify his own reputation as the man who discovered Einstein, and would greatly enrich him through access to grants (many scientists until then had been guilty of such breaches of scientific ethics, and, sadly, such fine traditions continue to this day).
NOTE: Eddington was the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy (after George Darwin died), the Director of the Cambridge Observatory (after Robert Ball died), and was named a Fellow of the Royal Society, and winning their Royal Medal. He was mathematically adept, having a clear understanding of the special and general theories of relativity, and had developed the first true understanding of stellar processes.

Their goal was to observe 43 stars and see if they (hopefully, all) would be deflected by 1.751 arc seconds. A reading close to this (Eddington reported 1.70 arc seconds) would be proof that Einsteins revolutionary overthrow of Newtonian ideas was correct, even though, ironically, Newton had predicted this effect, and from this, Johann Soldner in 1801 had estimated a 0.85 arc second deflection from Newton, though Soldner predicted light grazing the Sun would actually be double that value.

Page 69 of 119

NOTE: Some texts state that Eddington reported 1.73 arc seconds, not 1.70, but the 1.73 reading was the observation for deflection of quasar radio signals.
NOTE: An arc second is a unit of angular measure equal to 1/60th of an arc minute, or 1/3600th of a degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, or 1,296,000 arc seconds. Arc seconds are denoted by double-ticks, or quotation marks (), as in 0.85.

Eddingtons 1919 Principe, Africa expedition was hampered by many factors. First, the hot overcast island sky. Second, they had unreliable telescopes, the likes of which you can now pick up at a discount store for under $100. Third, they used a 10-second cap camera; a camera that must be exposed for a minimum of 10 seconds to register an image. This hindrance alone introduced a catastrophic flaw, which was that this extended exposure time forced a minimum 1/25th-degree (or 144 arc seconds, or 2.4 arc minutes) error, accounting for the rotation of the Earth, throwing a wrecking ball into their desire for 1/100th arc second accuracy. Fourth, the focus for the telescopes was computed and set days in advance of the eclipse, and their equipment was operating outside optimal temperature ranges, which did introduce unacceptable focusing issues. Fifth, the photographs were all of poor quality and no reliable measurements could be made from them, causing any derived results to be inconclusive.

Yet Eddington still claimed a reading of 1.70 arc seconds, with a claimed accuracy of measurement to be precise down to 1/100th arc second, which is 200 times more precise than their camera was capable of delivering, even if the camera had operated under the most perfect of conditions.
One hindrance, expanding on the Second factor, above, and one that few people seem to discuss, was the expedition telescopes used. They were 4-inch telescopes. Their size is determined from the size of the main lens, or aperture. Its resolution accuracy is determined by Dawes Limit (for W. R. Dawes, though it is also credited to Lord Rayleigh). For inches, its accuracy in arc seconds is computed by R = 4.56/D, where D is the diameter of the aperture in inches, and R is the resolving power of the instrument in arc seconds. Hence 4.56/4 = 1.14; meaning that a 4-inch telescope could not resolve for anything smaller than 1.14 arc seconds (so the Eddington claim of 1/100th arc second accuracy is blown completely away right there). Some may argue that equipment had to have become progressively better during the subsequent solar eclipse observations made in 1922 in Australia, 1929 in Sumatra, 1936 in Russia and Japan, 1947 in Brazil, and 1952 in Sudan. All these expedition results were reported to be in agreement with the 1919 readings and the predictions put forward by general relativity.

But I truly wonder exactly how they might think so? Page 70 of 119

The kind of accuracy that would be required to confirm general relativity would be difficult to achieve even now using the most modern telescopes, where we would still have great difficulty seeing detail finer than 1.0 arc second, though 2 to 3 or worse are typical, due to natural dissolution of accuracy because of atmospheric turbulence. Remember, 1 arc second is 1/3600th of a degree, or 1/1296000th of a circle (well over 1 millionth).
Hence, a Sixth factor is atmospheric turbulence as an accuracy concern, especially in the afternoon, as they endured 97F during the eclipse on Principe island off the African Gold Coast. Atmospheric turbulence causes images of stars to look fuzzy, to jump, or to quiver. This would naturally be expected when heat waves began rapidly rising from the vegetation as the air quickly cooled in the shade of the eclipse. Thus, the resolving power of the telescope can always be expected to double or triple to account for this, which would be expanded to 2.24 to 3.42 arc seconds minimal resolution, and this is not considering the 144 arc second error in the cameras. But all this clearly means that Eddington could not possibly prove or disprove Einsteins theory. Of the 43 stars observed, of them were summarily rejected because their measurements were either inconclusive or they did not conform to the desired result. Some of those rejected had measurements, but they appeared to deflect light in several, but not in the desired direction. If any of these 30-plus rejected stars had actually been accepted, Einsteins general theory of relativity would have simply been declared unverified. This tells me that if by happy accident the turbulence-jiggled results favored the desired result, it was considered good data; otherwise it was considered bad data and therefore rejected. In all, to include the expedition to South America, they had to reject 85% of their data in order to get Eddingtons desired result. One thing that does trouble me is that there was no report of any variance in the reported refraction of accepted stars that were further from the edge of the sun, which should have resulted in much lower refraction readings. But so enters the errors highlighted above. They just could not discern valid values.
NOTE: Under ideal conditions, the expeditions would have been able to confirm only part of Einsteins theory; to see if the light of stars deflected by 1.751 arc seconds; twice Newtons estimate. Oddly, the doubling of Newtons estimate was not even original to Einstein, but by Johann Georg von Soldners 1801 calculations that strictly used Newtonian Mechanics, not requiring any new physics principles. Although there was bending indicated, it is still not clear if it was due to solar/Earth atmosphere, solar gravity, solar electromagnetism, lensing through the plasma surrounding the sun, air turbulence, or if it actually differed from Newtons or Soldners predictions. In 1978 people tried to analyze the 1919 plates using computers, which was a total waste of time because the inaccuracies already exist in the plates, and computers are not going to change or enhance resolution from that, regardless of what you might see or imagine from watching any of the popular C.S.I. television programs.

Page 71 of 119

SUBNOTE: Soldners 1801 derivation of Newton is 2(v/c)2, yet he doubled it to equal 4(v/c)2 for light grazing the sun (which is the expression Einstein took credit for), computing deflection strictly by light aberration, not by relativistic light bending. By the way, if you look at Einsteins own sketch from his 1913 letter to American E. G. Hale, asking whether the test could be done without an eclipse, and illustrating how gravity bends light, he notes the deflection he was seeking as 0,84, almost mirroring Soldners 0.85 derivation of Newton see www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae24.htm. Fortunately for Einstein, the war prevented Hale from answering No until the war was over, allowing him to complete his general theory of relativity, which, mirroring Soldner, doubled the result derived from his special theory of relativity that had, when fully realized, used straight Newtonian Physics, with no new physics required. Solder predicted 1.70, Einstein 1.751, but Eddington reported 1.70, which by weird coincidence exactly matched Soldners prediction. To this day, many will shout triumphantly to the world how Einstein had corrected Soldners error by doubling the Soldner Newtonian calculation, thus making physics right with the universe. However, no one has yet put forward a reasonable explanation for why Einstein should have to in fact double it in terms of general relativity. Soldner had his reason to double it for light grazing the sun, where lensing through its plasma sheath would be greater. However, I have seen some vague references made in Einsteins defense regarding principles of equivalence, but nothing specific or even easy to pin down. Actually, in the end, Einsteins math duplicates Soldner.

NOTE: Why has no one yet tried to duplicate these experiments using the large, modern, high-precision equipment, such as the Hubble telescope since 1952? And why do they keep harping endlessly on the 1919 data (the other expedition to South America went little better)? Why is the other data through 1952 ignored? Or is it that they already knew that they will not getting results that would verify general relativity? One has to imagine an astronomer had to have been curious enough to have done it, just to settle the controversy. But why were they not published?

It is bad enough they make such a hullabaloo about how general relativity predicted the perihelion precession of Mercury, as if this effect was previously unknown. However, it was observed long before Einstein was even born. Further, the very same equation Einstein employed to in fact perform this great prediction in his 1915 paper was first published by Paul Gerber in 1898, having nothing to do with general relativity. Worse, due to dated correspondences between Einstein and Erwin Freundlich, it is clear that Einstein knew of Gerber.

The 1922 Australian expedition, conducted to verify the 1919 data, in fact had similar results because they were using the same type of equipment. Yet, the Royal Geographic Society claimed they confirmed the 1919 readings, even though it was just as inconclusive because the imprecision that was inherent in their equipment was still 200 times less accurate than required. Yet the same precision of accuracy was reported.
NOTE: Just as funding today favors Global Warming, where even mundane research can expect to rake in huge grants if its research can be related to Global Warming, even if it was to study the sex lives of gnats, grant money in Einsteins day were given to research that confirmed this rising stars theories. Think about that.

And it is upon this data that cannot be verifiably measured from even the accepted photographic plates (you can find samples online) that Einstein was elevated and likened to a demigod, and everyone got caught up in this wave of excitement, though too few understood what it was all about.

Page 72 of 119

When I read about this when I was 18 years old, I wondered why natural lensing through the upper atmosphere of the Sun and its plasma envelope was not also considered a factor, let alone the natural light aberration that Newton described in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. I still agree with the principle, but I now further augment it with the consideration that light consists of electrically charged photons, and the Sun is a fantastically charged electromagnetic dynamo, and as such the Sun will deflect charged photons. Actually, every 7th, 8th, or 9th grade school student should be familiar with this concept, considering that most science classes have a Radiometer, which is a glass bulb, looking somewhat like a clear light bulb with 4 diamond-shaped paddles balanced in a rarified gas, used to measure the radiant flux of electromagnetic radiation. Put it into sunlight or lamplight and the paddles will rotate.
NOTE: Because electricity is 1039 times more powerful than gravity, why do physicists carry on about gravity bending electromagnetic forces through general relativity when it should clearly be the other way around? Especially since gravity seems to be more and more likely to be simply an effect of electromagnetism? NOTE: If you want to test your knowledge on the theory of relativity, take the pop quiz at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/TestPage.htm. There is instant feedback on the multiple choice questions, and no one keeps score but you, so you can click around until you get it right (and learn something at the same time), so have fun. NOTE: I also have to specifically thank Christopher Bjerknes, Stephen Crothers, Richard Moody, Jr., the late Paul Marmet, and many un-credited encyclopedic sources for their hard work in previously researching much of this material. I run it off from memory as a stream of consciousness as I tap away at my keyboard, but these people inspired my words. I glued their blood and sweat together, and injected my own few insights as needed, usually identified simply as personal observations. Do yourself the biggest favor in the world and search the web for these fellows. Your understanding of science and your view of the world will be changed.

David

Page 73 of 119

Einstein, the Stumbling Manufactured Hero

PRELUDE

Some of the material in Part Two of this paper will wax very political, unlike the more scientific nature of other texts in this document. The truth is you cannot separate politics from science anymore, or visa versa; they are too tightly intertwined, often to the point of mutual inclusiveness, just as was religion and politics for most of recorded history. You cannot fully understand one without understanding the others relationship to it. Also, be aware that a lot of hidden or glossed-over religious history will be shared in broad daylight. Although these materials have been researched to death, and at some points mining helmets were required, it has been backed up by an excess of expert religious opinion and detailed research. Warning: Some of this material may literally terrorize those of Bible Literalist bent, and I apologize to them in advance for any discomfort, but I am not going to pretend that these events did not transpire so one can go on with their lives wrapped up in a safe and isolated cocoon. Truth is Truth. I will accept it even if everything that I believe is destroyed. I am not going to invent a whimsical and fluffy version of a religion so that I can only believe in the way I think that things should be, contrary to Truth. The reason that I must do this is because simple things are never truly simple. There are many complex things that work together to make something appear simple. Science, politics, religion, and history must work together and be the lenses through which we view all of them. For example, a scientific discovery may require an examination of history to explain the discoverys evolution, and who picked up each little clue before someone had the epiphany, the intuitive perception, that revealed its meaning in the light of reason from the blackness of confusion. Political and religious consideration are required to understand their thinking processes, which can in turn indicate why they had trouble in the discovery, or why they made the discovery, and what motivated them. Even the most complicated things can in the end be figured out. It simply requires sufficient consideration and reasoning. And lots of it! Also, please note that for my whole life, racial and ethnic discrimination has been in every respect utterly repulsive to me, severely upsetting me whenever I encounter it, as people who know me can attest. This is an important point to keep in mind as I drive a thundering wedge between Judaism and Zionism, and view them as entirely contrasting philosophies. Page 74 of 119

My ancestors were an ancient line of Jewish Christians called the Nazarite (pronounced Nazareth), from Hebrew nazara ha-brit; Keepers of the Covenant, and guided by Chapter 6 of the Book of Numbers in the Hebrew Bible (see the 3rd note below if such Christian antiquity confuses you). I make this point to present my Jewish Semite roots. Note also that I had been officially baptized Christian at a Byzantine Rite Melkite Church. Allow me to clarify my view in the next few pages as a preface to the real subjects of this paper, which starts on page 85. It is vitally important that you understand that my pro-Jewish, yet ardently anti-Zionist (and no, this is not an anti-Israel rant, either) theme of my paper carries concerning purposefully concealed history regarding Albert Einstein is not driven by anti-Semitism, as such has been too often assumed regarding most everyone else who had previously conducted this research, and to also point out that most anti-Semitism is fully and intentionally directed at the wrong people. It should also clearly demonstrate the depth of research I conduct. Forgive my thick, compressed brevity. This history deserves far more pages than we can ever afford here. Indeed, this prelude began as just a single sentence, but you know by now how much I love details
NOTE: Nazarite is also called Nazarean, and variations on their phonetics, but not of the perhaps more pretentious trappings assumed by modernly-invented and Edgar Cayce-style New Age Essenes (even though my ancestors were not Essene, save maybe some cousins, there was a branch of the Nazarite Order who were indeed Essene). Were it that the modern claimants truly understood the tremendously harsh lifestyle gladly borne by the original Essenes, they might not be so presumptuous in the presentation of their modern manufactured image. NOTE: Christian means King-ian; King-Follower; but specifically Follower of the Davidic King. The Melkites, originally composed of Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish members, were first to be called Christian, as members of the Bishopric the Disciple Peter established and led in the Syrian city of Antioch, which is now called the Eastern Rite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch. Melkite, also spelled Melchite, comes from the Syrian word Malky, meaning royal , referring to the King, Greek Khristos (), meaning anointed; the title adopted by this sect after the Council of Chalcedon schism (Byzantine/Roman Catholic split) in 451 CE. They also have a patriarchate in Alexandria, Egypt, being familiar to its Coptic Christian population. NOTE: Some Christians may have some trouble understanding how Christianity, though under various names, such as the Nazarite, might have existed long before Jesus. They must first understand that Messiah-ship (Davidic Kingship) did not begin with Jesus, or with his father, Yusef, who was also a Messiah, or with his grandfather, Ya-cobe-Heli, who was also a Messiah (and who helped establish the current calendar we use today, beginning with the year 1, to which Yusef and the later-Disciple Thaddeus applied a zero-generation adjustment), etc. But Jesus was unique in that he was a royal born in a Shekinah year (see

Page 75 of 119

page 77), and his birth rejoined the bloodlines of the Royal Houses of Israel (the Priestly line out of Mesopotamia) and Judah (the Kingly line out of Egypt), making him the long-awaited Priest-King. Like his father and forefathers, he was a Master Craftsman (Greek ho tekton), in the Master of Metal tradition of Tubal-Cain, his ancestor, not a simple Carpenter (which would be recorded as Greek ksulourgos if that had been the case, rather than ho tekton as it is in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3). It was not just ordinary metal, but a more vital tradition of fashioning the superconductive Bread and Water of Life from base gold (which might explain why this then nigh-useless, soft metal was considered so precious); this tradition being as old as memory, using a similar electrical arcing process as that employed by Egyptian Levites in Egypt and the Sinai (see page 101) to render gold to talcum-like powder, such as the golden calf in Exodus 32:20. This subject is worthy of many books. Consider those written by the late Sir Laurence Gardner, or the research of David Hudson. Christ-following existed long before King David, to the first Priest-King, MichaelZadok, Hebrew Melek-Tsedeq (King of Righteousness), later to be Melchizedek (the Egyptian Tel-el-Amarna tablets, discovered in 1887, show he was the Egyptian Governor of Canaan). However, we have to also understand the revising of history by Bible scribes (or most public histories up through the present), directed by agendas or administrations, such as the fact that King David was actually based upon at least two Pharaohs; the principle being Thutmosis III, founder of the Mystery Schools of Thoth, and founder of the Royal School of the Master Craftsmen at Karnak. If you look to actual recorded history, Thutmosis III is shown to have performed all the great deeds that the Bible only claims the righteous King David had done. And did you know that Pharaoh Thutmosis translates directly to King David the Righteous? This all goes back to the Babylonian captivity, when Harkos invaders, SyroChaldean rulers of Assyria, conquered Egypt and shipped its upper classes to Babylon, though the later-written Bible reported them as Israelite. But, this is a vast history requiring far too many pages, so we will only cover it peripherally. Note, though, that the most glorious temple in the world, Solomons Temple, was not built in Jerusalem, but built for Thutmosis IIIs grandson, Amenhotep III (who Solomon was modeled after) in Luxor, Egypt, the original Yeru-shalayim, near both Karnak and Thebes, and within it you can see the basis of the two later Israel Temples, including the Great Temples famed Holy of Holies (see www.discoveringegypt.com/luxor1.htm), and, even since ancient times, this area is still one of the most continuously visited sites in Egypt. NOTE: Jerusalem; Yeru-shalayim; city/foundation of peace, now refers to the peaks of Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, reflecting the Peace Gate formed by the spiritual line connecting the two obelisks in upper and lower Egypt, dedicated to the peace brought by Egypts Mother Goddess; Hathor. This is also reflected in the two columns stationed prominently at the Temple entrance, named Jachin and Boaz, facing the rising sun and the all-important Morning Star (see below).

Samson, Samuel, and other long-haired judges were Nazarite. They communed in southern Sinai medicine huts near Mount Horeb (now Page 76 of 119

Serbt); near the Nile shores as Therapeutae the Great White Brotherhood; in isolation in the Dead Sea caves at Qumrn; in the temple caves of Babylonia; and other dark, mostly underground places (origin for the Greek Underworld, where ascetics attained altered states of consciousness). This band of brothers gathered at Qumrn for the Qodesh Shekinah (feminine Holy Presence of God); also called Qodesh Ruwakh (feminine Holy Spirit), the female nature of God who bestows Kingship (Qayinship), expected to return in 7 BCE (birth year of Jesus, born 20 March). The return of the Holy Spirit, the Mother in Heaven, was marked by a perfect conjunction of Venus (the 5-pointed star) and Mercury (the 6th point of the star), together called the Star in the East, a 6-pointed star joining Heaven and Earth, the symbol of Davidic Kings ( ), consummating the heavenly female ( ; Venus; ) with the male ( ; Mercury; ), at sunrise on the Winter Solstice (then 25 December), occurred once every 480 years; 12 generations of 40 years; an Epoch. Each generation of 40 years had 5 cycles of 8 yearly alignments of Venus on the Winter Solstice, where the starting year of an 8-year cycle aligned lunar, sidereal, and solar calendars within minutes. Every 40 years, each 5th cycle, they aligned to within a fraction of a second of each other.
NOTE: This method of calendar alignment with Venus, the Morning/Evening Star, Hebrew Haylel, sequenced Morning, Morning, Evening, Morning, Evening, Evening, Morning, Evening, was so precise that it was not surpassed in accuracy until the introduction of atomic clocks in 1957. Sorry, Mayans.
SUBNOTE: The Hebrew title Haylel, often translated to Lucifer, means Morning Star, LightBearer, and Shining One, and all these titles refer specifically to the planet Venus. Though largely referenced within the Hebrew Commentary on the Bible, it is mentioned in only one place within the Hebrew Bible itself: Isaiah 14:12. This verse has been translated to How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Interestingly, it can also be translated to How you cut down from the sky, O Morning Star; child of dawn! How you hew the ground, howling, making the people hide! Note that Bible translators never interpret yalal (to make a howl), as I did, because they did not understand its relevance. Finally, note that this and its surrounding verses refer to its ancient terrible aspect, when, acting like a titanic comet, it had once tried to rule the heavens and rain terror upon the people (the nations), desolating the land, as has been remembered by all world cultures. This is ingrained so deeply within human consciousness that into the 20th Century people were still fearful of comets.

NOTE: Qumrns occupants, fanatically following Exodus imagery, exclusively lived in tents, using its mud-brick buildings only for religious services, kitchen, scribing halls, and other functions. Moses and Joshua were their most revered heroes. Isaiah, whose name is identical in meaning to Joshua (Jesus), Yahweh is Salvation and Yahweh Rescues , was also their most revered Prophet. This is evidenced by the ample copies of his book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Page 77 of 119

The Nazarite, many of them dedicated scribes, were of two political branches when they assumed occupation of Qumrn in 140 BCE until 68 CE. The Eastern Branch consisted of the ultra-conservative Hebrews, such as High Essenes and Pharisees, who used only Hebrew during religious services, and would write the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Western Branch consisted of the more liberal Greek-influenced Hellenists (still very conservative when compared to todays standards), such as Monastic Essenes, Egyptian Therapeutae, Samaritan Magi, and Sadducees, who used Koine (common Greek) in their religious services; a language read and understood all across the known world, and would write the Greek versions of the New Covenant.
NOTE: The Gnostic Mandaeans of northern Iraq had been a part of, and were direct descendants of the Hebrew Branch at Qumrn; the branch who had actually authored the Dead Sea Scrolls, and who had migrated east to Persia after Jerusalem fell, and having also lost control of Qumrn to the Hellenists. They still today hold John the Baptist as their first and most revered leader. They hold Jesus as a subsequent leader, who betrayed special secrets of the Craft that had previously been the exclusive purview of the Levite Priests. NOTE: Some argue that the original Four Gospels were derived from Aramaic texts, called the Sinaitic Palimpsest, which were discovered by Mrs. Agnes Lewis in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (not Mount Horeb; Moses mountain), in 1892. Unfortunately, it has been proven that its Monks falsified these, deliberately, before they were sold to Mrs. Lewis and those with her. They accomplished this with a small hole in the lambskin under the date of the manuscript, which made the appearance of an age 900 years older. The texts were actually finished in 1599 CE. The scholars that had studied the texts first estimated a date of 697 CE. However, they not being entirely sure of this date, they conducted a second inspection, and as a result assigned to it a date of 778 CE. However, it was first thought that this hole was natural. It had not first dawned on anyone that, logically, no responsible scribe would have dated a manuscript near a hole in such a way as to leave the reader in doubt as to the exact date. That is not only illogical, but also stupid, and would not therefore have been done. This Gospel falsification was discovered by George M. Lamsa and reported in his book, New Testament Origins, and he proved the 1599 date, while also examining several other Four Gospel Aramaic originals that all employed the exact same device of a hole in the date.

John, the firebrand Baptismal Priest, first cousin to Jesus by their mothers, was a Hebrew (as were their mothers), and one of the most charismatic leaders of the Nazarite, called the Teacher of Righteousness. Ioseph Ha Rama Theo (Greek for Joseph, His Divine/Royal Highness, later corrupted to Aramathea) was another Hebrew. His common title was Page 78 of 119

Yaakov (James, from Jacob; Pillar and Heel). Born in 1 CE, he was the junior brother of Jesus, and he was viewed by the Hebrews as their legitimate Davidic King (Ya-cobe was the royal title for their king commonly called Stephen; the Crowned). He was also a secret disciple of Jesus. Due to his Hebrew ranking, he was officially stationed as an Elder in the Sanhedrin (being an Elder did not denote agedness, as too many throughout the centuries have assumed). Another Hebrew and a former follower of the Baptist was Thomas (Twin ), a title for Prince Philip Herod I; father of Salom (a follower of Jesus), and former husband of his half-sister Herodias. Like Jacobs twin brother Esau, Thomas was robbed of his royal inheritance by his half-brother Herod Antipas (a later follower of Jesus), named after their father, Herod (Antipas) the Great.
NOTE: Esau had actually inherited Edom; he was the father-in-law to a Pharaoh; and his family became Kings of Assyria and Lords of the Babylonian Sea Lands. NOTE: The Hebrew branch at Qumrn viewed Jesus as illegitimate because he had been conceived before the second of two official wedding ceremonies. Their term for an illegitimate child was Lamb of God. The Hellenists, however, fully accepted Jesus as legitimate because the first wedding ceremony was still legal and binding, and treated as a 6-month trial marriage, to test compatibility, because the second wedding could likewise be annulled if, for example, the bride remained barren after 3 to 4 years. His mother, Yeudi, adopted the feminine form of her husbands name, Yeusas (Yusef was an identifying title), but she publicly used the official title Miriam (Mary; Beloved), taken by all in the Qunrn Order of Women; origin of the present Eastern and Western Catholic Order of Nuns. The term Nun, originally Egyptian, referred to the critically important and highly intelligent women who were well-schooled and royally pure that were raised to be brides to royal priests and kings, as was Jesus mother and his wife, Mary Migdal-Eder (Tower of the Flock, a title for a royal princess; the Daughter of Zion, later becoming Magdalene, see page 82). Nun is also the Hebrew value for 50; the rank of Royal Crowned Princes, for whom they were raised to be wedded. However, as a consequence of this premature conception, instead of being termed a married woman (Latin Coniugem), as she would be upon the second marriage after which one typically became pregnant, even though they did still have the required second wedding, she had to continue being titled a young woman under the first marriage rules because that had been her title at the time of conception, until the birth of her child. A young woman, typical of marriageable age, was called Latin Virgo, as opposed to a physical virgin; Virgo Intacta.
SUBNOTE: In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua, successor to Moses, is described as being the son of Nun (actually Hebrew Nuwn, pronounced noon). Normally, it is assumed that there was some Habiru Bedouin Joe named Nun who had sired Joshua. However, recent historical evidence reveals that Moses, who was based upon exiled Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), was the father of Joshua, who was based upon Tutankhamun (Amenhotep V), the actual son of Akhenaten. So, where does that leave Nun? Technically, it leaves him right in the middle of everything.

Page 79 of 119

Nun is recorded in a single repeating phrase, listed 29 times, between Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I Kings, and Nehemiah: Joshua, the son of Nun. For example, Nun is first mentioned in Exodus 33:11:
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Nun is also Hebrew for fish and posterity (two very important Christian and Royal symbols). Joshua is also generally translated to be Moses servant. However, the word used for Servant, Sharath, equally means Minister. Further, Ben, translated to son, is equally a name for a member of an order or class. Moreover, the Hebrew Nah-ar, translated to young man, means retainer. More, God is considered to be in the Tabernacle and speaking to Moses face to face, and just like a man, and more, like a friend. To keep Joshua present while in private council with God meant This is for your ears, too, as would be expected of one to assume the position of successor.
SUB-SUBNOTE: In the Book of Jasher ( Hebrew Yashar, meaning Upright, see www.sacredtexts.com/chr/apo/jasher/index.htm), which predates Exodus, Jethro, the Egyptian Governor of the Sinai, not God, spoke to Moses in the above situation. As a matter of note, Jethro was Moses fatherin-law by Moses wife, Zipporah (who he took after Miriam had died during their first sojourn into the Sinai. There are, however, reasonable arguments that Miriam/Nefertiti may have bitterly returned to Egypt after Tutankhamun died; perhaps entombed as obscurely as her stepson ). This actually makes more sense, because the title God is not ever mentioned even once in the Hebrew Bible, except in mistranslations (which just about covers most translations). The Jasher title used here instead is a common Biblical title for Yahveh; El Shaddai (Lord of the Mountain ), which was Jethros actual title in the Book of Jasher, as High Priest of the Hathor Temple atop Mt Horeb; the mountain where the Shem-an-na (Manna), so important to both Judaism and the Egyptian Messeh Pharaohs, was fashioned from base gold, creating the Bread and Water of Life; the Food of the Gods ( see page 101 ).

This additional data can be especially important when you understand biblical symbols, where a young man indicates either a student, or one who is learning (apprenticing) to be a master. The indication that the title, Nun, means posterity is significant, as it translates to continuance, not only of a family line, but also of something of much greater importance, namely royal peerage. Also, think of its additional definition, as fish in the paragraph below describing the Egyptian God, Nun. Nun is an Egyptian God, a personification of the swampy water chaos (meaning of the Egyptian word, Nun) from which the World had been borne. This Egyptian God is a male rendering of the Great Mother Tiamat (meaning She who bore them all) from Mesopotamia, who was the great watery deep from which all creation sprang (and is so eloquently alluded to in the opening verses of Genesis). From her came all Wisdom. Another name for her is Sophia, another is Shekinah, and others are Holy Spirit and the Universal Mother. In Egyptian lore, the girlfriend of Nun was Naunet, who was the Goddess of the Oceans Abyss, the female aspect, or form of Nun. I mention this, because I had for years thought it extremely curious. The Holy Spirit, which is rightfully acknowledged as the Mother Goddess, and the reigning David/Jacob King and Mary/Rachel Queen were always also considered to be the representative of the Holy Spirit (as in filled with the Holy Spirit), as Jesus had been, and as had his father been when he was the David King. This makes me think back to Moses; that perhaps he was, as Messeh Pharaoh (Anointed King), also the embodiment of Nun? Yet, this would also apply equally to his Queen, Miriam (Nefertiti); for all Queens were the representatives of Sophia Wisdom; the Wisdom of the Great Mother; the Wisdom of Sophia. Could it, therefore, be a genetic legacy shared between them, and why they shared a common Qayin title (King = Queen ), as though they were a single person? I cannot help but think of Greek mythology and the love story between Hermes (Mercury) and Aphrodite (Venus), and of the child of their union; Hermaphroditus. I cannot help but wonder, because all regal blood was once openly understood to descend from Tiamat, the Great Mother; the Holy Spirit. They all held her Mitochondrial DNA in their blood, unlike the rest of Mankind, which came into the human genome via the helpmeet of Qayin (Cain;

Page 80 of 119

see page 83); Luluwa, who the Mesopotamian/Babylonian texts claimed was a pure-bred Goddess. Thus, in stating that Joshua was the son of Nun, is it in fact a pointed indicator that he held regal blood coming from Tiamat ? Therefore, he had the regal blood shared by Moses and Miriam, and to include his own fully regal mother, Kiya, plus others of the immediate Royal Egyptian Line? Either way, Joshua was the son of Nun, who was Moses as descendant of the Holy Spirit, and Kiya, as the descendant of the Holy Spirit. Considering also the Bible stories were fashioned with much doctoring, to smooth things over, the allusion to Nun may have been a willed inference for those readers with a studious eye, to be associated with the then commonly understood regal descent from Tiamat. After all, it was not simply the Gospels that employed special hidden meanings behind their common words: the Hebrew Bible is also awash with such devices. For those of you with sharp eyes, Nun is not only the name of a Hebrew letter with a numeric value of 50, but Nun is also the dynastic hierarchal ranking of a Crowned Prince, ranked immediately below, and being the immediate next in royal peerage to the rank of King ; Samekh (60). Additionally, to say one was a son or child of something is to denote membership, whether to a family line, an order, or that one is associated with a specific class, such as being of the class of Nun. Lastly, Hebrew Ben Nuwn translates to son of Nun, The one ranked 50, and Crowned Prince. This exact same ranking system goes back thousands of years to ancient Mesopotamia, to the time of the great Gods Enki (Egyptian Amen; also known as the Father in Heaven) and Enlil (Egyptian Aten; later known as Yahveh Elohim), and was still in use during the Gospel period. Finally, due to rules of succession in place in those ancient times, Joshua could not have succeeded Moses unless he was Moses first-born senior-regal son. Their tradition allows no other conclusion.

In 6 CE the Hellenists later split into pro-revolution War Hellenists and the Peace Hellenists, who desired peaceful coexistence with Rome. War Hellenist were led by Simon the Zealot (Patriot), also called Eleazar (Lazarus), the title their community, known as the Ani (the Poor) called deposed/retired high priests, and included his sons, James and John of Zebedee (Zealots), Jesus father, Joseph, and the Head Scribetheir Judgetitled Satan because it was his responsibility to test/challenge (tempt, in old English) acolytes in their knowledge of the Law, being Judas, another Patriot (Romans also called Zealots Sicarii, for their Sica daggers, Lestes, for Outlaws, and Kananites (fanatics), often misinterpreted as Canaanites), and he was the closest confidant of Jesus.
The Peace Hellenists, first led by the brother of Apostles Nathanael and Matthew, Eleazar Annas, included Samaritan Magi (Wise Men), Egyptian Therapeutae, Sadducees, and the Buddhistic puritans; the Monastic Essenes.

The Monastic Essenes departed from the Peace Hellenists late in 6 CE, Qumrn becoming too nationalistic for them as the fanatical Zealot uprising against Rome began in earnest at that time, and followed their leader Simeon to the Jerusalem Peace Gate, the Nazarites original meeting place (they later retreated to the secluded environs of Mount Carmel). Simeon was a former Abiathar Priest (bar-abba; minister to the Father (High Priest)), given a title of Gabriel. Luke 2:25-35 reported that Simeon was blind, but that was due to him separating from the Page 81 of 119

Nazarite, and so was titled blind because now he could not read from their sacred books. He had been the Abiathar Priest who had advised Jesus father not to annul his wedding when his wife became pregnant before the second wedding ceremony (his father was 36 and his mother was 16, typical ages for royal weddings), because a child born in a Shekinah year was profoundly important beyond imagination, regardless of its embarrassment. And besides, he would have absolutely no other possible chance to take advantage of such an opportunity. Peace Hellenists were Jesus (Yehoshua; Latinized Joshua, or Greek Iesous; named for Joshua in the hope that he was his second coming (reincarnation; then called resurrection)), the Disciple Nathanael Annas (also known as Jonathan), the Baptismal (Fisher) Priests Andrew and Simon Peter, Mathew Annas, a livitical bishop (Hebrew mebaqqer) charged with collecting tithes (then called taxes), and others, to include John Mark (AKA Bartholomew, furrow); a male name given to a certain woman of high ecclesiastic standing (all women initiated in higher teachings had mens names because many believed that only men were worthy of hearing the secret teachings of the Order). This name was given to the Mary (Beloved), who was the Queen (Qayin) to the Davidic Dynasty, The Royal House of Judah (from the Royal House of Egypt), who its King (called the David; Beloved), had to by law be web to. She was the highest ranking eligible princess of the Hasmonean Dynasty, the Royal House of Israel, and was typically titled the Tower of the Flock; Hebrew Migdal-Eder, this title eventually evolving to Magdalene.
NOTE: The tradition of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute came from a Homily on Luke given 14 September 591 by Pope Gregory the Great, who claimed Mary Magdalene, the companion of Jesus, was not only Mary of Bethany, which is obvious, but also, and against any evidence, to be the adulterous woman brought before Jesus, as was described in John 8:1-11 (note that Gregorys purpose had not been to demean Mary, but to simply make her more accessible to women of less noble virtue). The Church disseminated this myth with stout conviction until 1969, when they finally recanted by withdrawing the teaching of this slanderous myth. Sadly, too many people still believe this fabrication. Also in 1969, the Church made her the Patron Saint of Winegrowers, which also strongly and symbolically associated her with her Royal Blood (Sangrael). As a Royal Princess, she had the legal obligation of being a protectoress; a female guardian; a protector of her people. The Greek word for protectoress is prostatis, which had been corrupted by a Church that hated women to Prostitute. However, when Paul speaks of Phebe (Greek Phoibe; goddess; shining one) in Romans 16:1-2, she is said to be a succourer, even though this term is translated from the very same Greek word, prostatis.

Page 82 of 119

SUBNOTE: John 8:1-11 never existed in more original copies of this book, but were inserted in later editions, some time during the 4 th Century. Further, if the scribes (lawyers; keepers of the law) and Pharisees presenting the presumed adulterous woman to Jesus, saying, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned, one familiar with what Moses has to say on this in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-24, would know that the adulterer should be judged right along with the adulteress. The very fact that the adulterer was left out of this story would alone cast doubt on the storys authenticity.

Although the Gospel of Philip was found among the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels in 1945, most Christians are familiar with the following passages: There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and his sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary. The Greek word in the text for companion is koinonos (), meaning partner, companion, or comrade, but when speaking of such between a man and a woman, it specifically meant a spouse.
NOTE: Simon Peters name given him by Jesus, Peter, translates to Stone, but never to Rock. Consider John 1:42, And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of John: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone. (Note that I used John, a more accurate translation of Greek Ioannes than Jona.) What is the difference between Rock and Stone? Greek Petros or Hebrew Cephas, both masculine, translates to masculine Stone , though it is too often mistranslated to feminine Rock. But Rock, feminine Hebrew Tzur, specifically refers to The Rock of the Covenant, and was a title exclusive to those of the Davidic Line, whose matrilineal line grants Kingship. Indeed, an accurate translation of Matthew 16:18 is, And I but to you say, that you, you are a stone; rather upon this, the Rock, shall be established my circle, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Greek adou, usually translated to Hades, refers specifically to the afterlife, understood by all in Gospel times in its Greek sense. Hell, an Anglo-Saxon word, might be used if understood in its actual meaning, which simply refers to a grave pit, implying that one has passed into the afterlife.

NOTE: The title David is from the Hebrew stem DVD, derived directly from the Egyptian TWT, meaning Thoth (pronounced Thoot), the son of the Egyptians Father in Heaven; Amen-Ra, or simply Amen. Amen is still invoked in most Judeo-Christian prayers. It is also probably why we have the word God; from German Gad (pronounced Gohdt), or Yiddish Got, all meaning Invoked One.
SUBNOTE: Because those of the Exodus did not know the actual name of the God forced on them by Moses (exiled Pharoah Ahkenaten), instead of traditionally leading their prayers by invoking their Gods name (Aten, but Hebrew scribes in Babylon changed it to Yahveh), which gave them power over the God, they instead followed their prayers with the name of the God that they had revered for centuries, Amen, which for them also meant Father in Heaven. Note that some Christian traditions hold that the word Amen might mean Verily, but that is simply ridiculous.

NOTE: The King and Queen, both titled Qayin (Sumerian KA.IN), were believed to be two halves of a single spirit; two halves of a single Being.
NOTE: Qayin is the Hebrew name for Cain (Kain/Kin/King) of Genesis. Qayin was not a simple tiller of the Earth, as it is so often mistranslated, but rather that he had dominion over the Earth, after Adam (Earthling; Sumerian Atbba) had lost kingship (a symbol of immortality) after his fall from Grace. Note also that only Adam fell from Grace; Eve (Kva; Mother of the Living) was not subject to the rules that were placed on Adam, and she was in fact his equal, and did not come from his rib.

Page 83 of 119

SUBNOTE: Ancient Semitic scholars had misconstrued the Babylonian word ti-it, pronounced tit, as Babylonian tit (rib). In Hebrew, this word is Tsela, which means both rib and side, but used in the sense of the other side of. The word ti-it actually means that which is life. This word refers specifically to a female ovum.

The mark that God put on Cains head was Kingship. The Mark of Qayin (Sumerian GRA.AL; Grail), which is the oldest recorded Grant of Arms in sovereign history, is an upright centered red cross within a golden circle. A circle was a symbol of Kingship, called the Ring of Power, eventually becoming an ornamental crown, and the cross represents its matrilineal line of descent. NOTE: Regarding the tale of Qayin killing Able, his half-brother, the word yaqam, meaning to be elevated or exalted over, was mistranslated to slew . The fact that the blood of Able (Havel; Breath) was swallowed by the earth did not mean that Able actually bled, but that he was of significantly lesser genetic status than the elder Cain, who was sired by a God. Qayin was sired by a God? Consider this: The father of Qayin, according to the original Sumerian/Babylonian texts that this part of Genesis was drawn from, was declared to be the Lord. In Genesis 4:1, the term Lord (EL), was changed to Yahveh (the term Yahveh, YHVH, did not even exist as a word or as a concept until 500 years before Jesus was born), where even the present Hebrew text itself actually translates to, Adam, learning Chavvah his wife became pregnant and bore Qayin, declared, You got a man together with Yahveh!
SUBNOTE: The root stem of the title Yahveh, YHVH, translatable to I Am that I Am (literally meaning My name is irrelevant), originally represented the four members of the Aramaic (Turko-Syrian) Heavenly Family; the Father (El), the Mother (Asherah), the Son (He), and the Daughter (Anath). The original Hebrew representation of this name appears to have involved only the Father and Mother, as Yah (YH), as was typical in most religions, where even in Hebrew, the Mother Goddess, Shekinah; the Holy Spirit, represented the creative/nurturing aspects of the Heavenly Family, and assumed the guise of Mother Nature and roaming the Earth when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, because her abode, the Inner Sanctum; the Divine Marital Chamber; the Holy of Holies, representing her womb, housing the Foundation Stone of the World, was destroyed, thus leaving the Father God to rule in Heaven alone. SUBNOTE: The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount is built atop a pentagram-shaped temple to Ashtoreth; the Mother Goddess, also called Shekinah, Hathor, Easter, Asherah, Isis, and Venus. See The Temple Mount of Jerusalem website at www.templemount.org/index.html .

Hopefully, in light of the above, I will be able to share my notes without charges of anti-Semitism, for I absolutely do not intend it, yet those of Zionist leanings may still accuse me of such (perhaps as a misdirecting parry), or at least say that I am a tainted, Christine Jew. However, I must point out the philosophy of the Nazarite may have inspired Messianic Zionists, because those of that line were the original Mashiachs, or Of the Dragon (King), from Egyptian Messeh Pharaohs, meaning Dragon Kings, denoting those anointed with the Royal Dragon Fat; the oil of sanctified crocodiles.

Page 84 of 119

NOTE: Many Conspiracy Theorists assume such talk refers to this weird thing some go off on about regarding some type of Lizard Hominoids from some far-off star system. However, all the ancient talk of men as dragons specifically refers to Royal Scythian blood, where such dragons further symbolized, and drew their power from the Great and Terrible Dragon, which all ancient texts from all over the world, and recording it at the same time, claim was the planet Venus, when it seems to have wandered the skies as a titanic comet, a harbinger of unimaginable Earthly death and destruction, its coronal tail flowing like long hair and fire, spawning legends of the war goddess Medusa, a snake-headed hag who was the Terrible Aspect of Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty and love. Even the legendary Scot King Arthur was named Arthur Pendragon, or Arthur the Great Dragon, because all of Brit-Land (Land of the Covenant, called such since Joseph of Arimathea erected the first above-ground Christian Church (Circle) in Glastonbury with Jesus Justus II) calling all kings Dragons, and their head king Pendragon. The title Dragon was ascribed to kings of pure royal blood that came down from the Royal Davidic Dynasty, which came out of Egypt, which came out of Mesopotamia, which came out of Scythia.
SUBNOTE: Venus has a very faint coronal tail (scientists in the late 1970s first referred to it as stringy things), the remnants of a comet tail, extending outward 45 million miles to Earths orbit.

PART ONE: Einstein As a Stumbling Hero

Thanks to concerted efforts by Messianic Zionists (a group separated by outlook from general Judaism covered on page 91), having vested interests for promoting Einstein as a man of irreproachable Olympian enormity, not only as a Son of Jacob, but also as a brilliant beacon to attract Diaspora Jews from across the world to their cause and to their ancient homeland, hailing him as the worlds greatest mind, of surpassing the genius of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, of being one too supercilious to emulate, but one who could only be worshipped from afar. Even if all this claptrap were true, on the flip side, he was widely known and distained for his extremely questionable political and philosophical views, being an extremist socialist and promoting a One World Government ruled by Zionists, and he was also widely known for plagiarizing other physicists work and then assuming its credit simply because he had added a new spin on the material. He stated as much in a 1907 issue of Annalen der Physik while discussing his special theory of relativity.
NOTE: In Einsteins submission to Annalen der Physik 1907 vol XXIII (371-384) (see http://einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/home), Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle, on page 373 he made the following observation regarding his plagiarism, which he probably felt compelled to make because of the din of protests from his peers: It seems to me, as lies the nature of the matter, that the following is partly clarified by other authors. Considering the fact, however, that here the relevant questions are treated from a new point of view, I believe it is for me to

Page 85 of 119

decline a very cumbersome pedantic survey of the literature, particularly since it is hoped that this gap by other authors, or of will be filled, as, thankfully, in my first work on the principle of relativity that Mr. Planck and Mr. Kaufmann have already done. In other words, he considered it too much of a bother to credit those whose work he based his own concepts on, because what he considered more important was relating his own spin on the matter, even though, if such credit was not noted, this would outwardly make it appear as though it was in fact his own original work. He was also covering himself, and quieting his critics, by thanking Planck and Kaufmann for doing what he really should have done in his 1905 paper, which was to provide proper credit for the sources he used. And, in case you miss it, instead of adding such ingratiating footnotes (which he called gaps) in his current paper (which he did not do), he presumed that other or their original authors would later provide them, if they felt so inclined to do so (it would truly be an idiotic state of affairs if one expected others, or an original author to run around writing an additional paper outlining credits for their own work). It must also be noted that physicists Max Planck, father of Quantum Theory and who also considerably contributed to extending the special theory of relativity, and Walter Kaufmann, who was the first to discuss Einsteins theory, for which he coined the popular alternative moniker Einstein-Lorentz Theory because he had categorically demonstrated that this theory was observationally equivalent to Hendrik A. Lorentz's theory, had both been very kind to Einstein in their criticism of his 1905 paper. But perhaps this was due to their present fortunes now being too tightly stitched to Einsteins credibility; the desperately-needed and generous funding they were awarded resulted from their fawning favorably at the edges of Einsteins limelight. Basically, these two great physicists wrote papers that provided the missing footnotes to Einsteins paper, highlighting the fact that his original 1905 paper contained no references whatsoever (which would normally have been justly rejected out of hand by a publisher). To some it is a mystery why Einsteins 1905 paper had been accepted because it lacked footnotes (just like his 7 previous published submissions). Yet, considering that the editors of Annalen der Physik had accepted previous submissions from him since 1901 that lacked crediting footnotes, it seems likely that they had a congenial rapport with him, or they simply liked him, and by 1905 they would simply accept his offerings.

Shameless sensationalism in major American news papers, and subsequently echoed by smaller news vendors, even claimed that just a dozen people in all the world were capable of understanding Einsteins 1915 General Theory of Relativity (see www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteinsgeneral-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html for its explanation in laymans terms), though this was clearly not a fact. Anyone of average intelligence should easily be able to grasp its fundamental principles without having to delve into its mathematical models. Yet, because he was always in the news, the public eventually bought into this over-the-top yellow journalism spewed by the media and demanded more Einstein. The media was too eager to comply. They tried to scoop Page 86 of 119

each other with more sensational stories, soon building him up into a towering god-like being the likes of which no one had ever before beheld, as though Sir Isaac Newton himself once again walked among them. Superstar status was born.
These Messianic Zionists (I once called them Anarchists in Coattails, though they were in fact politically savvy chameleons of extraordinary skill, talent, and intelligence, often playing both sides of the political field, being in all other respects politically identical to the more modern Fabian Socialists), who were stoking Einsteins popularity in the press, also made it difficult for anyone to criticize Einsteins theories on merits of pure science or even in matters of academic ethics. Those who did so, most quite legitimately, often had their words deflected by being loudly denounced as anti-Semitic (though one must realize that even if they were indeed anti-Semitic, their purely academic critiques should still be regarded as legitimate . Being anti-Semite may make you racist, but it most certainly should not nullify ones opinions in other venues of intellectual reason). This is clearly a ridiculous charge, but was also a very effective tool that was eagerly employed with great panache . Indeed, this may be likened to now-a-days calling into question the overblown Global Warming alarmism, and anyone who had argued against this now-imploding cause were loudly ridiculed and too frequently declared to be in the same category as Holocaust-Deniers (obliviant chants and volume over reason seems a most effective strategy when directed against those who would try to discuss issues through reason and intelligence).

Einstein toured the United States of America in 1921 to raise money for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and press segregationist Zionism on fellow Jews. He was treated like royalty by academics and academic institutions, which flattered and clamored to invest all manner of doctoral honor upon him, and the uninformed public was awed by his presence. However, one must be mindful that an issue of concern in the halls of academia at this time was that of academic bureaucracies and professorships being disproportionately over-stocked with such fervent Zionists, which accounted for much of the clamoring for this Jewish hero.
NOTE: Einstein often traveled abroad when criticism at home became too intense. He had already earned an international reputation for hiding from his critics. NOTE: Einstein tried to all but force American Jews to pack up and immigrate to Palestine, but they instead had a deep love and fierce loyalty for America, and would not listen to his archaic Zionist bigotry.

Page 87 of 119

Many people are aware that over 150,000 people greeted him as his ship arrived in New York in 1921 to great pomp and fanfare. Still others know that he was given the freedom of New York City; opened wide to his every inspection (though under protest). What you might not know is that a full one-third of the US population of Jews resided in New York City at that time, and the city administration and newspapers were packed with those of Zionist bent. Indeed, the one dissenting voice for opening the city to Einstein, Alderman Bruce M. Falconer, ended up being humiliated, threatened, and ridiculed by the Zionist-driven press, being charged with anti-Semitism, and even had his name and home address published on the front page, along with describing an assault against him and of threats to destroy him, though they did report his denials of any prejudice. But the damage was done, making him look like a burglar who was caught redhanded in the act of a crime, but still denying any wrong-doing.
Yet few recall that by the time Einstein arrived in Boston, he was not so privileged with an opened city, and he was generally given the cold shoulder by all but those within Harvard University. Bostons Jewish population was ample, and was congenial and cohabited well with the Irish and Italian immigrant populations, but like their fellow Irish and Italian immigrants, who all suffered one form or another of prejudicial discrimination, they were all fierce American patriots and would have nothing to do with this little man who proffered Bolshevik Zionist doctrine to them. The other ethnicities lent their moral support to their Jewish brethren, and like the Jews, refused to open their doors to Einstein.

Still fewer recall that as he departed America, unheeded, only a half a dozen people were present to see him off. His once-glorious light dimmed, much of this owning to his supreme arrogance and also to his aggressive self-promotion (something that people now-a-days know too little about). If he was scientifically challenged, his advocates accused them of antiSemitism. Indeed, he would preamble many of his tours by stating that any arguments against his theories were prompted by anti-Semitism. For example, on his arrival in the United States, the New York Times reported, Professor Einstein was reluctant to talk about relativity, but when he did speak he said most of the opposition to his theories was the result of strong anti-Semitic feeling. This is odd, considering that many physicists who opposed it were Jewish. This still quelled most challenges from academic circles. Through habit, Einstein had often used alarmist tactics to alienate anyone who dared to disagree with him. But even so, there were still those brazen enough to accuse him of hiding behind such reckless defamation so to avoid legitimate criticism. Page 88 of 119

Meanwhile, several scandals arose entirely due to his sheer incompetence as academics became frustrated with him. Still other scandals were fanned by the overt tribalistic racism that he and his associates exhibited. He was also unwilling to submit to debate, using the excuse that he was only raising money for the Hebrew University. Such was the case with Professor Arvid Reuterdahl of St. Thomas College, St. Paul, Minnesota, who openly dubbed Einstein the P. T. Barnum of the scientific world. The above might be tempered by the fact that he considered himself a very poor lecturer, and so was not as adept at it as was his friend, Hendrik Lorentz. But even so, he was widely renown for his hiding from any and all critics, and felt himself incapable of engaging in a competent debate, perhaps his arrogance preventing him from facing anyone attacking his work. Years later he said that he was not averse to being wrong, but I must take that with a grain of salt, considering how easy such words are when one is speaking in a receptive environment. But the fact remains that he was not willing to discuss his ideas even with his closest and most trusted friends, for fear of argument. He only generalized and spoke about them, but never in detail on them.
NOTE: Though Einstein plagiarized his work, Hendrik Lorenz befriended Einstein because Einsteins fame in turn gave Lorenz notoriety that he would not otherwise have, and so made being Einsteins friend personally profitable.

One of the things that Einstein had the most trouble with was his simplistic habit of trying to narrowly define people into categories, regardless of their beliefs or diverse backgrounds. He tried to intimidate all Jews into following his Zionist course, degrading those who choose to assimilate with their present nationality as if they were traitors to Judaism. This is odd, considering that even Einstein believed and expressed in private that Judaism was a truly ridiculous religion. But Zionist goals seldom had much really to do with the religion put up in front of it. As such, Einstein generally had a very difficult stay in the United States. Once back in Europe, he did himself no kind service by publicly ridiculing the American public and scholars in a widely published interview. Indeed, the Washington Post reported that Einstein had said that the only real scholar he found in the United States was a Jew out of Chicago. This was like a major slap in the face of Americans, and especially for the press, who had made such an ostentatious hullabaloo over his visit, such as the Hearst newspapers, the most powerful news organization in the country, who was thus shamed before its entire reading public. Page 89 of 119

One if its writers, Arthur Brisbane, though not Jewish, was so pro-Jewish that he would not be embarrassed if he were mistaken for such, was dumbstruck by Einsteins remarks and had great difficultly coming to terms with them. As the Dearborn Independent reported on 30 July 1921, Mr. Arthur Brisbane, pen-sentinel of the tribe, who held Mr. Einstein up as an example too lofty for Americans to emulate, yet to be worshipfully gazed upon as a distant and unattainable star, was plainly up against it. That is, until an epiphany struck Brisbane that seemed to resolve this terrible conundrum. He imagined for a moment the possibility that Einstein had not actually seen America, but only his fellow Jews, and that would explain everything. Therefore, he wrote in an article: First, he is amused by the wild enthusiasm of the entire American nation in greeting him. What Prof. Einstein saw, without knowing it, was the extremely enthusiastic welcome of his co-religionists. Our citizens of Jewish blood delight at another demonstration, in Einsteins person, of the ability of their race. It was Jewish enthusiasm that the professor witnessed, and there is no greater enthusiasm than that. It is a good explanation of the whole Einstein criticism. The major Zionist-run papers picked up and ran with that angle, and everyone else jumped as well: Jews simply over-reacting to a great fellow Jew, and made an embarrassing spectacle. The Jews had their excitement while everyone else (non-Jews) was upset over him. And their readership believed it. They all saved face, and Einsteins shattered countenance began repairs. However, by the time Einstein immigrated to the United States from Switzerland on 26 May 1933 to escape persecution by Nazis in neiboring Germany, after first refusing to immigrate to Palestine (which I find very odd, considering his own severe admonishments against all other Jews who also refused to do so), more than enough time had passed since his troubled visit to America in 1921 so that his tarnished image had been fully and ably repaired. Few still remembered why the American public had even turned on him in 1921. But then again, Americans have always been a very forgiving and accepting lot, especially when it comes to those under persecution by tyrants.

Page 90 of 119

PART TWO: Concerning Those Who Made Einstein Great

Zionists believe the Land of Israel is the national homeland of the Jews and is the legitimate focus for the Jewish national self-determination. This appears to be a reasonable declaration, right? But is it? One has to consider not only the presumed landless Jews side of the story (a really hard sell, contrary to what one might assume, as we shall see), but also of the people who were displaced by the granting of this land. One has to wonder who actually brokered the deal to simply take this land from the long-resident Palestinians and award it to the Jews. One has to consider the true motives of the Jews who did the negotiating. One has to wonder why the ancient Romans did not allow the Jews to rebuild settlements the Romans had purposefully razed as acts of justice, why the Romans had to fight the Jewish resistance so intently, why the Jews were forbidden from entering their ancient capital, and why a Jewish dispersion? What brought all this about? What drove the Romans to make these forcible decisions? If you look to current events, you might know the answer. Current Islamic Extremists are only doing what the Zealots did to the Romans for over 100 years. Starting in 6 CE with the forming of the War Hellenists, the Zealots, to which even Jesus father was a member, which even saw reports of a Messiah leading them and being killed (Josephs elder brother, the David Crowned Prince?). There had been bloody revolts and truly terrorist raids that even saw the likes of Simon the Patriot and Judas the Sicarii striking at the Romans without warning. This may even be why Jesus was hung on a tree, slang during that time for one being crucified. These are things we must consider as we examine this sensitive, thick, slippery material.
NOTE: There is a possibility that Jesus father, titled the Joseph, was actually the second of two sons of Jacob-Heli. The title Joseph comes from the Genesis story of Jacob and Joseph. Royals sought two sons before they could consider a normal sexual relationship with their royal brides. If a son was born, they waited 6 years before attempting another child. If a girl was conceived, they waited only 3 years. Before a second son was born, they were confined to strict celibacy during the intervening periods so to build their spiritual energy. The first son was typically titled the Joseph (proper names did not come into common usage until the 11th century CE; until then your title described you), with the King being called the Jacob (the Pillar; the Rock of the Covenant) or the David. A second son would assume a title of the Benjamin. Joseph and Benjamin were so important because they were the two sons of the Rachel (title for the Queen, meaning Eve; Mother of the Living. The definition as Ewe, for a female sheep, is a later definition), because Rachel was of full royal blood, and Jacob being of full royal blood, he toiled as a servant for 14 long years under his royal cousin Laban in order to win her. They were unlike their elder 10 brothers, who were mothered by the likes of Rachels elder half-sister, Leah, who was only of half royal blood.

Page 91 of 119

When the Joseph became 36, he came of marriageable age (typical marriage age among non-royals was 12 or 13). The royal bride was typically 16. By then both had gone through extensive educational programs. At 36, Joseph became the David Crowned Prince, and Benjamin became Joseph. Because there is no record of Joseph having a brother, it is likely he died, because had he not had one, that would be of peculiar note. Had Jacob-Heli died in the 6 CE revolt, it would also be of significant note and would be a part of Jesus coming-of-age story, also in 6 CE, when, at 12 years old, he was reborn into the Community at Qumrn, regarded as a doctrinal infant. But his becoming the Joseph at such a time would permanently stamp him with that title thereafter. This is the story told in Chapter 2 of Luke at the time of the Census in 6 CE, when Jesus birth was reenacted during his royal bar mitzvah. This also explains why, when he was twelve years within the community in 18 CE, completing his doctrinal training as a Full Initiate at age 24, when he was expected by his father to join himself and his War Hellenists at Wadi Kidron, chose instead to remain at the Temple in Qumrn with the Peace Hellenists (the Party of the Dove, whose slogan was Peace be with you), under the tutelage of Eleazar Annas, elder brother to Jonathan Annas (the Disciple Nathanael) Theophilus, and Matthew Annas (the Disciple Levi); all sons of the Levite Priest, Ananus . This caused his father great embarrassment. This also meant that Jesus was not then really 12 years old.
SUBNOTE: There was a required 3-year period of royal celibacy if a girl was born. This became a belief that girls are half the value of boys. But because girls were compatible to the natural equilibrium of the mother, the number of years required to realign energy was simply cut in half.

NOTE: In late November, 32 CE, three Zealot members of the War Hellenists, Simon Zealot, Thaddeus, and Judas Iscariot, sabotaged an aqueduct that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator (Prefect), had improved in order to supply his personal residential baths in Caesarea with sufficient water. It piped this unsalted liquid from Mt Carmel, home to the Monastic Essenes, 10 kilometers away. Pilate had also financed this private project illegally with Temple funds, intensifying his transgression. Unfortunately, in the fracas and panic with the soldiers protecting the aqueduct, Thaddeus had killed a guard. Simon Zealot, at this time High Priest to the Community, was as a result deposed of his position, being lowered in rank to the title Eleazar (Lazarus). Thaddeus, the Abiathar Priest to Simon (Minister to the Father; Bar-Abba ), was also deposed. Plus, because this act was so shameful, Simon was also excommunicated. The Disciple Nathanael, leader of the Peace Hellenists, was duly installed as High Priest. Though Thaddeus had committed the crime, he was under the direction of Simon. Judas, losing his title as Community Judge and not seeing any prospects for his future, decided to gamble all and to sell out his two brothers-in-arms. His hope was to to bribe the Procurator with money Nathanael Annas had given him for this purpose from Temple Funds. Bribing Roman officials in these parts was common. Sure, he would have to admit publicly, in the Roman hearing, of selling his fellow conspirators out, but he was young enough to find a life outside Judea, easily taking hidden refuge in the truly immense Diaspora.
SUBNOTE: If these Christian-like terms confuse you in this Jewish context, then you understand little of the Jewish origin of Christianity. For example, the Qumrn mystics had a daily ritual supper that included a Eucharist performed with bread and wine; the Bread and Water of Life, where Bread represented the flesh, and Wine the blood. They even had baptisms to ritually cleanse the inequity from the soul. This is why the Disciples (Government of 12) of Jesus included fishers; a term for baptismal priests, who used boats to draw up adherents, called the fishes, to their decks in a symbolic pageant near the Dead Sea shores, where the presiding priest, draped in brilliant white linen scrubbed in frankincense, walked out to the boat on a jetty, called walking on water.

Page 92 of 119

Unfortunately for Judas, Herod Antipas, a long-time associate of Thaddeus, the Abiathar Priest to Simon Zealot (Thaddeus Bar-Abba title eventually evolving to Barrabbas), had instead generously purchased Thaddeus release from Pilate, thus losing Judas his chance for liberty. Confusing thing further, when arrests were made, Simon the Cyrene confessed to the Romans of being Simon the Zealot. This was not a lie, because Simon the Cyrene was in fact also a Patriot. Further, the name Simon means That Obeys and Cyrene was a Greek name for one who confuses men. Being that those of Qumrn incessantly played on words; the Cyrene could actually have been any of Simons fellow Patriots.
SUBNOTE: This playing on words can be demonstrated by countless examples in the New Covenant, some of which have already been touched on. For example, consider the Roman soldiers guarding Jesus tomb on the Friday of Jesus crucifixion, and ordered to wait until the end of a week before being relieved of their post. The Greek term for a week; seven days, was Sabaton, which was also their word for Saturday. The Roman Commander of the Guard thus dutifully relieved his men of their post at the tomb midnight Saturday, and they returned to garrison. This is how Jesus crypt, Cave 8 at Qumrn, was opened at midnight of Saturday night by Solar calendar observers, whose Sabbaths ended at midnight, such as the Samaritan Magi of Simon Zealot.

Roman edict explicitly expected three Zealot hanging sentences recorded, and so Nathanael, the new High Priest, beyond his control, was therefore forced to surrender someone else from their Community, to fulfill this three-outlaw Roman demand. As a result, he finally gave them the maverick Jesus, who, although with his own Peace Hellenist party, had demonstrated open association within the company of the Zealots, who were drawing tremendous hardship from the Roman administration upon their now suspect Community.

Zealot revolts grew ever greater in number, and became fiercer and bloodier with each passing year. To share selected quotes from Wikipedia, They seized
towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50 strongholds in Judea and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem. This all began in

6 CE when the War Hellenists were founded, and by 135 CE, Rome had finally had enough. Hadrians army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish
fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead. In the end, The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt.
NOTE: Israel once extended from Sidon in Lebanon to the north, Kadesh in Sinai to the south, less the fierce Philistine area near Gaza, and east through Mount Gilead in Jordan, and to its south past Mount Nebe, wrapping around most of the Dead Sea.

That last sentence struck me. If you look at religious history, you are given the impression that no Jew remained in all of Israel. Well, technically they did not, because Hadrian renamed their country Syria Palestina. But if you look to un-retouched history, the majority of Jews already living there continued to

Page 93 of 119

live there. The only Jews actually deported, sold into slavery, etc. were the usual political and military prisoners. This is very much unlike what we would typically assume. And besides, virtually the entire Jewish population in the world at that time already lived by choice outside of their homeland. Many years of study and contemplation have gone into this, and, to be thorough, to include exploring many often zany conspiracy theories, all in an attempt to ascertain for certain the identity of the mysterious bogymen that could possibly control all this, the extent of which is absolutely staggering, precluding most groups who have been submitted as candidates, truly encompassing the breadth of a shadow government. They leave ethereal, hard-to-trace handprints that are clearly evident, but not forensic enough to reveal a clear identity of who is actually hidden behind the green curtain. Often, simply for desperate want of a name to point to, they have been labeled the Illuminati (so-named for a Bavarian Enlightenment-era secret society established 1 May 1776, composed of an initial cadre of 5 freethinkers, who modeled themselves after the Freemasons). I have finally concluded that Messianic Zionists are the most logical candidate; the most capable of being at the bottom of all this secretive goingson. I am not talking about your run-of-the-mill Yusef who calls himself Zionist because he cottons to the idea and sends a check every time a donation request comes in the mail, or a person like me, who thought giving this meager portion of former Israel back to the Jews was a laudable endeavor, inspired by imaginings of Bible Times. Memories of the Crusades feed into this, and where Muslims, who actually kept the light of education burning during the Dark Ages, were somehow still seen as less worthy, especially by the then-occupying high-minded British, who were still filled with a self-lauding sense of Darwinian superiority.

I am talking about the hardcore cadre; their driving force, not of their followers or their many, often-unwitting advocates. I am talking about those who live and breathe this dream; possessed of it so completely that nothing else can possibly matter as much to them.
NOTE: Some assume that it is only the Rothschild Family of Zionists who comprises the Illuminati. A German-Jewish dynasty, Rothschild established immeasurably powerful European banking and finance houses starting in the late 18th century.

The notion of Jews as a distinctive race comes from Theodor (Benjamin Zeev) Herzel (1860-1904), the visionary of Zionism, developing his view as he witnessed rampant anti-Semitic sentiments infecting Europe. He believed Jews could achieve acceptance in the world if they ceased being a national anomaly, and their plight could be transformed into a force for good by establishing a Jewish state through the approval of world powers. Page 94 of 119

Nerzel may not have invented Zionism, for Messianic Judaism was a longsimmering dream deep within the hearts and minds of many powerful, high-placed Jews for millennia, who believed they deserved better than they got, wondering how long they must suffer before their Messiah comes to give them retribution, but Herzel was its lightening rod, bringing their goals into sharp and crystal-clear focus. This following was so powerful and so coalescent because they were already connected at some level or another, and were simply waiting for the right catalyst. Being men of great power, moguls of industry, masters of bureaucracy, and experts at molding public opinion, their organizational skills fomented adjustable time-tables and cunning strategies that could rival the Mentats, Spacing Guild, and Bene Gesserate of Frank Herberts novel, Dune. If you examine the news, we too often come across almost ceaseless Israeli land disputes. We see new settlements constantly being built in the occupied territories, of demands by Palestinians for them to withdraw, of those occupiers refusing even their own militarys demands to extricate themselves, and causing us to sigh because we are not quite certain what to believe or which side to take. We are thinking, why dont those idiots just move out of there and quit making trouble, and at other times we wonder why dont those crybabies stop wining about people occupying land that they lost fairly because they had tried to destroy Israel? The occupied territories were lands gained by Israel after the 6-day war in 1967 when Arabic nations joined together and in one swift strike tried to wipe the State of Israel off the map in order to recover the territory that they knew had been stolen from them. The Israelis quickly countered by swiftly wiping out the air and land capacities of these attacking states, totally decimating their capacity for war. Israels victory was so complete that many hailed it as a divine intervention from God for the land that God had decreed in ancient times would belong to the children of Abraham.
NOTE: The above is an odd statement to make, considering that Arabic people are also children of Abraham, through Ishmael; Abrahams first-born son through his wifes maid-servant, Hagar the Egyptian (a maid-servant was usually a less senior cousin or sister, but in this case likely a relative from Pharaohs House). However, when Sarah (Sarai), gave birth to Isaac soon after Pharaoh took her to wife, Abraham gave Isaac hereditary seniority because his blood was more royally pure than Ishmaels. This might seem odd that Isaac should get seniority over the fruit of his own loins, but you must understand royal blood in its strictest sense. Though we do not have space to cover it here, suffice it to say that this royal genetic consideration was more important than anything else. And not just to the minds of royals, but the fact that their great mental capacity was much to be craved by their people.

Page 95 of 119

Abraham was a Prince of E.RI.DU (place of going afar; Iridu; possible source of the Egyptian word, Habiru/Abiru, for Semitic raiders and wanderers, which became Hebrew), a suburb city of greater UR, at about 1900 BCE. When political winds changed, he moved (fled) northwest to the territory ruled by his father, Terah. Later, with his wife/half-sister Sarai (Princess), he led raids all the way into Egypt, where they met their mutual half-brother, Pharaoh Thutmosis; all three sired by Terah. Through my study, I believe this meeting was not by chance, which would not have happened if they had not been royal (or related), for the express purpose of getting a son by their half-brother, because Pharaoh would not have taken her to wife if she had not been of pure royal blood. Abraham was looking to gain the Egyptian Kingdom, which had territory all the way from Syria to Libya, being a sister to the Mesopotamian Empires.
SUBNOTE: UR is where the Hebrew Bible claims Abraham hailed from, but he did not even exist in their ancestor traditions until their exile in Babylon (they were not even called Israelites). Within its libraries they patched their version of his history together, where it served to assure their people, now called Israelites, that despite the invasion of their home, God's dealings with their ancestors would provide a historical foundation upon which their hope for the future could rest.

But if you look very carefully at all the data behind the headlines, which you will have to dig for, because most newspapers are either too lazy to dig that deep, or they assume the readers would not be interested, or they do not want to incur the expense of actual research and give us the full story, you are going to discover that Messianic Zionists are behind all of those disputes. They have set their sites on pushing the Arabic population out of their Jewish State under the pretext of providing relative demographic security, and to acquire as much territory as possible in order to further secure their borders, though not relinquishing even but one square millimeter of it. As the Jewish Virtual Library stated in their examination of Radical Messianic Zionism, A religious claim provided strong
justification for those who wished to hold on to the occupied territories: If the State of Israel was viewed as the unfolding of a Messianic scenario, then the miraculous victory of the Six-Day War was an essential stage in that process. The territories belong to the Jewish people (i.e., the State of Israel) by Divine decree and they may not be handed over to foreign hands.

Messianic Zionists, also known as Bolshevik Zionists, Racist Zionists, and Segregationist Zionists (and a growing number of researchers, to include myself, draw powerful parallels between them and modern Fabian Socialists, whose modus operandi looks to be similar), are, in my mind, extremist radicals, as say Israeli scholars, but having a strangely sophisticated presence. But even so, at their core I see an amoral cabal, uninhibited by ethical limitations, unlike the more peaceable, homogenous non-Zionist Jews. Indeed, most Jews have very little desire to visit, let alone immigrate to Israel, but this is not new, this attitude having been pervasive in Jewish thought for as long as Jews have been on the planet. Page 96 of 119

Conversely, Messianic Zionists demand unreservedly strict racial purity, which is strange for an ethnicity that is a union of races, and having the ultimate goal of dominating the non-Zionist World, subjugating it in its entirety under a Zionist One World Government, paving the way for their awaited Messiah, who they believe will destroy all their enemies those being every Gentile and every non-Zionist Jew. But this tells me that if I am not a Zionist, I will simply be destroyed, saying nothing of the fact that I will gladly throw my lot in with Gentiles. Even more, I do not see a dividing line that separates Jew from Gentile. We are truly one people.
NOTE: The only racially pure Israelites were the Royal House of Israel and the Royal House of Judah, formerly Royal House of Egypt, the Messeh Pharaohs, through Pharaoh Akhenaton and his son Tutankhamen, before Egyptian bloodlines sullied. Their purpose for purity was to keep their Scythian bloodlines strong, which was the seat of all royalty from ancient times, who were believed to be the blood of the gods when they lived on Earth. Also, their ancient code of ethics did not have them rule men or control lands, but to render princely service to their people. Their job was to defend their people, not to be served by them.

Let us be explicitly clear. The Zionists (though Jewish in origin, they do not encompass general Judaism), by cunning political positioning, quite literally stole Palestine from its rightful inhabitants in 1948 (this coming from one who had long believed they had that right). If you study the means by which this handover was arranged, anyone who has eyes to see, which is something quite difficult for those who might be fearful to have just the appearance of looking anti-Semitic, can see plainly the land was in fact taken from the Palestinians under false pretenses, using such feeble excuses as a needed ethnocentric homeland, which is rather lame considering that most-all Jews have never really wanted to possess such a place (fact is, virtually all Jews have always lived outside Judea, even in its glory days, to include Jesus time, settling on every coastline from the Mediterranean through the Black Sea). To my eyes, the Messianic Zionists took the rest of the world for fools, and fooled them. Take a closer look at history. It is there to see for opened eyes. The Messianic Zionists claim that the supreme rule over the entire planet by their Messiah from his seat in Jerusalem is inevitable, ordained by Biblical decree through their prophets (who Israelites generally tended to ignore or kill) foretelling of distant, future events. Actually, if you really study the Bible, you will understand that prophecy had nothing to do with foretelling the future, but had everything to do with being communed to the spirit of God so they could address current issues of concern, attaining this state through agencies of fasting, ascetic meditation, ritual drugs, or Page 97 of 119

whatever tooted their flute (indeed, many Kabalists actually used masturbation to achieve an altered state of consciousness. Talk about letting ones imagination run hog-wild). If you conduct a study of any ancient culture, each has had their visions of retribution against their enemies, along with wispy dreams of their side inevitably becoming the ultimate God-favored victor. Such visions are especially common with those who have been overwhelmed or downtrodden. I see such passionate prophecies of future revenge as not just adolescent, but patently infantile. Such bruised-self-esteem-soothing foretelling was invented (or rather, envisioned) while the subjugated Egyptian royals and upper classes (though Bible scribes reconfigured them to Israelites) were in Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE. They were not yet, or even before this time been known as Israelites, and had never actually been known as such until not long before they migrated from Babylon into Phoenicia, but by then they were brim-filled with fresh-won freedom, a newly minted and now scripturally documented history, and a new and clearly defined purpose, yet they had still been barred from ever returning to Egypt (history is much more interesting than most general, outward books might tell it). For example, the sophisticated, cosmopolitan inhabitants of Phoenicia (a former Egyptian province taken over by the Harkos when they conquered Egypt, and called Canaan by the Egyptians) had no prior knowledge of these immigrants. The scholarly Hebrews (Egyptian Habiru/Abiru; a name for nomadic people, to include raiders, bandits, thieves, etc.) who inscribed the books of their new Torah and Peshitta, basing them on histories, both Mesopotamian and Egyptian, found in the Babylonian libraries, and attributing their authorship to the lofty now-Hebrew heroes of these texts (which never became the Hebrew Bible until the 10th Century CE, and through the Common Era this established canon of books were under periodic revision), rewording their carefully thought-out histories, recorded in their cryptic and now-mixed Egyptian/Syro-Chaldaic language called Hebrew, to reflect a return rather than what it actually was, which was a relocated exile to a former Egyptian province.
NOTE: Many people refer to the exile in Babylon as the Jewish Captivity, but the fact is, the term Jew was a later-introduced generic title, simply referring to the general inhabitants of Judea, whether they were claimants of descent from Israel/Jacob or not, such as the vast number of foreign traders who had permanently settled this highly important intersection of international trade routes between Africa, Europe, and the Orient.

Page 98 of 119

For an important example of books later added to the Hebrew canon, consider the Book of Daniel. This book was not actually even conceived until as late as the 2nd Century BCE, not the 6th Century BCE as it was simply claimed to have been written. Further, it was therefore clearly not dictated by Egyptian Prince Daniel, but more precisely by Qumrn scribes, and it had been attributed to him so that the book could be incorporated into the Tanakh; the canonical collection of Jewish texts. It had been specifically written, as had the also-recent Revelation of Enoch, to highlight a Pythagorean form of divination the Qumrn mystics developed to suit a revised timetable that employed 490-year World Weeks (70 years times 7), in order to supersede the Mesopotamian/Egyptian 480-year epochs of 12 Generations of 40 years. Even further, this all means that most of the events this book supposedly predicted had actually already been a part of history before this book had even been composed.
NOTE: The Egyptians had recently regained freedom from their Syro-Chaldean overlords in 605 BCE (called Harkos; Semitic Invaders), who a few decades before had conquered Egypt. Thanks to their new freedom, the exiles in Babylon were subsequently free to leave Babylon (Gate of the Lord), though most actually did not immigrate, preferring their comfortable lives in Babylon. Even so, those now controlling Egypt did not want to face the possibility of relinquishing control, especially to exiles that had lost their freedom in the first place, and they did not want those exiles returning and claiming a legal senior royal blood right and assume the freed land these Egyptian rulers had fought and bled to free.
Indeed, when the exiles tried to assume control of the new Temple in Jerusalem that had been built atop Mount Zion, why did their Judge (all judges (sheiks; religious officials) had a title of Satan, which is actually an untranslated Hebrew word, though it simply means adversary, or to challenge, and did not acquire any evil trappings until 4th Century CE Christian traditions ) have to challenge the resident High Priest (traditionally being a titular Father/God) over whose Priests should preside in this newly built Temple? Contrary to what one might simply assume, considering that the returning Israelites were filled with such a powerful and self-assuming vision of service to Yahweh Elohim (Yahweh of the Shining Ones; the Shining (Glorious) Ones referring to the gods ), they actually lost the argument, and the polytheist residents, who held to a natural Father-Mother balance of spirituality, prevailed in administering this newly built Temple (see Zechariah 3:1-2).
SUBNOTE: The title Satan was an honorable title, given to the Head Scribe, who was also their Judge/Sheik. It was applied to a lesser extent to scribes, because it was their responsibility to keep the law. Later this term became one of derision, especially when law did not favor ones desires.

NOTE: Attributing ancient authorship to text that this or that group wanted to incorporate in the Hebrew canon was needed because the holy books were officially defined by the 2nd Century BCE to be sacred writings authored by long established heroes, scribes, and other biblical personalities. A way around this restriction was to simply argue that the author of a particular scroll was one of those aforementioned heroes. For example, the Temple Scroll, written and conceived by the Qumrn scribes in 21 BCE, attributed its authorship to Moses, claiming it to be an original dialog given directly to Moses from God, delivered long ago on Mt Horeb.

Page 99 of 119

Actually, the Temple Scroll was written to present to the Sanhedrin the mystics ideas regarding the construction and administration of the new Temple, about to be rebuilt by Herod the Great (these rules favored themselves, of course), including rules of worship, priestly preparedness, and even goading Herod the Great (who was popular until late in his life when his memory and sanity faded common to many Herods who married within the family) by including rules of conduct for the king. When the Sanhedrin and Herod rejected it, the mystics stormed out of the Temple grounds and occupied the abandoned building complex of the Hasmonean Fortress Sekhakha, named for Wadi Sekhakha (a wadi is a mostly dry, seasonal rain wash), which flowed into Wadi Qumrn and then into the Dead Sea. They renamed it Qumrn, and decided their prophecies favored those of a new Heaven (Temple) and a new Earth (Land; Jerusalem), and for them, there would also be a New Covenant with Yahweh. The Qumrn layout was based on a model of Jerusalem. As such, they had locations coinciding with locations in and around Jerusalem. The way they differentiated them was to apply a plural tense to their names (not much different from placing an s at the end of a word as we do in English). For example, when Luke reported that Paul walked from Jerusalem to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25), it is written in Greek with first the plural tense, and then with the singular tense; hence, it actually reads that Paul had walked from Jerusalems to Jerusalem, and thus meant that Paul had walked from Qumrn to Jerusalem. Another example is the apparent mistakes of reported distances in the New Covenant. The Gospel of John is replete with distances reported in stadia (a stadion is 607 feet, and 5 stadia is about 1 kilometer), which often did not seem to have anything in common with actual distances or routes between actual reported locations. However, if you look at the singular and plural tenses of their Greek text concerning these places, you will see that they actually referred to locations relative to the Qumran area, where the reported distances will match exactly. Indeed, all of the supposed geographic mistakes that have been pointed out in the Gospels can be fully explained and resolved by such simple tense transpositions.

Did you know that Jesus was turned over to the Romans for trial as a political terrorist partly because he refused to share the Zealot dream of ruling the world, with him as King (Messiah), but he instead preferred an amicable peace with the Gentiles? The Sanhedrin was perfectly within its rights to put a man to death (and they could lawfully meet at night), but they understood the severe backlash from their people for killing the man a great many of them fervently believed to be their rightful Davidic King.
Have you ever wondered how anti-Semitism exists after two millennia? It can only do so if its flame was fanned. All fingers point to Messianic Judaism, though Christians are blamed, frequently working peaceably with Jews, though public history accuses Jews of Christ-killing. Through the centuries Zionists have tried everything possible to segregate Jews and force them back to Palestine. Actually, a large population of Jews had remained in Israel, renamed Syria Palestina, even after the dispersion. Truth is, almost every existing Jew at the time of the dispersion already was living their lives quite comfortably outside of Israel, most not liking its hot, uncomfortable climate.

Page 100 of 119

And do not trouble yourself over lost tribes. As already discussed, almost every Jew in the world already lived outside Judea by choice long before the dispersion, and the dispersion itself did not have droves of people forced to march on foot out of the country; most were forced to simply march to outside the walls of Jerusalem; the heart of most of their troublemaking. Selected leveled settlements were not permitted to be rebuilt due to them being sites of uprisings, yet most others were not, which is how the small community of Nazareth, situated between Mount Carmel and the Sea of Galilee, came to be, being established before the time of the dispersion. Although there is strong evidence for Semitic people in Mexico, they were most likely sea-faring Phoenician explorers who did not fear to cast out beyond the sight of land and search the unknown, such as along the coasts of northern Europe and West Africa. Even Black Africans traveled to Mexico, and were even found by Columbus to be living among the Caribbean people. The dispersion numbers are simply assumed, but never substantiated. Consider the sojourn in the wilds of the Sinai Peninsula. Moses (Mosis; Egyptian for Righteous; The Rightful Heir); Pharaoh Akhenaten, only led about 1000 people, which is all that can be sustained as a group within the harsh desert, not the claimed millions, in south Sinai beneath Mount Horeb (Desert), upon which stood a temple complex dedicated to Egypts beloved Mother Goddess, Hathor, lorded over by the Egyptian Governor of Sinai, titled Lord/Ruler of the Mountain (Hebrew El Shaddai), Jethro (Moses father-in-law by his second wife, Zipporah), whose Master Craftsmen used arks generating electrical fire to create manna, used to fashion conical bread cakes (shem-an-na; Heavenly/High-ward firestone/metal or the shining metal that raises up; but shortened to manna; What is it? The Egyptian word mfktz, for that same substance, also means the exact same thing). It was talcum-like superconductive white powder gold, vital to the spiritual immortality of the 18th Amenhotep Dynasty, known as the Messeh Pharaohs, and said to make pyramid construction possible. The Master Craftsmen who attended these arks were called Levites (which spawns the word Levitation, which is a property of superconductive platinum metals), who wore uniforms with white leather aprons and long tassels, called Archons (from whence we get the term Architect. For example, they also designed and built the Luxor Temple) that grounded them to the earth to avoid electrocution. The term Levite does not denote one of Jacobs sons, as is too often wrongly assumed, but from the Egyptian city of Mal-lawi; City of the Levites, near Amarna.
NOTE: The Papyrus of Ani is commonly called the Egyptian Book of the Dead. However, this last word is a gross mistranslation, and just like Hebrew Daath, it means Wisdom/Knowledge. In it, Spell 125 lists the original 10 Commandments (see http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html).

Page 101 of 119

Consider the Bolsheviks. Unlike with the Nazi party, where Zionists had to internally operate as Crypto-Jews (Jews who pretended another faith), such as Joseph Goebbels, in the Soviet ranks they could more easily institute policy, where members could be openly Zionist, though most people, of course, saw them as simply Jewish. The Bolshevik Revolution was incited to free the workers from the oppressive Czar and his pogroms against Jews and the exploitation of the peasants. But if you look at the actual facts of history, it tells an entirely different story . For example, prior to Czar Alexander II, peasants were tied to their lands. This meant that whoever owned the land also owned the people on it and were free to abuse or use them however they wished. Czar Alexander II pushed hard to free them. The land owners agreed to freedom, but not to allowing them land. Alexander II would have no arguments. He signed the 1861 Emancipation Manifesto, which preceded even Abraham Lincolns own Emancipation Proclamation. To quote Wikipedias entry on the Emancipation Reform of 1861, The 1861
Emancipation Manifesto proclaimed the emancipation of the serfs on private estates and of the domestic (household) serfs. By this edict more than twenty-three million people received their liberty. Serfs were granted the full rights of free citizens, gaining the rights to marry without having to gain consent, to own property and to own a business. The Manifesto prescribed that peasants would be able to buy the land from the landlords. Household serfs were the worst affected as they gained only their freedom and no land.

Also, the Czars did not oppress the Jews, but instead worked hard to grant them absolute freedom, the likes of which none had in other nations, save America, encouraging them to mix freely in Russia. However, the Zionists goal was to separate Jews from the general population in their never-ending quest to relocate them to Palestine. So, manufactured reports of pogrom after pogrom began. As implied, most never existed, being leaked to the West, many of them strongly suspected of actually being German-source dispatches to damage the Czar as a part of their propaganda effort on the Eastern Front to vilify their enemy, the Czar, capitalizing on the rumblings of communist revolution building within Russia. Of course, many of the pogroms that did occur were committed by the semi-military Ukrainian Cossacks (it did not help that they had been allied to the Czars), the anti-communist White Guard, and a percentage of Bolsheviks, but clearly none by decree from the Czar.
NOTE: For a typical report of Pogroms in Poland from the New York Times, 1 June 1919, see http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0DE6DF1F39E13ABC4953DFB0668382609EDE.

Substandard weapons were manufactured by Zionists, brokered by other Zionists at outrageous fees, supplied in an agonizing trickle to the Russian troops, and always in too few numbers. Zionists also obstructed food supplies, forcing massive, widespread starvation. All of this was of course conveniently blamed unjustly on the Czar. Chip away. Chip away Page 102 of 119

When the people finally got the revolution they were told they justly needed, and won it, they realized that the bounty and plenty they were promised never came. In the early stages, things were quite ordinary because the new Bolshevik leadership was not organized enough to solve typical problems facing government, to include water and food shortages. But in short order their new overlords became ruthless and treacherous, not leading but ruling by absolute threat of terror, administering the peoples justice to violators. George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/index.html) are explorations of political subterfuge based upon that government, which actually made Soviet citizens worse off than they had been before the October Revolution. When the Czars family was captured, everyone, including the outer rings of the Reds, assumed and fully expected them to be sent into exile. But after about 8 months in isolated captivity, totally cut off from outside contact, Bolsheviks murdered them all. This was a bad move, because this could have too easily made them martyrs. Indeed, even today one can hear such rumblings. I can only wonder if they killed them so that the truth would not be let out, before the Bolsheviks could adjust it in the press. According to Christopher Jon Bjerknes, a Jewish historian of note and a meticulous researcher, Messianic Zionist fingerprints were all over it. Truly wolves in sheeps clothing, Messianic Zionists hide in plain sight behind a veil of a Jewish identity. If you simply look at history, you can see their handiwork, but because they disguise themselves as the ordinary or even the suffering Jew (who is actually non-Zionist), people seldom actually do see them for who they really are, simply because of the confusion behind which they veil themselves, because most people do not distinguish between Zionist and non-Zionist (and these converse distinctions are purposefully blurred). Sadly, it is the masses of nonZionist Jews who have always suffered wrath for the Zionists deeds.
During Einsteins time, and after, these Zionists held controlling influence in everything from major media outlets, banking houses, industry, university administrations, professorships, and all the way down to even prostitution rings and racketeering. They effectively used cries of discrimination and antiSemitism in order to protect themselves and control those in powerful positions and/or silence criticism. They have resorted to threats, assassination, blackmail, and other dark endeavors without the slightest jot of conscience or moral concerns, going entirely against the severe moral code of ethics of the typical Jew. Because of this moral code, their corruption was less detected, and any that was revealed only sullied the image of Jews, not Zionists.

Page 103 of 119

This may seem absolutely illogical until you grasp the Zionists goals, but they even supported both the National Socialist Party in Germany and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia with their far left progressive ideas on how to sow putrefaction within their targeted governments. They try to segregate the Jews and drive them against their will to Palestine, pushing anti-Jewish policies that would force Jews to flee to Palestine, and to show how miserable the host Gentile governments were. They were practiced at then acting the part of the outraged victim at the result of their own handiwork, blaming the Gentile governments for those atrocities.
NOTE: This may sound strange to many, but Nazis and Bolsheviks were liberal socialists, not the ultra-right-wingers they are too often portrayed as in the media.

The Messianic Zionists strategy is ingenious. All you need do is look for their signs. They seek to wear their enemies down over a long, extended period, mirroring, in this respect, the goals of the Fabian Society (established 1884), to utterly devastate economies and incite a total breakdown of morality in order to gut their enemies from within. They have even been known to instigate large-scale anti-Semitic uprisings, for which innocent non-Zionist Jews then suffer in their stead as scapegoat, all this calculated as a part of their plans toward achieving their long-term goal of world domination (there is method to this presumed madness if you stop and simply realize how absolutely overpowering and empowering the image of horrifically-oppressed people and their children are to the eyes of a compassionate public).
NOTE: The Fabian Society began with 5 students who wanted to discuss socialist policies. That same year they grew quickly and even included George Bernard Shaw in their ranks. By 1886 their numbers were at 67 members, and were discussing many important topics, such as how to nationalize accumulated wealth. By 1900 they had helped form the British Labor Party , and its constitution borrowed heavily from the Fabian founding documents. At this time the Fabians were concerned with advocating the ideal of a scientifically planned society and supported eugenics by way of sterilization. They gained H. G. Wells in 1904, who tried to broaden its operations to effect social change. They slid in power in the 1920s, but afterward quickly turn around and have grown rapidly ever since, numbering about 6,300 in 2009, and this is not counting their affiliated groups, such as the Young Fabians.

Of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who these Messianic Zionists are known to have fully financed and to have been deeply involved in their founding and perpetuation, there are historians who have concluded that these two dictators were purposeful products of Zionist mechanization. They were too perfectly made-to-order, suiting an agenda to break down freedom, democracy, and dumb-down education, and sow in their place chaos and anarchy. And their absolute best defense was to then deny everything and afterward act the part of the wretched victim, even though it was the poor non-Zionist Jews who would actually do all the suffering. Their reasoning being that persecution

Page 104 of 119

saves the victim from ever having to justify their actions; persecution begets martyrdom. They have become absolute masters at playing the victim card.

This type of financial, political, and educational manipulation by these Messianic Zionists is very hard for the casual observer to initially follow, which is the real beauty of their overall strategy. If you but remove the blinders that the media and the other stooges of their manipulation had trained us to don like obedient dogs, and really take an objective look at all of this material, it all makes a very scary sort of sense.
Being Jewish, looking at this makes clear to me that much of this anti-Semitic sentiment has been by design, though blamed on other agencies, particularly Christians, Muslims, and Gentile governments. Outwardly, to even address these issues might appear anti-Semitic, and this stops most conscientious nonJewish people from pursuing such a train of thought right there, and for a Jew to do that was often treated like an act of high treason, which gives pause to most Jewish historians (save, for example, Bjerknes). You have to understand that the goal of these racist Zionists is to cast grave doubt on the targeted government, but to be sure to redirect any resulting anti-Semitic retribution only onto their non-Zionist Jewish punching bags, working to keep them separate and segregated, persecuting them in order to force them to Palestine. However, this strategy has utterly failed here in America, because, save for minor incidents, they are not victimized here, having no right to cry racism, but are a part of both its protected citizenry and its zealously patriotic base. They, or their stooges, tactically criticize others for unjustifiable spending practices, but then spend many, many times that formerly criticized amount in their own turn, yet justify it as a worthy cause for the good of the people. They will spend massive amounts of money to help agencies that have no chance of remaining solvent. They will throw money at programs that can never be solved by money. They will throw unending torrents of money at expanding and ever more copious social and entitlement programs, which is in itself a self-perpetuating cycle of ever-greater spending as the less scrupulous among us move in to take advantage of these free-money programs. They will throw around frivolous huge grants like confetti to the wind. They borrow money they cannot pay back. They print money without backing, claiming it will help the economy. They can always expect outrage to be screamed if any of these programs are to be necessarily trimmed back. One of their most successful strategies is to enact programs with negotiated annual budget increases. When negotiations dictate a lesser increase than its advocates desire, which simply reduces the amount of the annual increase but not of the agreed base amount, this is trumpeted as an unacceptable cutback (which technically is not a cutback), and the expected outrage is shouted.

Page 105 of 119

Government schooling is the root cause of Americas failing, fashioned to deliberately dumb down its pupils, making them more obedient to government control. Be wary of programs ending with Education in its title.
NOTE: Also be sure to see the brilliant Charlotte Thomson Iserbyts web site, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, at www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.

Such domesticated people are being trained to expect a free ride from the government, which of course makes them more dependant upon it. Even in our society, less than half of the people in this country actually pay taxes. Somehow, some liberal progressives make 6-figure salaries but are still able to claim food stamps, welfare benefits, other entitlements, and still dodge paying taxes at all, even as they cry fowl over honest taxpayers who want to keep more of their own hard-earned money. If you want to hear some real outrage, tell them they have to work for their entitlements. Their goal is not to help anyone but themselves. Their goal is to spiral the economy into oblivion. Their goal is to rid the tax-paying population, which is now a minority, of their wealth. When their targeted society is crumbling, they sweep into the disorder like heroic saviors (but I say, like jackals), promising the people everything from freedom, food, justice, jobs, hope, change, dignity, to redistributing the wealth of the presumed evil rich by making them pay what is assumed to be their fair share (even though they unfairly pay too much already, the top 1% wage earners paying 40% of all taxes but, hey, they can afford it, right? But this is not an excuse to overtax anyone, especially in a capitalist society). They will enact expansive (and expensive) social welfare programs in the name of the people, but the truth is they do not care about them at all. The poor and downtrodden are simply easily malleable instruments that can be turned to serve their ends. Whatever complaint a large group lodges, even if it is petty, they will try to morph into the means to its satisfaction. They could easily act the part of staunch conservative or the most radical liberal, or both, which is why they are so hard to pin down. And thus they would popularly assume total, authoritarian control of a nation without waging war.

Do you think I am being paranoid? Do you think what I am discussing is ridiculous? Are you so smug to think that this cannot happen even in America? If you recognize any of these signs so far, then you decide.
I spent too many years with blinkers on, refusing to see the things that slithered along the edges of my perception that never quite stood out in front of me. Being one infatuated by details, I should have known much better.

Have you ever noticed over the last few decades how morality has slowly waned, tiny bit by tiny bit, until it almost does not exist anymore? Do you Page 106 of 119

really believe this is a natural evolution? If that were so, then how is it that these high standards of morality remained intact for the past 7 millennia by conscientious people who have always prospered, but suddenly, in a blink of an eye of historical record, it suddenly all fell apart? Why is it that every single culture, from the Greeks, the Romans, the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, etc., once they let their moral standards slide until they were totally corrupt, driving its successful upstanding citizens away to newer and freer pastures, did they suddenly crumble and fall?
Have you noticed how those pushing for the relaxing of moral codes, though they usually refer to it as individual freedom (but not in the land of the free, and the home of the brave sort of freedom), seem to ask for but a modicum, only the tiniest, most modest allowance of those freedoms, expecting the majority moral citizens to compassionately acquiesce to allow such miniscule changes, but such tiny tidbits can quickly add up to one day be realized as the whole of the laws. Have you ever noticed those who always demand compromise and consensus from their opponents, but seldom concede, seldom forfeit, seldom themselves compromise? But when they do consent to compromise, it is in name only, because the conditions of compromise are almost always time-limited, which essentially makes such only a setback, and hence, not a real compromise at all. Actually, the only time I have seen them forced into a real compromise is when their opponents show some backbone and are not afraid to push back by simply standing up for what is right.
NOTE: By this point some readers have contacted me to accuse me of being some ultra-right-wing Republican. Actually, I have been a life-long Democrat. I am just pragmatic, in the traditions of John F. Kennedy (D) and Ronald R. Reagan (R).

I find it amazing how Zionists and even Fabians exploit manufactured outrage. The people are told by someone that they need this or that entitlement. Then this someone demands it from the government. If the government denies the demand, manufactured outrage rears its ugly head and people are told how they are being denied this promised thing. I see this happening so many times that it is almost becoming boring. Their goal is to impoverish people, to force them, for the sake of family, to assistance programs. This is often helped by assistance programs that pay better than honest labor, which will move people to such a dole system in epidemic proportions. Just look to the Australian Dole system to see what I mean. Once people becomes used to living on the Dole, it is hard to break away from it, becoming a perpetuating, generational tradition. Making people dependant on the government buys votes for those who promote that assistance, for dolers fear of otherwise losing it. Page 107 of 119

Have you ever taken a good look at frivolous but noble-looking activities, such as the environmentalist movements? Granted, saving the planet is a very noble endeavor that everyone should participate in, but to what extent? When does it go overboard and transform into a cause of selfperpetuation so to remain relevant; to becoming its own purpose; of the cause becoming the purpose that exists for its own sake, not for the purpose for which it was founded? Look at the fiasco over global warming, and how loudly they shouted about saving the world from it. My personal favorite among their ranting was the logic they spewed to explain years of progressively cooler winters (when people started praying for global warming), that global warming can in fact also cause global cooling, which is why they renamed their Cause Clbre, their Famous Cause, to Climate Change. But their logic is a load of horse pucks, because climate always changes. In fact, the Earth has been steadily cooling since 1998. By the way, 1998 was not even close to being the hottest year on record (it was 1934, resting between two rather cool years), regardless of their mindless chants and screaming in reaction to reason. This assumption was a result of the famous United Nations Hockey-stick Chart, later fully discredited, having been invented by adjusting temperature readings, and by totally removing the Medieval Warm Period that lasted from 950 CE to about 1250 CE (the following Mini-Ice Age began about a hundred years later in 1300 CE to 1350 CE, lasting for about 500 years until 1850 CE to 1900 CE).
The Medieval Warming Period was the warmest period in recent historical record. The warm air and resulting higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the air (which follows temperature change, not leading it), engendered not the doom or horrific economic gloom (cue images of desolate crop fields washed over by sand, dead emaciated livestock, and crying children with gas-bloated belliesI am not being insensitive, but simply realistic ) predicted for any current period of global warming, but in the most economically prosperous period in history. Vineyards extended as far north as England, which is why so many streets there sport grape-related names. By the way, plants consume CO2, and thus would greatly prosper, not wither and die.

I recall in the early 1970s most of these very same environmentalists were wailing and gnashing their teeth over Global Cooling and intoning grim warnings of an impending Ice Age. They also said that we were going to have to fully abort petroleum consumption in order to curtail it. For example, see Peter Gwynnes alarmist article, The Cooling World, in the 28 April 1975 issue of NewsWeek: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf. Page 108 of 119

This all comes down to the push for a so-called Carbon Tax that many in such organizations like the United Nations are attempting to force onto the people of the world. This is one of the most foolhardy things I have ever heard coming from the mouths of supposedly intelligent beings. All plant-life on the planet, which accounts for virtually all life on Earth, consumes CO2 as food. The more there is of it, the greater goes plant propagation. If these environmentalists are so concerned about the world food supply dwindling, why not promote greater concentrations of CO2 in the air to convert ordinary crops into absolutely enormous bumper crops? The more carbon that exists in the air, the more profusely plants will grow. And the more abundant plant life grows, the more oxygen is consequently generated that permeates the atmosphere. Do these boneheads not do their homework before they spew their idiotic blather? It is not some gomer burning trash in their back yard that is going to push CO2 concentrations up, but the world oceans, which stores all carbon dioxide on the planet, leaving only trace amounts of it in the air.

Besides if their demand that so-called Greenhouse Gasses be reduced, maybe they can institute a Watervapor Tax to accompany the Carbon Tax, because water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, most affecting planetary temperatures. Carbon dioxide is so insignificant that it is only capable of affecting temperature by a tiny fraction of one percent. Are you seeing where I am going with this, and the fingerprints of the same overlords always hovering behind these things? Such shadows. Similar things can be said of Labor Unions, who now exist almost entirely for their own sake, and have grown so big that they are now starting to bankrupt the economic prosperity of many former giant industries, which critics have said was their purpose all along; to destroy economic stability in order to sell people on the idea of their own socialist goals.
They started as worthy causes; to fight for workers rights when they had no rights. Who is not inspired by Norma Rae , a southern textile worker laboring under intolerable conditions, who Sally Fields portrayed so wonderfully in the 1979 movie, who first fought against, and then along with the union organizer, Norman Warshowsky. In fact, I not only come from the same very tiny home town as John L. Lewis (1880-1969, the gruff sagebrush-browed bulldog union leader behind the joining of the AFL (American Federation of Labor) and the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) and making it a most powerful force which established the United Steel Workers of America and helped organize millions of other industrial workers in the 1930s), Lucas, Iowa, and his birth home was even incorporated as the kitchen and back room of my home. In truth, he was a total jerk, and totally intolerable to be around, but maybe he had to be that way to leverage power to his cause. Page 109 of 119

The harshest thing I can say about the unions is their pension plan, which looks for the entire world like a plan specifically targeted to bankrupting everyone else but them. In a country where pyramid schemes are supposed to be illegal, how is it that the union pensions plan is nothing but a giant pyramid scheme? Its design is obvious. It starts out that people who retire collect a pension that those still working pay into. Fine. But the longer people live, the more they will collect, which means the more working people will have to pay in, which can push back their own retirement age. This is further crippled by the unions spending that trust fund on other causes and projects, such as political candidates, organizing other unions, and making themselves look good by donating to charities. This results in the company itself, in concessions to keep their labor force working, in subsidizing the workers payments to help offset the geometrically-expanding pool of collecting pensioners. To offset those ever-increasing costs, industries must bump the cost of their goods and services not only to pay just that offset, to move industries to regions or countries with cheaper labor, but to also pay the ever higher wages demanded so that the union can remain relevant by having a purpose for which to represent its members. Probably the gold ring unions are the state and federal unions, which the tax-payers, even those who do not believe in unions, must pay into through taxation. That is simply theft. My whole point is, why should we, or even the companies have to pay at all into these union pension plans? There is absolutely no reason for it. Apart from justifying their own existence, all these unions are now doing is bankrupting more and more people, until there are no more people to bankrupt as the economy collapses. When the economy collapses, as we have seen in the case of Greece, where an entitlement-based government finally ran out of money, the people were incited to take to the streets and demand that they continue to get their free handouts when there was nothing left to hand out. They are now under the impression that the government owes them a living. The idea of working for their welfare checks is unconscionable. Even Australia, which has long suffered from a Living on the Dole epidemic simply because people wanted to treat the needy with a dignified income, has started a program called Working for the Dole, where people, to qualify for their welfare checks, have to perform honest and honorable labor. Only people who believe in honest work think that this is a joyous and thankful idea. Others shout outrage.

Page 110 of 119

However, if the protesters can be caught at the right moment, they can bring the government down, as was rampant back in the 1930s (even France was changing governments every month or every couple of weeks), then the government will suffer total collapse, and a workers government will stand in its place, calling itself socialist, but, like all others like them, they actually become autocratic, where the leadership lives high on the hog while everyone else lives in squalor.
Sadly, freedom does not go out with a bang, but to the sound of applause.

However, the Zionists ultimate goal is not to be the peoples salvation, but rather to make those citizens absolutely dependent upon their government for their every need, such as work, money, food, and medicine, all the while social and moral boundaries are shredded in the name of individual freedom, yet at the same time turning brother against brother, and even turning children against their parents, empowering and brainwashing them, taking advantage of their adolescent senses of justice and vengeance to be spies feared by all. This government will squeeze citizens tightly, spy on them intently, issue mountains of rules of conduct, and impart stiff fines for the most trivial infraction, in time totally impoverishing and demoralizing everyone, making them too pathetic and too lethargic to resist. Yet they will always provide them with targeted enemies to hate and shake fists at, to vent their anger and frustration, to blame for their ever more austere conditions. In the end citizens will become spies just to get a piece of bread. This centralized, ultimately powerful government would rule, dominate, and oppress these people, confiscating all their wealth, and all this will be justified as being for their greater common good and all done entirely in the peoples name.
Conspiracy theorists have frequently assumed that there is some elite order (often called the Illuminati) who secretly manipulate the world. Not knowing who they are, most accuse the Freemasons, of which I am a member, the Bohemian Grove, or Opus Dei (Latin, Work of God). I now wonder in the strongest sense if this Illuminati could in fact be Messianic Zionists, with possible associations with maybe the likes of Fabian Socialists. It may therefore be ironic that you in turn might now consider me to be a conspiracy theorist. However, all the evidence is there for anyone who will truly open their eyes and see its clues, and to simply consider them through reason. It plainly seems to make sense that it would be someone like them, implementing the fewest number of assumptions (to apply Occams Razor to this speculation). The hidden seat of control is said to be led by people in very great and very powerful positions. As we have already explored, and I Page 111 of 119

only touched on material that that has stacks of books and reams of evidence that the Zionists were indeed great barons of industry, magnates of finance, and moguls of the press, their fingers caressing every major seat of power, its following fanatical in their dedication and steadfast to their mission. I cannot even imagine anyone else but them. It staggers me.

However, it has been my observation that the larger and more powerful the central government is; the harder and more devastating will be its fall when it finally runs out of wealthy people to filch and they have finally printed so much un-backed money that it is completely worthless. Just look to Greece for an example of excessive socialist entitlement programs gone unchecked and out of control. Also refer to http://mises.org/books/TRTS and review an 18-panel illustrated version of Friedrich A. Hyaks The Road to Serfdom, first published in 1944 by LOOK Magazine.
It has been pointed out, such as by columnist Ned Resnikoff at Media Matters in an article in 2010, that the charges against the likes of the Fabian Society are unjust. This is primarily referring to opinionist Glenn Beck (www.gbtv.com), when he was formerly at Fox News Channel (www.foxnews.com), regarding one of his favorite bogymen, progressive billionaire George Soros (see http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010070056 ), who attended the London School of Economics where the Fabian Society is seated, housing the famous Fabian Window (see, for example, http://awakeandarise.org/article/FabianWindow.htm). Ned also points out a list of conservatives who had attended the London School of Economics, such as William Gale, Council of Economic Advisors for the Bush Administration, and Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration; Chairman of Defense Department Advisory Committee for the Bush Administration; fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and many other individuals. Ted also states that Incidentally, Fox's own Stuart Varney last seen echoing Beck's economic doomsaying is also a graduate of the London School of Economics. He then closes by pointing out that Friedrich Hayek , who wrote the book, The Road to Serfdom, taught at the same London School of Economics. With fellow lecturer, political philosopher Karl Popper, they founded the libertarian think tank, The Mont Pelerin Society. Ted points this out so to mention that Popper was one of George Soros instructors, who Ted quoted as once writing that Popper's words struck me with the force of revelation. All this is well and good, but the point is that The Fabian Society and the London School of Economics are in no wise synonymous, nor is membership in the society any sort of requirement for attendance at this very august and prestigious school. This is like the Wine Tasters Society , the Science Club,

Page 112 of 119

the Dead Poets Society, or any other sociable association that can be found at any number of middle- or higher-education institutions. Just because it is at a certain school does not mean that everyone who attends that school is an active member, or that everyone attending wants to be a member or that everyone attending believes one iota in the local clubs philosophy. What is important to me is what Teds article fails to discuss. For example, I would be very much interested in exactly how Poppers words struck Soros, and what revelation it awoke within him. Ted also failed to mention that all of the conservatives he listed did not join the Fabian Society. Ted also did not mention that Soros is a member of the Fabian Society (see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101105111110AA8ChIf). However, the article was an opinion piece, so its author is free to be selective in the facts they choose in order to support their opinion, and are not required to counterpoint with disagreeing opinions or even provide complete details of facts that would make the data regarding these facts complete (as I try to). But this I do find surprising, considering that such progressives want to enact Equal Time rules through the Federal Communication Commission on conservative talk radio programs so that opposing liberal/progressive versions of the discussed issues can be voiced in a balanced environment.
NOTE: I find it interesting that these same progressives do not try to also push this same Equal Time agenda onto liberal talk radio programs so to allow conservatives fair play that they might also be given the opportunity to render balancing counterpoint to liberal/progressive opinion.

I was really surprised that Ted failed to mention that as young men Hayek and Popper were both socialists (as it seems most men are in their youth developing out of adolescent tribalism). Hayek was a Fabian, and Popper a communist. But this omission, which is easy to find on the web, may be because both young men came to become absolutely repulsed by the corruption and instability inherent in socialism; Hayek by his economic education at the University of Vienna under the great von Mises, and Popper by his personal struggles while living in a commune (refer to Poppers Views on Natural and Social Science by Colin Simkin, and The Myth of Liberal Individualism by Colin Bird you can find both books online at Google Books, http://books.google.com).
NOTE: One powerful Fabian technique is to pervert the truth by the act of omission; leaving out the parts of the truth that do not suit their purposes. As children we called these white lies. But white-lies are still lies, because they are a shadow of the truth, sort-of, but without all the troublesome details, such as the details that will get one into trouble. Seemingly innocent, they are nothing short of being grossly deceptive.

Page 113 of 119

This is the same problem that I have with the whole political correctness gambit. To me, political correctness is simply a way to hide a lie behind obfuscated words. Truly, it is just one more way to white-wash truth and make a lie sound like truth. For example, Instead of being blind, we are now visually-challenged, instead of having medical clinics, we now have wellness centers , instead of being short, we are now vertically-impaired, and instead of having uncontrollable diarrhea, we now have anal leakage. People who promote this twaddle must be brain-challenged. It makes me so sick, I feel like I might have a technicolor yawn. Being a device to hide untruth, the greatest service we could ever do for ourselves is to simply strike political correctness from our language. Besides, I have always wondered why it should ever be considered too impolitic or even too disrespectful to simply be honest with someone.

David
CLOSING NOTES: I drew a great deal of this latter segments material from Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in his heavily researched tome, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein (see www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf). This book is extremely long and minutely detailed, and can be a very difficult read, with many of its included documents in their original German. Himself Jewish, Bjerknes was so repulsed by the racism exhibited by Einstein and the Messianic Zionists that he himself almost sounds racist in his condemnation during the first two chapters, that it also becomes uncomfortable to read, perhaps injecting a little too much of his own abhorrence of their opinions into the text, before finally calming down by Chapter Three. However, I have checked both his sources and other sources to verify these details, and I have come to see exactly how dark that history he covers actually was, and how these events were able to come about. All you need is to then read John Tolands 2-volume Adolf Hitler, and you would more clearly understand early 20th Century Europe, its thinking, and its politics.

You can also find other exemplary pieces of his heavily researched work at www.jewishracism.com, and also at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm.
Other sources have also been referenced, but Bjerknes provided ample coverage that was simply rehashed by those other sources, and so I will here credit only him. I also thought it very important, considering the subject, to depend upon Jewish sources for this material. Of course, all of this material can actually be gathered from a surprising number of Jewish sources. Biblical historical data and the bloodline notes were drawn from my own heavily researched book, A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity (cheap pricing at www.authorhouse.com or www.authorhouse.co.uk). I might add that the Royal House of Israel, from the Hasmonean Dynasty, appears to be a re-infusion of Sythian Royal Blood from the royal houses from Mesopotamia. This is the line that produced the Royal Hasmonean Princess Mary Magdalene, or Miriam Migdal-eder, meaning Beloved Tower of the Flock, referring to the Beloved Daughter of Zion (see Mica 4:8). History is not what those clenching power want you to ever understand it to be.

Page 114 of 119

Notes Regard Mythematics This is the way that mythematics works: First, you have a view of the universe that you think is how the universe should work. You begin with some basic laws that are currently popular, such as Newtons Laws of Gravity. You sprinkle in some popular ideas that you are impressed with, such as some equations that Einstein developed about bending space with gravity. You then go about filling in the blanks between these accepted ideas and your target concept with tinkering mathematical calculations until it fits.
NOTE: It bugs me to no end how it is possible to bend space using the absolute weakest force known to science, and why should space even bend, or that it is possible to bend in the first place? It seems to me that this would only be possible if space were not 3-dimensional, but rather a 2-dimensional plane that held 3-dimensional objects on its surface. But this configuration is not at all possible. Has anyone ever explored how a 3-dimensional space would react?

Basically, this is like starting with the number 1, but you want to derive the number 22. Sure, you can simply add 21, but that is too obvious. So you might apply some slick math tricks like the ones that most young people learn in school during free periods to amuse each other, like starting with someones birthday and then, when you flip the calculator upside down, you read hELLO (inverted 07734). So you might throw in some equations derived from Euclidian Geometry, Trigonometry, and maybe a dash of Calculus, and you have an impressive equation that shows how you can start with the number 1 and end up at 22. But suppose later a new fact emerges that poses problems to your equation. You might enhance it by adding a new constant, like the invented but now abandoned Cosmological Constant; to fudge the data quotients to once more offer the desired result. The above amusement over-simplistically illustrates how mathematics can be applied to do something that it was never meant to do. Sure, you can apply mathematics to plot points, do transformations, predict trajectories, calculate patterns, distortion, lensing, simulate the complex flight operations of a stealth aircraft, or predict the weather, but it was never meant to do things like show how Black Hole Ejections can work, because black holes cannot be proven to exist in the first place. But even the fudged physics used to presume that they might exist still cannot support an ejection. But why bother, when such ejections are purely natural events under an electrodynamics model? Page 115 of 119

Indeed, I once had a conversation with a person regarding these gigantic plasma ejections (and I do mean gigantic, sometimes being many times longer than the galaxy is wide). They said that they were ejections from a super-massive black hole, regardless of their overly obvious electrical signatures, and because that is what they are, that is proof that black holes exist. I had to do an obviously amusing triple-take. Forget the fact that such events are expected in terms of Plasma Physics, I had to stop and imagine why, when a normal black hole is presumed to not let any light escape its event horizon whatsoever, how a super-massive black hole, which is presumed to be far larger and far more powerful that a normal black hole (but just as improvable), but can in turn eject electrical plasma jets, when its presumed physics lets even less matter escape than a normal black hole? The argument for them falls flat on its face right there. But that is only one example of many in a world of science run amuck that uses proofs for their theories that often also disprove them, or disproves other aspects of those or of supporting theories. I am not saying by all this that mythematics is wholly pervasive in physics, but it is an important enough matter that I have no choice but to say that sometimes the most brilliant and respected figures in physics do not have their figures checked quite as thoroughly as might a general physicist. When one, out of respect, assumes that someones work is correct, one tends to accept the math as written, and sometimes even when they do find what might appear to be a error, it tends to be overlooked because they usually assume this incongruence is a due to a personal misunderstanding.
NOTE: When taking a long and difficult examination, when you recheck the answers you have submitted, are you not least likely to check those answers that you have a high degree of confidence in them already being correct? And when your examination paper is graded and returned to you, where do you usually find answers marked as incorrect? Among the answers you assumed to be correct.

Someone is least likely to believe a new physicist reporting an error regarding a revered physicists work, when truly one should put more than the usual trust in the fresh eyes of someone new, regardless of their inexperience, especially if they are not aware of respected reputations. Just look at how ardently some of Einsteins errors were defended by some of esteemed brilliance until one of them actually took the time to track the error down.

Page 116 of 119

I simply exercise caution when a particular theory will have a great impact on someone who has funding, tenure, or a reputation to protect if such a theory were to become de facto. On the surface, this might not seem to be an issue of any relevance, because from the outside the sciences seems so professional, until you take a much deeper look at the heated and contentious politics that actually goes on throughout professional sciences. For example, if funding hinges on a particular result, I am very cautious of the results reported back. When evidence contradicts theories, there is likely something wrong with the theories, not something wrong with the evidence. David

Page 117 of 119

Important Resource Lookups

All the information contained herein, and much more in addition to it can be easily found on the internet through simple web searches. Perform searches on the following keywords, and variations thereof, to find information for yourself:
1919 Eclipse Annalen Der Physik Barbara Thiering Big Bang Busted Bruce Harvey Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt Christopher Bjerknes David Hudson David Talbott Edwin Hubble Einstein Plagiarism Electric Universe Emanuel Velikovsky Eric J Lerner Expansion Tectonics Geoff Haselhurst Geological Map of the World George P Shpenkov Halton Arp Harold Aspden Hendrik Antoon Lorentz Hilton Ratcliffe Johann Georg von Soldner Jules Henri Poincar Karl Schwartzschild Katherine Blundell Laurence Gardner Lloyd Pye Messianic Zionists Olinto De Pretto Plasma Physics Prime Matter Problems in Physics Richard Moody Jr S. Tolver Preston Saturn Myth Steven J Crothers Steve Rawlings Tams Sndor Br Wal Thornhill Youth-RedshiftDegeneracy

The above is of course an extremely abridged starting list. Go bug tussle crazy expanding it, searching on anything within this document. I must remind you to also be very careful about some of the information gathered; because it is can often be overly biased, promoting too zealously either for or against a particular point of view (intuitive skepticism, a primordial defensive instinct, can work both ways, and even by us as we review it). Be watchful of text that is written in a too derisive, condescending, or ridiculing bent. Such authors who do nothing but chide and mock and ridicule and belittle an opposing opinion usually have not really taken a fair look at this opposing view, and by such a display, they likely have absolutely no intention of doing so, when their time could have been better spent simply explaining their position. Oddly, some people fear pondering an opposing viewpoint because they are actually afraid that their current opinion might change. And what, exactly, is there to fear from that? This simply demonstrates how entrenched in an opinion that some people get. They become so locked in their opinion, so deathly afraid of being wrong that they abandon all reason and live in fear of actually finding out the Truth of the matter, even if it does nothing but bolster their own view. Ironically, it has been my observation that those who incessantly vomit puissant ridicule the loudest sometimes end up becoming their targets most ardent advocates once they finally come around to understanding it.

David

Page 118 of 119

About the Author David is an independent researcher who is obsessive about details, a professional software engineer, and author, living his life in glorious anonymity. As a software engineer, he has been expected to think entirely out of the box and use intuitive perception to develop solutions to problems that were often assumed impossible. He says that he has been designing software solutions since dinosaurs walked the Earth, being a systems designer, language designer, and a compulsive developer (oh, and he has also painted houses, built them, and moved people's furniture across the country). He has written professional code in FORTRAN, C, C++, VB, Forth, COBOL, Pascal, various assembler languages, and others he wants to forget. Of Jewish descent, he has extensively explored Biblical history, ancient cultural thinking, and ancient slang for over three decades, which had resulted in his seminal work: A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity. He has written numerous books, manuals, and magazine articles, many not credited, or authored under pen names. His other interests include Cosmology, Quantum Physics, Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Nuclear Physics, human-machine interaction, the Global Warming Myth, The Electric Universe Theory, Expansion Tectonics, Perpetual Energy Technology, Quartz Technology, the real truth of history, exploring the glaring flaws in current Darwinian Theory and Mendelian Inheritance, studying the bio-mechanical origins of life, and exploring the ancient practice of Dream Walking. His goal is to become as close as he can possibly be to a Universal Scholar.
David Goben Lady Lake, FL, USA
davidgoben@comcast.net david.ross.goben@gmail.com

Page 119 of 119