My Biggest Surprises

New information conflicting with what we thought we knew can come as a real surprise. These may be shockers to you, too.

Table of Contents


One of my biggest surprises is how wrong many of the answers given by official science are. They’re just flying by the seat of their pants to give an illusion of being all-knowing, and it’s a ridiculous conceit. As part of the god complex of establishment scientists, they simply can't say “I don't know,” to anything. They always have some “explanation,” and turn vicious in its defense no matter how crazy and wrong it turns out to be.

One sorry instance is the official explanation for rainbows. Which is no explanation. In a perfect example of a “hand-waving argument,” it's said that they’re caused by multiple reflections and refractions, and any time something comes up that spoils that idea, like how there are double rainbows, they just add some more reflections and refractions, sometimes throwing in the odd “diffraction” for good measure.

circular rainbow over water

The properties of materials don't change. How many times does light “reflect and refract” in raindrops? And certainly, they're not going to start producing multiple reflections and refractions, arbitrarily. If you were to make such a claim, you would also need to present the details on exactly when, where, and, if possible, how this occurs.

One official “explainer” says that a rainbow looks different to every observer, because the rainbow effect only occurs at a certain angle, and someone standing beside you will see a different rainbow. It’s frightening to even quote this, and I had to read it over again to try to find something I was missing, because this is so clearly untrue, as anyone traveling in a car can attest.

But what she may have meant was that the image of the rainbow is the result of the reflections (and refraction) from a different set of raindrops for each observer. But that's the case for each individual observer as well, as it's a continuous parade of new drops that are creating the effect, so it's an irrelevant distraction to even mention.

Since everyone in a wide range sees a rainbow, it’s not “dependent on very specific angles,” which negates the official explanation immediately.

The claim that the sun must always be behind you doesn't comport with reality, either.

Then, of course, we also see breaks in the bow where there is no mist or cloud behind, which seems to be harder to explain if it were the rain creating a rainbow.

Don't despair though, it's okay. We can have our own fun, and find a way to explain these gaping holes in our knowledge, ourselves.

Why Are They Misdirecting?

It may be that if we know the truth about rainbows, there is some corresponding knowledge that they don't want us to know.

Of course, there's always their intolerable egos asserting. Having already given an explanation, as gods, their word is law. There will be no revision or discussion. Proving most scientists aren't interested in real science, and it's all another money-based control scam.

The Optics

To review, water, or glass, just happens to slow down the different colors of light passing through it differently, causing each wavelength (color, for our purposes) to bend at a slightly different angle. Otherwise, prisms would not work.

Now recall that “white light,” is all the colors of the spectrum presented at once. It's like a package arriving.

Next we must realize that all lenses refract. But lenses (convex or concave) are curve-faced, prisms are flat-faced.

In both cases, there is a double refraction. But the prism bends the individual colors composing a white light beam apart twice. The lens doesn't have the same geometry, and the entire beam of white light is bent, or focused.

Both prism and lens operate consistently. A prism doesn't act as a lens, and a lens doesn't act as a prism.

More Misdirection

They say a lens can be said to be a series of stacked prisms, and that's nonsense. If a prism doesn't act as a lens, how does it make sense to model a lens as stacked pyramids? (Something I've seen in some Optics articles.)

When a lens is not curving properly, is too straight, then it's a little like a prism, and that causes the prism effect of slightly scattering exiting white light into its components and you get a smear or blur due to color separation, an effect called chromatic aberration. It's also an issue if there is spherical aberration when the lens is not perfectly symmetrical with the opposite side. This causes lack of focus. All very simple and comprehensible science.

One thing to note: there is always a little internal reflection in things like lenses and prisms, but it is generally minute. There would have to be a good reason for any change in this behavior, like some inner inhomogeneity, a flaw in the glass or such.

In truth, we're facing anti-scientific obstacles from the scientific community. If we were truly to embrace the scientific method and reasoning, and the “official” rainbow ideas were based in fact, the physics would be fascinating. Why does sunlight reflect unpredictably inside drops of rain? How are the properties of water able to change to create this variance? Does it depend upon the shape of the drop? How about pollution in the drop? Does this same effect occur in other transparent materials? Is it something to do with electrical or magnetic effects?

There are other questions where we don't seem to have any data. For example, refractive index varies with wavelength and temperature. How does this affect rainbows? Raindrops have different shapes. How does this affect rainbow conditions? Is there absolutely no interest, across the board, in studying these matters, and why not?

The mainstream-claimed physicality of reflecting raindrops has to be called out. If there were mirror raindrops, we'd likely see that manifest in other ways. At times, looking into the rain would be like looking into a mirror, and we'd see our own reflection back, or a distorted view of what's behind us!

Then they concoct some goofy drawing, and present it as though it were reality.

supposed behavior of light in spherical raindrops

The Optics of Raindrops

Water has a different, higher Refractive Index (RI) than air. The higher the index, the slower light travels in water. Water's RI is 1.33, so light's moving at 3/4 speed in water.

However, there is a variance of RI with wavelength, and temperature, so it is technically inaccurate to say it has a RI of 1.33. It averages about 1.33 at about 20 C temperature. And, importantly, the index varies with wavelength, causing the separation of the colors. The shorter the wavelength, the more the bend (so the violets and blues bend more than the reds and oranges).

Raindrops come in a variety of shapes, with smaller ones forming symmetrical spheres. The larger ones become distorted, bloated, and more oblong. But small drops form a very nice spherical lens.

shape variance of raindrops with size

So small raindrops must act as a lens, not like a prism.

Now, a convex lens concentrates light, as we know from playing with a magnifying glass in the sun. A globe lens or a small raindrop is a convex lens, hence it can concentrate light.

The gist here is that a sheet of “rain lenses” are the likely cause of the rainbow effect. One would think they would have to do something, have some effect.

But what happens if we make such a lens into a mirror (as the mainstream claims a raindrop is)? Looking up the properties of a silvered convex lens (one side coated with silver to make it reflective), we find that it behaves like a concave mirror. Logically, then, any raindrop that reflects internally must behave like a concave mirror. Not a prism + mirror. But no mainstream theory is provided as to how a raindrop could become mirrored or silvered.

The Silvered Raindrops. That would be a great band name, at least for a group of oldsters playing Glenn Miller tunes.

An Alternative Explanation

Though the Miles Mathis website is somewhat unreliable, it has given a logical explanation for rainbows. It describes them thusly:

...the rainbow is primarily a reflection of the Sun cast upon a field of moisture or dense atmosphere from behind. A bright patch in the far sky acts as a reflector, and the dense atmosphere in between acts as a screen. We are seeing a cast image of the Sun in the sky.

A test of this hypothesis is that the inside of the rainbow, which is the image of the sun, would have to be brighter than outside, and so it is, as demonstrated in the image shown. But people generally focus on the pretty colors, not noticing the rest of the sun inside the arc.

rainbow of god

Now comes the moment of disappointment. I don't have a solid explanation beyond this. Neither does the Mathis site's explanation. There, the mechanics is somewhat different, where the author states that the rainbow is a “rear-projected image” of the sun off the white background. We must reject this. Cloud is white because it is reflective, yes, but it is also white because it is not reflective like a mirror; that is, it scatters light (rather, it scatters a lot of light, relative to a darker surface that absorbs more incident light), and could not possibly maintain the integrity of any image to “project it backwards.” Besides, rear projection, as used in the movie industry, refers to when the director sets a projector to cast some movie footage, behind a screen set up between the projector and the actors. It's a crappy method, long superseded by front projection, where the projector is in front, then actors, then screen, which is what that author actually is describing, and wouldn't work with cloud as the “projector.”

Now, if you projected a very bright light source on the cloud and looked at the cloud itself... well, visualize pointing a red laser at the cloud, you'll expect to see a dot there. A diffuse dot, but a dot nonetheless. In other words, it's feasible that a simple, but bright, image projected on cloud or mist could be visible, though without much detail. But in no way would the cloud be effective at “back projecting” even the image of the laser dot.

Perhaps fine spherical water droplets (rain, mist) in front of the natural “screen,” act as a giant lens, projecting the sun’s image onto the white background.

The Mathis site delves into a complex explanation with a novel theory about “charge fields” rising up from the ground, which isn't elaborated on enough to bother with here. But the idea does give rise to some ideas about the type of physics we have to investigate to progress in this study. Current mainstream thought about rain, hurricanes and particularly tornadoes is the most lame and wretched heap imaginable. There must be an electrical effect causing or influencing all these phenomena, yet not a peep about it from the “meteorologists.” In fact, we can often see an electrical effect in weather, directly, as lightning. And of course there is an electrical gradient between sky and ground.

In a tornado, there is something causing those ferocious swirling winds and the peculiar movement of the tornado, yet they turn a blind eye. A tornado darts and dodges and twists about, sometimes heading straight for a certain object and leaving others around it untouched. The claims of two air masses of different temperature meeting and causing a tornado is the most putrid idea imaginable, yet it persists. Simple physics tells us for there to be a circular motion there must be a continuously-acting centripetal force causing it. There's no reason that would not apply to a swirling tornado. Certainly an electrical gradient is one possibility to investigate. Perhaps that is what the Mathis site refers to as “the charge field.”

Rain, also, could be the result of electrical effects. Recall that cloud seeding uses silver iodide, a conductor, to encourage rain.

Notes & Questions

  • Nothing from the “explainers” explains very lucidly why inside the rainbow arc is brighter than outside.
  • It's compelling evidence that the rainbow always describes a circle in line with the sun and mist or rain. From above, we see a circle, rather than an arc. There's no sensible official explanation for this.
  • We can see the size of the rainbow arc depends on the distance between rain or mist and the white background, strong evidence in favor of the new concept. A good example is seen with those small rainbows that form over waterfalls, where the mist and white-water screen are very close.
  • It's a fact that decorative glass spheres, as arranged in an ornamental mobile for example, can cause sunlight to start a fire. Of course, they aren't “internally reflecting light,” then, but concentrating it.
  • A sheet of lenses, including a sheet of spherical rain lenses, must have some physical effect on light that we should be able to see. (Similarly, since electricity plays a part in our atmosphere, it must have some physical effect on weather, and on water, a dipolar molecule.)
  • There are white rainbows (“fogbows”) to explain, and multiple rainbows, and other seeming anomalies. Fortunately, the multiple bows explanation is easy under the new theory, simply caused when there occurs a sheet of rain, then a break in the rain, as due to a cloud break, then another sheet of rain, the sheets each casting their own bow. That is, multiple, separated curtains of fine droplets, should produce multiple, stacked rainbows, with the outer arcs being dimmer than the inner, as we do observe.
  • It is presumably a prismatic effect that gives rise to the colored rainbow arc. Could it be that the larger raindrops are acting as prisms, the small ones acting as lenses? This would contribute to the rarity of rainbows, since you'd need a special combination of sheets of small raindrops, the lenses, then distinct sheets of larger ones, the prisms.
  • Is it possible that we're seeing the sun, the way it really is, or rather, is it another way of seeing the same thing, like when you see an infrared image of something, a different aspect of the sun?

It's true that the still-open mysteries mean the new idea isn't completely satisfying — and I felt about to choke on the can of worms I've opened here — we mustn't forget how simply a small rainbow can be formed by simply setting a garden hose to spray on a sunny day. And just that simple act seems to invalidate the concept of the rainbow being a projection on a white background, because there is generally no white background, just a spray of mist, and we see the bow anyway. Presumably, here, there is a finer mist ahead of the reflective screen of denser mist. And, again with the hose spray, the shape of the bow created always describes an arc, brighter inside.

It was somewhat frustrating to be so inconclusive, but then I realized I'm not trying to create a new Optics, just describe how a projected image of the sun seems to make physical sense, fits with observation, and can be further tested.

There must be some other physics at work here, but the concept of the “rainbow,” being the outside perimeter of an image of the sun cast on a screen of white cloud or mist is still solid.

Regarding the testing and experimental science, we can take pictures of a rainbow and the sun simultaneously, or film them in high resolution, and see if the features of the rainbow and the corona are identical. Because outside the bands of the rainbow, looking closely, we see what looks like the extension of the corona, radial bands of lighter and darker areas extending from the sun. Since these are always changing, if our images are detailed enough, and we see the same variance in the simultaneous recorded images of both sun and rainbow, that should be conclusive.

Mathis already has a picture that appears to show corona extensions, so it looks like we're on firm footing here.

Rainbow with Alexander's Band

The discussion/partial explanation has to end here, but that's just fine. As I've stressed many times, science must learn how to admit when there isn't a known explanation, and integrate that into the science, not run wild with boastful speculation touted as “the final answer.” One thing at a time. We are already at an admirable point: having falsified and discredited the official model, we have all the theory and pending experiments we need to confirm or deny this new explanation.

Which leads to the conspicuous conclusion that not just science but the approach to science needs an overhaul.

Turning now to something really outrageous, we have “cryogenics.”


This is where they preserve corpses “on ice” to bring them to life, “in the future when we have the technology to cure them.”

I guess no one really thinks about this in depth, but still, it is surprising they get away with this nonsense. They have never unfrozen anyone, nor any animal, back to life, which is a way to test their lunatic proposal. Wouldn't that be your first question when you're signing up for a contract?

Buried, incinerated or frozen, is all still dead. This idea of cryogenics seems to be saying that somebody never dies as long as the corpse is maintained in a passably similar form to the deceased, which is purely nuts.

It makes you question if anyone is actually falling for this cryogenics stuff and actually paying for it (which would have to be a terrific fee), or if it's a joke on us.

Suppose the power goes out (and backup power fails, if they even have generators) and all their corpsicles thaw? Are they going to cop to it? No, they'll just smile and say, “Lookin' good, lookin' real good, never any power issues here, nope,” if anyone inquires.

Private Gomer Pyle

Forest Fires

Backfires/Controlled burns: They don't work, they've never worked.

A recent comment by a firefighter mocked the concept of backfires, saying that the joke around the station was, “Would you set fire to your dining room to put out a fire in your living room?”

He went on to explain that any fire creates the high winds that fan the flames and intensify the fires. No attempt at using a so-called “controlled burn” has ever worked.


“Scientist” Doesn't Mean What You Think It Does

The title of “scientist” is only an opportunity. If a scientist can predict something about our world, and it comes true, then he might be worth listening to. If his predictions fail in any way, his theory is discredited. Minor discrepancies don't necessarily discredit, but must be explained. A scientific basis for theoretical claims allows predictions, to anticipate what is coming in the future, which is the whole point of theories. If a scientist's model is inaccurate, making failed or inaccurate predictions, the model is a failure, and the scientist has no further grounds to make any claims of “knowledge” or “scientific ability,” but has to start from scratch and prove himself competent from Go.

This means, they should be prudent in their predictions, not running off half-cocked and making outlandish claims, as we see with the “Climate Change” circus.

This doesn't mean no one can make mistakes, but it does mean one has to make provisions for mistakes and own up to them. Part of this is embodied in the term, “falsifiable,” which means, simply, a form of testing. A theory must be falsifiable to be a theory. If it fails, the theory fails. All theories have to be testable. I have proposed a simple test to falsify “Climate Change:” Place piles in the ocean down to bedrock. Measure and mark the ocean height at high and low tide on the piles. Wait a few years. Go back and remeasure. If there is little or no difference in the measurements, “Climate Change” has been falsified. (Remember, one of the claims of the Climate con-artists is that a consequence is that water levels are rising.)

But hang on, we don't even have to do that much work. Look:

Venice was supposed to be completely under water by now. The early canal builders chiseled lines where they noted the high water marks and low water marks on their canals so they could measure up a few inches and know where to put the bottoms of their doors. Venice is hundreds of years old and the doorways have remained the same and the Venetians have not had to walk or sleep in water in their homes.

Some people aren't grasping the immensity of this. That the Climate Change debate even still exists indicates that mankind is most likely irredeemable, buffeted and manipulated uncontrollably by small groups of connivers with devious, malicious intelligence. Why? Because the so-called skeptics need only be tenacious and insist on the idea of testing for rising water levels, and that's it. What happens in reality is that any irrefutable counterpoints are simply ignored, and the saps go along merrily, meaning that the saps are too foolish to be in the fight, or are controlled opposition.

We've already talked about how, when someone brings some facts to the table, that some special interest doesn't like, it's simply ignored. So similar to the bizarre situation in the United States. However you feel about guns is not the point here: There is a constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms in the U.S., which is to say, government can make no law prohibiting or interfering with a person's right to a weapon for self-defense. Yet there are constant restrictions being enforced at all levels of government. WTH? If you go into court and try to cite the constitution, you'll be told it's not relevant, and not to mention the constitution! Again, simply ignore what they don't like and that which hinders the agenda.

Now listen. What really hammers it home is the simple fact that if you're going to make predictions, you need a model. That model has to be testable, and, of course, be capable of providing predictions. If any of the “Climate Change scientists” had a working, functional model, they could present it, for evaluation. Then, importantly, they could say, for example, “Okay, in five years time, you'll see the peak high tide at this (higher than now) level in Rotterdam.” Then, if their calculations didn't add up, we could tell them to go back to their lairs and come up with some new models, or better yet, we could confidently give them the boot. It's difficult to explain this any more clearly.


In another example of mainstream science losing all credibility, we had yet another rehash of the old “black hole” nonsense. A “cosmologist” was quoted in a recent article, that, “Earth could be crushed into a sphere 100 m across,” (due to reckless tests at a particle accelerator).

It gets worse: Black Hole Megastructures May Be Powering Alien Civilizations, Scientists Say

If this farce doesn't disgust you, you worry me. We're the ones paying these bastiches, and their “teams” (how the hell can they even say that with a straight face?) to come up with this crap.

And this comes so soon on the heels of the “Higgs Boson” farce, where they supposedly discovered some big, important miniature particle, and nothing came of it.

When are we going to get past this insanity? The “Higgs Boson,” also, was going to destroy the Earth. I guess the babies of so-called science aren't getting enough attention, and the corresponding funding.

Just what is the purpose of cosmologists? Is there one, single thing they have done for humanity? I wonder what they can do. I would guess they can operate the controls of useless particle accelerators, perhaps are proficient with some graphing and charting programs, and can write funding requests, but, seriously, what can they do? They're probably pretty “smart” in the conventional sense, of being quick studies and able to baffle with BS. I'm sure there's that.

But note how it's always fear tactics, never, “look at this great discovery we've made to help all mankind.” In an intelligent society, this would get them banished, exiled. What they need are some good, solid years of productive labor, digging ditches, gardening, clearing trails in the bush, to get them grounded and clear the cobwebs of their sophistry and conceit.

No Dinosaurs, Four-Mile-High Trees, Historical Revisionism

Shiprock image

A big surprise is that there are no dinosaurs, and there never were, and the supposed volcanic neck, called Shiprock, in New Mexico, is the petrified stump of an gigantic (4-mile-high!) tree from the past, not the core of a defunct and eroded volcano.

True or false? Shiprock is an interesting one. It can be easily tested, by drilling core samples horizontally. If it is petrified wood (where mineral-rich water seeps into wood, the wood decays around it and the minerals assume the form and pattern of the previous wood), the samples should show the growth rings of the former tree! Also, a search for evidence of the old root structure would be nice.

Naturally this presupposes that trees that could grow to four miles high existed, (or do exist, somewhere). There's another factoid that comes into play here: A four mile artifact, extending from the base of Shiprock, could presumably be the remnant of that fallen tree — the shape is more evidence still (recall that straightness in pure geologic formations is rare — the slight curve would be consistent with the fallen tree bending as it dehydrated). Presumably, this would be a different type of tree, or maybe it was a plant, just like how palms aren't strictly trees. They aren't woody, but are monocots of the family, Arecaceae, in which case the growth rings probably wouldn't exist and our test would fail even if they were still plants. Nonetheless, the experiment should be tried, but probably won't be.

This is a recent discovery for me, but it's undisputed that there are no complete dinosaur skeletons ever found. All are created with bits and pieces of other creatures' skeletons, plastic or plaster! Apparently there's a sweatshop in China that creates all these parts for museums. Yikes! What a con. Why are the religious types not leaping on this like poked toads? Also noted previously: National Geographic was caught making fake dino skeletons. Now, it turns out, it's possible it's all faked.

And so, we must assume it is all fake, and they must now prove their assertions that dinosaurs existed, with unassailable evidence. The ones making the positive claim must provide the proof. (Sadly, the world does not understand this fundamental principle.)

This may be the most important point of this article. Someone said, in response to a critique of the moon landings, “You're making the assertion, now you have to prove your claim that Apollo didn't go to the moon,” which is, of course, exactly bass-ackwards. NASA is the one making the original claim, and is the entity that must answer to all questions and discrepancies. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic in this situation.

Watch out for tricks when something that they want to cover up comes along. There's a logical fallacy of distraction they use: “What purpose would there be for faking dinosaurs?” Well, we don't need to know the purpose for something to be true or false. Wonder how this would play in court: “Dickie murdered Poofie, but we don't know the purpose so he didn't do it!”

How do the official sources handle this? Well, when they aren't ignoring the facts, there seems to be a lot of backtracking going on:

Researchers claim a third of dinosaurs might never have existed - Lin Edwards,
Before being assembled into something recognisable at a museum, most dinosaur fossils look to the casual observer like nothing more than common rocks. -

The dinosaur story has all the hallmarks of a hustle. There was no knowledge of dinosaurs, until 1842, then some guy supposedly discovered them, and then, suddenly everyone was pulling “dinosaur bones” out of the ground. How would they suddenly know where to look when, for thousands of years, no one ever discovered “dinosaurs?”

Is it a coincidence that Darwin originated his theory in 1838? I think it’s no coincidence at all, but to back-fill and support the “evolution” story.

And look at this absurd “new breakthrough discovery,” that looks like nothing more than a crocodile with a few flourishes added, if it isn't a bunch of fake, manufactured hooey.

crocodile or dinosaur

What a big surprise — shocking, really — that there is so much grounds for skepticism regarding dinosaurs — especially since these doubts have never made it to the mainstream, and “dinosaur” references are so frequent that dinosaurs just seem like a given, unquestionable.


We're told meteorites are meteors, rocky, metallic objects that intersect with and crash to earth in their travels through space. Yet they look like earth rocks. Are they lying about these, too? Why couldn't they be products of eruptions from volcanoes? They would come crashing down, red hot, and look like earth rocks, also.

So-called meteors zipping into the atmosphere and leaving those light trails (“shooting stars”), could actually be an electrical phenomenon, or even something else completely new that we haven't discovered yet.

Things That Don't Add Up

In the first known case of an extraterrestrial object to have injured a human being in the U.S., Ann Hodges of Sylacauga, Alabama, was severely bruised by a 8-pound (3.6-kilogram) stony meteorite that crashed through her roof in November 1954.


Okay, but aren't meteorites supposed to be thousands of degrees hot, basically lava? We all know what happens when molten magma contacts anything flammable — it bursts into flames, yet this house never went up, no mention of the victim being burned...

There is also supposed to be this fantastic explosion, from so much kinetic energy, like an atom bomb! — no mention of that... Oh, wait... she was bruised.

They just don't know, but we're fed assertions (lies, no conclusive proofs), as though “scientists” weren't just gullible, fallible people too.

“Space meteorites” actually could be rocks ejected from volcanoes during a huge eruption, or perhaps when water from, say, an underground source contacts hot lava underground and builds up pressure, causing a gigantic explosion. Or perhaps they are ejected via some geologic formation, like a lava tube. This would allow for propulsion some considerable distance from a volcano, the tube acting like a gun barrel, the propellant the awesome power of super-heated steam.

Edit: Recently, Cumbre Vieja, an active volcanic ridge on the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands, Spain, began its eruptions, hurling “lava bombs” the size of cars, over a mile. There's a bit of serendipity. Not quite as far as you'd expect for a faux meteorite, but certainly demonstrative of the concept.

A steam explosion could also help explain the Tunguska event where a good chunk of forest was knocked down in the USSR. Those were not just “flattened” trees, but defoliated and stripped, which steam would do. It's certainly not an “exploding meteor,” for which there was no evidence.

This idea of all these scattered rocks floating around above us, capriciously pelting us, is fanciful, to say the least, when, if planets remain in their own orbits, so should these asteroids.

Also interesting is that while a blithe, glib resource is to blame everything on meteorites, there's an issue when you do the arithmetic. At the speed they say it's traveling, and the depth of the atmosphere, a meteor is only passing through the atmosphere for three seconds. Only 3 seconds for asteroid to heat up, or burn up and explode, and its fragments hit earth.

A major surprise, to find that the stories we're given about meteorites don't add up. It occurs to me that there are enough stooges out there that someone will be offended by a claim that meteorites are terrestrial, but they'll find nothing peculiar about pure fiction, like nuclear bomb meteorites that only singe housewives, or the vapid claims about a meteorite causing the Tunguska event, when there is, in their own words, absolutely no evidence of a meteorite there.

Another lame story is that earth is running into debris from comets all the time. If shooting stars were random intersections of space debris with earth's atmosphere, then we should see their trails going upwards, as well as down, not always falling, but intersecting with earth in strange ways.

Just another something to consider, as we find that these authoritative statements about nature and natural phenomena by “experts,” more and more prove to be nonsense.

Things They Lie About

Water doesn't flow counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern, that's a myth, a lie. As you can see for yourself. You can either swirl the water going down the drain when you unplug the sink or tub to influence the flow, or simply observe. Some drains flow clockwise, others, anti-clockwise. It has to do with the geometry of the plumbing.

They lied to us about that, what else have they lied about?

Here's a good one: Implicit lies about oil, and the Middle East. Canada, then Mexico are the two biggest suppliers of oil to the U.S. So why all the endless wars and strife over “Middle East strategic oil” and “Middle East security?”

They lie about swimming & rip tides.

Peculiarly, this type of unhelpful nonsense, as well as sensationalist terror-mongering, litters the news cycle.

Pushers of riptide and other scare stories are another type of mongrel. Those stories are of the same type as the lies they tell about quicksand, which you can simply swim out of, without incident.

In a riptide, of course if you fight the current, you'll exhaust yourself. So don't. Simply float along where the current takes you. You'll eventually be out of the current and you then swim to land, easy as pie. It won't “pull you under” or deposit you out in the middle of the ocean.


They even lie about earthquakes, specifically, the lightning that accompanies some, perhaps all, earthquakes.

Having recently experienced this earthquake light/luminescence during a good-sized earthquake, they're going to have to do a lot of dissembling to convince me of the official deception.

A check of the site, Wikipedia, shows that it, of course, tries to throw shade on this well-documented electroluminescence, by saying it “reportedly” occurs, while at the same time, farther down the page, mentioning there are pictures and video of the phenomenon.

Other BS you can track from the “official” bastiches and other swine is that the electroluminescence is from “power stations exploding,” neglecting that power stations will have cut-off relays, and, even if it were, it wouldn't be ongoing, coming from the same location, dimming out, then flashing again, for a considerable time, as I've personally seen. Also ignored is the fact that it occurs where there are no power stations or power lines.

Even worse, they lie about where is safer to be, if you're indoors, in an earthquake! They say it's in a doorway, or under a beam, which turn out to be the worst places to be. Instead of taking the “experts” word for it, someone actually went out and surveyed all the earthquake casualties and where they were. Turns out the doorways and beams were where collapses took place. You're much safer sitting with your back to a solid object, like a counter or fridge. Beams collapsing on that leave a triangular safety zone since one side of the beam is supported by the object.


Is Elvis Presley alive, as Pastor Bob Joyce? It's simple enough for someone to confirm or reject by examining the forensic measurements of the faces (easy to do, some Italian researchers did it for McCartney, and proved old Paul is not new Faul (and there are probably multiple Fauls)). You take a ruler and two photos and measure out the proportions. Age will not affect the spacing between the features of the face. If they match, you have the same person, if not, no. But — hold on — someone already has done something similar.

(The red circled areas highlight a chicken pox scar shared by both men.)

To understand this, understand that the entertainment business is 100% fantasy. It may overlap with truth when it suits them, but otherwise, it's all PR and manipulation. Also, it's heavily tied in with agencies like the CIA and military. Actors are properties, business ventures. So when they "die,” they're often just retiring the actor in most cases (which is why so many of their deaths are premature, suspicious).

Is it true? It's difficult to get into speculation of this nature. Pictures can be doctored, makeup and plastic surgery can be used... but here's something interesting that takes us outside all that: Does nature allow for people to be doppelgangers in reality? Is it possible to have a Bob Joyce and Elvis that look the same, have the same dimensions to their face, both wanted to be a preacher, who sound the same, have the same quirks and qualities in their singing and speaking voices, and so forth? That's unlikely. In my experience, you could have a sound-alike, and a look-alike, but not both, and you never find two people who look or sound exactly alike, except identical twins, and even then there are differences... In the case of Bob Joyce, we can say, barring strong evidence to the contrary, it's Elvis (or his twin brother, if there actually was a twin that didn't die at birth).

The main thing to emphasize: It's surprising, but, on consideration, not a big deal, since the whole entertainment industry is based on deception, and always has been. Plus, it makes a helluva lot more sense than Elvis “dying on the toilet at age 42.”

Dangerous Mining

They extract gold using mercury... by hand, in Peru! They put the ore in a bag and swirl and squeeze the hell out of it in a bowl full of mercury metal. It's nutty as squirrel poop. Interesting example of like attracts like, using two similarly dense materials, where the mercury weans the gold out, but what a hell of a way to earn a living. You'd think this could be automated, even if you just used something similar to a washing machine.

London 2000 Years Old

They go on and on about “sustainable cities,” and how we won't be able to sustain cities...

This shows how the big lies are so important. Lie about everything, then they can sell you on anything. I don't remember “Londinium”/London being 2000 yrs. old being emphasized at school... but that would ruin all their lies and BS.

What could be a more sustainable city than one that has endured for two millennia?

It should be obvious, of course. London is a sort of a new Rome... and Rome is yet older still! How “sustainable” do they need it to be?

Stonehenge Doesn't Exist

A surprise to learn that Stonehenge has been “revamped,” “repaired,” and remodeled numerous times. There is no Stonehenge, then, when everything has been rearranged, plugged, patched — multiple times!

The crooked goons say they're “preserving” the site to “protect the tourists” and other nonsense. No way! It was rebuilt, completely disrupting the original structure and configuration, so we have no clue now what it was, originally.

So it's now a mockery, of no use to anyone. One could repair the Colosseum in Rome, of course, because that's a stadium that should be used as such. Stonehenge — well, they don't know or won't admit they know what it was. It was a mysterious scientific device, so it needed to have been preserved as carefully and originally as possible, so it could be decoded. Any astronomical alignments and such were destroyed by “official” tampering. Why weren't they arrested and charged with vandalism of an historic site?

What are the big surprises you’ve encountered that have changed your perceptions? Please leave your comments below.


Popular Posts