My plan was to work in a few references to the Moon book whilst concentrating on Dangerous but it’s occurred to me that – given the insight of most of the comments – further analysis of the latter may not be really necessary. You have a pdf and if you’re not curious enough to read that (or buy the book) after my blabbing, it’s unlikely you will ever be. If you do read the book, I’m hoping my last few posts will give you the context you need to understand what’s really going on with it.
All the Walnut Canyon cliff dwellers’ work involved stones easily carried by one or two people. But what came before them?
Meanwhile I’ve been mulling over the Moon book and after further research have to apologize to those who went and bought it at my recommendation. I should have known something was wrong when one of the authors, Alan Butler, failed to respond to the three emails I sent him inquiring about the provenance of his astronomical numbers: His book fails miserably here (no citations at all), which is odd, given that the very premise of his (and co-author Christopher Knight) book utterly depends on the accuracy of astronomical times and distances.
Long view of one canyon side. Click to enlarge.
I finally did what I should have done before mentioning the book at all. I should have done some simple searches! Having done so, the reasoning behind Butler’s silence jumped off several website pages at me: The numbers/calculations work had already been done by other researchers long before their book, which he was loathe to admit. The unstated subtextual assumption of Moon was that the authors had noticed the many cosmic ‘coincidences’ all on their own. (They would undoubtedly deny this, but I don’t usually get subtexts wrong.)
I don’t believe sedimentary rock will naturally form rectangles via erosion.
Among several other problems were the two or so pages spent supporting the Apollo hoax, which is a huge tell, plus their reliance on mainstream science/NASA for big picture theorizing. I was all too willing to overlook these shortcomings if only the numbers were accurate – which they largely are.
So I’m back on Chance & Necessity, what these words mean and how they relate to the existence of a ‘higher power.’ Deep research is involved, which will take some time, and I do intend to conflate the two books plus other subject matter in the upcoming post. Give me some time. Lemme think.
#
Meanwhile, Logan and I visited the Walnut Canyon Monument
Is this the site of a pre-diluvian cataclysm?
near Flagstaff, Arizona and I found myself doubting another ‘official story’: Please take a look at the photos I’ve included here and see if you think the rock formations are natural or man-made. The Federal custodians of the Monument all insist that the cliff dwellers, from around 1100 to 1250 A.D., did only minor refinements to the naturally existing formations.
I’m not a geologist but my common sense tells me that the sedimentary rock formations that surround the canyon look like they could be very ancient ruins of some long-gone culture, and the more recent cliff dwellers merely took advantage of already-existing but long abandoned construction.
Use comments for your opinion.
See if you can separate the ‘natural’ from the man-constructed. According to the geologists, it’s all natural. I’m having trouble accepting this.
Allan
In my experience, right angles do not occur naturally. Whaddya think?
“I’m not a geologist, but…”
Sigh.
— Chris
This is not a grammar comment, but references my comment at http://blog.banditobooks.com/a-harvest-moon/#comments
And I thought with a bit of silence the trolls and assholes would go away. Sigh…
Good thing I’m not one of those. Or a childish name caller. They say you should never meet your heroes…
— Chris
Look man, I’m not the one ranting and raving about how reality isn’t real.
You know what? Sorry, that was unproductive. I will try to refrain from commenting further. Have a nice day.
— Chris
Hey, you subjected my readers to three comments, all saying the same dumb thing, so I figured you yearned for a reply. You called me a jackass, I replied in kind. Now I’m ‘ranting and raving.’ Look how many comments you’ve made, with nothing meaningful said. My complaint is that you are a waste of our time here.
If that’s what kept you quiet, Allan, we’ll never hear from you again. Scott Adams (“Dilbert”) has had his site get so infested, he’s had to shut down comments at least twice that I know of (e.g., currently). He blogged about Trump’s use of persuasion tactics (very informative) and it became impossible to discuss persuasion, and Adams’ actual points, in the midst of the pro/anti-Trump flamewar in the Comments section.
Remember, taking flak means you’re over the target! 🙂
Allan,
Happy you’re safe and well.
Take care,
Duncan
Ironic that disbelief is a unifying component which enabled searching about HTWRW but is sacrosanct with regard to the idea of questioning a Biblical God. To doubt does not by necessity entail gainsaying for the singular sake of being contrarian/evil but as a device to avoid confirmation bias. Faith is beyond the certitude of scientific observation and reasoned discourse will not sway those that profess belief as opposed rigorous inquiry; faith is the cessation of questioning.
P.S.
Hi Allan, Hope that you are keeping well.
Well I cant reply directly to metatoast comment, its probably a moderator tool to keep down the troll factor. But anyways meta, you come across as one who is sitting on the fence with regards to jesus Christ and salvation. But what I get out of your rant is one who has clearly jumped over to the nonbeliever side, and are trying to convince the true fence sitters to join you. That’s doing the devils work, be careful.
Brian~
Thank you for sharing your observation concerning metatoast’s rant(s)……….. I don’t think metatoast understands the danger of jumping over to the nonbeliever side of the fence. Those who ‘convince’ others to follow that road are not taken lightly by the Lord God. There are eternal consequences to ALL the choices we make.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God….
Kind regards,
~Kimberlie
The fool is such because with those words he has forgotten his own power as are those who place that power in something or someone outside of oneself. This is how we got into our current mess to begin with. Time for a new choice.
Brian,
I object and deny any such dishonesty. If I seem to be straddling the Christian systemic dichotomy of a simplistic binary decontextualized proposition, it probably stems from my also somewhat decontextualized attempt to express the doubts that are coming from the subconscious. In other words, irrational fears that stem from a lifetime of programming that everyone in contact with this horrid system of social control must experience. Because of space and time, the paring down of some of the enormous need for context, makes understandable why some may interpret me as generally undecided. This greater context would make it clear that I am undecided, not as someone who believes there is an existent God, but someone who is playing the role of someone, who for an example, has been through this wringer, have wrestled with these questions, and can attest to it’s excruciating process. Learning to think against concepts like hell is no picnic. The terror teachings of eternal damnation are engraved in our psyche/soul. That doesn’t make it true. It gets buried in there because the programming is ubiquitous, and there are consequences for attempting to buck it off.
What do you have to look forward to? Will you enjoy seeing any of your family or friends, who may also come to reject as unconscionable, this dishonorable belief system. When you are in Heaven and look across the great divide to the torments of your loved ones, assuming they failed to believe; will you rejoice in the Lord, or will you secretly hate him. Where does compassion fit in to this scheme of things? Will you dare to speak up for them or will you come to see that Christian compassion is pure hypocrisy and part of a grand delusion?
Christianity is not the only system of social control, but it is a prime example of the monopoly inclined toward that goal. Some call it the PTB, but the Peatybee works as a system maintained by secretive manipulators; those who profit from a mind locked population. In this case it works only through belief that the Christ/Satan dichotomy is the sole purview of all political establishment, and practically everything else that may matter to those un-enthralled by the this world dominating system intended to include all morality. You say I come across as being on the fence which would mean I’m not a believer or disbeliever, and then you say I’ve chosen the dark side and should be careful to not to do the work of the devil. Well, the world may be devolving into a prison of darkness but that is what I want to prevent in the best way I know how. You have admitted that there is such a thing as a true fence sitter and then you slander me by ascribing an evil motive to my attempts to bring more reason to the table. It’s clever what you’ve done in very few words, as I suspect for the purpose of engaging me in a fruitless battle of self defense.
Fence sitting is similar to the useless category of crazy between Sanity and Insanity. It’s’ the same binary category in a religion of different terminology. Both Institutional Psychiatry and Christianity are claiming purview over every thing that matters. Fence sitting and crazy have the same function; to give the illusion there is some viable bridge between the extremes. For those who quit looking for a superior way, it’s one bin or the other as matter of pure choice. There are no gray areas for them; it’s black and white like the tiles on a masonic tracing board. So how can there be any middle way in your book?
Hat tip to Andrew.
For a loving heart there can be no Heaven while *anyone* is in Hell.
In a different religious tradition, bodhisattvas are those who have attained “Heaven” (so to speak) but have declined to enter; they stay connected with the world and will not pass on until *all* sentient beings are “saved” (so to speak).
Funny thing: I was once told that the Christian church banished the idea of reincarnation because they thought that if you believed you had to get it right in this lifetime, you’d try harder. Personally, no depiction of Hell has ever terrified me as much as the idea of having to come back and try this “life” thing again — so I’ve been working far more seriously at . . . call it what you will, enlightenment or whatever . . . just *in case* reincarnation is real.
Beautiful reply Mellyrn. Your opening sentence is priceless and I will remember it always.
I am 100% with you on that Mellyrn.
Was the first sentence a test to see who’s paying attention (whilst)?
I’m getting concerned about our favorite writer’s long silence. Has time to think turned into a full on stall? Please say something to assure that you haven’t been disappeared or threatened, or met with some calamity that truth is too often heir to.
Toward a Decent Rant Against Christianity;
By now everyone has heard, except for maybe the Bengagwa tribe in Northern Somefukwhere, the Christian saying, “Hate the sin but love the sinner”. Well, I say, love the Christian but hate the Christianity. The Christian Megabane Monopoly has locked it’s ugly acid blood phalanges upon homo-ignoramous like the Facegrabber in Ridley Scott’s Alien. There are several in this comment field that are it’s victims, and if possible, it would be nice if they didn’t feel so welcome to distribute that tired ass track that is essentially the wicked idea of eternal damnation. Oh, but wait, I’m seeing the kind and mild Jesus layer of ‘salvation’ that masks the pseudofact of an impossibly cruel punishment sentenced to last for all time, for sinful deeds done in time. Just because this paralyzing meme is gargantuan and ubiquitous doesn’t mean that it amounts to anything more than an idea. An instrumental idea in service to totalitarian ideology. One that morally infinitesimal dictators can point to as a model for their sad oppressive replications that recursively echo an equally implausible cosmic monarchical throne. A replication too, of inducements to fear and cruelty, inspired by the fact that believers will do anything to avoid hellfire as the unhappiest of all fates that is precariously contingent upon that doubt that inevitably arrives in spite of the most strenuous efforts in thwarting. An idea that’s been puffed up as a belief-dependent-reality, in a context that amounts to no more than a simulation of the real. Christianity is a sham model and precursor of the sort of realm that doesn’t question the veracity of the news, or the official, political and institutional proclamations; the realm of mere appearance, and believes in the 19.5 fanciful kamikaze hi-jackers. (19.5 figures in to both the purposes of the 9/11 occulters and what I consider a hangout of truth in planetary scale geometry and hyperdimensional physics. The problem of the impossibility of ½ hijacker is solved by the myth of the 20th hijacker.)
One more here: I’m not sure, but one other Christian explanation of hell seems to be, by stealth, a part of the overall ruling power of the sun mythos gone crazy. That is the terrible suffering that must ensue if God turns away from us. Though I don’t believe in a Creator Singularity that deserves praise or blame for this world where good and evil coexist, and, though I don’t believe there is any such thing as physically disconnected spirits, I do suppose that telepathy is a real faculty, and a prayer is, if it connects, nothing short of it, at which time someone physically-spiritually real may answer that prayer in a meaningful way. Any sort of belief that does not comport with the dominant ethos of the Megabane Monotheistic Monopoly is usually swept into the wu wu bin to be ridiculed, so I don’t really want to get into this personal unprovable area except to say, that if those who I respect were to shun me in an absolute way, it would be painful beyond description. A hell of sorts. However, I don’t see any reason why this state of affairs should go on forever. One billion years wouldn’t even be the first half second in eternity. If we don’t think about it, because of the perpetual and pervasive reaffirmation caused by the monopoly, it will take up residence in the subconscious where guilt or innocence is not germane, since by proclamation, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Any sort of humanly scaled concept of sin by omission and commission is completely undermined by that proclamation.
Only thought has a chance of bringing this absurd and evil thing to the surface. It is a tool of tyranny. Relief is contingent on belief, and who doesn’t know how new facts can bring on doubt. Is there any such knowledge base that is sustainably impervious to the doubt that what is knowledge may turn out to be not. In some straight forward fairy tale the ‘wicked overlord’ could not invent a more perfect method of enslavement then this. The Ultimate Fear is appeasable only by perfected faith and thus by keeping the truth hidden that faith is unperfectible, the ruse goes unanalyzed and the idea goes on it’s life destroying way, unidentified as the deadly virus that it is, and only contradicted by the power of disbelief. As it turns out, disbelief is not the sin it’s made out to be.
drop another hit, and keep the rant going. You are toast, meta.
You are a pissed off, spring loaded, lobster clawed grape.
Metatoast,
Please read the following from Allan in quotes:
“So I’m back on Chance & Necessity, what these words mean and how they relate to the existence of a ‘higher power.’ Deep research is involved, which will take some time, and I do intend to conflate the two books plus other subject matter in the upcoming post. Give me some time. Lemme think.”
Allan also left us with many photos of rock formations and asks us to explore and leave with our opinions here in quotes:
“I’m not a geologist but my common sense tells me that the sedimentary rock formations that surround the canyon look like they could be very ancient ruins of some long-gone culture, and the more recent cliff dwellers merely took advantage of already-existing but long abandoned construction.
Use comments for your opinion.”
I suggest to you, Metatoast, that you go along your merry fantasizing way and spread your passionate belief concerning the power(s) of unbelief. Has anyone ever told you that you behave like a dog chasing your own tail? Your ramblings seem to justify your believing in unbelief in your unbelief of believing. Interesting.
Kind regards,
~Kimberlie
I never said that unbelief in the abstract as you depict it, had any such power. You have ignored the context that stipulates, that within the doctrine of damnation, disbelief is not a sin, but a sensible response after reasons to disbelieve it are discovered. Doubt is not a standard that can persist in a vacuum, but is a common human response to all manner of things said to be true but aren’t, or just doubtful, or in other words suspected of being untrue. Doubt must be associated to what exactly is being doubted and to honestly doubt is so normal that it can hardly be a reason to torch a soul for all eternity. It is unfair by standards of decency that will never be dismissed by the sort of power many defend as legitimate. We should proscribe as alien and unmerciful that which condemns us just because it makes no sense to the disbeliever.
Quite a summary of “what everyone knows” about Christianity. And I can’t disagree with the social harm wrought by such ideas. I also can’t disagree that there are self-identified Christians who think this way.
Still, as with any religion, there are differences between what the, hmm, impulsive? believer believes, and what the more thoughtful believer believes. The former often accuse the latter of “interpreting”, as if that were a bad thing.
For example, here is a different look at what it means to be cast into “hell” for “eternity” as “punishment” for doubt: Doubt may be what gets us an education, but in and of itself, it *sucks*. While we’re learning, it can be fun — and it can be horribly frustrating. How do we feel when we finally “get” something we’ve been learning? Me, I feel *awesome*! And I feel . . . relief.
So the experience of doubt is, in and of itself, not much fun. If it’s doubt about something important to us — my son was on that plane that went down; was he one of the survivors??? — we might even describe it as “hellish”. We could say that doubt (about something important) is “Hell”.
As for “eternity” — myself, when I hurt or feel sick, it *feels* like forever. In my experience, a pain pill relieves my headache in about 20 minutes, so I have something to look forward to, and so it’s not so bad. When I broke my ankle last spring, I had no idea what, if anything, would ever make it feel better; it sure seemed “endless” — until it wasn’t.
So, one who feels doubt about the truth of his own nature (kinda important, yes?) is in a hellish state of mind, with no *foreseeable* end. God (“God”) didn’t put him there as a judge condemning a criminal; rather, it’s inherent in the problem.
I won’t argue about whether this is in any way what Christianity “really” says. I can only say I know self-identifying Christians who do see it this way. (I am not of the Christian tribe, myself.)
On a related note, I never understood Pascal’s Wager. It says, “If you disbelieve (in our God) and you’re wrong, you are eternally damned; if you’re right, you’ll never know; if you believe in our God and you’re right, you get Heaven forever; if you believe and you’re wrong, again, you’ll never know. Belief in our God is the choice with the best outcome, so what have you got to lose? Believe!”
I understand the wager; I just don’t understand what it means to “choose” to believe. Is that really a thing?
Mellyrn,
But what could possibly make me believe that Pascal knows that I’ll never know if I’m right to not believe. Pascal may be an authority according to some, but when it comes to authority, and given that there are two basic types; the ones that I recognize because they make a good case, and the ones that may get me a swat team rousting if I refuse to obey. In the latter case, I may fear the consequences of non obedience, as I’m thinking about how some authorities in law enforcement, in my own experience as victim, think or pretend they have the law to do what otherwise would be a home invasion. The one impresses me with her honesty and presentment of knowledge, and the other impresses me with intimidation that we too often assume is governed by law. But intimidating authority is not governed by the laws of a society of liberty. And isn’t Pascal using a disguised form of intimidation? Authority in a libertarian society must be recognized in order for authority to exist. I can’t recognize him as such.
I get that doubt in general can evoke various degrees of anguish depending entirely on the specifics of the experience. But doubt in general is not at issue, for the kind of doubt that could cost anyone their most precious possession, perhaps their soul, takes it out of the general domain and puts in a very special category. Therefore, as you agree, damnation is bad idea.
Furthermore, I know you speak from a different philosophy set, but in keeping with the spirit of my rant, if Heyzeus, to fictionalize somewhat, was sent here to provide Salvation from his Dad, why of all things must that rely on a choice. I don’t want to choose. If forced to accept that God exists then I want Divine intervention. If the choice under the Ultimate Stakes is the price of having free will, then I don’t want that either. It’s way too expensive. Now if he/she wants me to love her/him of my own free will, then I say how selfish can you get; lower the sword or go fish. Oh good spirits, deliver me from unsolvable quandary or I have no choice but to do it myself. I’m incapable at this time to know what is needed to make that choice, (“is that really a thing?”), and the worst burden comes from the endorsement implied by accepting a way out when many will not make it out because in all honesty they just can’t believe it. Chasing the tail maybe: I want to wager that the bugaboo isn’t real, but I want the stakes to be reasonable. Is my soul at the gaming table? When did I sign up for that? And though I want to believe that Dorothy can click her heals to get home, I know it would be safer to pretend to believe what appears to be a total ruse. Ah, but he knows everything and I’ll never get away with it. Just ask the Axis.
I came across this today and wonder what your view on it is.
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/One-Giant-Hoax-for-Mankind-.html?soid=1108369064136&aid=I9cZcHTZ1NQ
” Laurel Canyon was also the birthplace and meeting place of what we now know as the ‘neocon’/PNAC crowd, as well as the home base of the guiding light of the Rand corporation.
Thus far in our journey, we have encountered Masons, the FBI, the OSS, the CIA, the secret society known as Skull and Bones, the Rothschild family, military intelligence of every conceivable stripe, the OTO, the RAND corporation, the ‘neocon’ cabal, and just about every other nefarious group that regularly pops up in the ‘conspiracy’ literature – with one very obvious exception: we have not yet met up with any member of the legendary Rockefeller clan. Luckily though, we’re about to remedy that oversight.”
From McGowans book.
Also pay attention to the cracks in asphalt highways…
For a rich yet classic example of a LH check out some of Jared Rand’s (of the Rand Corp.) stuff on youtube.
Why only now, after decades of access to the trusts, are the factions sending out spokesman like Rand (see also Anna Von Reitz and Ben Fulford) to champion for the release of funding for humanitarian projects and environmental cleanup?
From a new Fulford piece :
” As usual, my reaction to this sort of stuff is to believe it when I see it. For now, the White Dragon Society is working towards getting multi-trillion-dollar funding for an earth-based massive campaign to end poverty and stop environmental destruction.”
White dragon society…. they sound nice. And Von Reitz. Guess who she’s working for?
Another example of the warring factions Allan alluded to a few blogs back.
You forgot to take-down the work of Walter Burien in your random comment there Miles, sorry [i]Andrew[/i]!
Hi David. In the spirit of what feels like an interlude post by Allan my ‘random’ comment is in regards to current events and has everything to do with how this world really works. There is no me vs. you.
Personnaly im more and more convince Levanda is also a satanist…He always talk of those group with respect and always trying to sale their mighty power (if you cannot defeat them so join them) He talk of occultism like its something to learn and why not practice because you know the normal people know nothing about occultism they have bad prejudice…and Crowley know cool stuff, and why not was a kind loving human….full of empathy for the flower and the birds…and by the way Cthulu is a cool pet…sorry but Levanda in my book is more promoting satanism than anything else…I begin to surrender…its like the WASP culture is totally engulf by the satanism…there is no room for anything else than satanism….for the Mormon Jesus was the brother of Satan…soon its X-Mas with Satan Clothes…but before its halloween…just want to move away from north america and all this crap
Hey, I am interested in more Dangerous book commentary. Especially how O.T.O. is connected to those whom are presumed to be the perpetrators. I just read a book by McGowan that places PNAC’sters at Laurel Canyon where it seems O.T.O. was embraced. I think O.T.O. doesn’t have the right stuff to pull this so called ritual off due to their off world and perverse (count me biased) thinking. Perhaps their symbols were taken to confuse or they were gleefully given or used. HTWRW is really weird. And, well, sick.
Hope of the Wicked by Ted Flynn
You will never think the same again once you read and investigate this book.
Why are you censoring my comments. You are the spoof.
You will never be able to write a book like HOW, by Ted Flynn
too much fact checking and a lifetime of information analysis.
Great way to take the sheep into irrelevant topics.
I still love you, you old drug smuggling long boarder.
I will bet your favorite book was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
What do you think of latest SpaceX display?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw4X8p5zVZE
Still think landing boosters is fake?
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-landing-press-photos/
Where do you draw the line between real and fake? Boosters that rise a coupla meters & settle back down – are they real? Rockets that rise 250 meters before landing back on the launch pad? Rockets that go up 1000 meters before settling back down? Film of all these is available, all faked?
& is this real?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/this-is-the-result-when-a-quadcopter-strikes-the-wing-of-an-aircraft/
If a plastic toy (a 2lb drone) can penetrate a plane wing maybe a plane can penetrate a steel facade?
I have to look into whether Spacex/NASA could possibly fuck up to this extent, but I recorded the Oct 7 flight a few hours after ‘live’ — and they claimed (and showed) that the booster landed on the DRONE SHIP, then, in your link, it landed on the ground at Vandenburg. This would be their biggest fuck up yet, unless I’m missing something. I’ll have to check.
Do I still think the booster landings are fake? Before you make a comment like that how about you watch my videos showing that they have to be faked and show me where I’m wrong. Ditto the ‘car in space’ fraud. Remember that if I’m even right about one piece of fakery, the game is up, so cherry picking will only expose you as a shill or mentally challenged.
Re your video of a drone damaging a wing: How do you figure this follows?:
‘If a plastic toy (a 2lb drone) can penetrate a plane wing maybe a plane can penetrate a steel facade?’
Do you not understand the level of stupidity this question implies? A plastic toy can destroy an airplane wing therefore the airplane wing can cut through solid steel columns? Are ‘you’ a defective bot or what?
I knew it was too big a fuck up to be true: the launch i recorded was a flashback while they waited for the Oct 7 one. It was actually interesting tho, as they described how the landing on the drone ship was in ‘high winds’ and they called it ‘iffy.’ Iffy, indeed. As an old time sailor I can tell you ‘iffy’ isn’t the word, for backing down a booster with no real control in the last 1,000 or so feet, when neither the fins nor the thrusters will have much if any effect.
They of course ‘stuck’ the landing. More cartoon physics.
Lets talk about the proven. Cancer causing food, Fukushima fallout, fluoride laced water
and the master plan of the banker cartel to keep you dumbed down.
Obviously having a plane wing in both examples confused you, yr replacing “maybe a plane” with “therefore the airplane wing” in my question is hopefully the result of confusion. How did the plastic penetrate the metal skin & bend interior reinforcing? To quote the experimenter –
“While the quadcopter broke apart, its energy and mass hung together to create significant damage to the wing”
thus i’m stupid enough to think an airplane’s huge energy & mass (1000’s of kilos of engines etc) might hang together to create significant damage to a steel building facade rather than fall to the sidewalk in pieces leaving the building unharmed.
Man will believe anything except the truth.
– Professing themselves wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1 KJV
Amen my man.
I have heard somewhere that water always seeking the path of least resistance causes the right angles. There are many, many ancient structures that our gate-keepers move at glacial speed to recognize (gotta keep that government/academic payday coming), but there are also many natural structures that are mind-blowing awesome.
Last image looks sort of like what they found down in Texas:
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/07/17/the-rock-wall-of-rockwall-texas/
Rockwall has also been dismissed as a natural formation by geologists, despite the discovery of doorways, embedded iron discs and even writing on the wall!
Yep, interesting link…
Hey, take a look at google images for “columnar basalt”
Pretty crazy formations
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=960&bih=501&ei=8de8W77DItD10wKFsYOADA&q=columnar+basalt&oq=columnar+basalt&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1578.9349..10140…0.0..1.1472.11619.7-9……3….1..gws-wiz-img…..0..35i39.lqA5pvOLz8E
Great link, and you’ve about halfway shot down my theory, what with the hexagonal formations…
When I got the the Apollo bit, I put the Moon Book on the shelf. The numbers work, perhaps because they were reverse engineered to work. I found it tiresome.
How would someone go about ‘reverse engineering’ numbers like those? If you can’t be specific, even in principal. Just read them backwards?
Just a quick note regarding books that been recommended on this Blog. The Most Dangerous… is the MOST evil book I’ve ever come across… wicked through and through even though there is truth mixed with lies. It is worth reading, however, I would not recommend it to everyone.
I received the Moon book a couple of days ago. I read to the fourth paragraph of the Introduction, flipped through to the center of the book where the photos are and noted the one showing the ‘first human footprint left on the moon’. I immediately closed the book and put it in my recycling bin to go out in the trash. So, ‘Who Built the Moon’ is a resounding dud.
However, Dr. Nick Begich’s ‘Controlling the Human Mind’ is one of the best books out there on the PTB’s technologies used for steering mankind’s mind to perform for them. Whoever within this Blog recommended that particular book, I thank you!
Kind regards,
~Kimberlie
You are tossing the baby w the water by dismissing all the info in the Moon book. Btw, books are not evil, and neither is infor, if it’s true and accurate. IMO. (It was me who recommended the Begich book.)
Re: The Most Dangerous…
Hi Allan~
Yes, I agree that a book isn’t evil…. it is the people who write the book who are evil, the information within the book reveals that evil; their intent is evil…. The Moon book is a silly book based on lies; one that is hard to take seriously – even remotely – to me because it is based on the premise we’ve actually landed on the moon and the earth and universe is billions of years old. Since we haven’t landed on the moon and there is no way to prove millions or billions of years (go ahead, tell/show me the verifiable proof of how to ascertain millions/billions of years), and the fact I believe what the Bible says about 6-day Creation, I’m justified in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Thank you Allan for leading me to Begich’s book – very impressive!
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”* They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (2) The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. (3) All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.
~Psalms 14:1-3
* Christians usually only quote the first half of Psalm 14:1, as if it is a slap in the face to atheists. Is this really a verse against atheism?
Fool’s characteristics
The second half of verse 14:1 says “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile.” At first, you might think that the “they” are those who disbelieve in the existence of God. However, the end of verse 14:1 says “there is no one who does good.” One might still think that the verse is referring to atheists. However, Psalm 14:2-3 make it clear that as God looks down on all people, He can find none who are not corrupt, emphasizing it with “not even one.”
The Hebrew word translated “fool” is nâbâl,1 which is an adjective having the meaning of “stupid, wicked” or “vile person.” It comes from the root verb nâbêl,2 which means “to fall away,” “figuratively to be foolish or (morally) wicked” or “causatively to despise, disgrace: – disgrace, dishonour.” So, the Hebrew word nâbâl refers more to bad moral character rather than just being stupid. He is foolish because he thinks God will not notice his bad behavior.
Who is the fool?
The passage makes it clear that God can find nobody who does good or even tries to understand God’s ways. From God’s perspective, not one person attains His standard of moral behavior. So, God sees all of us as fools. We all like to compare our behavior to that of others. When I was living as an atheist, I was morally superior to most Christians. However, I was still not measuring up to God’s moral code.
How to “measure up”
Unless you think you can lead a perfectly moral life, God has a solution for your problem. God’s solution is to allow you to trade your moral imperfection for the moral perfection of Jesus Christ. The trade is accomplished through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice as payment for your sins. The offer is really generous, but will cost you your self-righteousness. No, you can’t remain an atheist either. As the psalmist says, you must “seek God.”
The fool says there is no God. But, he is not foolish because he is an atheist, but he thinks he can get away with bad moral behavior. Psalm 14 goes on to say that all people are corrupt and there is not even one who does good. So, God says that we are all immoral fools. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we can measure up to the moral perfection required by a Holy God. Don’t be a fool and think you can do it on your own!
Kind regards,
~Kimberlie
I can tell you how to infer millions of years, but not billions.
fwiw I’ve always had more respect — WAY more respect — for “Young Earth” than for “Old Earth” Creationists. Both believe that the Bible says what it means, means what it says, and it’s not up for “interpretation”. The Young Earthers say, “I don’t know why today’s science and the Bible don’t agree, but I’m sticking with the Bible.” But the Old Earthers can’t get out of the first chapter of Genesis without going, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘day’ is . . . .” Young-Earthers have integrity. Even if I disagree, I can — and do — respect that.
(one can *posit* reasons why science and the Bible diverge, but I’d hesitate to insist that this or that one is “the” reason)
Allen, please smoke organic weed as the pesticide residue on hydro and industrial weed is sickening in more ways that one.
I thought I was lost.
Came across this from Michael Tellinger https://youtu.be/N6mZCa2M4gA
Careful – Tellinger seems to walk a thin line (NLP ish) towards a flat earth… Hard to tell because he doesn’t outright state it but seems to imply it from what ‘others’ tell him or his research is leaning towards it.
From Jul 14, 2018 YT – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiqfH7a_OI
However, then we have aplanethruth.info comments stating, “I don’t agree with him having to self censor, but he does amazing work and is a truly converted Flat Earther. WElcome[sic] Michael Tellinger. Welcome.”
So I guess Tellinger is??? Weird that he doesn’t outright admit it in the interview but the host certainly posits that info in his comments section.
Addendum: Which could be an attempt to link flat earth with his research to throw out the baby with everything else…
I suspect Electric Universe theory will account for the structures.
You’re getting ahead of yourself: EU might have a viable theory on the causes of cataclysms but the question is whether this is an example of such, or just normal rock formations.
On another note (haven’t yet found a good place to bring this up in your comments, so dropping it here seems as good as any), 99% invisible aired an informative episode on the “unnatural” forest fires this pace summer right about the time you started speculating about them. Episode 317 “Built to Burn”. Goes into some detail on the work of fire scientist, Jack Cohen. Nothing earth shattering, like directed enrgy weapons, just another cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of “seeing like a state”…
317 is the 66th Prime Number… “Built to Burn” indeed! “Chance has neither memory nor conscience.” There is no “chance” on the meta-level ANYWHERE in our tightly scripted, Freemasonic Universe.
Well… that´s my “Monthly”… Hope you liked it!
P.S. In my unsolicited reply to your excellent comments, I failed to recognize the Road Warriors SOLICITED request. I will hereby respond in the order in which the slightly overexposed photos appear:
1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) No
5) Yes and no
6) No
Por nada! Felice senderos caballeros!
Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock have some pretty interesting things to say about advanced ancient civilizations on the North American continent. If you are not familiar with their work, Joe Rogan episode 872 is as good a place as any to start.
Yep, I’ve seen it and several others by both of them. I just wish they’d mention Electric Universe; they discredit themselves (somewhat) by not doing so, even if just to try to disagree. See ‘The Lightning Scarred Planet (Mars)’ on Youtube, for example.
Or ask yourself why 95% of impact craters in the solar system are round — rather than oblong (from angled strikes). Impact craters are round when hit from 90 degrees (straight down), which electric arcing always does. Etc Etc.
Well, when -we- lay bricks, we commonly lay one brick across the abutment of two lower bricks. To have the abutment (the vertical join) in the same place in two or more consecutive layers weakens the structure. If that last photo is of a construction, they weren’t concerned with making it strong. I don’t know what would cause those cracks at right angles to the (presumed) bedding planes, but the placement of them strikes me as weird for an intentional construction.
Right angles do occur naturally — certain crystals (like salt) have right-angled faces and/or cleavage planes. fwiw
> Right angles do occur naturally — certain crystals (like salt) have right-angled faces and/or cleavage planes.
And other then right angles as well. Take Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland as an example, a nice hexagonal structure.
Snowflakes ?
Quartz. And cool parallelograms in Icelandic spar calcite.
Only, sedimentary beds ought to be internally chaotic, sez this former geology major from NAU — we had class trips out to Walnut Canyon. I don’t remember what (if any) explanation they gave for the vertical cracks and their regularity, but I’m buffered if I can imagine why that rock would do that naturally. I also can’t imagine why anyone would lay blocks that way. Of course, my lack of imagination is not and never has been a valid argument for anything.
This is a very good point. (First point, not the last one.) I considered it but erased it from my head. Now, thinking about it again, I tend to agree. I’m up to 85% sure that I’m somehow wrong. Still like to know how rectangles are formed from erosion of sedimentary rock.
The more you know…
https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/08/fracture-fracture-everywhere-part-i
And this is why I love reading you. The ability to even imagine “I might be wrong” (let alone 85%) seems in desperately short supply — and yet, the one who can never admit error is the one who can never learn. I believe you’ve brought this same rigor to everything you write about, and it’s the stuff that’s been through this sort of wringer that is most worth reading about.
“Stoning nonconformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones are worthy of consideration.” — Karl Popper
When we can, and do, bombard our *own* theories, we can truly call ourselves philo-sophers, lovers of the truth.
Well said, Mellryn. I’ll bet most of us here feel the same way about Allan and that’s why we’re here. Allan is worth reading because he always gives us pause to think deeper.