Back to the Moon?

My last post might’ve been an error in judgement, as it turns out. I spent the last few days in confusion, not knowing where to focus my attention, and your various comments were not a help. I’d read one, nodding and mmmming, make a note for the ‘Big Board’ (Strangelove), then get distracted by the next comment…

Addendum: Since last week I’ve read two books on the Manhattan Project, am listening to another via Audiobook, and have squinted at numerous YT talks and old films (plus H-wood’s Fat Man and Little Boy), and feel like I’m further from the truth than ever. Give me another couple days, however, and I’ll try to sum up my confusion.

But what does get my attention is when two or more subjects co-relate, and do so from completely different directions. In the following list of co-related subjects, the first isn’t on my list (except in subtext), but in one way or another is connected to all the rest. See if you agree…

‘The Moon Numbers’

Star visibility

Simulation theory

A.I.

Mandela Effect

Intelligent Design

Mind Control/Psyops (maybe, depending on…)

UFOs

and even What happens when we die… (which might connect, depending on how you look at the over all picture).

The easiest way to explain what I mean is to go back and look at what I wrote previously about ‘The Moon Numbers’, given that some of you may have no idea what I’m talking about; others may only dimly recollect. In fact, I only dimly recollect…

#

Okay, I did a search of my older posts for stuff on The Moon Numbers by googling “Butler” site:http://blog.banditobooks.com (I’ve saved your time by making it a link to itself), ‘Butler” being one of the authors of Who Built the Moon? See, I knew any mention of The Moon Numbers would include his name, whereas searching for “Moon” or the like would bring up irrelevant posts. You get the drift here. (This is a handy search method and worth keeping in mind when you’re looking for something.)

One of the references was in my Open Letter to Professor Nick Bostrom; the section bears repeating here:

ANOTHER LINE OF EVIDENCE

My other piece of evidence (for Simulation Hypothesis, or SH) is in a book I read recently (right after experiencing totality in the recent solar eclipse); it’s called Who Built the Moon?, by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. It’s possible that someone has referenced it to you since it proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is a ‘higher level of intelligence’ (of some sort) out there, either in or separate from our known universe.

An added coincidence is the number itself, 400. A ‘round’ integer in base 10 arithmetic. What are the odds? Not only that but the ‘canon’ of the number ‘400’ is on its own significant: 400 is the number of kilometers the moon turns on its axis each day… 400 is the number of times the earth turns faster than the moon…40,000 is the number of Megalithic Yards in one Megalithic second of arc of the sun… 40,000 is also the number of kilometers the earth turns on its axis each day… (I know: Units of measurement are, in theory, arbitrary, i.e., human conventions. Maybe not, though, since both the Megalithic Yard and the metric system are related to – and probably based upon — the circumference and the mass of the earth, which brings up interesting questions about our ancestors, all dealt with in the book (more on this below my signature). Another reason ‘400’ is significant: the meter was geodetically defined as one forty-millionth (1/40,000,000^th) of the earth’s polar circumference.

But in case you are unfamiliar with the book, I’ll sum up its main argument: As you know, it’s a monumental coincidence that the moon is exactly the apparent size of the sun, making total eclipses like the one I saw possible – the moon being 400 times smaller in diameter yet 400 times closer to us than the sun.

You are likely aware of the utter necessity for higher life to exist on earth that the moon represents (no moon, no us!). And the unlikeliness the moon’s physical existence has been long argued by the scientific community. In fact, you may know that the moon’s existence is so unlikely that artificiality is not a new theory. What’s different now is that we have the robust, if not inarguable, evidence.Do you believe that all these ‘400’-related numbers are coincidences? If not, then by definition you believe in some kind of ‘higher intelligence/power’ — which is one necessary condition for SH to be true. This is not logically arguable. (As I will state again later, these (non)-‘coincidences’ are unrelated to the cosmological ‘fine tuning’ problem physicists argue over.)

So, again, the moon has to be where it is and its approximate present size for its function of making life possible. Now, taking an anthropomorphic view, and assuming that the earth-sun-moon arrangement was purposeful (the sun is also ‘numerically’ connected), can you not picture yourself wanting to ‘take credit’ for your ‘supernatural’ accomplishments? Plus might you not harbor curiosity as to the reactions of your creations (we conscious entities) to the certain knowledge of your existence? [end of excerpt]

I assume some of you (but not too many) had already read the above and recall it, but even if so, it was nested in a long-winded screed and may have blown right past you. My point being this: If the above info didn’t make you sit up and take notice, either you’re not really thinking, or I myself have my head up my ass.

See — and it’s worth repeating — ‘The Moon Numbers’  is extremely robust evidence for a ‘real’ ‘higher power,’ one that fits with the Simulation Hypothesis, or… does not. One way or the other, we have a ‘higher power’. Do you see what I mean?

No?

Okay, work with me here. Let’s look at a bit more from the above post:

For me – and given my research into biological evolution’s ‘impossible coincidences’ – what all this equals is that the nature of the ‘intelligent designer’ (for lack of a less baggage-laden term) may not be so far afield from that of humans after all. This has been the nature of my biggest epiphany since my investigation on HTWRW began in earnest about a decade ago, and which (in my gut) culminated during the recent eclipse totality – it was as if Someone was yelling, ‘Look, you jerk!’. (You have to experience totality to understand what I mean; partial eclipses don’t have the same effect.)

It is also possible that the blatant ‘clues’ to a higher power’s influence on life’s existence on earth amounts to an implied threat, or the inference that a ‘debt’ is owed. One need only look back at the canon of human mythology/religion for corroboration of this possibility.

Still more evidence: Here are just a few of the numbers involving the sun: 109.2 is the size ratio of the earth to the sun; 109.2 is also the number of earth diameters across the sun; and 10,920 is the size of the moon in kilometers. 27.322 are the sidereal days for one lunar orbit; 27.322 is also the percentage size, earth to moon. As you can see, there is no physics-related reason whatsoever that these numbers should match (they do not match ‘by necessity’). Anyone who would believe this is all coincidence is not a ‘philosopher’ in any true, ‘follow the evidence,’ sense of the word. If it’s not coincidence, then ‘intelligence’ is at work. But more than intelligence, there is ‘interest,’ in us, our ‘progress,’ and our behavior. ‘Curiosity’ would certainly fit with the Simulation Hypothesis, since we should assume that the Simulators share at least some intellectual properties with us. Another way to put it: Without curiosity about us, why run a simulation?

One more example. Is the number 366 important, cosmologically? Sure it is. It’s the number of earth rotations in one solar year. But so what? Well, in relative size the earth is also 366 per cent larger than the moon. This, too, is an ‘unnecessary’ match. Also, take the number 100, divide it by 366 and you get… 27.322. Look familiar? It’s the number of sidereal days (rotation of the earth re the fixed stars) for one lunar orbit (see above)! Holy shit! As a capper: for every 10,000 days on earth, the moon makes 366 orbits around us! Does ‘coincidence’ cause these ‘landings’ on round base 10 numbers?

There is nothing ‘cosmic’ about base 10. But the perfection only works in it! How did ‘they’ know we’d use it? How did they know we’d use the metric system and Megalithic Yards? These questions might be all be answered by SH. Why ‘they’ want us to know that they exist is a question of a different sort… [end excerpt]

 Do you see what I mean by the last sentence? Why would all those numbers ‘match’ — proving to any reasoning entity that the solar system was ‘intelligently designed’ — if the ‘designer’ did not want us to know about him/her/it? 

The other big news, I mean aside from the very existence of a designer (big or small ‘D’), is that he/she/it is, in important ways, like us. I know: ‘Made in our image’ as the Bible says — and the Bible does say ‘our’, i.e., plural:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”Genesis 1:26

Addendum: The Bible’s phaseology sure is interesting. I mean, how come no one ever brings up the use of ‘our’? Are we supposed to believe that God uses the ‘royal’ ‘we/our’? Methinks there is some denial at work here on the part of Bible-believers. 

Later, ‘God’ commands us not to ‘put any other gods before me’ and he says this several times, doesn’t He? Doesn’t this mean that if you believe in (the Judaic) God, you must believe in the existence of other gods? (If there were no other gods, why would He be ‘A jealous God?’) How come no one brings this up? But I’m rambling off subject…

I’m tempted to say, Full Stop, or the like, here. I mean, I suspect the above excerpt — in the context of a too-long rambling insult to Nick Bostrom — may not have really hit home.

If it ain’t Chance… And if it ain’t Necessity… It’s Intelligence!

In fact, I am going to stop here, and let you guys chime in. But my question (for you to chime in on) is simply this: Don’t the ‘numbers of science’ prove (to any reasonable person) the existence of a real higher power? One that has monkeyed with our existence? And as I’ve said before: Why isn’t this big news elsewhere?

I’m all ears.

Allan

Addendum: While I was at it with The Moon Numbers, I recalled one of you tipping me to ‘Miles Mathis’ use of the Brit term ‘ring up’ (rather than ‘call’) so I did a search of milesmathis.com for ‘ring’; there were lots of ‘ring’ links but none in the context of ‘ring up.’ Not sure if the algorithm somehow missed it, or if it was just a mistaken notion to begin with. 

For the helluvit, though, I then searched MM.com for ‘shite,’ one of the Brit terms I’d busted ‘him’ on. That didn’t come up either. Ahhh-ha! I was thinking. MM did a word/replace number on his site (replacing ‘shite’ with ‘shit’) as a result of my busting him on being a Brit. This would amount to double proof that ‘MM’ is a psyop — if his use of ‘shite’ was ‘innocent’ as he claims, why go to the trouble of dumping what I term one of his ‘Britisms’?

This set me off on a search for various terms at MM.com, including ‘shit’ and my own last name, to see if it’s still there in his several ‘retorts’ to my essays outing him. ‘Weisbecker’ only came up once. Given that I know he ragged on me at least three times, I’m wondering what’s up, either with MM or the google algorithm. So I did a search for ‘hospital’: If you recall, one of the ‘tells’ I found was his use of the word without a ‘the’ in front. (Brits say so-and-so ‘was in hospital’ rather than the Americanized ‘was in the hospital.’) 

Oddly, the in hospital’ tells I pointed out did not come up, but I did find a new one:

Interesting. If he’d done a search/replace for that one, this ‘new’ one wouldn’t have come up. So I think we have to assume that the google algorithm is not reliable. It’s still useful, but not as much so as I thought.  Just FYI.