Category Archives: Science

How about DNA, is it another occult hoax?

Previously I wrote about the occult connections of the Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang. I’ve seen and heard others discuss them previously, but there’s one thing I haven’t seen questioned, at least not much, that is DNA.  We’ve all seen cartoon images of the double helix of DNA, or as the U.S. National Library of Medicine website writes: “The double helix has not only reshaped biology, it has become a cultural icon, represented in sculpture, visual art, jewelry, and toys.”

It’s commonly understood that the DNA double helix resembles the ancient symbol of the Caduceus with intertwined twin serpents around a pole with wings. The symbol is called the staff of Hermes, the Greek god. It is associated with astrology and alchemy. It is also associated with medicine, but according to Wikipedia that is an incorrect use. The Rod of Asclepius, a Greek god of healing, has only one serpent around a pole and no wings, is what they should be using.


This obvious similarity between the DNA and the Caduceus suggests one of three things: it’s a co-incidence, the ancients somehow knew about DNA, or modern science purposefully inserted this occult symbol of a pagan god into our minds as being part of our very flesh. I don’t think it is a co-incidence.


Discovery of DNA

James Watson and Francis Crick “discovered” the DNA in the fifties. The U.S. National Library of Medicine website, interestingly, writes as follows:

“Drawing on the experimental results of others (they conducted no DNA experiments of their own), taking advantage of their complementary scientific backgrounds in physics and X-ray crystallography (Crick) and viral and bacterial genetics (Watson), and relying on their brilliant intuition, persistence, and luck, the two showed that DNA had a structure sufficiently complex and yet elegantly simple enough to be the master molecule of life.”

They didn’t conduct their own experiments, but they managed to discover the double helix structure? Moreover it’s commonly known that Francis Crick was inspired by LSD to make his great discovery. It sounds more like something an artist or a weird religious person would do, get an epiphany by doing drugs. That’s hardly the scientific method. even mentions that Crick was a fan of Aldous Huxley’s, a well-known or well-alleged transhumanist-globalist mastermind, Doors of Perception.

The phrase double helix in interesting too. Accoring to the Online Etymology Dictionary a helix is “a spiral thing”. It comes from the “Greek helix (genitive helikos), a word used of anything in a spiral shape (an armlet, a curl of hair, the tendril of a vine, a serpent’s coil)”. A serpent’s coil, you say? The DNA resembles the coiled twin serpents of the Caduceus. Notice a pattern yet?


The Enmity with the Serpent seed

Things like these make me go, hmm, maybe the Bible was right all along. Genesis 3:15 states:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Maybe God intended humans to have a single helix DNA, but because of the serpent’s genetic involvement now we have double: seed of the woman and seed of the serpent.

Another thing is that the DNA is sometimes called a ladder, and is associated with Jacob’s ladder. The ladder is also a part of Masonic iconography. Perhaps they knew something, or perhaps they wanted to insert their occult beliefs into our biology.

The person in the center in the picture below is holding a key. The article writes: “LSD. Yes, when not discovering the key to life, and winning the Nobel Prize for it, Crick spent the 50s and 60s throwing all night parties famous for featuring that era’s favorite party favors: LSD and nudity.” DNA is the key to life. Looks like Crick just was pushing Freemasonry for the uninitiated.


Referring to the Caduceus, or staff of Hermes, Wikipedia writes: “It is said the wand would wake the sleeping and send the awake to sleep. If applied to the dying, their death was gentle; if applied to the dead, they returned to life”

It basically reverses things. I wonder if the staff could turn men into women and vice versa? Freedom into slavery? Victims into aggressors? If we take the wand to refer to modern science, it has certainly put many rational people to sleep by conving their spiritual beliefs are nonsense, and it has awakened people who lack reason to acknowledge we cannot explain the existence of the world and life itself without some sort of creator to think themselves rational.


How does DNA look like?

I suppose I had always assumed that Crick and Watson managed to look at human tissue samples with a powerful microscope and saw DNA, or something to that extent. Now it does not seem like that was the case. I tried to find pictures of DNA on the internet, but much like pictures of outer space from NASA, they are cartoons or CGI images.

For example, has this image and a four second video showing the DNA double helix. At first I thought it might be actual video of DNA taken through a microscope, but it says it’s computer generated.


The New Scientist website has an article from 2012 titled “DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time”. So DNA was discovered 60-years ago but that was the first time it was imaged? So all of the scientists and medical students who were taught in universities that DNA is shaped like that were just basically told to take their word for it? Or they were able to see it microscopes themselves, but they just couldn’t take photographs of DNA prior to 2012?

The article has these pictures:


The first one resembles the double helix slightly, but certainly is not identical to the images we are used to seeing. The second one looks like CGI to me, and it has two pillars like Jachin and Boaz of Freemasonry. The article seems to suggest though that they are actual images, not CGI: “Now an electron microscope has captured the famous Watson-Crick double helix in all its glory, by imaging threads of DNA resting on a silicon bed of nails.”

The electron microscope capturing the double helix presumable means they took a photo of it.



I find the DNA double helix hokey as heck. I am not saying it’s definitely a hoax, but I am highly skeptical. I do think that modern science has a real understanding of genes. I do think GMO manipulation is real, and supposedly DNA tests can reveal whether two people are related and so on. I don’t think that it is all fake. The makeup of the DNA though, looking allegedly like the Caduceus, I think is an occult hoax. Just the lack of pictorial evidence, and these occult themes, drugs, references to Aldous Huxley, around the concept of the DNA suggest that it is not science, but religion.

Much like outer space, it seems that the inner space too is a fabrication of talented scifi-authors masquerading as scientists.


I should give credit where it’s due. The reason I wrote these last three articles was partially inspired by videos by Youtube-channel the Truth is stranger than fiction. He has said some of the arguments in his videos I’ve used here, but I cannot link to any specific video since I don’t recall what he said and where. Just check out his channel if you haven’t done so already.




The Francis Crick Papers:


The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High:

DNA strain:

DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time:

Big Bang is an occult concept known as the Cosmic Egg

Last time I wrote about the Kabbalistic ideas behind the Copernican model of the solar system, and how the Catholic church did not seem to have a problem with these un-Biblical theories. This time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

Although the Big Bang is supposedly a theory, it is commonly heralded as scientific fact in our modern society, and if you question it, people look at you as an uneducated bumpkin or a religious nut. This is quite silly since purely by reason can debunk the claim the Big Bang is a fact, since the event supposedly occurred billions of years ago when there was no life, no-one to observe it. It is at best a far-fetched theory that we can never falsily. At least by comparison the Copernican heliocentric model is more scientific since we should at least be able to verify if it’s true or not; does the earth revolve around the sun, or vice versa? It is not based on non-sensical theorizing of something that might have happened before anything even existed. However, I don’t want to discuss the ridiculousness of the Big Bang any further, since plenty of people have already done it, instead I’ll focus on the occult or religious aspect of it.


Georges Lemaître and the Cosmic Egg

The Big Bang theory was coined by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest. According to main stream history he attended a Jesuit secondary school, and according to many others, he was a Jesuit. Whether or not he was one is not as relevant as the fact that he was a Catholic priest.

The Physics of the Universe website “Lemaître himself called his [Big Bang theory the] ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’ or the ‘Cosmic Egg’.” Cosmic Egg, that sounds intriguing. What is it? In the Greek Orphic tradition there is the Orphic Egg, another version of the cosmic egg. According to myth, the hermaphroditic deity Phanes hatched out of it. Hermaphroditic, i.e. male and female at the same time, reminds me of the LGBT agenda, Conchita Wurst in the Eurovision song contest and so on.


Wikipedia describes Phanes as having had golden wings, he was male-female deity of light and goodness, his name means “to bring light” or “to shine”. Does it sound like Lucifer yet? Wikipedia also refers to a tradition according to which Phanes had been hatched from the World Egg of Chronos (or Saturn).


“The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians” says the following: “The Germ within the Cosmic Egg takes unto itself Form. The Flame is re-kindled. Time begins. A Thing exists. Action begins. The Pairs of Opposites spring into being. The World Soul is born, and awakens into manifestation. The first rays of the new Cosmic Day break over the horizon.”


Un-Biblical Catholics

The Cosmic Egg clearly is an ancient occult, pagan and/or religious concept. It has nothing to do with science, i.e. gathering evidence by observation of natural world. Ever since I was a child had bought the narrative that there is tug-of-war between scientists and fundamentalist Christians, or science and the Bible. The conflict, in fact, is between two religious systems: occult and the Bible. Science itself seems to have been pushed to the side.

And what is of course interesting is that it is the Catholic church that has been pushing these unscientific, pagan notions as science. This is curious for two reasons: the Catholic church is allegedly a Christian organization that believes in the Bible. That is an old and debunked allegations. Second is that the Big Bang, and many other pillars of modern scientific thought, such the Copernical model and Evolution, are not scientific, are religious notions at best, complete lies at worst.

My point is not to argue that the Biblical account of history and cosmology is the correct one. It’s more that if the Catholics want to pretend Christian, they should not be pushing these non-Christian religious ideas. Moreover, I’d like to see more of actual scientific observations related to cosmology, alas we have very little as the concept of Dark Matter pretty much proves all of modern cosmology as pointless theorizing. So far, the Bible does seem more reasonable than most of modern science, but that does not prove the validity of the Bible either.



Georges Lemaître:

The Physics of the Universe:

Orphic Egg:


Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians:


Kabbalistic Origins of the Copernican Model

The Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang are the basis to the understanding of the cosmology of modern science. Those who tend to look at things critically have probably found these claims somewhat questionable, and there are claims that these ideas, and others concepts of modern science, such as Evolution, are actually of occult or religious origin. There is also alleged Jesuit involvement in our current understanding of the universe. While there are certainly plenty of material on the internet about this, I decided to take a look at it myself. In this article I’ll focus on Nicolaus Copernicus and his ideas. Next time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

However before I move on, I’d like to share my take on the Jesuits, or the claim you see here and there: “It’s the Jesuits.” Jesuits are actually the first conspiratorial group I ever heard about. When I was a child learned that Jesuits embodied the maxim: the ends justify the means. I’m not sure where I learned, maybe from my parents, but ever since I had had the idea of Jesuits of being some sort of conspiratorial cabal. That was years before I even heard the names Freemason or Illuminati. Then around ten years ago, when I was getting serious about learning about conspiracies and secret societies, I heard from a Christian friend that Jesuits are actually really nice, he said they are sort of like hippies. That confused me greatly.  He seemed to be describing a completely different group from the historical Jesuits. Both because I suppose I associated Jesuits with my former childhood self, and my friend’s confusing comments, I hadn’t looked much into Jesuit conspiracy theories in my conspiracy theorist “career”, but maybe a couple years ago I saw some articles about Jesuit universities.

I’ll this article from NY Times as an example from 2013. It describes how the Jesuit Georgetown college celebrated OUTober, an LGBT gay-parade with students prancing around wearing pink shirts. My friend’s view of Jesuits must have originated from these kind of liberal, tolerant modern Jesuit colleges. The Jesuits have been, and still are, all about pursuing their own nefarious agendas and subverting society’s values. It’s just that the times are different, and they are using different methods nowadays. A few centuries ago they were probably more focused on sequestering knowledge, assassination and more traditional cloak and dagger stuff, now they are putting on a benevolent mask and are engaging in social engineering, such as LGBT agenda.

Yet I still do not agree that “it is the Jesuits”. You see and hear these people saying “it’s the Jesuits and that guy never mentions the Jesuits, so he must be a shill”. The next guy says: “No, it’s actually the Freemasons. You’re the shill.” Whereas the third guy claims: “It’s the Jews.” I think these groups, and many others are part of the secret society control system, but I do not know who or what group is on top of it all, nor do I trust anyone who claims they know the truth, unless they are a member of the group that rules over all other groups.


Copernicus and Kabbalah

Let’s move on to Nicolaus Copernicus and the heliocentric model of the solar system. Before Copernicus’ theories, most Europeans believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system. According to Wikipedia, Copernicus had formulated his theory already in 1510, but his book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death in 1543. Interestingly in the Controversy-section of the article it states:

“The immediate result of the 1543 publication of Copernicus’s book was only mild controversy. At the Council of Trent (1545–63) neither Copernicus’s theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus’s calculations) were discussed. It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani going unheeded. Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo.”

I suppose the Catholic church created the controversy on purpose, since Copernicus’ theories had not caught on in the regular people. So they turned Galileo into this oppressed anti-hero basically to advertise the Copernican model as the new and exciting thing that the establishment supposedly is afraid. Sort of how they got a lot of people, myself included, to support Donald Trump. (Although my support of him wasn’t really so much because the establishment pretended to hate him, but because of Hillary Clinton and Pizzagate, but that’s another story.)

Let’s get back to Copernicus. His book was called “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres”. Just the name itself reminds me of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah and Sephiroth spheres on it, or the Norse World Tree with the hanging worlds on it.


I used to think this similarity pretty much proves there is some truth to Kabbalah and the ancient myths, but now I am skeptical of the modern cosmology, so I am more inclined to think the “scientists” who have been pushing this model do so because their religion says so. Nowadays many of the flat earthers believe in the Biblical geocentric, domed-model. I suppose I am one of them, but I am happy to admit I could be wrong. There does seem to be some sort spiritual and scientific battle between these two religious concept going on. One of them could be right, and one wrong, or perhaps both are simply religious ideas.

Anyway, the heliocentric model that Copernicus was pushing is rather Kabbalistic. A Kabbala site called Revealing Science of God says: “It should be noted that the 16th century also witnessed perhaps the first scientific verification of Kabbalist teaching with the book written by Copernicus. The Kabbalists never taught the Earth to be the center of the universe, and Copernicus’ discovery proved them right.”

Another blogger on WordPress had written an article titled: “Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods”. He quotes Copernicus saying: “Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations…” This sort of reasoning does indeed seem Kabbalistic. has an article states that the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament, has a geocentric universe. However, when a “holy” Rabbi Ruzhiner was presented with Copernicus’ theories, people expected him to deny them, however the Rabbi responded as follows:

“When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of “What revolves around what?” is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve God in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.”

Those “tzaddikim” are probably the good Jews who believe in Kabbalah and the Talmud instead of the Torah.

Later on the article gives another example of this: “Accordingly, the variation between geocentricism and heliocentricism can be compared to a difference between a service of God that sees man (on earth) as the center, with God, as it were, revolving around man and caring for all of man’s needs; or perceiving God as the center, whereby man is obligated to God and His commandments.”

According to Kabbalah, it would seem, anything can be anything as long as you can bullshit and fast talk others to believe in it. Even the laws of nature and God are subject one’s ability to make stuff up. I have noticed similar things have permeated all aspects of modern society. Feminism is one example. They say rape is power + privilege, and since White women have them, they cannot be raped. Alternatively, a woman who had consensual sex with man can turn the act post coitum into a rape if she regrets later her promiscuity. Once again, twisting words around can supposedly change reality to suit one’s needs.

I do not know whether Nicolaus Copernicus had studied the Kabbalah, but he did seem to adhere to many Kabbalistic notions. I also do not know if there is any connection between Copernicus and the Jesuits. The Jesuit order was officially formed 1540 and Copernicus died 1543, so it is possible they might have had something to do with it, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of this.


The Catholics

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that during Copernicus’ lifetime, the Catholic church seemed to be fine with his theories:

“Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out. Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.”

So Pope Clement VII, who appears to have died before Copernicus, reacted favourably to his theories, and the Pope who succeeded him was Paul III to whom Copernicus dedicated his book. Had the Catholic church been hostile to Copernicus’ theories, you might interpret this as a kind of FU from Copernicus, however it does not appear that was the case. There probably were many individuals who did not appreaciate his un-Biblical cosmology, but overall, as Stanford Encyclopedia stated, the heliocentric system was not a heresy.

Interestingly, as is mentioned above, Pope Paul III’s advisor, Bartolomeo Spina, wanted to condemn Copernicus’ book, and presumably he could have influenced the Pope as well, but he fell ill and died. Convenient, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps he was poisoned. His Wikipedia page doesn’t say much, but it says Bartolomeo Spina was involved in prosecuting witches, so he probably understood the Copernical model as the occult concept that it is.

There are some claims that Nicolaus Copernicus may have been a prist. At least he did not marry, and he was a member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic, which is some sort of lay Dominican order. The New Advent website states:

“After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506-1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.”

So he might have died a Catholic priest. I’ve uncovered no evidence of any involvement of Jesuits with Copernicus himself. The Catholic church, however, did seem be in good relations with him.

Copernicus certainly seems to have been influenced by the Kabbalah, and it was all approved by the Catholic church.

Next time I’ll focus on the Big Bang theory and it’s obvious occult origins.



A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges
How Georgetown Became a Gay-Friendly Campus:

Nicolaus Copernicus:

One Possible History of Kabbalism:

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods:

Science Versus Torah?:

Nicolaus Copernicus:

Bartolommeo Spina:

Do you have a calling to be Third Order of St. Dominic?:


The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!:

The Invisible Curve

I saw a Youtube video yesterday by Marty Leeds addressing another video from Cody Labs channel. The Cody Labs video supposedly demonstrated the curve of the earth by showing a tall chimney in the distance filmed a long distance away from a flat-looking sandy beach. The bottom of the chimney was not visible, which according to Cody means it’s hidden behind the curvature. Whereas Marty Leeds, referring to claims by other flat earthers, ODD TV and Rob Skiba, suggest the bottom part of the chimney is obscured due to atmospheric lensing.


Flats and Slopes

What ever the effect that obscures the bottom part of buildings at a distance is called is one thing, but I’m doubtful they’ve hidden behind any curve of the earth. I’ve seen plenty of videos people claiming something is obscured by earth’s curve, and I’ve noticed one thing that seems in common with them: they usually show a flat plane that suddenly just drops down. The land looks flat, there is no curve visible with the eye. No-one ever sees it with they naked eye, yet it’s supposedly there.

To illustrate what I mean, I made this illustration (the small stick-figure observer is on the left, and the chimney on the right):

On the left side image is how all of these curvature demonstration videos that I’ve seen tend to be, and on the right is how it allegedly is. This is assuming that the chimney, or another building, is obscured by the curve. This applies whether we are talking about a video taken over land or water. The land always looks flat, not necessarily perfectly flat, but certainly not round, but magically when you go far enough the earth supposedly curves. We never see the visibly round earth of the illustration on the right. There are round hills on the earth. I’ve seen them. You can see they are round, but the earth’s curvature is like an elusive fairy, always lurking just beyond your eyesight, yet it’s there. They assure us it’s there, at least.

Another thing I just thought of is, if the earth is curved, and buildings far away from us curve away, then shouldn’t the top of the building always be further away from us than the bottom? Like in the illustration above, the top of the chimney is leaning away from us. I suppose someone could test this somehow, are buildings far away from us leaning away?

I am sure a spherical earther would answer the conundrum of the invisible curve to say that the earth is so big that we don’t see the curve. I would ask them then, how do they know it’s curved then? The earth’s curve never looks curved. It’s always flat until there is a sudden slope down at a distance. Based on these claims and observations the earth would be shaped more like this:


Except that we don’t really see the angle or the slope. It looks flat, but it’s not. Let’s say that Cody was standing on number 8, and taking pictures of the chimney which is at number 10. If he was to walk from 8 to 10, would he experience a sudden slope down at some point? I don’t think so.

Even if land was somehow curved despite not being visible to the naked eye, water certainly is not. Water does not curve, which means are not living on a ball that has a surface of 70% water.


Ad Hominems

Marty Leeds also requested that someone answer the question, how far up do you have to go to see the curvature. And that people did so without trying to dodge the question by addressing another question, or by berating the flat earther with ad hominem insults. This is a nice approach, even if it is increasingly rare. Cody Labs was a rare exception in that he seemed polite and professional even if I disagree with his conclusions.

To illustrate a more common approach to tackling flat earth research we can go this video titled “The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling” from Russell Scott’s channel. I’ve never heard about Peter Kling or Russell Scott before, but the title basically says it all. According to the video since the Anunnaki of myth ruled over a flat domed earth, flat earthers that believe the earth is shaped like that are worshipping the Anunnaki. Of course the God of the Bible, or the gods of many other cultures ruled over a similar earth as well, but let’s not put facts in the way of a convenient guilt trip narrative. Another claim I’ve heard is that flat earth is like a gnostic secret. When you’ve “indoctrinated” into the flat earth narrative then you’re indoctrinated into a gnostic secret that makes you feel better than others. No, that’s not it at all. Flat earth is the common sense observation, the spinning heliocentric earth is the “gnostic” narrative you learn from high priests of science but have no way of verifying for yourself.

I’d just like someone to actually demonstrate curvature. Show it. Don’t show curious facts, such as ships disappearing behind the horizon and claim it’s due to the curvature. If the earth is a curved ball, they should have no problem demonstrating it with modern technology. Alas, no such thing has ever been made.

I suppose I have to point out that the pictures from NASA are not photographs, they are photoshopped. This is admitted by NASA. Moreover, we all know the earth is pear shaped anyway. Curves work different on a pear than on a ball, apparently.



Measuring Earth’s Radius With A Telescope?:

We Need to Talk About Flat Earth:

The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling:

Does Astrotheology actually make any sense?

I just finished watching a video (edited) by Eric Dubay titled “Jesus Christ Never Existed”. I wasn’t convinced by the argumentation of the video. In fact, seeing blatant anti-Jesus propaganda like that makes me think that maybe he did. I’ve always been contrarian like that. Ever since I was child I’d thought the story of Jesus is just a silly myth, but around ten years ago when I saw the documentary Zeitgeist, which was trying convince the viewer that Jesus did not exist, because there were allegedly numerous other Gods and heroes in the ancient world whose exploits paralleled those of Jesus. He was supposedly just another version of an older story, so we should just discard him, and possibly focus on the older myths. I however entertained seriously for the first time the notion that maybe Jesus did exist if there were these alleged parallels in the ancient world.

Though now it seems much of these alleged connections between pre-Christian deities and Jesus are fabrications or exaggerations. I am not 100% convinced on these connections either way, but the video by Eric Dubay certainly did not manage to convince me to see it his way since, as usual, they don’t properly cite their sources to show that Jesus was plagiarized from earlier deities. They state a lot of claims, with little proof. Moreover listening to people in the documentary like the late Acharya S. (who interestingly allegedly died December 25, 2015) is a chore. Her smugness and how she despises Jesus and those who believe in him are unbearable. This bothered me even back when I was more receptive to her ideas, but not her attitude.

This isn’t supposedly to be a critique of Eric Dubay or his video, but I wanna mention one thing before I move onto astrotheology. I recently discovered a Youtube-channel, La verdad Absoluta, that claims to expose several inconvenient truths about Dubay. I cannot attest that all of the channel’s claims are totally accurate (and I haven’t watched every video), or that the person making the videos isn’t just on a personal vendetta against Dubay, but I do think it’s worth having a look.



Let’s get to the main event. This is something that been gnawing my mind for a while now. Over the course of many years I’ve seen plenty of videos by people like Jordan Maxwell and Santos Bonacci who claim that the Bible is just allegory for astrotheology, Jesus is merely a reference to the sun, and so on. At first it sounded very profound, but I never really just got it. I didn’t understand what’s the actual significance in veiling stories about the heavenly bodies as events taking place on earth. I thought maybe I’m just dumb, I’m not spiritual enough. Yet now I think that’s actually the point of astrotheology: to make the people who espouse it look smart like veiling fact and mythology among the convoluted BS to confuse you and intrigue you at the same time.

While there are some verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to refer to astrology, such as Genesis 1:14-16:

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The “lights in the firmament” presumably refer to stars. Them being for “signs and seasons” might certainly have an astrological reason behind it, since according to astrology doing certain actions on certain days can be more beneficial than on others. The Book of Job refers to the Mazzaroth, that supposedly means the Zodiac. Ultimately I don’t know what is meant by these things, but I mention them to point out that there seems to be some grain of truth in astrotheology.


Jesus and Sun

However, I’ve never really understood the claim about Jesus being an analogy for the sun. First of all, I don’t get how it is supposed to be a great esoteric secret? How does is empower you to “know” that Jesus is actually just the sun? All I see it makes Jesus into something banal. He was supposedly a man who did miracles and rose from the dead. That is quite unique and extraordinary, whereas the sun is something quite ordinary. The sun is important for life on earth to be sure, but it is quite mundane in my opinion, and it is not the way to any kind of salvation. Moreover, what need is there to turn the sun into a man in the form of a myth? If you want to describe the behaviour of the sun during different seasons, why don’t you describe what the sun does? How is it beneficial to come up with stories of a virgin birth, turning water into wine, betrayal by Judas, death and resurrection and so on? It just seems like needlessly convoluted nonsense to me.

Let’s look at Jesus dying for three days and coming back to life and how it is supposedly related to the sun. Jesus died and was resurrected around Easter, i.e. March or April. Astrotheologists claim that the sun dies in December and is resurrected three days later. Notice the difference in months? Jesus does not die in December, his birth is celebrated then, although scholars tend to dispute that Jesus was born in December. Nevertheless the sun “dying” and Jesus dying are at two completely different times. Even if Jesus being born on December 25 represents him being reborn, he would have to be dead 8 months or so, if he died in April.

Even more nonsensical is the claim that the sun dies in December for and is resurrected three days later. Even here in Finland the sun does not “die” for three days in winter. The days get short, but there are 4-6 hours of daylight even during the darkest days. Sometimes in the very far north in Lapland they might have dayless days. We have the concept of “kaamos”, the Polar Night. During that time the sun does not rise above to horizon. It only affects the very north, though. So you might say that the astrotheologists are talking about kaamos in Lapland then. Not really. First of all the Bible was written in the Middle-East and Mediterranean region. I don’t think they have kaamos down there. Why would they be describing the behaviour of the sun in the far north? Even if they for some reason thought the way the sun behaves in the arctic circle is of the utmost importance, Jesus’ death and resurrection is not applicable here.

I found a newspaper article from 2016 marking how long kaamos lasted in Lapland. It says in the northernmost municipality, Utsjoki, kaamos started November 26th and they got to enjoy sun’s rays again in mid-January. Apparently the sun was dead for 52 days last winter, not three days. The article also mentions that it’s not pitch black even during kaamos. Although the sun is under the horizon, it still shines from underneath and some of the light is reflected down via the atmosphere.


Try replacing Son with Sun

One more thing before I finish. The Eric Dubay documentary has Michael Tsarion (whose both names are numerologically 33) saying how you should replace the “son of God” with the “sun” or “sun of God”. I think I’ve heard him say it before, and it sounds smart and mysterious when he says it, but this time I actually decided to heed his advice. For example:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

This would be: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Sun, Today I have begotten You.

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This would be: and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Sun, in whom I am well-pleased.”

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation apprently means “appeasing a god” or “atonement” so God sent the sun to atone our sins. How does that work exactly? By giving us a tan?

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

This would be: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Sun can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Sun also does in like manner.

First of all, if we take Tsarions’s advice we see the sun speak these words. Moreover, the sun is copying the actions of his father. It sounds like nonsense.

Sorry MTSAR, this sounds like nonsense to me.



The claim that Jesus is just an allegory for the sun is utter nonsense. I feel silly for taking it seriously for a long time. I suppose it was due to the Emperor’s New Clothes -syndrome. When you first “wake up” to the fact that there are conspiracies and that we’ve been lied to about most things, then you find these alternative researchers and they seem so smart and edgy, you don’t dare dismiss their claims, especially since some things they are saying you recognize as true. However, it seems that most of the alternatives we are given are pushing lies, just different lies from the mainstream. The difference between main stream and the alternative is that the latter mixes truth with lies.

When it comes to Jesus, I don’t know if he existed or not. But seeing that there is seems to be an agenda to convince you that he did not exist, or that he’s not important, makes me think the establishment is worried about him for some reason. I wonder why?



Jesus Christ Never Existed:

La verdad Absoluta:

Polar Night:

Kohta alkaa kaamos – näin pitkään se kestää eri paikkakunnilla:

Cubical Earth Model

I was lying in bed wondering about all things conspiratorial, metaphysical and biblical when I had an alternative interpretation for the shape of the earth pop in my head.

If you want to see the model I am proposing, I suggest you skip down to the My Model paragraph. It’s late, I’m half asleep so I ramble on about stuff that probably isn’t news to most people.


Flat Earth confessions and Biblical rambling

I don’t consider myself a flat earther, but I am almost a flat earther. The claims of the “scientific” establishment that the earth is spherical sound flimsy at best. The pictures we have of a spherical earth that is actually shaped like an oblate pearoid from NASA are all photoshopped. Moreover I’ve seen plenty of videos from flat earth researchers with weather balloons high up showing no curvature. I’ve seen people show videos showing a city on the other side of a huge lake although the city should be hidden behind curvature. And of course the behaviour of water, i.e. always trying to find level, makes no sense on a sphere. Out in the real world water never behaves like it does on the NASA pictures of the “blue marble” where water curves around the ball. Therefore I don’t think there is curvature.

I also do not think the earth is moving. I reject the heliocentric Copernican model, like most flat earthers. Yet why I don’t consider myself a flat earther is that I don’t subscribe to any particular flat earth model. I don’t necessarily think the earth is flat. Currently though based on what I’ve seen, there seems to be no curvature, i.e. the earth seems flat, but the keyword is “seems”. It is possible we are missing a key piece in puzzle that would turn everything upside down. It is possible (although I don’t think so, yet it is possible) that much of the evidence for flat earth has been faked somehow. So I don’t like to call myself a flat earther. You might think this is an insignificant semantic difference, but it is very significant to me.

What I do believe, however, is that the Bible is the most reliable source of information when it comes to the nature of earth. I don’t consider myself Christian. I do not think that the Bible is necessarily the infallible word of God. I have not found Jesus. I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to most things. This means I tend to resist believing in anything until I have to admit to myself the weight of evidence forces me to believe in what is in front of me. Over the course of many years and theoretical ruminations I have been forced to admit to myself that the Bible usually knows better than all of modernity. Whether its me coming to understand how atheism is deluded cult, or that the Theory of Evolution is a lie or a delusion. I came to understand these things based on reason and observation, which eventually lead me to pay more attention to the Bible.

I don’t know if the Bible is perfect or not, or if it’s been altered or not, or if some sections of it have been cut out. I don’t quite know who or what Jesus is, but as the rulers of this world seem to despise him, there must be something significant about him.

The Bible then is probably the most reliable source when it comes to the shape of the earth (there might be other ancient texts like that, but I don’t know about them). Let’s see some of the basic ideas that flat earther’s usually mention:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”

Clearly according to the Bible the earth is unmovable. Very different to the “everything is spinning” -model of Copernicus. The earth is also apparently set on pillars.

1 Samuel 2:8 “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”

This however opens more questions, such as what are the pillars set on? The Bible also refers to “four corners” of the earth:

Ezekiel 7:2 “An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.”

This might mean the earth has four corners, or it might simply be a metaphorical expression.

Genesis 1: 6-7 “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”

I’ve found the notion of the Firmament fascinating even before I really understood what it is. It is some sort of solid substance, like a brass mirror that separates the waters above (outer space in modern parlance) from the waters below on earth. This is usually conceived as some kind of dome, like that of a snow globe.

I believe the Firmament exists, although I don’t know it for a fact. It is not necessarily though shaped like a dome though. As far as I know, the Bible does not describe its exact shape.

The earth seems be a circle of some kind, or there is a circle on the earth:

Proverbs 8:27 “When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,”

Now this passage varies significantly in different translations:

King James: “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

New Living Translation: “I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans.”

According to my understanding “circle” is the most accurate translation. King James’ “compass” reminds me of the Masonic square and compass. Living Translation’s replacement of “circle” with “horizon” is weird, and seems like deliberate disinformation to me.

Let’s get on with the show. My point is that the Bible does not make clear what the exact shape of the Earth is, but it does mention certain distinctive attributes such as the Firmament and lack of movement. Many flat earthers say the Bible is a flat earth book. I wouldn’t go that far, but certainly the Bible is more a flat earth book than heliocentric spinning ball book.


My Model

It’s late, half of my brain is half asleep and finally I can get on with showing the model I came up with. I’ve heard some people mention before that maybe the earth is a cube, but I hadn’t really seen a proper model of it. Anyway, here is the model I envisioned:

The circle of the earth is on the bottom of this cube. The Firmament is the top of the cube, or its “lid”. The cube has walls, probably of some solid material. The reason we don’t see the walls even from a high mountaintop or an airplane is that the earth is so huge, the walls are far, far away. So basically the proportions on the picture are wrong. The circle in the center should be smaller, or the cube around it should be bigger, but you should get the point.

If the earth has pillars, they would probably be under the box, or perhaps they are on the four corners of the box. The blue/green area in the middle would probably be something like the commonly used flat earth map:


Perhaps around the edges are the ice walls that many theorize about, or something else. There might be hundreds of thousands of kilometres, maybe even millions, from the edge of the ice wall to the walls of the box.

The box picture above is basically what I imagined. However as I was googling for a suitable cube, I found this crop circle image:


It supposedly appeared in 2012 on a field in Britain, I believe. Perhaps that is actually the shape of the earth. On the outside is the circle of the earth, and within the circle is the box. And we are within the box.

One interesting bit I noticed is that if you put “circle inside a cube” into Google image search, you don’t really find any circles inside a cube, but you get pictures of a sphere inside a cube. Were those pictures made by spherical earth Creationists?

I also had an interpretation of outer space, or the blackness we see at night with stars twinkling up there. It might actually be a reflection of hell. Maybe it’s a mirage, an upside down image of hell that is below us. The stars are fallen angels trapped in hell cajoling us with their light. This could be what “as above, so below” means. We don’t see hell from the box, but we see a reflection of it at night. During the day, perhaps we see heaven. This is just an idea though.

I don’t believe in this cube model myself either. Yet the idea popped into my head so I thought I should share it. Maybe someone else has already come up with a similar model, but I haven’t seen it yet.



Thinking outside the box: ‘Crop cube’ that looks like a 250ft 3D block appears in field of wheat:

The Infamous NASA Tether Incident with UFOs

Anyone who has watched several videos on the UFO phenomenon has probably seen the NASA STS-75 tether experiment video with weird floating things around a stick (allegedly) in space. UFO researchers usually describe the floating things as UFOs. The official explanation, apparently, is that they are debris illuminated by the sun. I don’t believe in either explanation.


Back when I saw the video, 10 years ago or so, I didn’t know what to think of it. The “UFOs” looked more like jellyfish, amoebas, or at least something organic, whereas as my preconception was if they were UFOs they should be round, metallic flying saucers. The whole video confused me. Back then me, and many other conspiracy minded people, expected NASA to have a Secret Space Program of some sort, and possibly be hiding an extraterrestrial presence.

Nowadays, myself, and many others (which is a good reason to remain skeptical of this concept as well), question whether NASA really ever had anything to do with space exploration, except maybe faking the notion that they really do send astronauts and probes out into space. There are also some videos suggesting that some, if not all, of the footage supposedly showing astronauts in space were actually filmed underwater. With this in mind, the tether experiment starts to make more sense.


The Official Story

Before I explain what I think is going on in the video, I’m going to go over some official facts about the tether experiment. The STS-75 mission was conducted between February and March of 1996. The primary objective was to put a Tethered Satellite System into orbit and attach a tether, or a cable, to it. The more specific objectives were according NASA’s website:

“[C]haracterize the current-voltage response of the TSS-orbiter system, characterize the satellites high-voltage sheath structure and current collection process, demonstrate electric power generation, verify tether control laws and basic tether dynamics, demonstrate the effect of neutral gas on the plasma sheath and current collection, characterize the TSS radio frequency and plasma wave emissions and characterize the TSS dynamic-electrodynamic coupling.”

On top of that they also flew a “Microgravity Payload (USMP3-)designed to investigate materials science and condensed matter physics.” I don’t really know what all of these things mean. I’m no astrophysicist. I also don’t know if the experiment actually occurred or not, and whether it was a complete hoax or not.

Wikipedia and NASA articles do not even mention the infamous UFO footage. Instead I had to go to RationalWiki to read what the official explanation for the UFOs is. It goes as follows:

“NASA mission video recordings of the tether experiment show what appear to be a number of bright objects swirling around the tether. Astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz explained the bright spots seen near the tether were ‘a little bit of debris that kind of flies with us’ that was illuminated by the sun.”

The debris does look alive and somewhat autonomous, and not like inanimate debris, to me. But what do I know.


Underwater UFOs

Now that we got the official story out of the way, I can discuss what I think is going on in the video. I am talking about the video now. I don’t know whether the actual STS-75 experiment occurred or not. Perhaps the experiment did take place, but the video was hoaxed for whatever reason.

Anyway, I already mentioned that the video looks like there are amoebas or other organic lifeforms in it. I think the video was filmed underwater. I have two different scenarios on it. How the “debris” or the “UFOs” move looks like they are alive to me. One scenario is that the footage was actually filmed up there in what is usually called space, but instead of an empty void up there, there is actually water up there as the Bible suggests. If there is water up there, clearly NASA isn’t telling everything about it, so there might be some sort of nautical lifeforms up there as well.

The second, and more likely, scenario is that the footage was filmed in a bucket full of water under a microscope. There tether in the picture is not actually some huge thing out in space, but a small needle in a pool of water. With a microscope shooting at it, it’s supposed to look big. The “UFOs” are actually some sort of microbial lifeforms that were either deliberately or accidentally released into the water. Perhaps NASA wanted to create this UFO controversy over the video for some reason, or a whistleblower wanted to sabotage the fake video.

Now that I look at the footage with new eyes, it looks like it’s underwater. I probably would not associate the video with outer space unless I had been told it.


Sex in Space

The Wikipedia article does not mention the alleged UFOs, but it does mention another interesting tidbit: an allegedly fraudulent NASA document that claimed STS-75 was studying sex in microgravity. Apparently “Document 12-571-3570” was published on a Usenet newsgroup in November 28, 1989. It claimed that:

“[A]stronauts aboard space shuttle mission STS-75 performed a variety of sex acts to determine which positions are most effective in zero gravity. The document goes on to report that of the 10 positions tested, six required the use of a belt and an inflatable tunnel, while four were contingent on hanging on. The document also discusses a video record of the 10 one-hour sessions in the lower deck of the shuttle, and notes that the subjects added their own personal footnotes to help scientists.”

This document was published in 1989, seven years before the “real” STS-75 tether experiment. I don’t know if these claims of sex in space were just a joke, or other kind of hoax, or if there is any truth behind it. I don’t even know whether NASA, or any other human agency, has ever gone into space or not. If all the claims of going to space are false, then claims of studying sex in space would be false too. However, I don’t find Wikipedia’s logic for debunking the document very convincing: “The real STS-75 mission occurred in 1996, 7 years after the text was published, and consisted of an all-male crew, clearly indicating that the document is a hoax.”

I don’t think seven male astronauts, many of whom are probably Freemasons or other Luciferians occultists, having sex with each other is a far-out concept. Perhaps the goal of NASA is to boldly sodomize where no-man has sodomized before. Maybe the Microgravity Payload aboard the shuttle referred to microgravity cumload.



Whatever the truth behind the “sex in space” document is, I don’t find either of the usual explanations on the tether video plausible. I don’t think the pulsating things are spaceships, nor do I think they are merely debris. I think the whole thing was filmed underwater for whatever reason.


EDIT: I found a Youtube video saying similar things about the tether video. They beat me to it by a week.





STS-75 incident:

Document 12-571-3570:

The tether incident: