Category Archives: Science

Simulation Theory

I’ve heard the simulation theory being discussed as of late in flat earth circles. Some are for it, others are against. I’m really neither, so please allow me to explain what I mean by it.

 

The Definition

Wikipedia describes the “simulation hypothesis” as follows: “The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of reality, including the earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation.” So according to the theory the world artificial and a facsimile of something real. I agree with the first point, but disagree with the second. I do think there is a creator who created the world, which would make it artificial in some sense, but I don’t think the creator simply made a bad copy of any original thing.

Let’s have a look of how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “to simulate”:

1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : imitate

2 : to make a simulation of (something, such as a physical system)

The first definition hints to an imitation that has been made with the intention to deceive. Let’s take a look at the definition of “simulation”:

1 : the act or process of simulating

2 : a sham object : counterfeit

3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another – a computer simulation of an industrial process

b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device

The first two explanations hint to a fake or counterfeit object, as number 1 refers to simulating, which is a deceptive imitation. The third explanation has a more modern concept of simulation, a computer program or other kind of device that attempts to duplicate reality.

In effect, if you claim that the world is a simulation, you are saying it is a counterfeit copy of the real thing. I think this explanation is a deception as well. I wrote about it back 2015 in Is the Matrix a Psy-Op? I gave three different interpretations of the message of the movie The Matrix. The third one was this:

“The world we inhabit is a prison designed to leech energy off of us.

. . .

While currently the Earth acts as a prison for us in some sense, yet I don’t think that is the original function of the Earth. It is a prison, because we (or our distant ancestors) allowed their minds to be taken over by something. I think something wants us to think this world is a prison, so we would leave it, or give it to them.”

 

My interpretation of the Simulation Theory

There are many NWO celebrities pushing the narrative that the real world is just simulation, such as Elon Musk, Jim Carrey and others including so-called scientists. Some even claim that the world is just a program running on the computer of some geek on another planet in another dimension. I have no objection to people discussing this as a theoretical possibility or a philosophical thought experiment, but it sure as hell isn’t science. It’s science fiction, yet an increasing amount of people seem to believe this narrative. This is alarming.

I think most people have the simulation theory scenario backwards, as if the creator is emulating computer programmers, when in my opinion it’s the other way around. Computer programs have two aspects to them; the code and the things the user perceives, mainly graphics and sound. If you are playing a computer game, a simulation of sort, you see characters acting in the world, you hear sounds, but you do not see the computer code (as Neo did in The Matrix) that really animates everything in the computer simulation. I think this is basically how the creator did it: he created spirit (code) which animates matter (the graphics).

When a programmer creates a simulation on his computer, he is in a sense playing God. He is emulating the principles that the creator of our world used to create everything. Of course, the computer simulations made by man are only a crude copy compared to the complexity of the real world. In this sense, I find the simulation theory to be a reasonable attempt at explaining reality. However, to claim that our world is an actual simulation, i.e. a facsimile of some unknown real world, is utter nonsense.

The Bible states in John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world”. I think it means that God’s kingdom is not in the physical world, but in the world of spirit or heaven. However, it does not mean that the physical world is a counterfeit copy of the spirit world. The esoteric notion “as above, so below” might mean this.

In Buddhism there is the concept of “maya”, which is usually translated as “illusion” that keeps mortals from seeing the truth. However, according to my understanding it means “skewed perspective” instead of illusion. These two different interpretations hint to different outcomes. If we live in an illusion, it would suggest there is some malicious force or entity that has trapped us in some sort of maze that we have to escape, or perhaps random chance has trapped us there. If we merely have a skewed perception of reality, then we simply have to understand that we do not perceive reality as it is, or that there is more than meets the eye, i.e. the invisible spirit world.

 

Conclusion

I don’t think reality is a computer simulation, but simulation theory has it’s place. The creator does not emulate computer geeks, but it’s the other way around. I don’t think the reality we experience is a facsimile of some distant and unknowable reality that “scientists” hint at, but have no proof of.

 

Links:

Simulation hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Simulating: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulating

Simulation: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simulation

Is the Matrix a Psy-Op?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/is-the-matrix-a-psy-op/

Advertisements

Yet another Flat Earth Shill Article

Rob Skiba interviewed Robbie Davidson the other day, and they discussed the flat earth shill controversy. Robbie Davidson is the organizer, or should I say ringleader, of the flat earth conference that is going to take place later this week, and Rob Skiba is one of the speakers. I’ll follow Robbie Davidson’s suggestion: “Be ourselves. Speak from the heart. Stay true to our convictions.” Therefore I’m just going to say that I think Robbie Davidson is a gatekeeper or cult-leader, and Rob Skiba’s words during the interview do not reflect well on his integrity either.

Before I further I’m just to point out that I had very strong suspicions about many prominent people in the flat earth movement, especially Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere, even a couple of years ago. However, I did not wish to create controversy, and I didn’t have definite proof so I didn’t say anything bad about them, but since the Pandora’s Box is open I’m going to speak from heart and stay true to my convictions.

 

The Convention

Robbie Davidson was telling in the interview how wonderful the conference will be, how much fun they’re going to have, how it’s great to meet new people and all that. Overall it sounds like an amusement park or a science fiction geek convention, not a scientific research conference. He didn’t mention how people will be introducing new research or breakthroughs. Nothing like that. As far as I understand, the conference tickets cost over 200 dollars, and on top of that you have to pay for your own travel fees, lodging and probably food too. If you have money to burn knock yourself out, but I see little of interest in the event for anyone except for people who like to party.

How about spending all that money that people are throwing about to do some actual experiments? Such as the Force the Line-experiment that Brian Mullin came up with some time ago. Since Mullin seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, it’s probably not going to happen.

Davidson was also gushing about how the media is gaining interest in the conference. So what? It’s just making the flat earth sound like another fad. Maybe it is if people cannot see through the scam.

 

The Shills

Rob Skiba brings up ODD and his accusations against Mark Sargent (around 8:00 or so). Davidson says he’s not going to go too deeply into the Metatron app and the domain name, but mentions that “as a webmaster I understand creation dates, editing dates.” And “if someone actually talks to a webmaster. Talks to someone who actually has knowledge in that area, it’s pretty easy to be explained.” He is basically defending Sargent, but he has the audacity to claim that he is not siding either way. He is clearly siding with Mark Sargent. Even this small degree of honesty seems to much for him.

Additionally, if it’s so easy for a webmaster to explain the discrepancies and Robbie Davidson is a webmaster, why doesn’t he explain it to us? I’m not a webmaster, and according to him at least, I don’t understand how it works. Then please explain how this secret webmaster knowledge exonarates Mark Sargent. If MGTV, the Youtuber who exposed all of this, is wrong in his research and accusations, address the points he made in his videos. Simply this omission by Davidson proves that either he is not too smart if he wants to dissuade people form believing that shenanigans are afoot, or he is just protecting shills that got caught.

In one of his videos, MGTV plays a clip of Mark Sargent saying he is not affiliated with Metatron, but right after that admits he knows Ralph Joe Riehl (and presumable Denis Sluka as he says “I know them”) who are working for Metatron. Maybe this is a semantics issue on whether or not you can say he is “affiliated” with Metatron Inc, but he knows people from that company, one of them bought his website domain for him and they made the cellphone app for Sargent. So I find it odd, Sargent would deny he is affiliated with the company. He also states that they bought MarkSargent.com in 2016, but MGTV has pointed out the domain name was bought already in 2010. Please Mr. Davidson, explain how this does not sound suspicious?

MGTV suggests as well that Metatron work with the US government and all that. However, I am not saying that all of MGTV’s claims are necessarily true, but if they are false someone should challenge his claims instead of pretending there isn’t anything there. My doing that the only thing Davidson is accomplishing is possibly pacifying his customers, I mean conference guests, in that there is nothing to worry about. Just go to the conference, spend money, have fun. You might get to be on TV. That’s what life is all about after all, right?

After refusing to address the criticism, Robbie Davidson says that before accusing people of being shills, you should go meet these people, look them in the eye or at least talk to them on the phone. Really? Can any Joe Flatty just call up these flat earth celebrities and have a chat with them? I find it hard to believe. In my opinion Robbie here is pushing celebrity worship onto the scene, since us regular folks know we really can’t just call these people on Skype or something to mention our concerns, so basically he’s trying to create envy, or the desire for us to become celebrities as well. As above, so below, since in Hollywood, the music industry, professional sports and politics are ruled by people who so much “better” than us, so we should look up to them, or try to become like them. As of recent times, the same applies to conspiracy celebrities as well. Unless of course if you buy a ticket to Robbie’s conference, you can be a VIP and hob nob on the red carpet with the stars.

Rob Skiba also contributes to “not defending Mark” (around 15:00) by defending him, and says “he’s a cool person”. Then Robbie joins in to praise Sargent’s personality. So what? His personality is inconsequential. As if being a “nice person” excludes you from being a shill. I suppose the CIA or whatever does not train their agents to have social skills. His personality only matters if flat earth is a social club, which it seems to be, instead of a research community.

Later on Robbie Davidson (19:00ish) talks about ODD and expects him to apologize at some point. What was it that Robbie said earlier about not taking sides? Yet he has already decided that ODD is wrong. Here Robbie Davidson is acting like a complete cult patriarch, a false father figure. He is treating flat earthers like children. ODD disobeyed the rules and he has been cast out, but he can come groveling back. All he cares about is the consensus, his precious “unity”.

I’m just going to say, I’m 99% convinced at this point that Robbie Davidson is an actual shill. A gatekeeper, a mind controller. He is not simply mislead, not biased, not ignorant. He knows what is doing, and what he is doing is deliberately misleading people. He reminds me a lot of David Weiss in his methodology.

 

Muh Unity

Shill Davidson mentions a few times in the interview how unity is important in the flat earth, and all that. He says people can have their own opinions on different issues, but they need to have unity. He sounds like any other liberal NWO globalist like the Pope or Obama saying that we must have unity. This sort of unity is only uniformity to lump people together under one false banner so someone like Robbie Davidson can lead them. Who made him a leader anyway? What makes his qualified for the job? Actually I can answer that; his manipulation skills.

But seriously, what does unity actually mean in the context of flat earth research? Have Christian, atheist, Asatru and Satanist -flat earthers sit in a circle holding hands with AE flat earthers, Pacman-flat earthers and people with no preferable model? Flat earth is supposed to be about scientific research. You don’t need unity. You only need people who are willing and able to do experiments and theoretical research, and have those people share that information somehow. That’s easy nowadays via the internet. I don’t mind if people also hold conferences to share research, but I have seen little evidence that Robbie’s conference is anything but a circle jerk.

The flat earth movement has three major aspects, the most important is scientific research as I said. Others are conspiracy theorizing and the religious aspect. Robbie Davidson and his kind are certainly doing nothing to really expose the conspiracy aspects, except repeating platitudes against scientism that we’ve heard many times before. In fact, when you look at people like Robbie Davidson, David Weiss, Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere, and their behaviour, you can see clear evidence of a conspiracy right in front of you.

At some point Rob Skiba tried to use the tautology of “not everything is a conspiracy” as an argument (20:30). He’s referring to someone who made a video exposing Rob Skiba as a shill. I don’t whether that guy’s video has any validity to it, nor do I care right now, but Skiba was trying to contrast it with ODD’s allegations against Mark Sargent. I just find it rich that a man like Rob Skiba, who has done extensive work on conspiracy theories about supernatural entities such as the Archons or the Nephilim, knock the basic notion that there are co-intelpro agents that occasionally do infiltrate “truther” communities or other fringe groups. I’m not knocking the notion of Archons or Nephilim either, I have written about them in the past as well and I think there is something to it (although recently I have begun doubt whether that’s another psy-op). Yet Skiba is willing to entertain the idea and write books about these supernatural entities that are allegedly conspiring in the spirit world, but it’s somehow ridiculous to suggest that the flat earth movement could have been infiltrated by intelligence agencies.

 

Religious Manipulation

The third aspect of flat earth research is the religious aspect. Once you come to realization that the earth seems to be a closed unique system, and not just one among billions of tiny dots, it’s hard not to think that there is a creator who made this place.

Robbie tries to play the part of a Christian flat earther, but fails in my opinion. He says (around 31:50) that “there is no doubt” God called them to do this flat earth stuff. I thought it was Robbie Davidson’s marketing ability that called them out to the conference. I can imagine some actual flat earth researchers might have been called out by God to do their thing, but certainly not this shill. Later on he says there are people being hoodwinked by scientism (3435), no argument from me, but then Robbie says something revealing: “We have the answers. We can give them the light. We can give them the good news.”

“We have the answers” sounds rather Gnostic to me. As if Robbie has some secret knowledge to pass on. How about figure out the actual shape of the earth make up a working model before you can say that? “We can give them the light” sounds rather Luciferian/Illuminati to me. “We can give them the good news.” Good news means gospel. This sounds rather heretical to me even though I’m not Christian. Sharing flat earth data is not gospel. It’s not a “salvational issue” as the Christians like to say. It is important, but certainly not gospel, i.e. the exploits of Jesus. Although I’m not claiming these three phrases necessarily prove anything. Perhaps Davidson just worded his thoughts in a bad way, so let’s move on.

At some point Davidson talks about Holocaust Deniers (32:50). He says it’s fine if someone doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened “but why would you even bring that up?” This is more of his double-think. He supposedly accepts it when others question the official Holocaust narrative, but he suggests they shouldn’t talk about it. He says Holocaust Denial diminishes the message, presumably of flat earth. I suppose I agree if you are trying to convince others the earth is flat, and then mention that nowhere near 6 million Jews died in the alleged Holocaust, it can diminish your flat earth message. However, you might as well do the opposite, and say if you are trying to enlighten people about the fact that nowhere near 6 million Jews died in National Socialist concentration camps, and then you mention you think the earth is flat, it might diminish the message. So maybe you shouldn’t talk about the flat earth since it harms Holocaust Revisionism. I also should remind you that somewhere in the interview Robbie said: “Be ourselves. Speak from the heart. Stay true to our convictions.”

So basically you should speak from the heart and stay true to your convictions, as long as you don’t deny the Holocaust.

Davidson seems to think he is the messenger of God, since he says you should focus on what God calls you to do, and apparently it isn’t Holocaust Denial. My interpretation is that what God calls you to do is what Robbie wants you to do. This man is not a Christian. He is a complete fraud. Although he might be honest here, and the god he is talking is not the one you assume he is talking about.

 

Flat Earth vs Holocaust

Yet let’s look at this dichotomy of Holocaust Denial and flat earth from a Christian perspective, although I’m not a Christian nor am I pretending to be one, unlike some people. First of all, I do not like this dichotomy between these two issues, as if you should ignore one, and embrace the other, but for the sake of the argument, let’s do so.

The Bible has passages suggesting the earth is not a sphere, and that it does not move. The earth has four corners, but God inscribed a circle upon the face of the deep. So basically flat earth, whatever the ultimate shape of it is, is biblical, and realizing it has lead many people to look at the Bible more intensively, myself included. Therefore, I do think it is good for Christians to look into the flat earth.

Let’s look at the Holocaust then. According to the official story 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and this is somehow much more important than the millions of dead Chinese, Americans, Japanese, Germans, Russians and many others who died during the second world war. This Holocaust lie is used in several ways to control people. For one, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in many European countries, and many people, such as Ernst Zundel, David Irving and even an 88-year old German grandmother have gone to prison because of it. It is not illegal to deny the globe. You will get ridiculed for it, but you won’t go to jail. Another way the Holocaust is used is by Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC that wield a great deal of influence over the American government, and many politicians seem to care more about Israel than their own country. Then there is the vast amount of shame and guilt that Germans have been made to feel over the decades, and they’re still suffering from it, not to mention lesser degrees of White Guilt in other Western countries.

I am not saying that Hitler was a saint or that the National Socialist did no wrong, but that the way the Nazis have been presented as utterly evil, whereas ignoring the evils committed by the Allies have been ignored.

Because of the Holocaust lie, Germans are still spiritually broken, innocent people have to go to jail for speaking the truth, and it is used as an excuse to shut down criticism against the Israeli war machine.

So you tell me, which is more important for Christians, knowing about the flat earth, which will make you feel better and give you a better understanding of the nature of God’s creation, or exposing the Holocaust lie, which would, if taken to the logical conclusion, help the suffering German people find their sense of self-worth, restore freedom of speech, and eventually it should expose the criminals who hide behind the veil of feigned victimhood and oust them from power. When the Zionist empire is toppled, perhaps speaking truth in other controversial matters, such as the shape of the earth, would become easier as well.

You tell me, which of these matters is more important for a Christian to focus on?

I should point out that although the Holocaust itself, of course, is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are passages referring to the kind of people who have concocted the lie.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

 

Links:

TFR – Revolutionary Radio w/ Robbie Davidson: Flat Earth, Shills, Scientism Exposed and Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j724N2r0L_o

MARK SARGENT ORIGINS PART 3. Flat Earth Clues Frontman Exposed!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBtsBpva5c4

Flat Earth-Force the Line.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfr1VcZ2uz8

88-year-old ‘Nazi grandma’ Holocaust denier sentenced to jail in Germany: https://www.nst.com.my/world/2017/10/292002/88-year-old-nazi-grandma-holocaust-denier-sentenced-jail-germany

The Flat Earth Pacman Debate

Last night there was a flat earth debate between Lori Frary of the Flat Earth Conspiracy Youtube channel, Darren Nesbit (Daz Nex), Jeran Campanella (Jeranism) and David Weiss (DITRH). Lori and Darren were critical of the Azimuthal Equidistant (AE) round disc model, and they were promoting a 4D “Pacman”-model. I’ll discuss it later. Jeran and David were defending the Azimuthal Equidistant model. Overall I don’t think the debate itself went very well, since the AE model defenders were mostly muddying the waters instead of trying to understand their opposition’s point. All of the participants did get to reveal something about themselves at least.

 

The Crux of the Debate

I won’t go through the entire four and half hour debate, instead I’ll focus on one bit of it that sums up the whole debate pretty well. Towards the end of the debate Lori and Jeran are discussing simulation theory, different flat earth models and so on, then suddenly around 3 hours 48 minutes, Jeran says: “I think that you guys, and I’m just being completely honest, you either have something either against Mark Sargent, or for whatever reason you feel like…” Then Lori laughs and says she could care less about Mark Sargent. Jeran’s remark comes completely out of the blue, and is entirely irrelevant to the debate. Moreover, when you have to preface your argument with a “I’m just being completely honest”, it probably means you’re not. I doubt the name Mark Sargent had come up at all during the debate prior to this. I think by doing this Jeranism completely discredits himself, as it sounds like since he has no proper argument to defend his beloved AE model, he is trying to paint Lori and Darren as some sort of haters. As if they resent Sargent for introducing the AE map, but Lori points out that “Dubay brought Rowbotham and Rowbotham brought the map”. Jeran used similar derailing tactics elsewhere in the debate to distract attention away from arguments for the 4D-model or against the AE-model, but this was the most obvious example.

I cannot say what the underlying motivations of Jeran were for all of this, but somebody noted in the chat that Jeran has made a lot of money by pushing the AE map, which is why he is pushing it, and this makes him a shill. It might be that Jeran basically believes what he is saying, but he is blinded by his confirmation bias, and the fame and fortune he has made by praising the flat disc, so he is unwilling to entertain other possibilities. In the end of the debate, he even said that he will keep pushing the Azimuthal Equidistant map until he sees evidence that discredits it. He has seen plenty of evidence against it, but he is ignoring the evidence. I do believe that this makes Jeran pretty much irrelevant when it comes to flat earth research.

David Weiss on the other hand seems like he is the handler of Jeran. I haven’t seen many videos by any of the four people in the debate, and I am not well versed with any of them. The first time I heard about David Weiss is probably when Sofia Smallstorm had asked Jim Fetzer to debate flat earth with him. Weiss simply came off as crooked as a three dollar bill. That’s the impression I always get from him. I do think he is a smart guy, but extremely untrustworthy. When I saw a video, which I have discussed in previous posts, that Flat Earth Asshole mirrored from Antonio Subirats where David Weiss is saying the reason FEA went against the Azimuthal Equidistant map is because he is in “low-vibration” and influenced by demons is when I got my confirmation. My impression of David Weiss is that he is a perfect example of a gatekeeper. Some of the questionable antics of Jeranism might be explained with ignorance, but I don’t think that applies to David Weiss.

 

CIA Infiltrators

A famous maxim goes: “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” I try to adhere to that, so the reason I am discussing these e-celebrities is to highlight how the flat earth movement has been infiltrated, or even hi-jacked by infiltrators. As time goes by, I’ve begun to respect Jake Gibson’s, i.e. Flat Earth Asshole’s, and ODD TV’s decision to call out Patricia Steere and Mark Sargent as shills even more. Both of their accusations are based on MGTV’s research, so the kudos should go to him. Often it is counterproductive to go out on shill hunts, since in the end it might end up biting you in the ass and distract from proper research, but since the attraction has been opened, we should ride it to its conclusion.

If I recall correctly, David Weiss said toward the end of the debate that no-one is a shill, that everyone is just trying to figure out the truth. Let’s think this through. Every single flat earther, including those in the debate, believe that the globe model of the earth is a lie. It’s a conspiracy that has lasted for centuries. They all believe in this vast global conspiracy, yet according to Weiss and some other flat earthers, there are no infiltrators in the flat earth research community. So basically when people began to find out the globe model is a lie, not simply false, but a deliberate lie, and the conspirators even faked the moon landings to further that lie, yet they simply let the flat earthers do their research with no interference? Does this sound credible?

Certain “flat earthers” are trying to make it seem like the reason there are conflicts within the flat earth research community is simply due to clashing of egos, nothing more sinister is going on. Flat Earth Reset showed a clip on his channel of a discussion between Mark Sargent, Patricia Steere, Robbie Davidson, IPS and some others I don’t know. One guy was saying: “Even if every single one of us had a history with the CIA, it wouldn’t make any difference. As Robbie so eloquently put, the truth is the truth no matter who says it. So who gives a damn if we’re all CIA shills?” Technically he is correct. The truth is the truth even if it’s coming from a bunch of CIA agents. However, do you really think that a bunch of CIA agents having a circle jerk are going to tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is it not reasonable to suspect that these agents might have ulterior motives? Do you think that the people who have invested a lot of effort over the course of centuries into the globe lie, would not try to derail investigation into the true nature of the earth with disinformation? Anyone who is saying it does not matter whether the CIA is infiltrating them is a CIA agent or very daft.

Moreover, I should point out that you cannot have an open and honest discussion with someone who is acting in bad faith. Whether it’s about the flat earth or more mundane issues. Debates with shills are unlikely to aid the pursuit of truth.

 

The Pacman Model

Enough of shill talk. I’m going to discuss the 4D Pacman-model that Darren Nesbit and Lori Frary are promoting. The basic idea is that the earth has four corners, be it a square or a diamond-shape. When you step off the map, let’s say in the east, you appear on the edge of the map in the west. Like in the game Pacman, if he steps off the screen on the right, he appears on the left. Another way to illustrate it would be to depict the earth as a continuous rectangle. The continents keep repeating how far you go east or west (I’m not sure what happens is you go off the map in the north or south though.  I should look into it more). According to this model, the earth is basically a cylinder without curvature. If you’ve played Sid Meier’s Civilization games, you should know what I’m talking about.

This is the model shown in the debate.

Certainly when I first heard about this model some time ago, I thought it sounds ridiculous, but the same could be said about the flat earth as well. According to Lori and Darren, this model is the one that best fits observations. I don’t know if they are correct or not, nor am I convinced this model is correct, but I do think it warrants serious consideration. After all, are there any other reasonable alternatives?

I do like the argument that Darren Nesbit made that science might be able to reveal the supernatural nature of God’s creation. Also either Lori or Darren said that maybe God barred off his creation with doors instead of walls. Ultimately though, I would like to see a model that does not require supernatural explanations, but if it is impossible to explain the shape of the earth and the movement of the sun with regular physics, maybe this is the natural next step.

 

Links:

Live! Flat Earth Map Debate: Frary, Weiss, Campanella, Nesbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKBZ-9dEgxY&t=

Flat Earth Psychosis MIRROR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVjf6uhyDWI&t=328s

Flat Earth Reset: Flat Earth Gate Keeping Pt1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHHdSg8Smbk&t=933s

WHY the official FLAT EARTH model is WRONG, and WHY it matters…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdH-u_NJlk

Flat Earth Drama and Shilling

There has been some “drama” among flat earthers as of late, and everyone likes to say they don’t like drama, but I do. Seeing people fight on the internet can be quite entertaining, yet the thing about internet drama is that it is mostly entertainment and does not provide much relevant information, so I usually try to stay away from it.

 

The Drama

For me this started with Flat Earth Asshole’s video, that I discussed in my previous post, how he pointed out the how the azimuthal equidistant map and the circular movement model of the sun do not work. This is not the drama, as FEA made several cogent arguments. The drama is that apparently two prominent flat earthers, Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere, have been exposed as shills or something by Youtuber MGTV, whose channel was shortly taken down. I call this bit drama, since who didn’t figure out those two were shills two years ago?

It appears Sargent and Steere are working for a corporation, Metatron Inc, and they apparently have some sort of cellphone app made by Metatron Inc, that is probably spying on you. The kicker is that MGTV found out that the apps of both people were made back in 2010, long before either of them became interested in the flat earth. I’m not sure how the manufacture of these apps work, but I presume you can change the name of the app afterwards, so they probably did not refer to the flat earth back in 2010.

I theorize that both Sargent and Steere were some sort of intelligence assets back in 2010, and they were set to infiltrate the “truth movement”. Back then they or their handlers just weren’t sure what sort of angle they should be pushing. In 2014, the flat earth sprung up and they saw their chance.

 

Ultimately though, it doesn’t matter what the backstory of these two people is, therefore I call it drama, since it should have been obvious long ago that these people are sketchy, especially Patricia Steere. I think I watched her interview with Rob Skiba back in the day, and saw little reason watch any of her other stuff. Speaking of her, there are even some people saying that she is a tranny, that she is not a 50-something woman, but a 20-something man. I’m not sure if I believe that or not, but it doesn’t seem too far-fetched either.

Yet, it’s not only Mark and Pat that are suspicious in the flat earth community, which should not be a surprise. I take it as granted that whenever there any kind of new movement or subculture, most people are initially against it, but as it refuses to die and gains popularity all sorts of parasitic people will appear. Some people don’t really care about the movement or subculture itself, but they care about the attention, or they find someway to make money off of it. When you add conspiracy theories to the mix, you’ll bound to get some sort of alphabet soup infiltrators or shills. I find most of the prominent Youtubers on flat earth to be suspicious.

 

Founding Fathers of Flat Earth

In the beginning, there were three major flat earthers on Youtube: Eric Dubay, Math Powerland, and Mark Sargent. Very early on I saw an Eric Dubay video where he showed Math Powerland ranting against anti-Semitism, so I could never take him seriously. Eric Dubay on the other hand, did make several good flat earth videos back in 2014-2015, but nowadays he’s mostly irrelevant, and I’m pretty sure he’s crooked too. So all of these “founding fathers” of modern flat earth research are untrustworthy. And to top it off, Eric Dubay has been exposing many of the as shills from the beginning, although Math Powerland on the other hand claimed Dubay is a shill. What was their game?

If all three were ultimately being controlled by the same source, I suppose the game was that conspiracy researchers probably would not fall for the act of all three of them, so different kind of characters would have to be put in place. Eric Dubay had this intellectual and reserved way of doing his thing. Math Powerland was like a rebellious rock star or something. And Mark Sargent, I suppose (I haven’t watched much of his stuff, to be honest), was laid back and non-confrontational. Back in the day, I prefered Dubay’s style, and also I at least knew who he was before he got into flat earth research. I didn’t know much about him, except he was some sort of conspiracy researcher, and I recall seeing him on the David Icke forum when I used to hang around there too. Sargent on the other hand just popped out of nowhere as some sort of expert. And Math Powerland seemed too Zionist for me.

Or maybe those three are actually controlled by different agencies, and are in some sort of competition with each other. For example, Dubay is CIA, Powerland is Zionist/Hollywood and Sargent and Steere are Masons. Ultimately, though, it does not matter, as long as you recognize that these people are untrustworthy.

 

Flat Earth Roll-out

Flat Earth Asshole, one of the honest flat earthers in my opinion, pointed out that flat earth has been rolled out on purpose by The Powers That Be. He’s probably right. Why else would Obama say in public “We don’t have time for the meeting of the flat earth society”? Why would celebrities like B.O.B. and Shaquille O’Neill be talking about it? There was even Dr. David Agus who mentioned that the earth is flat a couple of times on CBS interviews, although he is supposed to be talking about the Zika virus. They way he just blurts out “the earth is flat” sounds like mind control. Also once he says: “The world is flat. There needs to be global governance.” It’s just weird. I suppose he’s trying to make the listener to associate flat earth with the need for global governance. I don’t think that guy is just an honest man trying to tell the truth.

 

So if the masters of our universe are pushing flat earth, does it mean it’s all a hoax then? Is the earth a spinning globe? I don’t think so. One possible reason is that the projections of the intelligence agencies told them back in 2014 that people are beginning to figure out that we have been lied about the shape and nature of the earth. Suppressing discussion about it would be albeit impossible, so the best they can do is either hi-jack the discussion or poison the well.

I should point out that discussion of the flat earth existed on the internet before Eric Dubay came out with his research in Autumn 2014. I do think Dubay popularized the topic, but he certainly wasn’t the first one to talk about it. In fact I wrote about the flat earth already in February 2014, over six months before Dubay’s Youtube videos. I am not claiming I had anything to do with making flat earth the popular topic it is today, but only to point out people were already discussing it. My article “The Earth is Flat!” starts off with:

“Last night I saw a Truther Girls video on Youtube featuring Arron the Barbarian, husband of truther girl Sonya. The video was called ‘Why Do People Think The Earth Is Flat?’.”

Apparently Arron and Sonya also had walked in on a priorly existing discussion on the flat earth. The debate was already going on before Dubay started talking about it. Based on what I’ve heard Math Powerland talked about the flat earth on Youtube back in 2012, and he might have been the first person on Youtube to talk about it, but it does not mean he was the first one on the internet to do so. I don’t know who was, but supposedly there were people back in the nineties already talking about it, and not just the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society.

So I don’t think the flat earth notion, which is basically that there does not seem to be curvature, and that NASA and other official agencies have lied about the shape of the earth, is a psy-op or a controlled roll-out. I do think the origin of the discussion is genuine, and there are plenty of genuine people out there talking about it, but I do think The Powers That Be have inserted many half-truths and infiltrators into the mix. Although the phrase “flat earth” might ultimately end up being a misnomer or a psy-op, since maybe the earth is not flat. I don’t think it’s a spinning ball, but maybe there is another model that is more accurate. I understand that it sounds better to say “the earth is flat” than “there appears to be a distinct lack of curvature when it comes to the earth”, yet we should question even this sort of assumptions and popularized expressions.

 

The Conference

Speaking of infiltrators, I learned from Flat Earth Asshole’s video that there is going to be flat earth conference in North Carolina November 9-10. I didn’t even know about it, since I tend not to pay too much attention to these e-celebrities. Among the speakers are Patricia Steere and Mark Sargent. Youtuber ODD TV was planning on attending the conference until he learned about Steere and Sargent’s apparent shillery. Now he won’t. Kudos to him, I like ODD and I’d like to think he is genuine, and at least his behaviour does seem to affirm that he is. The other people who are going to the conference though, are even more suspect now. I don’t really know who many of them are, for some of them I have a vague idea, but the one that saddens me a bit is Rob Skiba. I started following his work before he was even into flat earth, and he seems like a decent guy. His style is very non-confrontational, so I don’t expect him to call out Sargent or Steere the same way that FEA or ODD did, yet it does undermine his credibility to a certain extent if he goes along with the whole thing.

Overall, especially if any kind of flat earther or conspiracy researcher is famous, it’s probably safe to assume they are crooked, until proven otherwise.

 

Links:

I am not saying that Patricia Steere is a mid 50’s tranny JERANISM, IPS, ODD, DITRH, ERIC DUBAY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_1-SazpHPM

The End of the FAKE Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvryGzjPpz8

Flat Earth – Dividing The TRUTH From The LIES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8HsXDEokGk

Flat Earth Potato Clues | Mark Sargent & Patricia Steere | Shills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWK1pmti54

The Earth is Flat!: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/the-earth-is-flat/

Flat Earth conference attendees: http://fe2017.com/featuring/

 

 

Boycott the Flat Earth AE map?

The youtuber Flat Earth Asshole uploaded a video yesterday pointing out how the azimuthal equidistant flat earth model is inaccurate due to how the sun behaves. I myself tried to figure out too some time ago how the sun supposedly moves on the circular flat earth model, and it didn’t make sense to me. According popular theories the sun goes around in circles around the disc of the earth as is shown in the picture below, but FEA points out in the video how it does not work based on the actual behaviour of the sun. I recommend watching the video.

 

Angle of the Sun

In his video Flat Earth Asshole refers to the website, SunCalc, which shows the location where the sun rises and sets in each location on earth. The video also shows a couple of film clips from Australia that seem to confirm the website’s information is accurate, at least in Australia. There is a consistent theme on SunCalc, that the sun always seems to rise from the south-east and set in south-west. The difference is that nearer the center, or the equator, the angle in which the sun heads south-west is more flat, whereas near the north pole and down south near Antarctica, the angle is more steep.

Below is how the angle is in Australia. Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia have the same angle. The yellow line on the right represents sunrise, and the red line on the left represents sunset.

Below is the steep angle in Antarctica.

Below is the steep angle in Greenland up in the north.

 

I suggest checking out SunCalc and playing around with it for a while to understand it better. It is fairly simple to use.

 

Sun heads to Antarctica?

Based on SunCalc, assumming it is correct, it would suggest the sun is always coming from south-east in the morning and it sets in the south-west. The sun is coming from Antarctica and heading towards Antarctica? It doesn’t make sense. Or does it?

One theory I came up with, which seems compatible with the azimuthal equidistant map, is that maybe the sun is actually located above the alleged ice ring in Antarctica. It circles around the circle of the earth clockwise once each day. It acts like a big directed spotlight. When it summer on the southern “hemisphere”, the spotlight of the sun is projected toward the tropic of Capricorn. See the image below.

 

When it’s summer on the northern “hemisphere”, the spotlight shines on the tropic of Cancer.

 

It might be that this theory is dumb and easily refuted, but so far it’s the best model that I can conceive of based on observation. The regular sun models on the AE map don’t work, but I don’t think the earth is a sphere either. The fact that water does not curve in reality as it does on the pictures of the globe is proof of that. So maybe we don’t need to discard the AE map just yet?

My aim is not to defend the azimuthal equidistant projection. I’ve never accepted it as the gospel. I am simply trying to understand how things work.

I did try to think of alternative models based on the SunCalc-supported notion that the sun is always coming from south-east and heading south-west. If the AE map is wrong and SunCalc is correct then it would suggest that all of our maps are significantly false. They are not simple inaccurate to a certain extent, but the shapes of the continents and their locations are very different to we are shown in both the spherical model and the AE map.

I was trying to figure out a flat earth model that wasn’t like the AE disc. This is the best I could come up with.

 

As can be seen, this model is very rough, but the basic idea is that the sun come from the east and is heading south-west. After going past the Americas, it heads into the Antarctic, possibly going underground. The problem is that there is always day somewhere on earth, and if the sun is in the Antarctic or underground, how can there be daylight somewhere else? My only solution is that there are two suns, which is one possibility that Flat Earth Asshole mentioned in one of his older videos. One sun goes underground and the other rises somewhere in the east. If this model is correct, it would suggest there is something to the myth of the Black Sun.

The problem is, however, that Kamchatka in eastern Russia and Alaska in North America are nearly connected. So the map shown above cannot be correct, since those two parts are far from enough. Moreover if it looks like the sun is always coming from south-east, you’d have to rotate or mutate the continents into something completely different.

 

Conclusion

I do think that the Flat Earth Asshole made a great videos poking holes in the commonly held flat earth theories, and he called out some flat earthers for pushing this questionable narrative. Yet maybe it’s not time to retire the AE map just yet. I certainly don’t think the map is 100% accurate, probably nobody does, however maybe the basic idea depicted on the map is correct, but just the theories about the movement of the sun are faulty. At least so far, the alternatives to a flat earth round disc model that I can think of seem very far-fetched and go into Möbius strip kind of scifi territory.

Flat Earth Asshole rightly suggested in his video that it’s better not to have any model than a faulty one. So I’m curious to see what people have to say about my sun circulating around the Antarctic ice ring-model. It is entirely possible that I am not the first one to come up with this idea, but I don’t recall anyone else mentioning this possible explanation for the movement of the sun.

 

Links:

The End of the FAKE Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvryGzjPpz8

SunCalc: http://suncalc.net

Was Genghis Khan the first Communist?

Fine, I must concede the title is bit click-baity, however I do find many accounts of the alleged accomplishments of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire somewhat questionable. On top of that there seems to be sort of modern attempt to paint Genghis Khan as some sort of progressive good guy. Let’s dig in.

First I should explain some of the background of where I’m coming from. I’ve written in the past how I don’t think that Marco Polo went to China, but to Cathay which was another kingdom. I’ve also expressed criticism of the official history of the Great Wall of China, which may or may not be relevant to this article. I’ve also discussed the theory put forward by others that the name Mongol did not used to refer to the people we we think of as Mongols today, but to another race of people. I’ll add links below.

I should also point out that we cannot know much of what truly happened in ancient history. What we think of history is always based on interpretation, which may be liable to corruption due to lack of evidence as well as political and ideological bias. How do we know, for example, that Julius Ceasar existed, or the very least, the did the things attributed to him such as being a proficient military commander in conquering barbarian tribes in Europe and then falling victim to the conspiring senate? There are some old coins that supposedly depict Julius Caesar, a caesar of that name probably did exist, but can we know the stories we associate with him actually took place? How do we know that the character wasn’t invented by Shakespeare, for instance? As Napolean infamously said “History is a set of lies agreed upon.

 

Primary Sources

There are loads accounts in books and on the internet depicting the achievements the Mongol Empire, but most of them are simply people repeating what the experts have said. To glean any actual clues to the veracity of the claims you have to go to the primary sources, which would be texts written around the time of the historical events or artifacts from that period.

As an example of shoddy evidence for the historicity of Genghis Khan we need look no further than Wikipedia. The article on the Khan states how he conquered China, Korea and Central Asia. After that the article states: “Many of these invasions repeated the earlier large-scale slaughters of local populations. As a result, Genghis Khan and his empire have a fearsome reputation in local histories.” After this sentence there is a link to a book titled Mongolia: a guide to economic and political developments by Ian Jeffries. The title does did not fill me with confidence as it sounds like the book discussed Mongolia in a more modern context. I did, however, manage to find it on the internet and checked out pages 5-7 that supposedly explain Wikipedia’s claims.

On page 5 it says “Mongolia built the world’s largest contiguous empire in the thirteenth century under Genghis Khan”. So apparently it was bigger than Alexander the Great’s, the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Quite an achivement for a bunch of horseriding nomads. What sort of technology or bureaucratic system did they have to manage that? Apparently by landmass the British Empire was larger, but Mongols supposedly had the largest continous empire. It also said the Mongols managed to kill “30 to 60 million people across Asia and Europe”.

Page 6 states that Korean and Mongolian elites engaged in considerable intermarriage in the thirteenth century and Koreans believe their ancestors come from Mongolia. That is the only evidence of “large-scale slaughters of local populations” and “fearsome reputation in local histories” that were on pages 5-7 of Jeffries’ book. However, ultimately this only proves that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source for information, which is not news.

There is a book known nowadays best by the name The Secret History of the Mongols. It was supposedly written back in the 13th or 14th century, and the introduction describes it as follows:

“This book, known to Mongols as the Tobchi’an [Tobcha’an]
or ‘History’, has appeared under a variety of names,
including The Secret History of the Mongols, The Life of
Chinggis Qahan, The True Record of Chinggis Qahan, and
The Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty. It has been
translated into many languages, including English,
Japanese, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Hungarian,
and Polish. Like Chinggis himself, the book is highly
controversial. We cannot be sure when it was written or
who wrote it. I myself argue below that it was written in
1228, but other scholars date it to 1240 or 1323. Whatever
the case, the book is unique, as the only available account
of the life of Chinggis Qahan [Genghis Khan].”

It is not known who wrote it and when, and it is the only account of the life of Genghis Khan. Sounds dubious to me. It might as well been written as a fiction, or a deliberate deception.

The Secret History of the Mongols mentions two other so-called primary cources. The first one is this:

“The War Record of the Holy Hero (Chinggis Qahan), by
Qoriqosun, 1266–1273.48 This book was published by the
Institute of National History established by Qubilai Qahan
at Daidü in 1264. For details, see The War Record of the
Holy Hero, p. 4. Qoriqosun was a chairman of the Institute
of National History after 1264. He was not only a Mongol
scholar but a court painter who painted the portrait of
Chinggis Qahan and other Qahans in 1278–1279.”

I could find no record of this book existing on the internet at least. Maybe it exists only in another language such as Mongolian or Chinese. However, I do not find this a credible source either, since if it provided important evidence on the Mongols, you’d think it had been translated.

The third one is even less credible:

“The Real History of the Mongol Qahans, published by
the Institute of National History in 1303–1304 in Mongol
and Chinese by an anonymous author. Unfortunately, this
work has not been found.”

The work has not been found? What does this mean? How can they claim this book is a source of any kind? Maybe the book never existed to begin with.

How about the physical evidence then? If the Mongols had this vast militaristic empire shouldn’t there be Mongol forts or other structures littered about in their former territory like central Asia or Russia? I couldn’t find any. There should plenty of Mongol artifacts such as weapons and armour littered about in their former territory. I managed to find a few pictures of these on the internet, but very few, and most pictures seem to be of later Mongol equipment, or simply replicas. I’ll take a look at the Mongol armour in more detail later on.

I must point out that I am an amateur when it comes to history, and specifically Mongol history, so the lack of primary evidence may speak more of my own lack of ability and access to resources than the existence of those resources, so I am not going to make any definitive statement to the existence or non-existence of Genghis Khan or the Mongol Empire. Yet were all of the claims of this vast empire self-evident fact, I would expect the evidence to be abundant, which it does not seem to be. If someone can point me to some sort of primary evidence that I can verify for myself, I’d appreciate it.

 

The Progressive Khan

Jeffries’ Mongolia: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments has a quote from The Times on page 5 stating that “The Mongol empire was the first to know religious tolerance. In the capital, Karakorum, churches, mosques and temples stood side by side. In his empire women had equal rights with men, even among subject peoples.”

First of all, The Times is not a credible source when it comes to history. And the two statements made by them are ridiculous. What does it mean that the Mongols were “the first to know religious tolerance”? It’s a nonsensical blanket statement. Do they mean that no society in history had any sense of religious tolerance before the Mongols? How about the Religion of Peace, Islam? At least according to liberals, it used to be so tolerant. If they had said “compared to earlier empires in history, the Mongol Empire showed a much greater deal of tolerance of religion” I could take it with some degree of seriousness.

Women having “equal rights with men” sounds like utter nonsense. Surely they did not have equal rights with men in any sense that the modern West conceives of the idea? Did the women fight alongside men in battle? Did they play an equal part in slaughtering 30-60 million people? Perhaps the position of women was good among Mongols when compared to Christian, Muslims or the Chinese, but once again the article did not say that. Nor is there any evidence to qualify the statement.

The Times is not the only outlet to make Genghis Khan sound like a progressive warlord. Dr. Timothy May of North Georgia College and State University wrote in his article that there was religious tolerance “throughout the empire”. If I think about what it means, I suppose the Mongols might have been fairly callous when it came to religion. If they conquered Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, they only wanted obedience and did not care what gods their subjects adhere to. However, I would call it disinterest rather than tolerance, if that was the case. At least the writers should qualify this alleged tolerance with some details.

An article in The Spectator says: “the same man who is said to be responsible for the deaths of a world record 40 million is also noted — admittedly less widely — for his religious tolerance, enlightened diplomacy and championing of women’s rights.” Same propaganda of Genghis Khan having been a progressive conqueror.

Another blog on WordPress, Course Correction: An Insider’s Look at Mormon Culture, at least tries to clarify these progressive tendensies of Genghis Khan in some way:

“Although they adopted literacy, arts, and sciences from other countries and tolerated Taoism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity, Mongols kept their own culture—including an active role of women in their social and political life. Mongol society lacked the belief that female sexual purity was a value to be defended at all costs—including defense of and seclusion of women. When one tribe was ambushed by another, the men fled on horses so they could live to fight another day. Captured women were taken as wives by the conquering warriors. If the men escaped, they attacked and recaptured the women. A recaptured wife might be pregnant with her captor’s child, but the child was raised by her husband as his own.

While the warriors were off sacking and looting—sometimes for more than a year at a stretch— Mongol women ran the country. Mongolian girls as well as boys were educated when schools were established. Both Genghis Khan’s wife and mother influenced his governing decisions.

True, Mongolian women did not have total equality, and prosperous Mongols could take more than one wife. Yet, compared to women in 13th century Europe, China, Persia, and the Arab world, Mongolian women had a good deal.”

I do not know how accurate these statements are, but at least they are sensible.

I do however get the impression that there is some sort of liberal agenda at play in promoting, this idea of the progressive Khan. In fact, I have two different scenarios: Genghis Khan was the first Communist leader of powerful nation, or this is just another Marxist ploy in attempting to downplay the achievements of Europe by praising non-Europeans.

Perhaps, there had been a proto-Communist cabal that put Genghis Khan into power. After all, if main stream history is accurate, Genghis Khan did what Communists tend to do; wage war and kill a lot of people. Mao supposedly killed 45 million in four years during the great leap forward. Stalin had 60 million killed according to some estimates. So according to history, the Mongols caused more deaths than Mao, and equally the death’s of Stalin. Of course the 20th century Communists achieved their deaths in a shorter time-span, as the Mongols took a century or two (and several Khans) to do it, but they did not have access to modern technology so I think it evens out. At least according to the presumed liberals who are praising Genghis Khan, he was similar to modern Communist leaders; the was a violent conqueror who caused millions of deaths, but later on he is being hailed as a progressive hero. Of course there is the difference that Genghis Khan probably didn’t spend as much effort on killing his own people as Commies tend to do.

I think the second scenario is more likely that liberals who hate Europe and everything related to it, find any excuse ignore the achievements of Europe, and praise the achievements of non-Europeans peoples, be their achievements factual or fictional. I am not of the camp that thinks that Europeans excell in everything and should be praised for everything, I simply think credit should be given when it is due, and not given when it is not due.

 

Feats of the Empire

Let’s get back to the Mongols and their alleged feats. The Secret History of the Mongols states that “just two million Mongols, with 129,000 cavalrymen, could establish the largest land empire in world history.” Two million people with a bit more than 100,000 cavalrymen were able to conquer the largest land empire in history, and butcher up to 60 million people? I don’t find it credible, although possibly this two million refers only to the Mongols who were alive during the time of Genghis Khan, and during his day they hadn’t killed all of those millions yet. They had no access to modern weaponry or transport, they did have even the telegraph, nothing like that. I might believe this if the people they conquered had been weak pacifists who were unwilling or unable to fight back, but they weren’t.

I think something doesn’t add up, yet I don’t claim to know what the truth is. Perhaps it lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe the Mongols did manage to conquer some places like China and Korea, but it doesn’t sounds credible they’d be able to do all that they supposedly did. Or maybe the Mongol Empire is a fabrication to begin with, possibly to cover-up the existence of another race of people or empire, or a coalition of races.

I don’t know the truth, but I still have more to speculate about the Mongols and the possible Mongol deception, but I’ll do that at a later date.

 

 

Links:

Marco Polo did not go to China: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/marco-polo-did-not-go-to-china/

By whom, when and why was Great Wall of China built?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/by-whom-when-and-why-was-great-wall-of-china-built/

Genghis Khan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Mongolia: A Guide to economic and political developments: https://books.google.fi/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xxB9AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Mongolia:+A+Guide+to+Economic+and+Political+Developments&ots=5OIy5iR-0Z&sig=PnZ2WZHCm7efX95t4aFpKD_aOgM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genghis Khan (1165-1127): https://web.archive.org/web/20100306053246/http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/mongols/empsub1.html

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan and Women’s Rights :https://annmjohnson.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/genghis-khan-and-womens-rights/

Warm underground caves found in Antarctica?

It was reported in the media a bit over a week ago that researchers found a “secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice” and that there could be undiscovered animal species there. Apparently these warm caves are 20-25 degrees Celsius, and you can wear a T-shirt there, despite being surrounded by snow and ice. The heat, and possibly light, supposedly originate from an active volcano.

Assuming that this is all true, it is likely to fuel speculation about Hollow Earth, or perhaps an underground sun that heats the place up. Or maybe the Nazis found these caves back in the 30s or 40s when they founded their alleged Neuschwabenland base there with flying saucers and all. It is quite extraordinary if this discovery is true. Warm, habitable caves in the coldest place on earth (since Antarctica is supposedly too cold for planes to fly over), and you just have to wonder how far the caves stretch.

Yet I won’t buy this news at face value. It might very well be a distraction or deception of some sort. Let’s say that flat earth researchers are onto something with their claims of a round ice wall surrounding the round disc of the earth. Maybe this discovery is supposed to draw attention away from the possible fact that the very shape of Antarctica is different than we’ve been told. Maybe they want us to be imagining what is underneath Antarctica instead of what is beyond it, such as the Firmament.

Or maybe this cave discovery is laying the groundwork for a Project Bluebeam-type of deception. Some time ago an alleged fake tweet by Buzz Aldrin emerged showing a pyramid-like mountain in the antarctic with the text: “We are all in danger. It is evil itself.”

 

Maybe the powers that be want us to believe at some point that scientists discover a frozen alien civilization under the ice, and when they are defrosted, they turn against us, and we need another, benign alien race to save us. It’s just one example of a possible silly psy-op they might be pulling on us.

There have been some important visitors to Antarctica as of late. US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited it last year. So did the russian patriarch Kirill a week after meeting with pope Francis. There are also rumours that Obama visited the alleged continent last year during his trip to Argentina.

Could there have been some sort of discovery in Antarctica yet to be announced to the public? Did they manage to make a dent in the Firmament? Is it all a psy-op of some sort? Why this focus on Antarctica as of late? Is the discovery of the “oasis caves” related to these political visits?

I don’t have any of the answers, except that I don’t buy the story of underground caves heated by an active volcano. Maybe the caves exist, maybe they’re warm, but the claim that they are heated by a volcano sounds dubious. Then again maybe the whole story is fiction. The caves are supposedly located “around and beneath” mount Erebus. Interesting name. Erebus is a primordial deity from Greek mythology associated with darkness and born of chaos. The description reminds me of the Egyptian chaotic frog god, Kek, who is revered by many in the far-right nowadays. I cannot say what the ultimate significance of Mt Erebus here is, except this cave business along with Erebus sounds like a manufactured narrative to me, instead of a spontaneous discovery.

 

P. S.

I thought I should add this “confession” I found on a discussion forum a while ago, about supposed discoveries in the antarctic and how Masons are involved. It’s probably fiction, but at least it’s interesting fiction.

 

Links:

Researchers find secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice that could be home to undiscovered species: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/researchers-find-secret-warm-oasis-beneath-antarcticas-ice-that-could-be-home-to-undiscovered-species

Antarctica’s ice caves could be hiding undiscovered species of plants and animals: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-08/antarctica-ice-caves-research-new-species-of-plants-and-animals/8884508

Kerry to become highest-ranking US official to visit Antarctica: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304401-kerry-to-become-highest-ranking-us-official-to-visit-antarctica

Patriarch Kirill meets penguins at Russian base as he becomes first Orthodox leader to visit Antarctica: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12162705/Patriarch-Kirill-meets-penguins-in-Antarctica.html

Antarctica – Which Conspiracy Theory Explains all the Celebrity Visits in 2016?: https://endtimesand2019.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/antarctica-which-conspiracy-theory-explains-all-the-celebrity-visits-in-2016/

Erebus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus