Good question! When it first happened, I heard about it but didn't pay much attention to the incident. Then, I heard reports that one sailor reported that the cargo ship was running without transponder signals, lights, or radio contact before hitting them. That piqued my interest, and I intended to look into it more, but it slipped from my mind and I forgot about it.
Then someone asked about it, so I dug into it a bit. What I found was quite interesting...
The official story:
Both ships were travelling on a parallel course, when at 1:30am for some reason they veered into each other and collided. The cargo ship then continued on it's course for about a half hour until the autopilot was turned off and they turned around. They turned around and returned to the scene at around 2:20am to see what they hit, called the coast guard, then returned on their voyage.
Pretty simple, right? Just another mistake made by someone and two ships collide. Except that the details don't fit the description...
First, The Facts:
Reading the online articles about it, the theories of what happened are all over the place! From dereliction of duty, to the captain having sex on the bridge, to EMP attacks, drones, etc... The ideas were all over the place, I couldn't really pin down any particular theory as being plausible (although some parts fit), so I started looking at the known facts instead.
The photographic evidence:
First, look at the damage to the ACX Crystal. Note how there is minimal damage, only on the port side of the bow and possibly the protruding part under the waterline. No visible damage anywhere else.
Now look at the damage to the Fitzgerald. Again, no damage outside of that one impact area. The area impacted most was the communications center and the berthing rooms (below the waterline).
So, no damage to areas outside of the impact zone, and the evidence shows an almost 90 degree angle of impact.
This immediately rules out the official story of two ships travelling side-by-side and one veering into the path of the other. If that were the case, there would be a much more angled impact zone, and dents/scrapes along the entire side of both ships. If, for some reason, the Fitzgerald had actually made it to a 90 degree angle in front of ACX Crystal before being hit, but was still moving, you again would have had scraping indications all along the sides of the ships from the forward momentum.
So, all indications from the damage photos indicates that the impact was done while the Fitzgerald was not moving.
This means that the story of the cargo ship not noticing an impact is also thrown out the window because the ship would have had to come to a complete stop and back up in order to free itself.
Dead in the water?
So, why was the Fitzgerald dead in the water in a busy shipping lane, and why was it hit?
First, we have to take into consideration of what the Fitzgerald is.
The ship is a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that employs the latest AEGIS system. This is a highly sophisticated combination of active and passive sonar and radar arrays that map out everything around the ship, and maintains constant contact with the other ships that are part of this system to keep tract of EVERY moving thing in the area.
So, again, why was it dead in the water and why didn't it move out of the way? That ship could easily run circles around that freighter... The only plausible answer is because it "wasn't able" to move.
Didn't see it there?
The argument about the Fitzgerald not noticing the giant incoming ship is also extremely unfeasible. In addition to the massive tracking system that tracks everything possible around them, they also have personnel constantly posted on lookout duty all around the ship. There is pretty much no way they didn't see it coming.
Out of contact?
Looking back at the other reports, we also see no reported communications from the ship during this time period. Like. None. None at all. In fact, the first report of the incident came in at 2:25am, from the ACX Crystal, who contacted the Japanese Coast Guard and reported that they had just hit someone.
So, we have a ship that has the most advanced tracking system available, one that is able to track pretty much everything (below the water, on the water, and above the water), with dozens of communication systems available to them, sitting dead in the water, with no radio contact.
What does that imply? A total and complete power outage. One that affected every system on board, shutting down the radar, the engines, the automated defense system, the lights, the radios, the personal devices, etc.... Everything.
What can cause that? Well.. The first thing that comes to mind is an EMP pulse. But, warships are built to withstand such pulses. So, while not totally off the table, it does make it look a bit unlikely.
That leaves us with the new technology coming out. The equipment based on the Magrev technology, which the Russians based their Khibiny system off of. This is known to have the ability to shut down any electronic system available.
You know, the same system they used on the USS Donald Cook back in 2014?
How did they do it?
So... Based off the facts I was able to acquire, and the idea that the ship was dead in the water for
some reason, I set off to determine how it was disabled.
I finally located this video, which was straight and to the point. A simple replay of the AIS system used to track all ships.
Obviously, the military ships are not part of this system, so they do not show on this map. But, by tracking the time, location, direction, and speed of the ACX Crystal, I was able to get a good idea of how it all went down.
Here is a screenshot from the video, which summarizes it's movements. I added numbers as reference points.
The ACX Crystal enters from the southwest, on a ENE track at about 18 knots. Obviously on autopilot.
At point 1, at approximately 1:30am it slows down to 11 knots and makes a slight course change. Then it makes a sharp right turn, while maintaining speed.
At point 2 it maintains speed and makes another abrupt turn and stays on that course for a bit.
At point 3 it appears to go back onto autopilot, and the ship resumes it's course and direction at about 15 knots.
At point 4, almost a half hour later, it slows slightly and makes a sweeping turn to return to the area.
At point 5, around 2:20am it fixes on an exact course at 8 knots. No further AIS data was available for a short time.
At point 6, the AIS data reappeared, with the ship pointed in another direction and travelling at 2 knots, indicating it probably had come to a complete stop and then resumed.
After meandering around at 4 knots for awhile, it again came to a complete stop at point 7. It then turns completely around and resumes it's original course.
At point 8 it appears to return to autopilot and head for port at 15 knots.
Question:"You mentioned several times that a major event was going to happen on November 4th, but I have seen nothing happen. Did you screw up your dates, or just blowing smoke out of your ass again?"
Answer:
I too was a bit disappointed in what happened. I had worked myself up into enough of a frenzy that I was expecting the clouds to part, and celestial trumpets to blare out!
Okay, not really, but I really was unsure how it would appear in the news. And.... Like you stated, nothing seemed to happen.
But.... Something did happen. Something big.
So, what happened?
At noon EST on November 4th, they publicly announced the ratification of the Global Treaty on Climate Change (or whatever the official title is).
Right about now I bet you're thinking: "Boo... Hiss... That treaty is BS! Everyone knows that climate change is a hoax!"
Well, yes, the climate change agenda is a hoax.
But... (you know I love my buts) That treaty doesn't really have all that much to do with the hoax aspect of the climate change agenda. Sure, it has provisions for changing the emissions levels of the participating countries, but it isn't really all that much of a change. Most of the participating countries are already doing enough (or were already planning to) to pass the requirements of that treaty.
What people didn't notice about the treaty is the underlying wording, the hidden meaning behind it. It wasn't an exaggeration when the UN Secretary General said it would usher in a new era!
Hidden in the treaty was a requirement for all signing countries to participate in the new banking system. It literally required them to ditch their fiat currencies and convert to asset-backed ones instead.
This, in turn, opened the flood gates for the GCR (Global Currency Reset), allowing it to be implemented world-wide.
No, there were no blaring trumpets, no press reports, nothing about the world changing forever... But that is what happened. The world will never be the same after that.
I wasn't surprised that Trump "could" win. Talking to people on a regular basis showed me an intense dislike for Clinton (especially amongst anyone who ever held a security clearance before), and every single poll outside of the mass media show him with a huge lead over her.
But what DID surprise me though was that he actually was allowed to win.
What I mean by this is that all of the signs of voter-rigging on a massive scale where there.
All polls on the mass media stations (outside of Fox News) shows Clinton ahead by a sizable margin. This lead was repeated over and over again by all of the MSM talking heads on 24/7 basis. This was repeated in print in most of the major newspapers. It was quite obvious (once you realize that outside of the MSM the polls were opposite) that this was an intentional attempt to convince the people that she was ahead.
Coverage of anything negative about Clinton was brief and quickly brushed aside. It was much more important to discuss Trump talking lewdly 10 years ago than it was discuss a Federal investigation into 33,000+ incidents of national security violations, etc.
Many organizations had already started producing materials showing she was the next president. Time magazine even printed thousands of magazines announcing her victory and had them prepped for shipment.
And many-many other incidents that I cannot recall at this point... All were hugely indicative of her "planned" win, regardless of the actual vote.
So... With all of that foreshadowing, it seemed quite apparent that the votes were going to be rigged heavily in her favor, to assure a win. Everyone was prepared for that.
Then Trump started winning states, and more states, and more... I could hear the confusion of the reporters on NBC, they were totally unprepared for that, and had to discard many of their pre-written dialogues. At points they were practically at a loss for words. The stock markets reacted badly, they hadn't anticipated that result and had to reconfigure a lot of stocks.
Then, humorously, several news headlines in various mediums like Twitter started showing up with depictions of events that didn't happen. Apparently they were pre-written and were on a timer to be released at certain points during the night. They were quickly pulled, but did cause some confusion.
I knew something was up.... Something didn't go as planned. Even Trump appeared a little surprised.
Yesterday I heard some snippets of intel talking about white hat forces raiding the Diebold headquarters on election night, stopping the majority of the vote rigging. This "could" be the reason he won, but it is totally unconfirmed.
Question: "Is the new series 'People of Earth' an example of soft disclosure? It feels like it (lot of truth mixed in with the line 'we will soon rule you all'). That and I read it was produced by one of Kissenger's kids."
I had heard about that show, but hadn't seen it. So, I searched the Interwebz and found the first episode on YouTube and watched it.
I can now say with 100% certainty that that show is an attempt at soft disclosure. I do like how they are introducing the various different races and pointing out the traits of each of them, especially the reptilians that are pretending to human (and in positions of power).
Not sure if I like the slapstick nature of the aliens though, but I guess that is a way to make people less afraid of them, although it kind of contradicts the subtle "we will soon rule you all" theme.
I liked the show, too bad I don't get that channel and cannot watch the rest of the episodes.
I get these questions semi-regularly because I've been studying health issues for the last several years in great detail. I have now determined that almost every disease currently known can be "cured", allergies can be removed, and any part of your body that has blood flow can regenerate itself. I have stated these claims many times publicly.
However, it is not quite as simple as just obtaining a "cure".
If you start doing Internet searches for "cures", you'll soon be overwhelmed with the number of results you'll find. Take any one "cure" and you will find hundreds of people professing how it worked miracles and saved their life, and just as many that said it did nothing for them. Time and time again, you'll find "miracle cures" that work for some but not others, so what is up with that?
For that answer you really need to step back and take a look at how health really works.
The Basics:
The basis of everything is energy because everything is energy, and energy is everything. Think back to your basic science lessons, everything is made out of atoms, and atoms are merely different combinations of electrons and neutrons. In other words, the different types atoms are merely different forms of energy. How fast those atoms vibrate is measured as a frequency.
Thus, the basis of everything is tied to energy, frequency, and vibration.
As the simplest explanation, diseases and illnesses are low-frequency creations, they cannot exist in high frequency environments. As the frequency of your body drops, it becomes more susceptible to infection.
As mentioned in the "Handbook for a new paradigm":
The normal vibratory rate of a human body has been determined to be between 62 and 68 MHz. The brain functions optimally between 72 and 90 MHz. When the body vibration lowers to 58 MHz it can "catch a cold"; at 57 MHz the flu; 55 MHz candida, 52 MHz Epstein Barr; 42 MHz cancer and at 25 MHz death begins.
To summarize, when you body's frequency drops, you get sick. When your body's frequency rises, your body starts to heal itself.
This is also how a lot of "healers" do their work. They have a natural high frequency, and simply being in their presence brings your vibration up also. Since diseases cannot survive in a such a state, you are "healed". By the way, this is also the origin of "laying on of hands", and it is what Jesus taught his disciples to do.
So... As you can see by this, you can try all the medications, supplements or healing techniques you want, but if your body frequency remains low, you will remain sick.
Step 1: Create A Healthy Foundation
That makes the first step in becoming healthy to be to create a healthy environment for your body to live in. Without it, nothing you try is going to work.
One of the best explanations of the basics of this was given by Bashar:
(Listen to this carefully. Multiple times if necessary.)
To summarize, here are his six basic rules:
Oxygenation of the system
Hydration of the system
Exercise and movement
Reduction of stress in the system
Removal of toxins from the system and environment
Lightening of your diet
I wanted to expound upon these rules, but it becomes too in-depth quickly. If anyone desires details about any of these rules, I'll open that as another question.
Step 2: Maintain A Healthy Foundation
Really, this is just step 1 re-iterated, but once you have created a healthy foundation, you will also need to maintain it. You will need to avoid low-vibrational activities, and avoid putting things into your body that will do more harm than good. Go back and listen to that video periodically to see if you are still following those rules... This is a lifestyle change, not a one-time thing.
Remember to avoid:
Processed Food - Keep your food as "natural" and as close to "raw" as possible. Most things that have an ingredients list will do more harm than good.
Artificial Sweeteners - Anything labeled as "lite" or "diet" contains artificial sweeteners. These chemicals to make things taste sweet are actually neurotoxins.
Microwaved Food - Microwave ovens modify food at the molecular level, and while they appear to be fine, they can be downright deadly to your metabolism.
It is also important to maintain an alkaline body. Keeping your PH level slightly on the alkaline side of the scale keeps out diseases, viruses, and harmful bacteria. These things live off of acidity.
You don't want a completely alkaline body though... The general rule of thumb is to have 80% of the food/drink that you consume be of an alkaline nature, 20% acidic. That provides a healthy balance.
Keep in mind that having a healthy foundation is important, but it is not an overnight cure for anything. All it really does is give your body a place for it to work from, and it will gradually clear itself of any problems. But this takes time. Many times people tried to do this, but gave up after a month or two.
Step 3: Find Out Why You Are Sick
So... You created a healthy foundation, and you've stuck to it, but you're still sick? That seems to be a common thing among a lot of people. If you've gotten to this point, it is time to take a good look at yourself. Time to get introspective and search inside for the real reason of why you are sick.
It really isn't easy, and most people will immediately say that there isn't a reason, they are not making themselves sick, but keep digging. Eventually you'll find the reason why you're sick, and once you've resolved that issue, you can start healing.
...I want to say a lot more on that, but that is a topic for another question.
Wait, Isn't There A Quicker Way?
Yes, what I have described so far is a lifestyle change, one that will alleviate almost all diseases over time, and maintain an environment where they cannot return. But you've probably caught my several hints about this not being a quick cure...
Yes, there are quicker methods. Various machines and such that work much faster.
Remember back to Star Trek, when Dr. McCoy would wave a little wand over the body while it made weird sounds and it would heal the body? It wasn't all just science fiction, there is actual science behind that! Specific sounds heal, certain RF frequencies heal, etc... Rife machines, zappers, etc... All of those work by sending out frequencies that make the disease itself explode and stimulates the body's repair process.
Getting away from machines, things like MMS, colloidal/ionic silver, cannibas, herbs/spices, etc... all attack the diseases at the cellular level, destroying them on contact.
There are lots and lots of "cures" out there. Some work better than others, some not at all. If you'd like a more detailed review of a particular "cure", that is for another question, so ask away!
Keep in mind though... Unless your body has a healthy foundation, any disease you kill off like that can return quickly.
Question: Is the Keshe technology legitimate and real? From my following on veteranstoday (which are cautiously optimistic about it) and my own personal experimentation with it I think it might be.
I wish I could give you a definitive answer on this, but I am pretty sure the answer is yes.
I also get the impression that Keshe is extremely gifted and has designs that are much-much more advanced than he is letting on to. He seems to be gradually getting people accustomed to a completely new paradigm on how things work by giving them basic concepts/projects that they can do on their own and with minimal materials.
Some people have a knack for it, while others cannot seem to make it work for the life of them. Personally, I have had limited success with it, and have not touched my projects for months. There were so many disagreements on how exactly to do things that I was waiting for someone to give a more definitive explanation. I might have to delve into that a bit more to see if I can make any sense of it now...
Other than that, the concept of free energy is real. The time will soon be coming when that becomes public knowledge, and it will spark another industrial revolution. Limited energy is the main thing holding most technology back, and once that becomes abundant and free it will open the door to inventions we could only dream about in the past.
Question: "is the whole RV/GCR thing real? If so is it backed by the cabal for humanity slavery 2.0? Or is it one of many parts of the larger birth of the coming golden age as touted by various channelers?"
I was wondering how long it would be before someone asked about this...
Short answer: Yes, Yes/No, Yes
Doesn't answer your question? I didn't think so... *grin*
Let's break this into smaller parts:
Is the whole RV/GCR thing real?
Yes. Many times over the years I found myself wondering this very question myself, it seemed like a fantasy... But, with the recent developments around the world, it is becoming quite apparent that there is some truth behind this. Will it play out exactly as many have predicted? Heck no. This is a constantly changing thing, adapting and improvising along the way to adjust for recent developments while keeping the end goal in site.
Once you learn how the financial system works (or should I say "used" to work), it becomes quite apparent what a lot of the news articles really mean. So, when the BRICS nations announced their own financial system, I could see the end in site. An asset-backed system is the polar opposite of what we used to have, and with the transparent nature of the transactions it will become impossible to hide the money laundering/outright theft.
Also, keep in mind that the old system was debt-based. The only way to balance a budget in a debt-based economy is to increase the debt. Thus, has an exponential factor built into, where it will eventually reach a point where the entire system will implode. Basically, it was a system designed, from the very start, to collapse. And who would be there to pick up the pieces? Well, that is obvious, and is an excellent transition into the second part of this question...
If so is it backed by the cabal for humanity slavery 2.0?
If you look back through history, you'll find hundreds of RVs that have taken place, but they have been carefully hidden from public view.
This was a time-honored tradition amongst the elite, they would start hostilities, create a war, fund both sides (profiting from the arms sales), and once the conflict is over and the economies of both sides were decimated, they come in with "helping hands" to get everything going again (while pocketing a hefty profit in the reconstruction). What is not noticed by most is that during this process the value of the currencies of those nations drops in value significantly (it helps when the elites also own the organizations that decide the values), rendering them almost worthless. The elites would then quietly buy up as much of this money as they could for a fraction of it's value, wait for the value to return to pre-war rates, and exchange it back for a huge profit.
The most noticeable one was the 1990 Kuwait conflict. They allowed Saddam to invade the country and the value of the Kuwaiti Dinar plummeted. Bush then told his insider group about it, and they bought huge sums of it, and when the currency returned to previous values they made billions of dollars in profit. This was the funding source behind Clinton's "balancing the budget" that he loves to brag about, and the tech bubble of the 90s.
The problem was that that this tech bubble also pushed the Internet into being. With the Internet available, people could communicate across the globe with unparalleled ease. The truth about the Kuwait RV came out, the public realized what had happened.
Then, in 2003, the elite attempted to do this again with the invasion of Iraq. However, people were watching for it this time. The value of the Iraqi Dinar dropped from around $3.71 (for 1 Dinar) to somewhere around 4000 Dinar to the Dollar. The elite bought pallets full of this currency, but so did some of the general public...
They held a partial RV, bringing the value of it up to approximately 1200 Dinar to the Dollar to make some quick cash before the public got it, and then held it there for a long time. They tried to figure out how to stop the public from buying it, but their efforts only brought more attention to it, so instead they decided to embrace it and try to turn that into a profit making venture also by having people sell it for quite a bit more than it was worth at the time (this breaks off into a side topic of the Dinar "scams"). They also put huge plans in place to confiscate the wealth in other ways once the RV took place. By allowing huge influxes of money into the system and then quickly withdrawing it, they could collapse the economy quickly, make astronomical profits, and be there to clean up the pieces.
But, this time, the good guys decided to do something about it, and decided to use this as an opportunity to "fix" the financial system. They turned a simple country-raping RV into a Global RV, a "currency reset", and the GCR was born. They created a new financial system that was immune to the elite's manipulation, funded each country with the necessary assets to back their currency, and are now in the process of changing the value of each nation's currencies. Several countries have done this over the last week, and other ones are slowly changing values without people really noticing.
Or is it one of many parts of the larger birth of the coming golden age as touted by various channelers?"
Yes, there is much talk about how all this went down was part of a divine design. I tend to agree with at least most of that idea, because nothing ever happens by chance, there is a reason for everything that happens.
When you start listening to the goals people have with the humanitarian projects, it really starts to restore my faith in humanity. The goal, as I see it now, is to flood the world with money, and devote most of it to projects that will uplift mankind instead of harming it.
If everything pans out as advertised, the world will become a much-much better place during our lifetime!
Question: Why do you say Halloween is not a Satanic holiday? Question: Why do you say Halloween is not a Christian holiday?
Well, Halloween is over... While it was fun to watch some people insist that Halloween was a satanic holiday, and others to insist that it was a Christian holiday, and yet others say it was a pagan holiday (obviously they don't even know what paganism is), practically everyone missed the part about it being a three-day event.
Day 1 - Devils Night
Day 2 - Halloween
Day 3 - Day of the dead
Of course, there are at least a dozen different names for each of those days, depending on your locale... Point being made that these three days are all part of one festival of remembrance. Over the years, many organizations tried to take it over, and the original intent was lost to almost everyone.
First of all, this is a VERY old "festival", it was instituted by the survivors of Atlantis, after it sunk into the ocean approximately 13,000 years ago. It is so old that people eventually forgot the original meaning.
Day 1 represents the history of debauchery and mischief that caused the fall of Atlantis. It was their own activities that led to the event that caused the destruction of the island nation. The survivors spent this day remembering those mis-steps, vowing to not repeat them.
Day 2 represents the actual disaster, the day of impending doom. Knowing that there was nothing they could do about it, and that it would probably kill everyone, they faced their fate with as much dignity as possible. Instead of cowering in fear, they held lavish parties, dressing up in costumes and enjoying the time they had left. The survivors spent this day recreating those festivities.
Day 3 represents the aftermath of the disaster. The island nation had sunk beneath the ocean, and the vast majority of the population went down with it. The survivors spent this day remembering their fallen brethren, honoring their memories.
Question: "Could you please watch this video and give me your comments on it?"
Here is the video:
Sorry for the delay on the reply, I didn't really want to answer this one until the other post was completed because I didn't want to have to repeat myself.
Did I Watch It?
Okay, I will admit it up front, I didn't watch the whole video... I was listening for about twenty minutes of him reading off a list of his "proofs" in a monotone voice when I realized he was reading them straight off of his list that was published here:
So, I promptly stopped listening to the video and instead read them, which was much faster. I did skip ahead in the video to see if he added anything else, but it appeared to be word-for-word.
Yes, I did read every one of them, several times, to make sure I understood what was being said.
What Did I Find?
I was a bit disappointed. I was hoping for something new, something with some meat to it, some validity. Instead, this "new" video/list was just a rehash of everything that he has said before, with some of them reworded and repeated. Many of them were the same "proof", just with different locations. Some of them were outright lies.
But let me back up a bit to give you some background on this.
I first heard of the flat earth society several years ago. I did some research on it, and went through their published information, their "proofs", and thought that it was a joke. Not in the way that I was laughing at them, but with them. I seriously thought it was just a joke website, people collaborating together to put together this fun little website and to sell bumper stickers, kinda like the flying spaghetti monster... I laughed a bit, and promptly moved on with my other research, mostly forgetting about it.
Fast forward to earlier this year. Several people I know and respect started discussing the Flat Earth theory. I initially ignored most of that conversation, I'd been down that road years ago, and thought it was nothing worthwhile even discussing. But it started to grow and grow, the conversations grew more in-depth, more enthusiastic. Not long afterwards, these same people started supporting the movement, and talking about it as being gospel.
So... I decided to do some more research on this myself, since I don't like to try to discuss things without actually knowing information about the topic. I dug into it pretty hard right from the start, I wanted to know as much as I could about what they were discussing.
Honestly, I wasn't looking to disprove the theory, I was looking for proof of it's validity. Like any of the absurdly strange topics I've researched over the years, I went it it with an open mind, willing to accept new ideas if they are based on verifiable proof.
I was very disappointed. I didn't find much more than I had found the first time I had done the research on it, nothing provable, just theories based on perception. I stuck it out for a couple of weeks though, digging deeper, trying to see how they explain away some of the common things like sunrise/sunset, etc...
Finally I had had enough, there wasn't anything new to be found, just a rehashings/rewordings of a book written back in the mid 1800s. The only thing new was some of their explanations for things, which, if I didn't know they were entirely serious about, I would definitely believe were written as a joke, they were so absurdly "out there". I stopped my research, and went back to report my findings...
This is where I found my biggest challenge, the cult-like devotion to this theory as being 100% true. I was dumbstruck by the ferocity that the supporters of this movement portrayed in defending their theory. Evidence didn't seem to matter, pointing out the inconsistencies didn't matter, nothing would change their minds. Upon presentation of any evidence that they could not explain away, the response always reverted to "it is faked" or "it is CGI".
I finally had to coin a summary phrase that I could picture them actually saying someday: "The Earth is flat, and any evidence to the contrary is faked."
I honestly wish this was just an exaggeration, but the more I talk to the FE supporters, the more this statement appears to be true. They whole-heartedly believe that ALL evidence of a round Earth is faked.
I was seriously hoping that these new 200 "proofs" would present some new information, some solid "proof" that I could look at and say "maybe this theory deserves more research", but I found nothing new.
My Comments?
So... Back to my comments on this list.
I started out typing rebuttals for each and every "proof" listed. It didn't take long before I was starting to enter many of them as "same", because they were just rewordings of other ones on the list.
After finishing a little over 100 of them, I was having problems finding any desire to keep going. It was tedious and depressing work. During that time I also found several people starting to post rebuttal videos on it, and didn't really feel like adding to the mix.
So after all of that, I decided that a point-by-point analysis of the list was not necessary.
But, I did want to leave some comments on recurring themes:
The Wild Ride
"97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever."
This is a good example of a phrase/theme used over and over throughout the list. Variations of this concept are repeated often and in many ways. The reason why this particular phrase is repeated over and over again (with slight variations) is to convince the reader that you should feel like you are on a wild roller coaster ride. Since you don't, his argument is correct.
An explanation:
The "tilt" of the Earth is about 23 degrees. This is what gives us our seasons and weather patterns. Since gravity pulls you towards the surface, you will not feel a tilt.
The "wobble" of the Earth consists of a movement of about 30 feet that takes 433 days to complete. Thus, nobody can feel the wobble because it takes over 1 year to complete.
The "spin" of the earth is actually 1 revolution in 24 hours (0.000694 rpm), which is an extremely slow spin. The 1000 mph reference comes from the diameter of the Earth means that the outer edge is moving faster. We don't feel it because of Newton's first law of motion.
The 500,000 mph reference is to how fast the Earth is moving around the Milky Way. Again, we cannot feel this because Newton's first law of motion.
The 670,000,000 mph reference is to how fast the entire Galaxy moves through space. Again, we cannot feel this because of Newton's first law of motion.
What is Newton's first law of motion?
"An object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force."
This means that because the Earth is moving at a constant rate, we will never feel the motion of it unless something disrupts that movement. Just like when you are traveling in a vehicle, you would not be able to notice you are moving if it wasn't for the turns, bumps, or acceleration/deceleration.
Since everything on the surface of the planet is moving along at the same speed, no motion will be felt. A good example of this is when you are traveling in a plane at 500 mph. If you drop the book you are holding, does it slam into your chest at 500 mph? No, everything inside of the plane is moving at the same speed, so it falls straight down onto your lap.
This simple answer clears up almost a quarter of the list.
Viewing Objects At A Distance
A surprisingly large number of the "proofs" are similar to this one:
"69) The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth."
Different places, different objects being viewed, but basically the same "proof" reworded. These are repeated over and over, always with a phrase such as "should be invisible behind a wall of Earth". This is worded this way to get you convinced that you shouldn't be able to see such objects, when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
-The claim that nobody is allowed to visit Antarctica, that it is under military lock-down.
Another outright lie! People visit the continent regularly, on an almost daily basis. There are entire cruise industries in South America that make their living off of bringing researchers and tourists to Antarctica.
-The claim that nobody can reach the actual South Pole.
Another outright lie! There is a permanent research facility built near the pole, and tourists travel down there on a regular basis. They have live webcams setup so you can see what is going on and watch the 24 hour sunlight during the summer months.
- The claim that it takes 4 years and 60,000 miles to circumnavigate Antarctica.
Not "exactly" a lie, but a twisting of the facts. During the initial explorations, there was a lot of travelling into bays, getting stuck in the ice, backtracking to avoid icebergs, etc. The distance around Antarctica is well known, and matches the globe model perfectly. They even hold races around it on a regular basis.
- The claim that there are no flights over Antarctica.
Another outright lie! There are daily flights into Antarctica for supply missions and to bring tourists. They even have charter flights that fly directly over the South Pole.
The reason why most of the flights between different southern continents go through the Northern Hemisphere is because 85% of the world's population live in the North. Airlines plot their routes depending on where most of the travelers want to go, and the most common destinations are in the north.
The reason why big oil and other companies are not allowed to explore or exploit materials in Antarctica is not because of a military lock-down. They cannot venture down there because of the Antarctica treaty that was signed back in 1959, designating the continent as a nature preserve. Exploitation of it's resources is prohibited.
What the author of these "proofs" is counting on is that with 85% of the world's population living in the Northern Hemisphere, few people will take the time to research this, and even fewer know people that have been down there. Personally, I have a friend of mine that travels there a few times a year on research cruises.
Lack Of Understanding
There are several "proofs" that deal with this same concept:
"113) The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous. Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm."
For some reason, the author cannot grasp the concept of the center of gravity being at the center of the Earth. Everything is pulled towards the center, which is why the Earth is round, why water flows to the lowest point, why weather works the way it does and why no matter where you are on the surface you can find a "level" spot.
Or, more likely, he understands that theory quite well, but to admit it would totally negate all of his "proofs". It is better for his theory to have people believe that everyone on the other side of the world is hanging upside down.
Summary
For those of you that have known me for years, I am as fair an unbiased as I can possibly be. I am always more than willing to entertain the most bizarre theories and research them to see if they are plausible. I've changed my mind about many things over the years as a result of this, sometimes quite drastically. Some of the things I have researched would shock a lot of people.
I also fully believe in the concept of the holographic universe, and multiple realities. However, this is a shared reality that we are all existing in, and albeit there may be some slight differences, the majority of what is happening to us in this shared reality, the major details, are identical.
This particular "movement" (for lack of a better term) falls into that category, where the evidence is clear and obvious, the reality is a singularity, but the interpretations are vastly different.
The FE theory itself is easily disprovable by any number of different methods. However, the cult-like following that is emerging and growing steadily is really surprising.
I really don't know what else to call it, it has many aspects of a cult in that it gets people to obsess over it, alienate themselves from friends and family, and totally reject any evidence that disagrees with what they believe. They gather together for motivational boosts and watch hours upon hours of videos talking about the same "proofs" over and over, while laughing at those that don't believe.
Thus, in my opinion, the origins behind this recent growth in the "movement" are worthy of much more investigation than the theory itself.
If you disagree with me or want further explanation on any of these 200 "proofs", let me know and I will delve deeper into the nuances of a particular topic. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time going through all of them when others are already doing that. Just send an email to Question4XL@gmail.com.
I've always said that if someone can provide me with a verifiable proof, I will change my mind about it. So far, I have yet to see any "proof" that is provable.
This is a combination of multiple different questions I've had over the last few months.
The summarized question: "Why do you say the FE observations are based off of bad science?"
The reason I say that is because I've gone through EVERY "fact" presented by the Flat Earth Community so far, and not one of them has panned out to be provable scientifically. Several of them are improvable though, because they are based entirely off of perception.
So, that leads me into the topic of this article... One thing that keeps coming up over and over again as a "proof" are the videos taken from various shorelines showing objects at a distance. Time and time again, these videos are presented as proof of a flat earth, but upon detailed analysis most of them actually prove the opposite.
I apologize for the delay in writing this article. I wanted to try to get as much factual information into it as possible and it took much longer than I had anticipated.
The Effect Of Perception
Here is the basic concept of what should be happening (curve exaggerated on purpose):
It seemed pretty simple, you look out straight and level, and measure the drop from where you are looking, and calculate the drop.
But what is actually happening in these videos is something like this:
People tend to look "down" upon the viewing target without even realizing it, and measuring from the wrong angle. The green arrowed line represents the actual drop, while the blue arrowed line represents the perceived drop.
But what I "know" is irrelevant without proof, I needed to go beyond it being simply what I said, I needed to provide mathematical proof to show what I am talking about.
Calculating The Drop
So.... First of all I wanted to find out what is the proper formula to calculate "the drop".
The simple concept is that you should be able to measure out a certain distance, and whatever formula you use should be able to calculate the drop. Based on that concept, the criteria I used to evaluate each formula was that if you measure out a distance equivalent to the radius of the Earth, the calculated drop should then equal the radius.
To better visual this, I wrote a short computer program that plotted out the drop for each formula into an image, and wrote the actual drop measurements to a text file. The correct formula should plot out a perfect quarter-circle.
Disclaimer: For these formulas, I am using a scenario of the Earth being a perfectly round sphere. I know it is not perfectly round, but the variations in the diameter at the Equator are approximately, 2/10 of 1% of the total size, so for all intents and purposes we an assume it round, at least for these calculations.
The FE Formula
The first formula I tested was the one widely used by the FE community:
"NASA uses spherical trigonometry to determine the curvature of a sphere the size of Earth: 8 X the distance in miles squared."
Or: Drop = 8 + Distance(squared)
(the number 8 representing inches, and the answer is in inches)
First of all, this isn't spherical trigonometry, this is basic math, not even to the Algebra level.
Second, Spherical Trigonometry is only needed when calculating multiple points on sphere. If you're only measuring two points, you don't need to go beyond very basic Geometry, which is taught in pre-Algebra classes.
Anyways, the results of this formula surprised me when plotted out. At a radius of 3959 miles (the officially recognized radius), this formula only curves down 1979 miles at the maximum, almost exactly half of the drop it should have had.
I also found this formula to be tuned a bit to a specific radius, where shorter a shorter radius produces a different shaped curve than a longer one. So, after little bit of experimenting with different values for the radius, I got the formula to finally show the end right drop somewhere around 8000 miles, but the calculated curve by then was not symmetrical, ending up being almost a straight line about halfway through.
The Pythagorean Theorem
The next formula I tested was the well-known Pythagorean Theorem:
Drop = squareroot of Radius(squared) * Radius(squared) + Distance(squared) * Distance(squared)
I knew even before I started that this formula wouldn't plot out correctly, but since a lot of people were talking about it in relation to this topic, I put it in there to see how it would plot out. Besides, for some reason it "seemed" like this formula was involved somehow.
What this formula actually does is to plot the length of the side of a triangle. Since the radius is used for both sides of the equation, we basically have a right triangle when at maximum range.
Subtracting the distance from each result, it does provide a curve though. Surprisingly, it plotted very similar to the formula used by the FE community, for a maximum of 1639 miles, a little less than half the radius,
The Correct Formula?
Now that I had a way to test the various formulas, I started looking for one that would plot out the correct curve.
I spent the next several weeks (not full-time, just when I got some free time) going through all of the formulas I could find for this calculation. What surprised me the most is the similarity between them all, and that none of them seemed to work properly. A lot of people seemed to try to throw trigonometry into the formula for some reason. But even then, their formulas never seemed to plot out a good curve.
Then it finally dawned on me to start looking at computer models since it is a common function of programs to calculate curves in order to draw things correctly on the screen. After a bit of searching, I finally located a few that seemed to work properly. I tweaked them a bit to make them a bit more simple, and finally ended up with this formula:
Drop = Radius - squareroot of (Radius * Radius - Distance * Distance)
Finally I had a proper formula to work with! Does it look familiar? That is because it is a variation of the Pythagorean Theorem, something I vaguely suspected from the beginning.
One added bonus to this formula is that it will also work with any type of numbers. Unlike most of the formulas I found out there, this one returned the same unit of measurement put in. I.e., if you enter miles, the answer will be in miles, if you enter feet, the answer will be in feet, etc.
Note: This is a serious problem with a lot of the formulas published on the Internet, in that you would have to put in feet in some places, miles in another, and it would return something else. Some of the formulas even mixed kilometers and miles in the same equation!
Here is the output image from my program (hard to see at this small size):
The red line across the top is the 8 inches/mile calculation (which turns out to be less than one mile).
The grey diagonal line is simply a 45 degree angle line I used for reference.
The orange line is the Pythagorean Theorem
The yellow line is the FE formula
The blue line is my revised formula
Crunching The Numbers
Now that I had an accurate formula to work with, and could plot them all out, I started crunching the numbers to see what they gave. I had long suspected that the FE formula was incorrect, I was quite sure that it was correct for short distances but exaggerated the curve quite quickly.
I'll say it right up front, I was wrong... The FE formula IS incorrect, but in the opposite direction. It actually dampens the slope the further it goes out (when the radius is close to 3959).
But, for the first several miles, the results were surprisingly similar:
These first few miles are important because 90% of the "testing" done to prove a flat earth is done with distances of 10 miles or less.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Now that I've proven that the formulas provided a reasonably reliable measurement in the first several miles (regardless of which one you use), does this make those videos correct?
Not at all. While the estimated drops were not far off from the real ones, the methods used to observe those drops is still quite erroneous.
For example, let's take this video:
At face value, this video seems pretty convincing. However, once you start looking at it closer the evidence falls apart quickly.
I went through the video closer, and if you stop it at 30 seconds in, you will see this image:
This is a view of the Toronto Skyline from across the lake. Take special note of the white object right below the CN Tower. That is the top half of the roof of the Rogers Center.
To better explain this, I searched Google for a picture of Toronto taken from the same direction, and finally found this image:
While it is not a perfectly clear image, it does show all of the shorter buildings that are hidden beneath the horizon in the video. Notice how none of those shorter buildings, or the large trees are visible at all?
Of special note, the Rogers Center is not a small building:
It stands at 310 feet from the ground at it's center, not to mention that the ground it is built upon is several feet above the water level.
Looking back at that first screenshot from the video, you will see that approximately 2/3 of the Rogers Center is hidden below the horizon. This means that the video attempting to prove a flat plane is instead proof of a drop of over 200 feet!
Not to mention that there are many other erroneous claims in video.
But this post is not about picking apart a particular video, this is about the methods used. If you want a particular video dissected, please submit a separate question.
So What Is Happening?
So, what is really happening in these videos to make them so inaccurate? Well, the tests being conducted are not taking all of the various factors into consideration.
Some of the main concerns ignored are:
Height of the viewing position.
Height of the target.
Atmospheric Refraction.
- Height of the viewing position
As was mentioned earlier, these are the IDEAL measurement conditions. The vantage point is directly level with the surface, and the distance measured is perfectly level horizontally from the vantage point.
However, this is nearly impossible to do. Getting a camera right exactly at the water level is very hard to do, and risky to your equipment. Then, maintaining a perfectly level viewing angle is very difficult to do without some sort of leveling equipment. Simply looking out at the horizon forces a downward angle view, regardless of intentions.
Then, once you move your camera ANY distance above the surface, you have to factor in the "Distance to Horizon" (DTH).
From the the viewing position to the horizon, the drop will be zero. The measurement to calculate the real drop is done from the DTH to the target.
Here is the formula to calculate the DTH: DTH = SquareRoot(height above surface / 0.5736)
(Height is in feet, and output is in miles.)
For example, if the target being viewed is four miles away and the camera is six feet (eye level for a lot of people) above the water level, the DTH is 3.2 miles. That means you have to calculate a drop of .8 miles, for a drop of 6.4 inches.
- Height of the target
The height of the target also has to be taken into account. This is done identically to the distance to horizon, only from the other side.
For example, if the target is 20 miles away and 300 feet tall (such as a tall building), and the viewing point is size feet above the water:
Distance to horizon from the viewing point is 3.2 miles
Distance to horizon from the target is 22 miles.
Calculated drop at 20 miles is 266 feet.
Combined, this gives a total of 25.2 miles, which is well beyond the distance between the two. Thus, the person would be able to see the top 34 feet of the building, while someone at the top of the building would be able to see the entire person.
This scenario is clearly demonstrated in the video posted above. A scenario I used before to describe this is two people standing on opposite side of a very small hill. Since both people can see the feet of the other person, they then deduce that there is no hill.
- Atmospheric Refraction
Nothing gets the people in the FE community riled up faster than referencing atmospheric refraction.
However, it is a well-known and measurable phenomena, easily provable. This phenomena is what is responsible for all the rippling and distortion in videos and photographs. It varies by temperature, humidity, and altitude. At ground level it is the cause for mirages and the weird rippling scene you get when looking out across a parking lot on a hot summer day.
In this experiment, Samuel Rowbotham would demonstrate his perception of a flat earth regularly to people by bringing them out onto a canal, and viewing a distant object (also on the canal) through a telescope placed inches above the water level. He conducted this experiment regularly for a few years, until 1870, when one of his supporters, John Hampden, decided to publish a wager of £500 in the newspaper for anyone who could prove the earth was round.
Alfred Wallace took him up on that bet, and conducted similar experiments on the Bedford Level, but placed them high enough above the ground to correct for refraction. He easily won the bet, and was awarded the money by an agreed-upon referee.
Sadly, Hampden didn't take that well, and brought Wallace to court. The courts agreed with the findings, but had the money returned due to the issue of gambling. Over the next several years, Hampden would repeatedly attack Wallace physically, verbally, and in the courts, over and over. Hampden would be jailed, get released, resume his attacks, and get jailed again. This went on non-stop until Hampden finally died almost twenty years later.
So What Is A Good Experiment?
As you can see, conducting an experiment like this is difficult at best. You cannot simply bring a camera to the shoreline and claim that as proof.
Based on all of the information listed above, I have thought long and hard about how to conduct a reliable experiment, one that is relatively simple to do and not too expensive.
The following requirements have to be met in order to conduct an experiment that will produce accurate results:
A calm, open, body of water that extends a minimum of a couple of miles, the further the better. Rivers will not work because they have a slope to them, and oceans are not recommended due to the size of the waves.
A good camera with a powerful optical zoom, positioned several feet above the water level on a stable tripod.
A bunch of identical floating buoys, the more the better, each with a relatively large object floating above the water level at exactly the same height as the camera. These buoys should positioned in a straight line away from the camera, spaced out evenly to cover as far of a distance as possible.
Once all of the buoys are in place, the view from the camera will show the middle ones slightly higher than either end.
There are other similar experiments possible, I was merely looking for one that someone could recreate with a minimal expense.
Here is a video that shows what I am talking about.
In Conclusion
I could ramble on about this for many pages, but this is the basic meat of what I had to say.
If there is a particular aspect of this that you disagree with, or want more information on, feel free to ask a question by sending it to Question4XL@gmail.com.
Question: "Why do organizations and people continue using Facebook, and Ben with Wordpress. It has been discussed here and other forums that these are fronts for big government. Is it nobody really cares? It is a puzzle. How much information do they need on us? Thanks in advance."
Ahhhhh... An interesting question, but you might be surprised by my answer. *wink*
It is "human nature" to want to connect with others socially. In the 70s it was the CB radios, in the 80s it was the bulletin board systems/AOL, in the 90s it was the fledgling Internet, in the 2000s it was the Internet w/AIM ICQ, etc. and evolved into Myspace, in the 2010s it has evolved into a myriad of different "social" programs such as Facebook, Google+, and any of the 1000+ other variants of these.
The key part is that people have innate "need" to connect with others, it is a throwback to the time before the "fall of man", when everyone was connected telepathically. We crave that connection again, and social networks are the next step closer. We've had several civilizations rise and fall since "the fall", each evolving to the point of starting to create a world-wide data network of some form, before being sent back to the stone age to start over. This time we made it all the way to a true data network, and humans are irresistibly being drawn towards reconnecting with each other once again. Regardless of what form of communication they use, they WILL communicate with each other.
The cabal knows this was bound to happen and are attempting to make the most of it. It isn't so much about them getting more information about us, it is about controlling us. They release information and watch our reaction to it. They then use this information on our reactions to choose what to do next, to direct us in the direction they want us to go. Social engineering to the max!
hi XL, I have been reading your entries on the Fulford blog for a while. You once mentioned all the snow you had, and that you lived close to 1 of the great lakes. while looking at my atlas...I noticed that you must be relatively close to Green Bay, home of the Packers...whose fans are called "cheeseheads"...just a curiosity."
Nope, sorry, I am a Yooper (someone from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan). I live up by Lake Superior, and have to travel a few hours south in order to reach the land of cheeseheads. Green Bay gets snow, but only a tiny fraction of what we get up in Yooperland.
Question: "I have been VERY lightly following (but mostly scrolling past) the whole flat earth discussion on BFC - which is about the only place I see it brought up in my sphere [hah] of internet daily research sources.I think the reason I mostly dismiss it is because I cannot think of an advantageous reason for TPTB to cover this up.
So my question is what would be some good reasons for TPTB to cover up the whole flat earth thing? If you can give me some good reasons that may spur me to spend some (precious these days) time of mine in exploring this further."
<-snip->
Sorry, I had to delete my response. I worked on it for days, it was long, it was detailed, it was sarcastic... After reviewing it, I decided it was TOO sarcastic, so I deleted it.
So, to answer your question in a short form:
Why would they cover ANYTHING up? They continuously hide details about almost everything, and then spew out disinformation as fact on a regular basis. This is all intentional, it keeps people second-guessing themselves and others, promotes division and contention, and keeps the people fighting amongst themselves.
This is what they want, the continuation of duality, light/dark, good/bad, left/right, right/wrong, etc... As long as they can keep us distracted and divided, the more control they have over us. Remember the old saying "united we stand, divided we fall"? It is never been more true than in modern times. Disinformation is at an all-time high, and the stakes of the game are even higher.
It is easy to explain why they hide information about things like the JFK assassination, and the 9/11 incident. But think about it for a bit... With JFK, they had probably less than 1000 people involved in that and covered it up quite well, but the truth still got out, is still getting out. We know what happened. With 9/11, they had a couple thousand people involved in that plot, and it was much-much more elaborate, and while they "sorta" got away with it, the truth got out, and is still coming out.
Now apply that concept to the flat-earth theory. The number of people involved in the cover-up of a deception that large wouldn't measure in the thousands, it would be in the MILLIONS, probably closer to a BILLION people. These are the people that are involved in industries that are inexorably linked to mathematics and design of technologies that involve the Earth being a sphere. What I mean is that their daily jobs involve working with things that simply wouldn't work if the Earth was flat.
In our current society, you simply CANNOT hide something that big, something that involves that many people, that efficiently. The word of the deception would be leaking out all over the place, and on a regular basis. People would be questioning things much more than they are.
But that isn't happening. Instead, there is only an extremely small (but quite vocal) group promoting this theory, while providing not a single shred of evidence that is provable. Their entire argument is based purely off of perception and exaggeration.
I've spent many hours/days/weeks researching this in quite a bit of detail, trying to find some shred of evidence that is verifiable, but was unable to prove anything.
So, to answer your question on why they would cover it up... They aren't. There is nothing to cover up. They do hire a bunch of people to get you "thinking" there is a cover-up, but that just keeps the division going, keeping the people under fighting amongst themselves and under control.
If you'd like more detail on any particular aspect of this debate, feel free to ask, but to me the overall debate is pretty much a dead issue. I would suggest you don't waste your time on it, it will lead you into a rabbit hole that is full of mud.
"Why is there no word in English that rhymes with Orange?"
Actually, there are a couple of words that rhyme with Orange. There is Blorenge (a mountain in Wales) and sporange (a sac where spores are made).
If you want to get into more, you can get into "Slant Rhyming", which is what rappers do to make words that normally don't rhyme sound close enough to use in rhymes...
The word "orange" is not the only word in the English language with almost nothing that rhymes with it. There are several. But the bigger question, the one you should be asking, is "Why is the English language so messed up?".
Not only does it have strange words like that with nothing that rhymes, but it also has rules that seem to change on a whim.
But it isn't a joke, there is a reason why English is so screwed up (and getting worse), while is systematically being pushed as the future unilateral language to speak in...
Because it is a "dead language".
I'm not referring to languages such as Latin, where nobody speaks it anymore and it is no longer changing, making it a "dead" language. No, I'm speaking of a language that is totally devoid of any emotion when speaking it.
Almost all other languages are full of emotion, and how something is said is just as important as what is being said. These languages are "living", they take on a life of their own just by the pattern of speech used to speak them.
But not English... It is totally devoid of life, and while some emotion is expressed while speaking it, the vast majority of it makes no difference to the ultimate meaning of what was said.
By stripping out emotion from the method of communication, you deaden the conversation. It has become an integral part of the dumbing down of society in general.
"Can you explain why the sun is rising and setting in strange positions? For instance, it has been rising and setting in the northeast/northwest for several weeks. Not too many months ago it was rising and setting in the southeast/southwest. It has occasionally been due east/west but not often."
This is definitely an interesting topic, but unfortunately I cannot give you a definitive answer on it.
I've been hearing stories like this for the last couple of years, people are reporting the sun is rising in different places daily. Some are even reporting that the sun is shining from a completely different direction in the middle of the day. Even the natives up in the Artic are reporting that they have an increase in daylight hours during their wintertime. Quite often, I'd dismiss this as a propaganda or distraction stunt, but the sheer number of people reporting this, some of whom are quite credible, inclines me to believe otherwise...
From those people that are taking these reports semi-seriously, there are numerous "scientific explanations" for these reports, ranging from continental drift to sinking of the ground in particular locations, to optical illusions, and hallucinations (among other things).
However, there seems to be no verifiable scientific "proof" of any of these things occurring that I know of. Not to mention that the location of the sun changing that drastically daily would require monumental movements of either the sun, the earth, or both. Such drastic movements would cause major catastrophic events daily. Which, obviously, are not occurring.
But while there is no hard evidence of the sun being in alternate locations, there is quite a bit of evidence to point to the sun being in the proper location. I.e. you can look up in many different scientific books and on many online websites to locate the proper location of the sun at any given time from any given location and see for yourself. I've tested this a couple of times myself, and every time the sun has been exactly where it is supposed to be. Also, a good portion of the meteorological system is also based off of the sunrise/sunset occurring at a certain time per day in a given location, depending on where you are on the planet. Any changes to these predictions would be well documents because of that.
In addition to this, there are plenty of ancient sites that were designed with the summer and/or winter solstice in mind. Meaning that at sunrise on the solstice, the sun rises in a particular location on the horizon, casting a ray of light in a particular location that only be achieved during said solstice. These sites were built thousands of years ago, and every year hundreds (if not thousands) of people make pilgrimages to these locations to observe the event on the solstice. If the location of the sun were in a different location, these sites would no longer work.
Then, you should include the myriad of other systems that depend of the position of the sun to work.
Combine all of that together, and most are inclined to go with the hallucination aspect! With all of these people claiming they are seeing something that cannot be proven scientifically, you'd think that was the end of it, right?
Wrong!
What we are living in here on this planet is a shared holographic reality. Meaning that we all get together at a soul level and decide what our shared reality is going to be. There might be minor differences in what people experience, but overall we are experiencing the same thing.
So... If a person gets a "strong" urge to change their reality, then their reality will change (this is how hypnotism works). If a large enough mass of people decide to change it, then they create a new shared reality.
What I am suspecting is that there is a growing level of people that are on the verge of breaking off into their own separate shared reality, one where Earth Changes have caused the Sun to move to different locations in the sky. They frequently venture into these alternate realities, but then return to this one. Perhaps they are even overlapping a bit...
