Sonntag, 5. Juli 2020



With the exception of the Sun, our Moon is probably the object of our skies that we take for granted the most. But in comparison to the Sun, which is a fairly common type of star in the observable universe, our Moon is not only unique, but perplexingly unique.

This article will first and foremost focus on the factual aspects of our heavenly neighbor, as they alone quite clearly demonstrate the anomalous nature of it. Because it further adds to the mystery, and because it's fun, a couple of images of intriguing objects will be featured at the end.


In spite of the many manned and unmanned space expeditions, we still don't understand how it originated. The main hypothesis is, that it is a piece of Earth that broke off in an ancient collision with another heavenly body.

Artist rendering of how the giant impact hypothesis might have looked like.
Image credit: Joe Tucciarone

Rest assured, this is merely a hypothesis which despite its many problems - the main one being the different composition of volatile elements in the planetary crusts [LINK1] [LINK2] - it still is the most favored idea in mainstream astronomy.

Of course the scientific establishment would never ever consider an artificial origin, even though there exist compelling evidence which might suggest the possibility of our Moon being a construct. Without jumping to conclusions, let us examine the facts as they are being presented to us by our space agencies.

Odd ball out

Our Moon is very different from the rest of the moons in our solar system, which in Mars' case either tend to be small, uneven rocks, or, looking at Jupiter and Saturn, the size of small planets.

The Moon, being bigger than Pluto, is the fifth biggest satellite in our solar system. As bodies of this magnitude are only seen around gas giants, and with Earth as the one exception, it is by far the biggest moon compared to the size of the planet.

It's 27% the size (circumference) of the Earth, thus making the ratio 1:4. As a comparison the ratio between Io and Jupiter is roughly 1:5000.

Earth, Moon and Ceres, scale comparison.
Image credit: wikipedia

By the way: its size in percentage, ~27.3% (of Earth's circumference) [LINK], matches its revolution period around the planet of 27.3 days very neatly.

Because of its big nature, it's sometimes referred to as our "secondary planet"; however, as big as it may be, it only holds a meek 1.2% percent of the Earths mass. That means that one would need roughly 81 of them to reach the same weight.

This suggests that our Moon either is extremely porous or hollow. To better understand the physical make-up, Apollo astronauts set up seismometers on the surface during their missions. Over 12 000 so called 'Moonquakes' were recorded up until 1977.

Apollo 11 astronauts conducting seismic experiments.
Image credit: NASA

A part from the expected vibrations caused by meteorites, the data surprisingly revealed that most of the moonquakes occurred very deep underground, much deeper than on Earth. More striking, however, was the fact that they occurred every 27 days, like clockwork.

In fact, the dean of science journalism, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times, described it as being as unlikely as having the stock market rise/fall on the same date every month.*

The only explanation so far is to ascribe the regularity to the monthly tidal stresses, though we have never detected anything similar on Earth - A definite consensus as to the nature of this remarkable phenomenon remains to be reached.

Different types of moonquakes registered on seismometers.
Image credit: NASA

Even stranger, the seismic data also recorded 28 shallow quakes. Reaching up to 5.5 on the Richter scale they would've definitively been felt by any astronaut standing on the surface. This type of activity is usually explained by the friction created by tectonic plates, but the Moon doesn't have them, so their nature are still unclear.

To top it all off Apollo 12 deliberately smashed a lunar probe into the surface to study the seismic effect it would have. To their astonishment, the Moon kept reverberating for nearly an hour. As Clive R. Neal, associate professor of civil engineering and geological sciences, describes it on "it was ringing like a bell." [LINK]

Impact site of the Saturn rocket booster - deliberately
smashed into the Moon by the Apollo 13 mission.
Image credit: NASA

A similar experiment was done by Apollo 13 with the Saturn rocket booster, this time creating a much bigger collision resulting in a 7 minute build up to a peak with a reverberation lasting 3 hours and 20 minutes. [LINK] It is worth mentioning that even the biggest quakes on Earth stops shaking after a couple of minutes.

About a year ago, an article on made a big splash proclaiming to have detected a gigantic "metallic anomaly" residing under the surface of the biggest moon crater. In some instances it was even referred to as a "deep structure". Whether it's just remnants from a meteorite, as they speculate, or something else, is still up for debate.

Artist rendering of Earth's magnetosphere shielding us from solar winds.
Image credit: NASA

On another note: generally speaking only planets and suns have a strong enough magnetic field to shield them from solar and cosmic radiation; but in 1999 NASA's Lunar Prospector satellite forced us to rethink this idea.

Diagram showing the magnetic anomaly.
Image credit: NASA

It was on a mission to map the magnetosphere of our neighbor, when it strangely enough found a small area (10 km) capable of generating a local magnetic field with enough power to shield radiation, thus making it the smallest magnetosphere ever to be found.

Except for these "magnetic rocks" (NASA's explanation), only cosmic bodies the size of planets have been recorded to generate such type of fields. [LINK] Do note that Mars, Venus and Pluto all lack them.

Against all odds

Perhaps the most astonishing characteristics of our heavenly neighbor are the ones we observe with our naked eyes from the surface of the Earth.

Most people don't realize it, but the Moon actualy mimics the movements of our Sun very closely, and would one just take the time to observe the heavens from the same spot on a regular basis, one would find that the full Moon is at its highest and brightest in midwinter, when the Sun is at its lowest and dimmest, and the reverse is true for midsummer.

One would also find that at each spring and autumn equinox, the Sun and the Moon rise and set at the same proximity in our sky. To demonstrate this remarkable coincidence, have a look at these pictures I've borrowed from the book Who built the Moon?**:

The Moon and Sun set at the opposite lanes in the sky at midwinter, whereas the process is reversed in midsummer.

At the autumn and spring equinox, they "sync up" and set at the same place.

The Moon mimics the Sun.
Image credit: J.C. Casado

In my opinion  the most striking of all the Moon peculiarities is the fact that it is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but by some inconceivably unlikely randomness, is placed exactly 400 times closer.

This of course means that it is the exact same size as the Sun from our point of view, which results in the occasional total solar eclipse.

The wondrous unlikelihood that allows for this event to take place often gets overshadowed (no pun intended) by the sheer awesomeness of the happening itself. But if one simply takes a couple of minutes to ponder what it really implies, perhaps one would also realize that this probably doesn't take place on any other planet in the whole galaxy, nor anywhere nearby.

Ultra HD photo of the solar eclipse. The Sun's corona looking like it belongs to the Moon.
Image credit:

One i a zillion coincidence, or a signature by ancient architects? To use a quote from Deep Space Nine: I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen everyday. But I don't trust coincidences.

Anomalies, Structures, Photos

Trust me when I say that there exist a plethora of footage featuring anomalous objects on and in the vicinity of the Moon. Although I am almost perversely fascinated by whistle blower accounts mentioning NASA airbrushing out alien buildings/domes from the photos taken by their satellites [LINK, LINK2], or by astronauts allegedly spilling the beans in regards to what they saw on the surface [LINKLINK2]. I will here stick to a handful of the, in my opinion, best photographs.

The Moon Rocket

In this picture, take by either Armstrong/Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission, we see a close up of what looks like a rocket shaped object with an exhaust flame.

As usually is the case with NASA, images featuring anomalies of this kind either gets the silent treatment or at best, are explained away as being smudge on the camera lens, problems with image processing etc.

I can only encourage the reader to take a closer look at the original picture on NASA's homepage (the "missile" can be found to the upper left) and contemplate if for yourself.

III-84M "The Shard"

Richard C. Hoagland is mostly known for his ground breaking book The Monuments on Mars, in which he analyzes Mars anomalies in meticulous detail. But he also gets credit for discovering some pretty amazing objects on the the Moon.

The best one is to be found on a picture taken in 1967 by Lunar Orbiter 3 called called "III-84M". Zoomed in, a tower of some kind, dubbed "The Shard", seems to be casting a long shadow in an otherwise barren landscape.

So far the only "debunking" I've come over stems from rationalwiki, where they say: "Lunar Orbiter used a wet film development process, and there are splatters all over its imagery as a consequence (fluids + zero-g = random messes).".

Of course it can't be entirely ruled out that we are seeing "a random mess of splatter", but in light of the similar findings captured on other parts, by other missions, it smells of a cop-out. The original photo can be viewed here.

ZOND-3, the Soviet Moon probe (1965)

In one of the first pictures ever of the backside of the Moon, taken by the Russian space probe ZOND-3, a most peculiar towering structure can be seen.

If this indeed is some kind of tower, it has to be several miles high. I've really tried to find any explanations as to the nature of it, alas to no avail.

Air brushed Department of Defense images

In 2004, a researcher named J.P. Skipper made some astonishing findings when scrutinizing the pictures taken during the US military (BMDO) project called Clementine. The picture above is just one of several in which one clearly can see tall objects blurred out.

No official comment has ever been given as to why these images have been edited, perhaps because it's too hard to explain them away as mere random processing artifacts. Though it is hard to imagine that these ones simply fell through the cracks. A deliberate soft-leak seems more likely.

The Department of Defense has since then taken down the website with the originals. However, the homepage has been archived by J.P. Skipper; you'll find it, a long with many other findings of high interest, here.


In 2000 NASA sent a probe on a mission to crash into the Moon's surface. The results were somewhat unexpected and maybe it was because they didn't disclose the whole truth on why they chose the spot they did.

The public video feed of the event was a travesty in so far that you can't really see anything but blurry pixels. But in one of the pictures taken from NASA controls, an interesting observation can be made.

Does it look natural to you?

If one looks closer at this image of two NASA employees, we see that the area in which the probe crashed seemingly features a non-natural structure. Perhaps it's just pareidolia, but one has to wonder if this picture isn't in fact another soft disclosure of some sorts. The original full size image can be found on NASA's homepage right here.

The Aristarchus Crater

Aristarchus crater.
Image credit: Mike's Astroimagery UK

Ever since man began pointing telescopes at our Moon, the Aristarchus crater has been a source of an inexplicable glow. For 350+ years now, we have descriptions of a blue fluorescent light at times surrounding the crater.

Transient lunar phenomena i.e. random changing of light/color of a certain lunar area is well known albeit not fully understood. And the Aristarchus crater is the spot which have the most activity.

Notice that it seem to have a geometric structure?
Image credit: Credit: USGS/US Navy/Clementine Spacecraft

So far, the only suggestion that has been seriously proposed is that the coloration might have something to do with radon 222 outgassing. A colorless nuclear gas. If that's the case, there sure seems to be a lot of it, in many colors, as this list of observations, from John Lear's great website, evidently suggests:

1650  Aristarchus  "Red Hill." Mons Porphyrites  Hevelius  B.A.A. Lunar Sec. Circa. 1967, 2, No 8
1784  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1785  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1786 Dec 24  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1787 May 19-20  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  von Bruhl  Bode 1790; Schroter 1791; Herschel 1912
1788 Apr 9  Aristarchus; 1 hr  Extraordinarily bright  Bode  Bode 1792b
1788 Apr 9-11  Aristarchus  Bright spot 26" N of crater rim  Schroter, Bode  Schroter 1789, 1791, 1792a, 1792b
1788 Sep 26  Near Aristarchus; 30 min  Bright spot 26" N of main crater  Schroter  Rozier 1788, 1792; Schroter 1791
1788 Dec 2, 5:35 am  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright, like star  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1824 May 1  Near Aristarchus  Blinking light, 9th to 10th mag.. on dark side  Gobel  Gobel 1826
1824 Oct 18  Aristarchus, vicinity  Mingling of all kinds of colors in small spots in the W and NW of Aristarchus  Gruithuisen  Gruithuisen 1824; Fauth 1899
1825 Apr 22  Aristarchus and vicinity  Periodic illumination  Argelander, Gobel  Argelander 1826, Gobel 1826
1866 Jun 10  Aristarchus  Star like light  Tempel  Denning, Tel.Work p.121
1866 Jun 14-16  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow  Tempel  Tempel 1867
1866  Dark side  Bright spots  Hodgson  Hodgson 1866
1867 Apr 9, 19h30m - 21h00m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr 30 min  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag., becoming fainter after 20h15m UT  Elger  Elger 1868
1867 Apr 12, 07h30m - 08h30m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag..  Elger  Webb 1962
1867 May 6-7  Aristarchus; at least several hours each night  Left side of crater, very bright luminous point, appearing like a volcano  Flammarion  Flammarion 1884
1867 May 7  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow, beacon like light  Tempel  Tempel 1867; Astr. Reg. 1868
1884 Nov 29, 19h00m - 21h00m  Aristarchus; 2 hr  Nebulous at center; elsewhere features well defined  Hislop  Sirius 1885
1889 Jul 12, ~20h52m  Aristarchus  During lunar eclipse, brilliance in surrounding gloom was striking  Krueger  Krueger 1889; Fisher 1924
1891 May 23, ~18h20m  Aristarchus region  Lunar eclipse, half hour before end of totality, Aristarchus and region immediately N of it became conspicuous and increased in brightness from that time on  W.E. Jackson  Jackson 1890-91; Fisher 1924
1931  Aristarchus  Bluish glare  Goodacre, Molesworth  Goodacre 1931
1949 Oct 7, ~02h54m  Aristarchus  Abnormally bright during lunar eclipse  G.Brown, Hare  Contrib. by Moore
1949 Nov 3, 01h06m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27, 02h30m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27  Herodotus  Bright point in crater  Bartlett  Strol. Astr. 1962
1950 Jun 28, 03h27m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, rim of W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 29, 05h30m  Aristarchus  Strong bluish glare; E, SE wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 26, 02h52m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 31, 04h50m  Aristarchus  Violet glare, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Aug 28, 04h25m  Aristarchus  Intense blue violet glare; E wall bright spot, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967

Luna 13, anomalous objects

In December 1966, Luna 13, an unmanned Russian space probe, became the third space craft to successfully land on the Moon. The first pictures it took features two objects that to this day no one has been able to explain.

This is part of the original photo that the Luna 13 took shortly after touch down. In it one can see two peculiar objects. Here they are isolated and magnified:

The most logical explanation, that they are parts of either the Luna 13 lander or some other man made probe hasn't been proven. In fact, the thorough research that has been done has had no success in matching them to anything of ours.

So, what are they doing there? Experts are still asking this very question.
The original photo can be found here.


Now, with most of the facts on the table, wouldn't it at least be fair to entertain the idea that our Moon might not entirely be the natural object our space agencies wants us to believe? I think so, and I also think that, without making any definitive conclusions, it's safe to say that it is a very anomalous object in and of itself.

What really lurks on its surface remains a secret for now, but amidst the rocks and lunar dust, surely there's something out of the ordinary there, wouldn't you think? Perhaps we will get some answers in a few years when SpaceX begins to go there.

Until then, let's at least keep an open mind.

Lights out.


Pictures (when not directly linked):
1st image:
Gif-animation from:

* p.46, Das UFO Dossier, Jim Marrs, 1998

** Who Built the Moon?, Adam Butler, Christopher Knight, 2005

Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2019

The Hole Story

Recently astrophysicists around the world declared tremendous success as our most powerful radio telescopes managed to, as they claim, take the first photo of a black hole (from now on: BH).

Curiously, the gravitational pull within the BH's outer edge, i.e. event horizon, is so strong, that even light can't escape from it. Which means the picture in question is more exactly portraying obscured light around a black dot.

The centre of M87, making headlines around the world.

Case closed? Actually, some tantalizing arguments can and has been made against the existence of BHs. The Thunderbolts Project, proponents of the Electric Universe theory, have systematically collected and evaluated much of the scientific progress of the mainstream cosmology during the last decades. They have pointed out several severe shortcomings in the established cosmological model with regards to predictability and actual observations.

This post will highlight some of the content featured in their clip Black Holes Behaving Badly. Ranging from contradicting data to a possible alternative explanation. The purpose of this article is to provide perspective on a topic most people take for granted without having giving it much thought, and which perhaps isn't as cut and dry as it often is portrayed as.

A brief introduction

There are four types of black holes: stellar, intermediate, supermassive, and miniature. The most commonly known way a black hole forms is by stellar death. [...]

If its [star] mass collapses into an infinitely small point, a black hole is born. Packing all of that bulk—many times the mass of our own sun—into such a tiny point gives black holes their powerful gravitational pull. [...]
Supermassive black holes, predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, can have masses equal to billions of suns; these cosmic monsters likely hide at the centers of most galaxies. [...] [LINK]
According to the general consensus, Schwarzschild and Einstein* (indirectly) pioneered the theory of black holes in the 1910s, but it was first in the 50-60's physicists would give the idea a name and some attention. Some years later, Stephen Hawking took it to the next level when he applied a complex mathematical model to the concept and thus provided (theoretical) proof of the first singularity theory. [LINK]

A singularity is a one dimensional point residing in every black hole with an extreme amount of mass (possibly multibillion times our sun) and infinitely small volume[LINK], "where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate." [LINK].

Of course one could dwell upon the purely theoretical problems considering:
I. Finite mass existing in zero volume, with infinite density and infinite gravity as one object.
II. The rationale of assuming space-time - the combination of two abstract concepts - as something physical.

But rather than doing that, the following segment will focus on observational data published on the most respected platforms in the field. [Please note that the words that appear in bold in the quotes, are edited by me.]

Conflicting data

Nothing can escape from a black hole, but Hawking radiation and so called galactic jets supposedly do.

Jets generated by the centre of Centaurs A.

Magnetic fields have been thought to account for the energy needed for the particle jets to be beamed away from the singularity rather than being sucked in. In this article from 2017 a study of a black hole called V404 Cygni showed that it's surrounding magnetic field was in fact 400 times weaker than predicted. Study co-author Stephen Eikenberry, professor in astronomy in UF's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences admits:
"Our surprisingly low measurements will force new constraints on theoretical models that previously focused on strong magnetic fields accelerating and directing the jet flows. We weren't expecting this, so it changes much of what we thought we knew."
Sophisticated computer models have also tried to explain how, but as Kyle Parfrey, postdoctoral at Berkley Labs explains, they still have a long way to go:
"The results of the new simulations are not radically different from the those of the old … simulations, which is, in some sense, reassuring," [LINK]
Reassuring that they really don't know(?). Magnetic fields outside the event horizon is apparently off the table, so gravity centered cosmology, i.e. the Standard model, has no explanation as to what causes the jets.

Moving on.

The black hole theory supposes that the region close to the BH is extremely harsh, with unimaginable tidal forces, x-ray radiation and ultraviolet light. A milieu completely unfavourable for star formation - a process believed to begin with gas clouds slowly gaining density.

Eleven young stars forming in close vicinity of a super massive BH.

A couple of years ago some observations by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) showed 11(!) young protostars within three light years of Sagittarius A. In the words of Farhad Yusef-Zadeh, astronomer at Northwestern University of Evanston, Illionois and lead author of the paper.
“Despite all odds, we see the best evidence yet that low-mass stars are forming startlingly close to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, this is a genuinely surprising result and one that demonstrates just how robust star formation can be, even in the most unlikely of places.”
Conveniently star formation theory seems to be the problem in this instance. 

Two black holes instead of the predicted one.

In 2012 astronomers using the National Science Foundation’s Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) discovered not one, but two intermediate size black holes close to another in the star cluster M22. To quote Laura Chomiuk, of Michigan State University and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory:
“We didn’t find what we were looking for, but instead found something very surprising — two smaller black holes. That’s surprising because most theorists said there should be at most one black hole in the cluster,” [LINK]
Again, two instead of one.

A year later, in 2013, a similar observation was made in the star cluster M62. Contradicting most theorists once more. Though instead of reconsidering, Chomiuk says
“I think it’s safe to say that we have discovered a whole new hunting ground for black holes,” [LINK]
As it happens, it's also safe to say that most theorists were mistaken.

In this picture published in 2016 we see several super massive black holes spinning out radio jets in the same direction; a finding of utter astonishment to mainstream cosmologists as it doesn't conform to any Standard model predictions. The accidental discovery was made with deep radio imaging by researchers University of Cape Town (UCT) and University of the Western Cape (UWC) in South Africa. A quote from the article sums it up:
Romeel Dave from UWC, who leads a team developing plans for universe simulations that could explore the growth of large-scale structure from a theoretical perspective, agrees: "This is not obviously expected based on our current understanding of cosmology. It's a bizarre finding." [LINK]
Completely unrelated to galaxy alignment I will close with a quote from an article published on, earlier this year, when predictions not only failed to deliver, but:
The new study finds that massive black holes form in dense starless regions that are growing rapidly, turning upside down the long-accepted belief that massive black hole formation was limited to regions bombarded by the powerful radiation of nearby galaxies. [LINK]

Presented above are six cases (and let me assure you, there are more) of studies made by mainstream cosmologists that contradicts predictions made by BH theorists. Perhaps now would be a good time to remind ourselves that when empirical data fails to correspond with a theory, the theory is by definition, falsified.

An alternative theory

Plasma cosmology offers an alternative to the Standard model. I will refrain from too much extrapolation and instead refer anyone curious to the following two websites, where in-depth presentations of plasma cosmology are accessible: Plasma-Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened

Even though plasma cosmology differs from the electric universe theory, they both share the idea of how matter is apportioned in the universe. To give you a very simple understanding of how they differ from the current paradigm, here's an explanatory picture.

Plasma is a state of matter where the atoms and molecules, which are normally neutral, 
have lost or gained an electron thus becoming becoming +/- charged as an ion.[LINK]

They also share the idea of what might lurk in the middle of galaxies: A plasmoid.

Winston H. Bostick was the pioneering plasma physicist who in 1956 would create a plasmoid in a laboratory in 1956. The term refers to a toroidal structure of plasma and magnetic fields.

Above: An actual plasmoid. Notice the similarities between this and the picture of M87.
Under: As the plasmoid breaks down it emits beams very much in line with the so called 'galactic jets'.

He later proposed the idea that plasmoids could very well account for many astrophysical phenomena, not the least galaxy formation [LINK].

"not only the morphology [shape] but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena". [LINK]
-Walter H. Bostick 

Having two plasmoids interact with another in a laboratory experiments, he as well as Anthony L. Peratt, who made similar simulations in supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory, came up with the following results:

"As above, so below."
Both laboratory simulations (Pic 1) and computer simulations (Pic 2 & 3) correspond with cosmological observations.

Thus proposing an alternative explanation as to how galaxies are formed based on observational data in laboratories rather than numbers on a chalk board. Even if the theory so far lurks in the fringes, it should at least be taken into consideration as it has no need for "dark matter" and "dark energy". Not to mention an object with several infinitesimal properties, occupying a finite Big bang universe.

Similar articles on Psydonia: 
The Big Sham
Cause for Con[CERN]

*It's almost impossible to find an article about black holes not mentioning them being predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In this presentation by Stephen Crothers, a strong case against this possible predicament is made. 


Pictures (in order):

Black Holes Behaving Badly:

Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2018

The Limits of Conception

Is the nature of existence finite or infinite?

Speaking as an ardent Wittgenstein and Heidegger fan and a serious student of metaphysical teachings for more than a decade, I am inclined to regard this very question as the most fundamental philosophical query there is.

However daunting at first, by approaching it with the principle of Occam's razor as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics, some convincing deductions - which in my opinion are of unfathomable magnitude - are closer at hand than one might think.


Let's assume both scenarios.
(I) Existence is of a linear nature, it has a beginning and shall come to an end.  
(II) All is part of an infinite source, without beginning nor end.  
Of the two possibilities, (I) poses us with a direct problem, namely the follow up question: how does nothing become something?

Theory (II) on the other hand, doesn't contain any apparent fallacies.


Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate 

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" is the original rule of simplicity, or if you will, Occam's razor. The principle suggests that out of two competing theories, the simplest one should be favored. 

Thus, if one were to use the principle when considering scenario (I) and (II), the latter one is preferable


The 1st law of thermodynamics, which constitute the very foundation on which modern physics rests, says that energy can not be created or destroyed. 

This law falsifies scenario (I) and confirms the infinite nature of existence by proclaiming that energy has always existed.

Assuming the correctness of the law, the conclusion must be made that energy is eternal in nature. Energy therefore can not be finite. 


If one was to take mentioned results as evidence for the infinite nature of existence, one could further deduce that there can only be one infinity as many-ness is a finite concept. Nothing can truly be separated from infinity.

We ourselves are evidence that consciousness is part of this one infinity.

Consciousness is a form of energy.


ohm animated gif


If you found this interesting, you might be interested in another post I wrote called Hallmarks of Intelligence.

Samstag, 25. August 2018

Conspiracy Confirmed


[kuh n-spir-uh-see] 

nounplural conspiracies.
the act of conspiring.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secretby two or more persons; plot.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result


The defintion is very straight forward, yet the term is heavily associated with baseless and often delirious theorizing. It has even reached a point today, where questioning an established explanation can be shot down with the mere proclamation "Here comes the conspiracies ...".

If one studies history, one will find that this is an unfair belittling of the term. As a matter of fact conspiracies are common throughout the ages - our modern times not the least bit excluded.

Exempli gratia

The Russo-Swedish War. In the year 1788, during a time of lacking popularity, the Swedish king Gustav III thought that a war could boost his reputation. However, he was not permitted to declare war without the support of the estates, which, at the time, didn't like the idea. He therefore ordered a tailor in Stockholm to manufacture a handful of Russian military uniforms.

They were worn by Swedish agents who sneaked over the Swedish-Russian border and opened fire at an allied outpost. The incident caused sufficient outrage for Gustav III to declare war against the Russian Empire. Ironically Gustav III self became the victim of a conspiracy when he was assassinated by his own men in 1792. 

King Gustav III and General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (1960-62), 
both keen on staging acts of terrorism on their own citizens.

230 years ago but far from the first or last time a staged attack were put into action. For a similar scenario we do not need to look far. Just a few decades ago, in 1962 to be precise, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff* and the head of CIA put their signature on a plan called Operation Northwoods.

The content (the original document can be found here) propose a series of false flag terrorist attacks on American soil, blamed on Cuban communists in order to provoke a war against the regime. Even though it had green light from both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA, President Kennedy refused to sign it and the plan was rejected.

But alas, not all shady operations had a happy ending. Here's a couple of examples of successful ones: In 1938 a group of German agents posing as polish extremists attacked a German radio station, in what is called the Gleiwitz incident, in order to give Germany an excuse to invade Poland.

In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 1964, a non-happening was falsely reported as an unprovoked attack on American ships. Consequence? A fierce escalation of the Vietnam war.

In 1932, Japanese military detonated a small railway explosion, close to the Chinese city Mukden, just as a Japanese freight train passed. Even though the explosion barely scratched the train, Japan was quick to answer the self-provoked attack with invading troops. Read more about this false flag operation here.

Edward Snowden, internationally wanted for blowing the whistle on NSA's 
global and opaque surveillance program on the citizens of the world.

But a conspiracy can be more than a false-flag operation. Take the Snowden leaks for example: documents that confirmed the existence of a global, autonomous surveillance apparatus.

We also know for a fact that the US and Great Britain have been involved with both overthrowing and bellicose intermingling of foreign governments, the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq are two good examples. The actual number is way higher than two though, as this Washington Post article suggests.

Colin Powell in 2003, manipulating a world-wide audience to get support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. 
Here's a clip from a speech addressed to the UN security council.

Before moving on, here's a few more noteworthy cases of confirmed conspiring:

  • CIA involvement in contra drug trafficking
  • Operation Paperclip: After WW2 the U.S. gave over 1600 Germans, many of which had held top positions in the Nazi party, asylum. The motive was to get an upper hand against the Russians in the coming cold war. 
  • MK-Ultra: CIA's illegal mind control program, involving torture like experiments on innocent, often unknowing citizens. 
  • Thulegate: In contravention of Denmark's nuclear-free zone-policy, the government allowed the U.S. to store nuclear weapons on Greenland for decades. 
  • The 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A staged testimony in front of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which got world wide attention by all major news outlets, and was used by president George H W Bush (among others) to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. 
  • Opreation Mockingbird: CIA's large scale program to infiltrate and manipulate mainstream media, involving as much as 400 bought journalists.

Wait a minute

This article was originally composed in 2015 in my Swedish blog, and when I started to translate it to English a year later it was just before Trump entered the White House. Alas, I wasn't nearly finished with the translation when everything took a very interesting turn. 

Before we knew it the term fake news dominated mainstream media, a term which the media power houses launched in order to undermine both alternative news sources as well as Trumps various proclamations. The plan quickly back fired when Trump started to use it against them.

A news story backed by FBI, CIA, NSA etc. broke in all major channels, claiming that Russian hackers had helped Trump win the presidential election. Trump's response was to call it unsubstantiated propaganda, or if you will fake news. 

No evidence was presented, so what we got was a word against word situation, where at least one of them had to be conspiring. Even if the term conspiracy per se wasn't seen much, the semantics of it had to be accepted by the general public as something happening today, on the grandest of scales.


Later it has turned out that Trump got help from the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, who apparently used the data of at least 50 million facebook users to help Trump win the election.

The firm apparently have taken part in manipulating the outcome of elections in e.g. Mexico, India, Malta and Kenya. In the clip, the former CEO mentions both sex workers and fake bribes as methods to influence politicians.

It is still unclear where the Russian hackers fit in.

What remains

History confirms that foul play is far from something unique, but rather that it has been common practice from the very beginning.

You have just been given over 15 major cases.

The question remains: what are they getting away with?

Relaterad bild