A Proper Gander At Propaganda


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com

Problems With The Fixed Stars: Do Exoplanets really exist?

Please excuse any typos yo may come across, spell check is evil. We will correct them as we find them.Thank you. AAMorris Staff

Don’t Believe The Historical Hype: Parallax Was Never Discovered!

With these proportions we should easily see parallax and further the shape of the constellations would never stay the same, the skywould appear to be morphing over the course of the year.

image source: Come to know Big and Little Dippers | Favorite Star Patterns ...


Nature Does Not Make Mistakes

People Do. If This Was Based on Natural Principle

No Flaws Would Be Found

Fakin' The Space Station is Explained Towards The End of This Article

Modern Cosmology is a Contradictory Patchwork Mess

Today’s astronomers and other cosmological so-called“scientists” spend their time looking at mathematical models that the educational institutions have long substituted for reality. Demonstrable phenomena or experiment is no longer necessary, the mainstream mentality has long ago given way to the illogic of so-called mathematical “proof”. Mathematics is simply a language and human artifact. We can sue language to lie or otherwise communicate mistakes and mathematical equation has long shown us math can do the same. Despite all the hype to the contrary, modern cosmology and much of modern “science” is little more than distorted theories combined with heavy doses of idolatry and mythology, all mixed together to create a very real and very literal religion. Most of us do not realize that scientism is a religion and that the University system has always been an indoctrination system as much as an educational one. The University system originates with the nobility and the Catholic Church. The Jesuit order is the order that historically was involved with promoting not only Heliocentric ideas and the seemingly heretical work (from their point of view, one would think…) of people like Galileo and Newton. As it turns out the Vatican and the rest of the Holy Roaming Enterprise are very much enamored with Sun Worship and other astrological ideas that have long since simply been rebranded as “astronomy”. The fact is the old court astrologers were mystically minded men who reimagined their occupations into the “astronomy” we take for granted as reality, today. 

Modern Cosmology is a literal patchwork of contradictory ideas that go to show us the basic model of Ptolemy is a lot close to the world we actually experience and that Geocentric ideas are the ones that are demonstrable. See the article index for more, but modern cosmological reasoning is based on very flawed experiments that have gone on to achieve the status of legends in the minds of to many of us. Experiments like the famed Michelson Morley are more propaganda artifacts than most think. These experiments all fall apart when scrutinized as do claims about Einstein being proven right time and again. Much of what we are sold by the multimedia scientist propagandists is simply wrong.

Actual Footage of the Stars and Planets, "Wandering Stars" as Captured by Curious Truth Seekers. All Seeing Heart

Stars seem to be an "electromagnetic" wave type of phenomena, to use modern vernacular. The stars and other celestial objects like the Sun and Moon would seem to be electromagnetic related phenomena rather than physical bodies like rocks and apples and magical nuclear furnaces.

image source: Real Stars up close, nikon p900, super zoom - YouTube

The stars in the sky move as if all attached to a large dome. This is impossible if we assume they are suns with planets. They would all have to be impossibly some imagined infinite distance away from Earth and yet somehow they show no parallax, no change of relative distance from each other. The shapes of the constellations do not change over the course of the year as one would expect in a three dimensional ‘big bang’ explosion based model. 

Are we to believe that the Stars are somehow infinitely far away from us and each other? How can they infinitely far from each other if we can see the relative distances between the stars? How does the cosmic scale used by today’s astronomers make any sense? The history of the speed of light is not what you might think and will be the subject of a future article. The velocity of light us an idea and the truth is it has never been measured. The velocity of light is mathematical fiction. Light might be best described as a pressure or intensity effect that propagates instantaneously. 

Stellar Parallax Is Fudged!
"The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec. This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away."


The constellations are not supposed to have changed shape in thousand and thousands of years. Any supposed alteration to the shapes we se in the heavens is based on theory and speculation and mathematical model fudging alone and is undetectable and won't be noticeable for millions of years (or something to that effect).

Newton’s Sun centered Universe is long gone and he would think the Big Bang model insane. Newton and the rest of the heliocentrists believed the Sun sat motionless at the center of the Universe. This is not the model used today.

What the Stars lack-  The stars never do this:


We’d expect little to no parallax due to an imagined rotation of the Earth. But we do expect to see parallax due to the Earth’s supposed motion across the solar system. The shapes and relative positions of the stars in the sky would always be changing and there would be no set of constellations to navigate the world by.


"As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle."



The compounded motions of the modern mainstream patchwork cosmological model literally compounds the problem of the “Fixed Stars”. The shapes of the constellations and the relative distance of the stars do not change as the Earth moves around the Sun over the course of a year, or at least that is the model we are taught. This is not what one would expect in a real life, three dimensional existence.

We can see how this model is flawed and how the geocentric model of Ptolemy better describes what we experience and what we can actually demonstrate with experiment. Modern cosmological ‘physics’ is not science and is propaganda and a religion. Check out the article index to read more about this.

Keep in mind that in the modern mainstream model of the Cosmos the stars are supposed to be suns moving through the galaxy in some manner. And yet all of these stars all move as one, and as if centered on the Earth. 

The more complex model is obviously the patch work one of modern “science” that is based on mathematical fudging, logical error and intellectual dishonesty. Ptolemy was right. The evidence shows the Earth is motionless and that we cannot apply the principles of mechanical physics to the motions of the heavens.

Today we would say the motions of the heavenly bodies can best be described with plasma physics.




THERE IS NO ROOM IN THE HEAVENS FOR STARS TO BE SOLAR SYSTEMS WITH PLANETS. Look at the distances in the heliocentric model and ask yourself if this makes sense with what you see in the sky.

Distance of the Planets From Our Sun

"Three years ago, for my granddaughter’s science fair project, she wanted to do the “walkable scale solar system”, so we went online and found the “Earth as a peppercorn” article (just google it) and decided to do that… “…but Abu! I want to do the Earth as a marble!” she said, so “no problem” says I, as I get the calipers, calculator and a notepad to do the conversion. For 6th graders… not so walkable anymore. We placed an 8’ diameter round carpet on the floor of the auditorium to serve as our Sun (2.5m across), in the center of which was our scale display, along with take-away pamphlets explaining the actual distances and scales involved, along with where to find the planets, either linearly (along state road #1) or as a current model (with planets in actual relative positions.  Linearly, we posted water-resistant posterboard signs on the side of the road along the route from San Juan towards Caguas (fudging a bit so that a car could safely park to get out and read the signs). 

The Route:

Sun - 2.5 m dia. (8')

Mercury - 8.7 mm - 105 m

Venus - 2.2 cm - 195 m

Earth - 2.3 cm (1”) - 270 m (1 AU)

-Moon - 6 mm (about ¼”)- 70 cm (about 28”) from Earth

Mars - 1.2 cm - 412 m

Asteroid Belt - 2 mm (ground to dust) - 540-945 m

Jupiter - 25 cm (about the size of a basketball)- 1.4 km

Saturn (planet) - 21 cm (about the size of a volleyball) (+ rings - 45 cm across) - 2.6 km

Uranus - 9.1 cm (slightly smaller than a softball) - 5.2 km

Neptune - 8.9 cm (slightly smaller than a softball) - 8.1 km

Pluto/Eris/Kuiper Belt – 1 mm / 1 mm / packet of restaurant salt - 8-15 km"


Compare the distance of the planets from the Sun to the distance between the “Fixed Stars”. Compare the proportions and please take notice that the constellations never change shape as the Earth is supposed to go from one side of the solar system to the other This is not what we’d expect in a three dimensional “big Bang “ explosive type Universe. Notice how far away the planets are in terms of sun diameters and compare to where they would be in the heavens if the stars were Suns with planets like ours. The planets would be effected by the gravity of the other Suns. They are all visually too close together and the stars are not visually far enough apart to allow for those stars to be Suns with planets, according to the model of the heliocentric  Solar System and the imagined distance to the planets. Modern science is a patchwork of illogic. We have to believe the mainstream explanation that is based on the house of cards in the first place. This is an example of circular reasoning. The mainstream model with its distances based on all prior assumptions is nonsense and nothing more. We have to check our eyes and mind at the door to accept the authority of the mainstream propaganda system.

No Room For Any Planets. The 'FIXED STARS' are named that for a reason.

Plasma Physics would Better Explain our Heavenly Observations

“When You Assume You Make an Ass out of You & Me.” Felix Unger

“Can the relative brightness of objects be used to estimate the distance to the nearest stars? Yes, if we make the bold assumption that the brightest stars are just like the Sun (this would be like assuming that the flashlight and the streetlight are intrinsically the same brightness). This is equivalent to assuming that stars emit the same number of photons per second as the Sun, and the difference in apparent brightness is a measure of how the photons thin out with increasing distance. This assumption also implies that stars with the highest apparent brightness and the nearest. By the inverse square law, the brightest few stars must be about √ (1010) = 100,000 times farther than the Sun. This is a distance of 1.5 x 108 x 105 ≈ 1013 kilometers, or about 1/3 parsec."

"… From the list of ratios, we can calculate that the Sun is like a 100 Watt light bulb seen at a distance of √ (27,700 / 4 x 1010) x 100 = 0.08 meters or about 3 inches. (Don’t try this; it will hurt your eyes just as staring at the Sun would!) On the other hand, the brightest star is like a 100 Watt light bulb seen at a distance of √ (27,700 / 3.6) x 100 = 8770 meters. This is like looking at a reading light in a house over five miles away. This gives a sense of the enormous range in brightness between our star and all the others.”


Modern Cosmology is built on a House of Cards waiting to fall. The above explanation is absurd and ridiculous. A 100 watt light bulb at a distance of8770 meters or 5.4 miles would not be seen. This is wrong. Common sense tells us this is wrong. “This is like looking at a reading light in a house over five miles away.” You really think you can see a reading light from this distance? We do not. This is absurd.

"This is like looking at a reading light in a house over five miles away.”

You really think you can see a reading light from this distance? We do not. This is absurd.

The modern mainstream model is quite fantastic and very wrong. The incredible distances to the stars means we would not expect to see much by way of light from these distant objects.

Light is clearly a wave and waves need a medium to “wave”. The unimaginable distances between star systems as imagined in the mainstream cosmological model would mean we’d not expect to see the light from the stars anymore so than we’d expect to hear the sound of a pin drop from across a football field.

Stars would have to be MUCH LARGER than our Sun is supposed to be.

The light wave would be too spread out and weak to be seen by our eyes.

John Telfer outlines his project exploring the interrelationship of cymatic phenomena and music.


In a three dimensional Universe, stars should never be arranged in easily identified constellations. The sky should always be changing. Parallax is real and can be easily demonstrated and is how we can tell a 3d film from a 2d film. Navigation by stars would not be possible in an true explosive type Universe. There is no logical reason for all those stars to move as one and act as if projected onto a dome and yet somehow actually be evidence of a Big Bang. Thats the thing, the visual evidence shows us the modern concept of the Universe is wrong. Not only that it also shows us that the Heliocentric model should never have been adopted in the first place. It is only through control of the University system and intense centuries long propaganda, were the Royals able to convince the mass public to ignore not only their own senses but common sense and logical reasoning and real science itself, in favor of a new religion. I can only think that the timing of the adoption of Heliocentricity after Columbus’ discovered the New World is a tell. That combined with the printing press enabled the Pilgrims to colonize America and this was the first time any European group were able to establish their own civilization far removed from the Royal Control System. The ocean protected them. It’s a shame it didn’t last. The Church has always been controlled by the nobility as has the banking industry and university system. In fact that run the whole show and the rest of us just work on the farm.


"the Almagest is a 2nd-century Greek mathematical and astronomical treatise on the apparent motions of the stars and planetary paths, written by Claudius Ptolemy (GreekΚλαύδιος ΠτολεμαῖοςKlaúdios Ptolemaîosc. AD 100 – c. 170). One of the most influential scientific texts of all time, its geocentric model was accepted for more than twelve hundred years from its origin in Hellenistic Alexandria, in the medieval Byzantine and Islamicworlds, and in Western Europe through the Middle Ages and early Renaissance until Copernicus."

The cosmology of the Syntaxis includes five main points, each of which is the subject of a chapter in Book I. What follows is a close paraphrase of Ptolemy's own words from Toomer's translation.

  • The celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere.
  • The Earth is a sphere.
  • The Earth is at the center of the cosmos.
  • The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point. 
  • The Earth does not move.

The Books:

  • Book I contains an outline of Aristotle's cosmology: on the spherical form of the heavens, with the spherical Earth lying motionless as the center, with the fixed stars and the various planets revolving around the Earth. Then follows an explanation of chords with table of chords; observations of the obliquity of the ecliptic (the apparent path of the Sun through the stars); and an introduction to spherical trigonometry.
  • Books VII and VIII cover the motions of the fixed stars, including precession of the equinoxes. They also contain a star catalogue of 1022 stars, described by their positions in the constellations. The brightest stars were marked first magnitude (m = 1), while the faintest visible to the naked eye were sixth magnitude (m = 6). Each numerical magnitude was twice the brightness of the following one, which is a logarithmic scale. This system is believed to have originated with Hipparchus. The stellar positions too are of Hipparchan origin, despite Ptolemy's claim to the contrary.
  • Book IX addresses general issues associated with creating models for the five naked eye planets, and the motion of Mercury.
  • Book X covers the motions of Venus and Mars.
  • Book XI covers the motions of Jupiter and Saturn.
  • Book XII covers stations and retrograde motion, which occurs when planets appear to pause, then briefly reverse their motion against the background of the zodiac. Ptolemy understood these terms to apply to Mercury and Venus as well as the outer planets.
  • Book XIII covers motion in latitude, that is, the deviation of planets from the ecliptic.


Seeing Stars

“But it needs to be accurately aligned with the main scope, and there are always adjusters for this purpose. But first you need to find an object in the main telescope, so choose the lowest magnification and to make life a great deal easier, start in daytime by finding a distant object in the main scope."
"This is for two reasons. One, it’s easier to find a distinctive object by day, such as a TV aerial or chimney pot. Two, it will stay still, unlike astronomical bodies, which move surprisingly quickly through the sky as the Earth turns.” http://www.popastro.com/help/help.php?title_pag=starting%20to%20use%20your%20telescope

Planets: A Small Matter of Focus

“The second factor is in the images themselves. At present, both Venus and Mars are far away and, as a result, show very small disks, 22 and 13 arc seconds respectively, as compared to Jupiter, 34 arc seconds. This has two effects. First, any detail on these planets is vey much smaller in size than the detail on Jupiter. In fact, no detail is ever visible on Venus except for its phase (slightly more than half). On Mars you may see a tiny polar cap and a faint smudge or two on the rest of the disk. Secondly, their small size makes them more subject to the degradation of "seeing," turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere. As a result of these two factors, seeing detail on Mars is a challenge even in much larger telescopes than yours!"

"Finally, there is the question of your eyepieces. Planetary observing is probably the most challenging aspect of visual astronomy, because the planets are so small. The planets require much more magnification than any other object you're likely to look at, except for very close double stars. Your eyepieces give you 26x and 65x, whereas serious planetary observing begins at around 150x, and is mostly carried out at 200x to 300x. The short focal length of your telescope, while providing fine wide-field views of deep sky objects, is not well suited for high magnifications. The shortest focal length eyepiece commonly used, 4mm, will only get you 162x, which is only barely adequate for planetary observing. Even then, the small aperture of your telescope may preclude using this high a magnification.“


How can we focus on one star or distant object here on Earth and then be able to see all the stars in focus through the telescope if the stars are supposed to be physical suns all different & nearly unimaginable distances from us? One star would be say 5 light years away and another some 200 light years. Yet all move as if they are glued to a single dome around the Earth. Empirical evidence, logic and our senses tell us that the modern Cosmological Model is deeply flawed and is nothing but propaganda and another religion. Stars and planets, the Sun and Moon, would seem to be plasma related atmospheric optical effects, similar to the rainbow. The Earth has magnetic field, this and the stars were traditionally used to navigate the world. We can see that both the stars and the magnetic field can be considered as empirical evidence for the Ptolemaic Model. This geocentric model is predicated on the concept that mechanical laws we can demonstrate here on Earth do not necessarily apply to the motions of the heavenly bodies. Today we have plasma physics which demonstrates how ionized gases work. It’s how and why a light bulb works.

Mass Suggestion and Mass Visualizations: Being Told What You Are Seeing Even When It Is A Lie

“The mechanism of a collective hallucination of the kind we have explained is clearly seen at work in this example. On the one hand we have a crowd in a state of expectant attention, on the other a suggestion made by the watch signalling a disabled vessel at sea, a suggestion which, by a process of contagion, was accepted by all those present, both officers and sailors.
It is not necessary that a crowd should be numerous for the faculty of seeing what is taking place before its eyes to be destroyed and for the real facts to be replaced by hallucinations unrelated to them. As soon as a few individuals are gathered together they constitute a crowd, and, though they should be distinguished men of learning, they assume all the characteristics of crowds with regard to matters outside their speciality. The faculty of observation and the critical spirit possessed by each of them individually at once disappears. An ingenious psychologist, Mr. Davey, supplies us with a very curious example in point, recently cited in the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, and deserving of relation here. Mr. Davey, having convoked a gathering of distinguished observers, among them one of the most prominent of English scientific men, Mr. Wallace, executed in their presence, and after having allowed them to examine the objects and to place seals where they wished, all the regulation spiritualistic phenomena, the materialisation of spirits, writing on slates, &c. Having subsequently obtained from these distinguished observers written reports admitting that the phenomena observed could only have been obtained by supernatural means, he revealed to them that they were the result of very simple tricks. “The most astonishing feature of Monsieur Davey’s investigation,” writes the author of this account, “is not the marvel- lousness of the tricks themselves, but the extreme weakness of the reports made with respect to them by the non-initiated witnesses. It is clear, then,” he says, “that witnesses even in number may give circumstantial relations which are completely erroneous, but whose result is that, if their descriptions are accepted as exact, the phenomena they describe are inexplicable by trickery. The methods invented by Mr. Davey were so simple that one is astonished that he should have had the boldness to employ them; but he had such a power over the mind of the crowd that he could persuade it that it saw what it did not see.” Here, as always, we have the power of the hypnotiser over the hypnotised. Moreover, when this power is seen in action on minds of a superior order and previously invited to be suspicious, it is understandable how easy it is to deceive ordinary crowds.”

Plasma Physics

"So now in the case of your telescope the circular opening of the telescope creates a circular interference pattern. 

Because of this interference pattern, when you make an image of a star, it does NOT focus to a perfect point. Rather, it focuses to a disk, and if you set your telescope for high magnification and examine the image carefully, you can see that there is a disk with faint rings around it -- this is the interference pattern that is caused by the circular aperture of your telescope. In fact, this is a special interference pattern and it has a special name -- the "Airy disk" -- named after Sir George Biddell Airy, an English astronomer who described this pattern mathematically in 1834."   http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/ResolvingPower.html


The Sun will be brighter than any object in front of it.
We should not expect to see a sharp planet silhouette considering the brightness of the Sun, the planet would simply be either a blurry speck or (more likely and realistically) not seen at all.

The other problem is focus. A lens cannot focus on a background and foreground object at the same time. The planet Venus is supposed to be some incredible distance from the Sun. How could both objects appear in focus even if we could magically focus in on the planet that should not be seen?

The reason why the Stars are not seen during the day is supposed to be a result of the blue sky being too bright. The even brighter white spot that the Sun creates in the sky merely compounds this problem. No space station or planets, or any other object,  should be seen in the sky in front of the bright Sun for this very reason.

"A transit of Venus across the Sun takes place when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and a superior planet, becoming visible against (and hence obscuring a small portion of) the solar disk. During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across the face of the Sun. The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours (the transit of 2012 lasted 6 hours and 40 minutes). A transit is similar to a solar eclipse by the Moon. While the diameter of Venus is more than 3 times that of the Moon, Venus appears smaller, and travels more slowly across the face of the Sun, because it is much farther away from Earth.

"The 2012 transit of Venus, when the planet Venus appeared as a small, dark disk moving across the face of the Sun, began at 22:09 UTC on 5 June 2012, and finished at 04:49 UTC on 6 June.  Depending on the position of the observer, the exact times varied by up to ±7 minutes. Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable celestial phenomena and occur in pairs, eight years apart, which are themselves separated by more than a century:[2] The previous transit of Venus took place on 8 June 2004 (preceded by transits on 9 December 1874 and 6 December 1882); the next pair of transits will occur on 10–11 December 2117 and in December 2125"


"Fortunately, unlike the narrow, fleeting path of visibility for a total solar eclipse, the upcoming transit of Venus will last for about 6½ hours and ..."    http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/transit-of-venus-june-56-2012/

Why is the planet Venus so high up and not centered on the Sun as we’d expect from the (basic) heliocentric model.

Why does Venus' orbit have an inclination like the Moon's?


Why does Venus not orbit around it’s supposed center of mass which is centered on the Sun?

Circular Reasoning based on prior assumption built on a House of Cards that was invented by a guy who was wrong. This is the foundation of what we've been told is "Modern Science". Turns out "SCIENCE" is more Propaganda than not.

Watch Venus RIise

“Following inferior conjunction, the planet emerges in the dawn sky as a 'morning star', rising shortly before the Sun. Seen through a telescope, the planet appears as a large crescent, facing Eastward to the Sun below the horizon. The planet moves further away from the Sun as each day passes (i.e. its solar elongation slowly increases westwards) and the planet gradually brightens as it does so. Telescopes show a shrinking but thickening crescent during this period, as the planet slowly recedes from the Earth in space. Eventually the planet reaches its greatest western elongation. When Mercury reaches this point in its orbit - and depending upon the observer's latitude - it rises up to an hour (and sometimes up to 1½ hours) before sunrise; when Venus reaches this point, it rises around three hours before sunrise. Mercury brightens all the way through to greatest elongation, but Venus shines at its greatest brilliance (maximum apparent magnitude) when it reaches a point about 40º West of the Sun, when its apparent size (its angular size when seen from the Earth) and its phase - a 28% illuminated crescent - combine to best effect. Venus then dims slightly as it approaches greatest elongation, but it remains brilliant nonetheless. At greatest western elongation both planets show an Eastward-facing half-phase (a 50% illuminated disk) through telescopes (in theory, the dates on which an inferior planet reaches greatest elongation and when it appears half-phase should coincide, however they frequently do not because of eccentricities in the planetary orbits).

After greatest western elongation, the planet slowly begins to move back in towards the Sun (its solar elongation slowly decreases). The telescopic view changes to a gibbous phase (i.e. greater than half but less than full illumination), the planet's apparent size shrinking as it recedes further from the Earth. Mercury continues to brighten but Venus continues to fade slightly, both planets becoming increasingly difficult to see in the morning twilight. The planet then disappears from view and passes behind the Sun, reaching a point called superior conjunction; Mercury cannot be seen from the Earth for a couple of weeks - and Venus for several weeks - on either side of superior conjunction.

Our inferior planet then re-emerges in the evening sky as an 'evening star', setting shortly after the Sun and moving further away from it as each day passes (solar elongation increasing eastwards). Through a telescope, the appearance of an inferior planet during an evening apparition plays out in the reverse order to that of its morning apparition; it emerges in the evening sky as a small gibbous phase, slowly increasing in apparent size as the planet approaches the Earth in space. Mercury slowly dims during this period but Venus brightens, both planets eventually reaching their greatest eastern elongation. Depending upon the observer's latitude, Mercury then sets up to an hour (and sometimes up to 1½ hours) after sunset; Venus sets around three hours after sunset. At greatest eastern elongation both planets show a Westward-facing half-phase through telescopes. The planet then moves back in towards the Sun, Mercury fading and Venus brightening, the latter reaching its second greatest brilliancy point at around 40º East of the Sun, after which it slightly fades. The telescopic view during this time is that of an enlarging and thinning crescent. Our inferior planet then sinks into the evening twilight and becomes lost from view. Soon afterwards it returns to inferior conjunction and the cycle begins again”

Note that Venus is brightest when it is on the near side of its orbit to the Earth, at a point on either side of inferior conjunction when it shows a crescent phase. Mercury, on the other hand, is brightest on the far side of its orbit - shortly before and after superior conjunction - when it shows a gibbous phase. Paradoxically, when Mercury is brightest it is virtually impossible to see, because it is then so close to the Sun. The brightness of Mercury as seen from the Earth can vary by some six magnitudes throughout its orbit - this is the greatest variation in apparent visual magnitude of any of the Solar System planets. However, this brightness variation is not seen to best effect because of the planet's continuously twilit backdrop and its proximity to the Sun.

During the course of a Venus apparition, a telescopic observer will see the planet's appearance vary from a small gibbous phase - with an apparent equatorial diameter of around 10 arcseconds (10") across - to a large crescent phase around 55 arcseconds (55") across. This large variation in apparent diameter (second only to Mars) is primarily because Venus comes closer to the Earth in space than any of the planets (a list showing the variation in apparent sizes of the planets is given in the Orbital Data Table below). Simulated 'live' views of Venus through a telescope can be seen in the accompanying article 'Venus through the Telescope'.

All of the elements described above regarding the visibility cycle of an inferior planet are brought together in the form of an animation (see below) showing a typical evening apparition of Venus, seen from the perspective of an Earthbound naked-eye/telescopic observer.

The length of time elapsed between one inferior conjunction and the next inferior conjunction (one complete appearance cycle) is about 116 days (16½ weeks) for Mercury and 584 days (just over 1½ years) for Venus. The time elapsed between any two of the same planetary aspects (or configurations) when seen from the Earth is called the synodic period; these periods are listed for all of the planets in the Orbital Data Table below.

The visibility of an inferior planet from any given location on Earth is heavily dependent upon its brightness, the observer's latitude and the season in which the planet is observed. As previously mentioned, the length of local twilight is one factor, but equally important is the angle of the ecliptic to the observer's horizon at the point where the planet is rising (morning sky) or setting (evening sky).

The ecliptic can be envisaged as a 'celestial highway'; a giant, invisible sinusoidal curve in the sky, only about half of which is above the observer's horizon at any given time. Its most Northerly point is in Gemini and its most Southerly point is directly opposite, in Sagittarius; at these points, the ecliptic 'flattens out' as the sinusoidal curve reaches its upper and lower limits (i.e. at the Sun's midsummer and midwinter positions). The ecliptic is inclined to the celestial equator at an angle of 23º.5 (this is known as the obliquity of the ecliptic) and in the night sky this angle is most evident where it cuts across the celestial equator. This happens at two points along the ecliptic: near the head of Pisces (where the Sun heads Northwards at the Vernal equinox) and at the opposite side of the sky near the head of Virgo (where the Sun heads Southwards at the Autumnal equinox).”

"Paradoxically, when Mercury is brightest it is virtually impossible to see, because it is then so close to the Sun. The brightness of Mercury as seen from the Earth can vary by some six magnitudes throughout its orbit - this is the greatest variation in apparent visual magnitude of any of the Solar System planets. However, this brightness variation is not seen to best effect because of the planet's continuously twilit backdrop and its proximity to the Sun."

We are told Mercury becomes really bright and then told it’s hard to see this phenomena due to the planet’s proximity to the Sun? This seems like a logical fallacy as there is no evidence offered that can support the original statement, “Paradoxically, when Mercury is brightest it is virtually impossible to see, because it is then so close to the Sun.“
This is an example of the fine Art of Apologetics and it shows that what we call modern science is nothing but a religion as we can see “science” is not based on logic. It is not based on evidence it is based on assumption, mathematical fudging, circular arguments, debating game, parlor tricks, con jobs and ultimately faith. This might explain the mainstream television scientist’s (IE propagandist) apparent contempt for (other) religions. It’s all just divide and conquer propaganda and an old obvious trick.

Modern Science is a Religion and is not based on Empirical Evidence. It is not real science. It is propaganda just like religions. Religion literally derives from the Latin word for chain. Religions (modern science is one too) are designed to keep you in the Church (which literally means circle or lead). You are considered to be little more than animals and you need a shepherd to guide you. You need a “star’ to guide your behavior.You have to believe their is a bogeyman so you pay your taxes, you are a wage slave. You have to think the military can project power around the world so you pay your taxes. Get it? They scare you so you think you need “weapons of war”, and they want you to think the other guy has them too. Never mind the fact that the paper trail leads through the bankers all the way to the British Monarchy and the House of Windsor. Their names are on the contracts we call treaties. This paperwork is as real as one believes it to be and guess what? Most people think Constitutions and treaties are very real. This is how it works. Those lower on the pyramid are not in the know they just follow orders. They follow a program or script in the exact same way a computer does. See? The computer like you, is programmed to perform certain tasks. The computer or the person working for a company or government will tend to do what the script says. Whether the script is called a law or a company policy. Modern business practices derive from feudalism. We still live under a feudalistic state in many real and fundamental ways. We are wage slaves paying taxes to protect ourselves from Phantom Menaces with cartoon armies.



Fake Photos? Photography Always Involved Manipulation of One Kind or Another -

Below is an example of what looks to be fake photography as the silhouette of Venus would be an impossible phenomena based on the mainstream Cosmological model. We would not expect to see a planet cross the extremely bright light source that is the Sun. The background light intensity would make such a feat of photography impossible. 

How can the planet be so sharp and distinct? This is FAKE. The bright Sun would make seeing such a small body in front of it impossible, try to photograph a gnat in front of a huge bright flood light. 

Venus would not be in silhouette and no photo filtering can magically make it appear.

The Sun will be brighter than any object in front of it.
We should not expect to see a sharp planet silhouette considering the brightness of the Sun, the planet would simply be either a blurry speck or (more likely and realistically) not seen at all.

The other problem is focus. A lens cannot focus on a background and foreground object at the same time. The planet Venus is supposed to be some incredible distance from the Sun. How could both objects appear in focus even if we could magically focus in on the planet that should not be seen?


an example of photo manipulation or fakery below:


arbitrary (adj.) 

early 15c., "deciding by one's own discretion," from Old French arbitraire (14c.) or directly from Latin arbitrarius "depending on the will, uncertain," from arbiter (see arbiter). The original meaning gradually descended to "capricious" and "despotic" (1640s). Related: Arbitrarilyarbitrariness.


“Don't Forget the Air”
“You're not just looking through your telescope at the stars, you're also looking through air -- literally tons of air. 50 miles of it straight up, and hundreds of miles when you're looking close to the horizon. That air is usually in motion, and the shifting masses of air at different temperatures cause the light to deflect. The deflection is small and subtle, but when you are looking at high magnification, it seriously affects the amount of detail you are able to see.” http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/ResolvingPower.html

The same reason the planet Venus is difficult if to impossible to see during the day would make it impossible to see if it passed in front of the Sun. This holds true for Mercury too. The brightness of the blue sky makes seeing the stars and planets difficult to impossible. We do not see stars and most planets during the day. The bright spot we see in the sky and call the Sun is literally white and brighter than the surrounding blue sky. This is brighter sky than the blue sky. If it’s extremely difficult to see Venus with a blue sky intervening, it would be impossible with the white bright sky caused by the Sun. The blue sky gives off light that causes objects to disappear and the bright spot of the Sun does the same but is all the more powerful.

Notice how blurry Venus looks?  Compare to the image below.

Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena.[1] They occur in a pattern that generally repeats every 243 years, with pairs of transits eight years apart separated by long gaps of 121.5 years and 105.5 years. The periodicity is a reflection of the fact that the orbital periods of Earth and Venus are close to 8:13 and 243:395 commensurabilities.[2][3]

The last transit of Venus was on 5 and 6 June 2012, and was the last Venus transit of the 21st century; the prior transit took place on 8 June 2004. The previous pair of transits were in December 1874 and December 1882. The next transits of Venus will be on 10–11 December 2117, and 8 December 2125.[4][5][6]

Venus transits are historically of great scientific importance as they were used to gain the first realistic estimates of the size of the Solar System. Observations of the 1639 transit, combined with the principle of parallax, provided an estimate of the distance between the Sun and the Earth that was more accurate than any other up to that time. The 2012 transit provided scientists with a number of other research opportunities, particularly in the refinement of techniques to be used in the search for exoplanets."


Notice how blurry Venus looks?

Compare this video (below) to the image above.

The Planet Venus as seen through my 178 mm newtonian telescope plus webcam

How could the telescope be focused in on the speck that is supposed to be Venus and the much bigger Sun at the same time? Photography always entailed photo shop work and fakery, keep that in mind. Computers make film making easier.

The infamous ‘axis of evil’ also points to this truth. But we should not be surprised if the microwave background was centered on the Earth, should we?
The Earth is clearly the most logical source of the projected celestial sphere of stars, planets the Sun and Moon. Earth has a magnetic field, and it sure looks like the unifying science, the real science, would best be described as electro chemical and this is a subject for another article.


There are many such “paradoxes” to all of modern science and its Cosmological Model. It is a religion. You have to accept nonsense as fact. You have to accept a house of cards built on a seesaw. The fact is all the empirical data of not only our senses but actual and real experiments have consistently shown the Earth does not move. Look at the article index of this site, the article about Einstein and Relativity being an Ether Theory and the Article about Newton, cover this subject. In fact all of the articles on this site cover this subject in one form or another. The over all thing to learn is that we live under a feudal system coated with a lot of BS. We are wage slaves and have always been. You need to think you have to pay your taxes. You need to believe in all the many layers of lies in order to convince you to pay for the military spending and so on. The problem is the evidence the media and their masters the military provided as proof of both their power and evil, fail and look more like Hollywood special effect work than not.

"Venus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days."

"The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours (the transit of 2012 lasted 6 hours and 40 minutes)."

“The last transit of Venus was on 5 and 6 June 2012, and was the last Venus transit of the 21st century; the prior transit took place on 8 June 2004. The previous pair of transits were in December 1874 and December 1882. The next transits of Venus will be on 10–11 December 2117, and 8 December 2125.”


The Transit of Venus

"Whilst  Venus can be seen in the daytime, there is another, very rare event involving the planet that requires daytime viewing. It is known as a transit of Venus, and whenever they are seen they are spectacular to watch and - in recent times - have caused considerable media attention across the world. During a transitVenus is seen as a small, black dot moving slowly in an East-to-West direction across the face of the Sun. The event lasts about 5-6 hours, depending upon the planet's relative speed and which part of the Sun's disk the planet is transiting. Venus transits can only occur whenever the planet is close to its ascending node or descending node (the points in its orbit where the planet crosses the ecliptic heading Northwards or Southwards, respectively). For a transit of Venus to take place, the planet must be within a few days of  inferior conjunction (directly between the Earth and the Sun) and be crossing one of these nodes at the same time. Because of the positioning of the nodes in relation to the Earth's orbit, transits can only take place around June 7th (descending node) or December 8th (ascending node) although the node positions and the event dates slowly change over time. The ascending and descending nodes of the planets are positioned exactly 180° apart - hence the six-month difference between these two dates."

"Transits of Venus take place at intervals of 113½ years ± 8 years. In other words, they occur in pairs (one 8-year Venus cycle apart) after an interval of just over a century. The pattern runs as follows: 121½ years, 8 years, 105½ years, 8 years, 121½ years, etc. There were no Venus transits in the 20th century (prior to that, they took place in December 1874 and December 1882). The first transit of the 21st century took place on June 8th 2004 and the next (8 years later) was on June 5th-6th 2012; the 2004 event transited the Southern hemisphere of the Sun and that in 2012 transited the Northern hemisphere of the Sun."


"The Transit of Venus is Supposed to occur Once a Century, Followed by another occurrence 8 years later... then another century is supposed to pass before it happens again..."

Problems With The Transit of Venus


Big Problems With the Transit of Venus


“During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across the face of the Sun. The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours (the transit of 2012 lasted 6 hours and 40 minutes). A transit is similar to a solar eclipse by the Moon. While the diameter of Venus is more than 3 times that of the Moon, Venus appears smaller, and travels more slowly across the face of the Sun, because it is much farther away from Earth.”

What are we supposed to be seeing? Are we seeing supposed to be seeing the effect of the Earth’s rotation? Does the plant Venus only appear to move from East to West across the sky due to parallax? This does not appear to be the official explanation. Based on the supposed orbit of Venus and the orbit of Earth, (Venus being some 225 days vs 365.25 for Earth) we’d the expect entire planet to be able to witness the Transit of Venus for over24 hours of time or so. These apparent contradictions are simply overlooked by the mainstream University system. We are not supposed to look for mistakes and flaws, we are supposed to be impressed with the statements of authority and are not supposed to learn to think for ourselves. There are numerous flaws with the modern patchwork cosmological model. This mainstream model is way more complex than the geocentric model of Ptolemy.

"As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle."

The Ptolemaic Model

Simulated Space

Venus Has To Have Very Complicated Motion in the Heliocentric Model

Compare these two videos of the motions of the solar system (below) and take careful note of the positions of Earth and Venus. Please notice how in both of those animations, Venus clearly crosses in between Earth and the Sun far more often than the supposed 100+ years (or even the 8 year pattern). Venus is thought and assumed to have a very complicated orbit as a result. Modern cosmology is filled with ad hoc, apologetic explanations. Venus has to not only orbit the Sun, it has to move up and down as well. The imagined orbit of Venus is more complex than most understand. Modern cosmology is very flawed and is more religion than not.

This is another flaw in the mainstream patchwork cosmology theory.

The explanation for the motions and observations of Venus are flawed. These explanations are not really based on observational  evidence at all.  Where are all the photographs taken from Earth of the planet Venus? Why are there so few photos and why can't we find a daily photographic record of the planet Venus? We should be able to see the phases of the planets easily, no? Yet as it turns out, we are told what we are supposed to see, with no actual visual evidence even provided to support the claim. This is not science. We have no visual evidence to support the mainstream heliocentric patchwork model claims. We have NASA funded computer generated and related photoshop art instead.

Nature does not make mistakes. People do. Notice too how the videos are not consistent with each other. Try to find a NASA animation of the Solar System that is not edited. Pay special attention to the number of times Venus crosses between the Earth and Sun.

New Video of giant Jupiter rising above the city of Perth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXQbgPy7rtA Solar System Video showing the 8 planets of the Solar System orbiting the Sun. As we move out from Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, towards the gas giant planets of the outer Solar System, each of the planets take longer to orbit the sun.
Simple 2D animation of planet movement during 4 years with approximate orbital speed ratio.

If Venus is supposed to orbit the Sun in a little over 224 days, the Earth in about 365, the difference works out to Venus being some 1.6 times faster than the Earth. The motion of the Earth orbit and the orbit of Venus would seem to indicate we should expect to see Venus cross the Sun over the course of a day or more and not some 4-6 hours. This would seem to be another problem with the patchwork mainstream cosmological model. There are many problems with the mainstream model. Even if this particular point is wrong there are many other flaws with the modern heliocentric based model that clearly show us that modern cosmology is more religion than science.

Should we not expect to see the planet Venus move across the Sun over a period of one or two days rather than over the course of some 4 - 6 hours?

Why is the planet's orbit seemingly angled like we see it and not horizontal relative to the Sun? Over the course of some five hours, the Sun will appear to move across the sky, how does this and the other photos and videos take this into account? The heliocentric model requires the planet Venus to exhibit a very complex and highly fantastic motion.

What is the exact explanation for the angled motion of Venus across the face of the Sun?  Doesn't Venus look like it is moving too fast? How can we see its motion over the course of 4 - 6 hours when the orbital motion is not that much faster than the Earth's?

The imagined orbit of Venus is supposed to be some 1.6 times faster than the Earth's assumed orbit. Both orbits are supposed to be in the same direction. We would expect to see far less motion, relative to the Sun, over the course of 4-6 hours. In fact we'd expect to see this Transit occur over the course of something like a full day or more. It seems that the transit itself occurs too fast.

Compare the Transit to Weekly Observations

Compare the position of Venus relative to the Sun over the course of some two weeks to the Transit time. Does this really make sense? Wouldn’t Venus need two or three days to seem to cross the face of the Sun as seen from Earth? Wouldn’t a day make more sense than 4- 6 hours? This assumes we’d be able to see a physical body against such a bright light source, which we would not. If indeed a sharp black spot can be observed crossing over the face of the Sun in 4 - 6 hours, the explanation cannot logically be the mainstream one. There are many problems with the mainstream model. We are not supposed to look for them and we are not supposed to ‘color outside the lines’. 

Just 0,4° apart, Venus and Jupiter setting on the evening of June 30th, 2015. Close conjunction of these bright planets in the dusk, timelapse 100x 22:20-23:40 hrs CEST.

Please with this time lapse of the planets Venus and Jupiter and notice how both planets stay the same relative distance apart and how they both appear to move with the dome of the sky. In other words the transit of Venus time lapses are very suspicious. The images of the planet Venus have to be highly manipulated to look as sharp as they do. Venus is too small to be seen relative to the overwhelming brightness of the Sun. We’d not expect to see it if it passed in front of the Sun, despite the mainstream claim. This time lapse shows us no relative motion between Venus and Jupiter, so we’d expect no such motion to be seen during the so-called transit of Venus. The Transit of Venus appears to be more of a long standing fairy tale and legend than anything else.

Buy my time lapse footage for Royalty free use: http://www.pond5.com/artist/AstroTimeLapse In the month of February 2016 five planets, Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter are visible in the early morning hours. The time lapse first show the Zodiacal light to the west, and then show the rising of the five visible planets (plus the moon) to the east.

The relative distances between the planet Venus and The Moon, stay the same. (see clip below) What does change is our apparent perspective, the dome of the sky is an apt description for the phenomena of the celestial bodies' motions in the sky. The heavenly bodies appear to arc over head. What is changing is the apparent brightness and the apparent rotation of the celestial bodies and not the relative distance between the Moon and Venus.

Here are a few interesting views of this astonomical event in high definition timelapse, including composited star trails using techniques developed by JCM Digital Imaging. Filmed with a Canon 5D Mk2 and 17mm-40mm wide angle f/4.0L lens from Santa Clarita, CA.


The Age Old Mystery Never Solved

The various celestial bodies would seem to be examples of what we might best termed as ionized gas effects due to the electrical field around the Earth. This is how light bulbs basically work. This basic is idea at least. The main point is that the mainstream model is very wrong. We need to look for other explanations if we desire to solve the mystery of the heavens.


Heliocentric Flaws: A Modern Mess of A Cosmological Model

On The Other Hand: Observation shows that the planets Venus and Saturn retain the same relative distance for days, while the two supposed celestial bodies clearly pass the Moon by, as if in some kind of celestial race. It is interesting that the planets seem to cover the same kind of visual distance over the same course of time relative to the Moon as they are supposed to relative to the (supposed) much more distant Sun. We will continue to research this subject and will either update this article or follow up with another one.

There are clear flaws with the modern Cosmological model. Even if some of the criticism presented here is wrong, the model still retains many foundational flaws that render it little more than nonsense. Modern Cosmology with its Big Bang pretense is little more than myth and modern form of religion. The mainstream model is a patchwork of ideas that is a literal house of cards waiting to fall.

Assumption Built on Assumption: The House of Cards Will Fall

Venus is supposed to have an observable atmosphere based upon observation of the celestial body as seen through Earth’s atmosphere. We are not supposed to think of other explanations. Here is another example of circular reasoning. The answer is assumed. We ‘know’ the Earth moves and orbits the Sun and we ‘know’ it rotates and all the rest of the catechism we’ve bee taught our entire lives. Modern Cosmology is a religion andnot science. Modern Cosmology is an example of Dark Age reasoning. It is a confusing and complex patchwork of conflicting ideas that make the Ptolemaic model look simple, putting to rest one of the original arguments for the Heliocentric Model in the first place. Please keep in mind, the initial Heliocentric Model is no longer the accepted one and the modern Cosmology would seem insane to people like Sir Isaac Newton and Kepler and the rest.

"To the naked eye, Venus appears as a white point of light brighter than any other planet or star (apart from the Sun).[110] Its brightest apparent magnitude, −4.9,[12] occurs during crescent phase, when it is near Earth. Venus fades to about magnitude −3 when it is backlit by the Sun.[11] The planet is bright enough to be seen in a clear midday sky[111] and is easily visible when the Sun is low on the horizon. As an inferior planet, it always lies within about 47° of the Sun.[13]

Venus "overtakes" Earth every 584 days as it orbits the Sun.[3] As it does so, it changes from the "Evening Star", visible after sunset, to the "Morning Star", visible before sunrise. Although Mercury, the other inferior planet, reaches a maximum elongationof only 28° and is often difficult to discern in twilight, Venus is hard to miss when it is at its brightest. Its greater maximum elongation means it is visible in dark skies long after sunset. As the brightest point-like object in the sky, Venus is a commonly misreported "unidentified flying object". U.S. President Jimmy Carter reported having seen a UFO in 1969, which later analysis suggested was probably Venus.

As it moves around its orbit, Venus displays phases like those of the Moon in a telescopic view. The planet presents a small "full" image when it is on the opposite side of the Sun. It shows a larger "quarter phase" when it is at its maximum elongations from the Sun, and is at its brightest in the night sky, and presents a much larger "thin crescent" in telescopic views as it comes around to the near side between Earth and the Sun. Venus is at its largest and presents its "new phase" when it is between Earth and the Sun. Its atmosphere can be seen in a telescope by the halo of light refracted around it."



A Long History of Circular Reasoning & Fantasy Sold As Fact

"In 1627, Johannes Kepler became the first person to predict a transit of Venus, by predicting the 1631 event. His methods were not sufficiently accurate to predict that the transit would not be visible in most of Europe, and as a consequence, nobody was able to use his prediction to observe the phenomenon."

"The first recorded observation of a transit of Venus was made by Jeremiah Horrocksfrom his home at Carr House in Much Hoole, near Preston in England, on 4 December 1639 (24 November under the Julian calendar then in use in England). His friend, William Crabtree, also observed this transit from Broughton, near ManchesterKepler had predicted transits in 1631 and 1761 and a near miss in 1639. Horrocks corrected Kepler's calculation for the orbit of Venus, realized that transits of Venus would occur in pairs 8 years apart, and so predicted the transit of 1639.[17] Although he was uncertain of the exact time, he calculated that the transit was to begin at approximately 15:00. Horrocks focused the image of the Sun through a simple telescope onto a piece of paper, where the image could be safely observed. After observing for most of the day, he was lucky to see the transit as clouds obscuring the Sun cleared at about 15:15, just half an hour before sunset. Horrocks's observations allowed him to make a well-informed guess as to the size of Venus, as well as to make an estimate of the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun — the astronomical unit. He estimated that distance to be 59.4 million miles (95.6 Gm, 0.639 AU) – about two thirds of the actual distance of 93 million miles (149.6 million km), but a more accurate figure than any suggested up to that time. The observations were not published until 1661, well after Horrocks's death."

"In 1663 Scottish mathematician James Gregory had suggested in his Optica Promotathat observations of a transit of the planet Mercury, at widely spaced points on the surface of the Earth, could be used to calculate the solar parallax and hence the astronomical unit using triangulation. Aware of this, a young Edmond Halley made observations of such a transit on 28 October O.S. 1677 from Saint Helena but was disappointed to find that only Richard Towneley in Burnley, Lancashire had made another accurate observation of the event whilst Gallet, at Avignon, simply recorded that it had occurred. Halley was not satisfied that the resulting calculation of the solar parallax at 45" was accurate.

In a paper published in 1691, and a more refined one in 1716, he proposed that more accurate calculations could be made using measurements of a transit of Venus, although the next such event was not due until 1761.[18][19] Halley died in 1742, but in 1761 numerous expeditions were made to various parts of the world so that precise observations of the transit could be made in order to make the calculations as described by Halley—an early example of international scientific collaboration.[20] This collaboration was, however, underpinned by competition, the British, for example, being spurred to action only after they heard of French plans from Joseph-Nicolas Delisle. In an attempt to observe the first transit of the pair, astronomers from Britain, Austria and France traveled to destinations around the world, including Siberia, Norway, Newfoundland and Madagascar.[21] Most managed to observe at least part of the transit, but successful observations were made in particular by Jeremiah Dixon and Charles Mason at the Cape of Good Hope.[22] Less successful, at Saint Helena, were Nevil Maskelyne and Robert Waddington, although they put the voyage to good use by trialling the lunar-distance method of finding longitude."


"The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy. 

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind. 

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary."

see also: Apologetics - Wikipedia

Propaganda - Wikipedia

Modern Cosmology is Cartoonish

If the phenomena of the transit is legitimate and not the result of photo and similar manipulation, then what we appear to be witnessing is a similar phenoimena to that of the Lunar and Solar eclipses and it is suggestive of some kind of electrical field explanation rather than the patchwork heliocentric based cosmological model we are presented with. See the article index for more, but modern Cosmology is flawed from its foundation. Newton’s orbital mechanics are proven wrong with basic demonstrable ballistics, for example. ( for more see: The History of Science Fiction: Kepler, Newton, Arthur C. Clarke & Artificial Satellites)

"By the 17th century, two developments allowed for the transits of planets across the face of the Sun to be predicted and observed: the telescope and the new astronomy of Johannes Kepler, which assumed elliptical, rather than circular, planetary orbits.[1]

In 1627, Kepler published his Rudolphine Tables. Two years later he published extracts from the tables in his pamphlet De raris mirisque Anni 1631 which included an admonitio ad astronomos (warning to astronomers) concerning a transit of Mercury in 1631 and transits of Venus in 1631 and 1761. The Mercury transit occurred as predicted and was observed by Johann Baptist Cysat in InnsbruckJohannes Remus Quietanusin Rouffach[2] and Pierre Gassendi in Paris, vindicating the Keplerian approach.[1] But their observations threw into question previous theories about the Solar System as Mercury was shown to be much smaller than expected.[3]

Although Kepler's calculations indicated that the 1631 transit of Venus would best be visible from the American continent, he was not fully confident of his prediction, and advised that European astronomers should be prepared to observe the event.[2]Gassendi and others in Europe watched for it but, as predicted, the Sun was below the horizon during the transit.[4][5] According to modern calculations, observers in much of Italy and along the eastern Mediterranean should have been able to view the last stage of the transit, but no such observations were recorded.[2] Kepler had predicted a near miss for a Venus transit in 1639[note 1] and, as the next full transit was not expected for another 121 years, Gassendi and the other astronomers concentrated their efforts in other areas."

"Jeremiah Horrocks (1618 – 3 January 1641)[3] was born in Lower Lodge, Toxteth Park, now part of Liverpool; his father, James was a watchmaker, and his mother Mary (née Aspinwall) was from a notable Toxteth Park family.[6] Several members of the Aspinwall family were also in the watchmaking trade, and it is said that a watchmaker uncle first interested Jeremiah in astronomy.[7] Jeremiah joined Emmanuel College on 11 May 1632 and matriculated as a member of the University of Cambridgeon 5 July 1632 as a sizar, which meant he did not have the means to fully support himself and was given specific duties to compensate for a reduction in fees.[4] At Cambridge, he would have studied the artsclassical languages, a little geometry, and some traditional astronomy, but not the latest work of Galileo, Tycho Brahe and Kepler. He used his spare time to teach himself the more demanding mathematical astronomy and familiarise himself with the latest thinking.[3] Horrocks read most of the astronomical treatises of his day, found the weaknesses in them, and was suggesting new lines of research by the age of 17. In 1635, he left Cambridge without formally graduating, presumably owing to the cost of graduation.[7][8]

After leaving Cambridge, Horrocks returned to his home in Lancashire and began collecting books and instruments in order to pursue his main interest, the study of astronomy.[9] In the summer of 1639, he left home and moved about 18 miles along the coast to the village of Much Hoole, where it is thought he took up a post as a tutor for the children of the Stones family, who were prosperous haberdashers living at Carr House, within the Bank Hall Estate, Bretherton.[10]"

How Did Horrock Demonstrate The Moon's supposed elliptical orbit? He Could Only Use a Mathematical Model. That is not Evidence,, This is an Example of Circular Reasoning. Modern Cosmology is founded on Logical Fallacy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

"Horrocks was the first to demonstrate that the Moon moved in an elliptical path around the Earth. He also wrote a treatise on Keplerian astronomy and began to explore mathematically the properties of the force that became known as gravityIsaac Newton in the Principia acknowledged Horrocks's work in relation to his theory of the Moon."

A long History of fudged Data - A House of Cards Built on Assumption

"William Crabtree (1610–1644) was a cloth merchant from Broughton Spout, a hamlet in the township of Broughton near Manchester, which is now part of Salford. The son of John Crabtree, a Lancashire farmer of comfortable means, and Isabel Crabtree (née Pendleton), he was educated at a grammar school in Manchester – probably the forerunner of Manchester Grammar School, which was then situated between the Collegiate Church and what is now Chetham's School of Music. He worked in Manchester, married into a wealthy family and in his spare time studied mathematicsand astronomy. He carefully measured the movements of the planets, undertook precise astronomical calculations and rewrote the existing Rudolphine Tables with improved accuracy. He maintained an active correspondence, much of it now lost, with Horrocks, two other young astronomers – William Gascoigne and Christopher Towneley – and Samuel Foster, Professor of astronomy at Gresham College, London and alumnus of Emmanuel College.[12] It is not known whether Horrocks and Crabtree ever met in person but from 1636 they corresponded regularly, and, because of their shared interest in the work of Johannes Kepler, referred to themselves, along with William Gascoigne, as nos Keplari (we Keplarians).[13]

Crabtree’s observations had convinced him that, despite their errors, Kepler’s Rudolphine Tables were superior to the commonly used Lansberg's tables, and he became one of the first converts to Kepler’s new astronomy. By 1637, he had convinced Horrocks of the superiority of the Keplerian system, and, using their own planetary observations, both men made many corrections to Kepler's tables, which Crabtree converted to decimal form.[12]

Transit of Mercury

On 29 September 1638, Horrocks wrote to Crabtree about a likely forthcoming transit of Mercury on 21 October 1638 (Old Style) which Kepler had not predicted. He explained that he intended to construct what would later be called a helioscope by attaching his telescope to an "oblong stick, carrying a plane surface at right angles to itself on which to receive the Sun’s image", and that he would draw a circle with numerical markings on a sheet of paper on which to project the image of the Sun. In the event, no such transit took place as Mercury passed over the Sun well outside the limit for a transit, but the exercise proved to be an important dry-run for the later observation of the transit of Venus.[1]

In October 1639, Horrocks had calculated that transits of Venus occur not singly, but in pairs eight years apart,[14] and realised that the second transit would occur in less than four weeks. He was convinced that a measurement could be made of the apparent diameter of the planet to within a fraction of a second of arc when it was seen as a dull black disk on the face of the Sun, compared to an accuracy of around one minute of arc when seen in its normal position as the bright morning star close to the Sun.[6] He wrote to his younger brother and to Crabtree in Broughton, advising them to observe the event on Sunday, 24 November (4 December New Style).[3] To quote Horrocks: "The more accurate calculations of Rudolphi very much confirmed my expectations; and I rejoiced exceedingly in the prospect of seeing Venus"..."

"Horrocks was concerned that the weather would be unfavourable for the transit as he believed the rare planetary conjunction would produce severe weather:

The chance of a clouded atmosphere caused me much anxiety; for Jupiter and Mercury were in conjunction with the Sun almost at the same time as Venus. This remarkable assemblage of the planets (as if they were desirous of beholding, in common with ourselves, the wonders of the heavens, and of adding to the splendour of the scene), seemed to forebode great severity of weather. Mercury, whose conjunction with the Sun is invariably attended with storm and tempest, was especially to be feared. In this apprehension I coincide with the opinion of the astrologers, because it is confirmed by experience; but in other respects I cannot help despising their more puerile vanities.

— Jeremiah Horrocks, Venus in sole visa[17]

At around midday on 23 November Horrocks darkened his room and focused the rays of sunlight coming through the window onto the paper where the image could be observed safely. At his location in Much Hoole (the latitude of which he determined to be 53° 35'), he calculated that the transit should begin at about 3:00 pm on Sunday the 24th, but he began his observations the previous day fearing that he might miss the event if his calculations proved to be inaccurate.[18] On the Sunday he began observing at sunrise, the weather was cloudy, but he first saw the tiny black shadow of Venus crossing the Sun at about 3:15 pm, and observed for half an hour until sunset at 3:53 pm.[17]

When the time of the observation approached, I retired to my apartment, and having closed the windows against the light, I directed my telescope, previously adjusted to a focus, through the aperture towards the Sun and received his rays at right angles upon the paper ... I watched carefully on the 24th from sunrise to nine o'clock, and from a little before ten until noon, and at one in the afternoon, being called away in the intervals by business of the highest importance which, for these ornamental pursuits, I could not with propriety neglect ... About fifteen minutes past three in the afternoon, when I was again at liberty to continue my labours, the clouds, as if by divine interposition, were entirely dispersed ... I then beheld a most agreeable spectacle, the object of my sanguine wishes, a spot of unusual magnitude and of a perfectly circular shape, which had already fully entered upon the Sun's disk on the left ... Not doubting that this was really the shadow of the planet, I immediately applied myself sedulously to observe it ... although Venus continued on the disk for several hours, she was not visible to me longer than half-an-hour, on account of [the Sun] so quickly setting ... The inclination was the only point upon which I failed to attain the utmost precision; for, owing to the rapid motion of the Sun, it was difficult to observe with certainty to a single degree ... But all the rest is sufficiently accurate, and as exact as I could desire.

— Jeremiah Horrocks, Venus in sole visa' [17][note 3]

Crabtree made his observations using a similar set-up but had insufficient time to make any measurements, as it was cloudy in Broughton, and thus he only saw the transit briefly. According to Horrocks: "Rapt in contemplation he stood for some time, scarcely trusting his own senses, through excess of joy ... In a little while, the clouds again obscured the face of the Sun, so that he could observe nothing more than that Venus was certainly on the disc at the time."[3] Afterwards, he made "so rapid a sketch" of Venus as it had passed across the Sun's disc, allowing Crabtree to estimate the angular size of Venus to be 1' 3", accurate to within 1 second of arc of its actual size; Horrocks's estimate of 1' 12" was less accurate."

Founding Fathers of British Research Astronomy


Kepler had found that the distance between the planets increased in proportion to their distance from the Sun, and this led him to assume that the universe was created with a divine harmony, and that the size of the planets would increase in the same way. He had written in 1618, "Nothing is more in concord with nature than that the order of magnitude should be the same as the order of the spheres".[19] When Horrocks's measurements of Venus, coupled with some erroneous measurements by Kepler and Gassendi, seemed to confirm this, Horrocks tentatively[note 4] proposed a law which stated that all planets (with the exception of Mars) would be the same angular size when viewed from the Sun, this being 28 arc seconds. This meant that the assumption Kepler had made about the sizes of the planets held true, and led Horrocks to the false conclusion that the distance between each planet and the Sun was about 15,000 times its radius. Thus he estimated the average distance from the Earth to the Sun to be approximately 60 million miles (97 million km), suggesting that the Solar System was ten times larger than traditionally believed.[13][19] His figure was much lower than the 93 million miles (150 million km) that the Astronomical Unit is known to be today, but, despite being based on a false premise, was more accurate than any suggested up to that time.

By 1640, Gascoigne had developed a reticle and a micrometer for his telescope, both of which would have been invaluable to Horrocks. He showed them to Crabtree, who told Horrocks about them, and reported back to Gascoigne saying: "My friend Mr Horrox professeth, that little Touch I gave him, hath ravished his mind quite from itself, and left him in an Exstasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you, Sir, slack not your Intentions for the Perfection of your begun Wonders."[20]

Horrocks produced several drafts of a Latin treatise Venus in sole visa (Venus seen on the Sun) based on his observations, which he presumably intended to publish, but he died suddenly from unknown causes on 3 January 1641, aged 22."

"Some of the drafts of Venus in Sole Visa were kept by Crabtree, who died in 1644, three years after Horrocks. Their other correspondent, William Gascoigne, died the same year in the Battle of Marston Moor. Horrocks's papers remained with his family for a short time; some were destroyed during the civil war, some were taken to Ireland by a brother, Jonas, and never seen again, and others passed into the collection of antiquarian and astronomer, Christopher Towneley, where they were consulted by Jeremy Shakerley, who wrote three books on astronomy in the mid-17th century.[3]Others were destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666. The manuscripts were widely circulated from the late 1650s although they remained unpublished for many years.[7]

The coronation of King Charles II took place on 23 April 1661 (3 May, New Style), the day of a Mercury transit across the Sun. Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygensattended the coronation, during which he heard about the Horrocks's manuscript, found in 1659 by John Worthington (Master of Jesus College, Cambridge and alumnus of Emmanuel College, where he was a contemporary of Horrocks),[3] together with some fragments of correspondence with Crabtree.[1][16] Huygens knew the eminent Polish astronomer Johannes Hevelius, and gave him the manuscript copy. Hevelius appended it to his report on the Mercury transit, Mercurius in sole visus Gedani, published in 1662.[1] The publication of Venus in Sole Visa by Hevelius caused great consternation at the newly founded Royal Society when it was realised that such an elegant and important paper by an Englishman had been neglected in his own country for so long. The mathematician John Wallis, who was a friend of Horrocks at Emmanuel College, and a founder member and leading light of the society, summed up the view of its members when he wrote:

I cannot help being displeased, that this valuable observation, purchasable with no money, elegantly described and prepared for the press, should have laid for two-and-twenty years, and that no-one should have been found to take charge of so fair an offspring at its father's death, to bring to light a treatise of such importance to astronomy and to preserve a work for our country's credit and for the advantage of mankind.[22]

The Royal Society assumed responsibility for publication of most of the remainder of Horrocks's work as Jeremiae Horroccii Opera Posthuma in 1672–73.[7]

The recording of the transit is seen by many as the birth of modern astronomy in Britain.[20] John Flamsteed later said he regarded Horrocks, Crabtree and Gascoigne as the founding fathers of British research astronomy and the intellectual heirs to Galileo and Kepler.[20] and began his three folio volume, Historia Coelestis Britannica (1745) by printing five pages of their letters and observations made between 1638 and 1643."

Transit of Venus, 1639

We can see that this visual evidence contradicts the heliocentric theory. 
There are many flaws in modern cosmology and this would seem to be one of them. There is an official expiation and that has to do with Venus not having a constant orbit around the Sun. The angle of its orbit changes. The Heliocentric model was sold to the public as being the simpler one. It is not. The Geocentric Ptolemaic model is the simpler one that is based on observation and experience and not theory and mathematical fudging. Modern Science relies on circular reasoning and is a house of cards waiting to collapse.



The Royals Told You They Saw Venus Cross The Sun

“On June 3, 1769, British navigator, Captain James Cook, British naturalist, Joseph Banks, British astronomer, Charles Green, and Swedish naturalist, Daniel Solander, recorded the transit of Venus on the island of Tahiti during Cook's first voyage around the world.[1] During a transit, Venus appears as a small black disc travelling across the Sun. This unusual astronomical phenomenon takes place in a pattern that repeats itself every 243 years. It includes two transits that are eight years apart, separated by breaks of 121.5 and 105.5 years.

These men, along with a crew of scientists, were commissioned by the Royal Society of London for the primary purpose of viewing the transit of Venus.

Not only would their findings help expand scientific knowledge, it would help with navigation by accurately calculating the observer's longitude. At this time, longitude was difficult to determine and not always precise.[2] A "secret" mission that followed the transit included the exploration of the South Pacific to find the legendary Terra Australis Incognita or "unknown land of the South."


PROPAGANDA WARNING: How could they see what they claimed and drew with the telescopes of the 1700’s? How could they have seen anything at all let along a sharply defined circle? At least they should have drawn a blurry out of focus speck, which would be closer to the truth.

There is no real evidence Venus ever passes in front of the Sun. There is no evidence Venus is a rock magically flying around in an imagined near infinite  “vacuum” of space. The actual evidence points to Venus being perhaps some kind of plasma effect, like the Sun itself and the other heavenly bodies. Ptolemy had it right, in terms of being a true scientist and basing his ideas on empirical evidence, observation, logic and common sense.

*Please note as far as I am concerned Ptolemy himself is just another mythic figure, the work itself is real, but whether or not the historical figure of Ptolemy really existed is another matter.

In the case of these ancient Greek and Roman figures we simply do not have the same solid record like we do with people like Edison and Tesla.

How did they observe the transit of Venus and draw it considering looking though a telescope at the Sun is apt to cause vision problems and the increased brightness would make seeing any detail like a speck, impossible.
If they used the projection method or some other filtering type method, they would be unable to discern the planet as there is no way that tiny speck could be revealed to them in that manner. There would simply not be enough visual information. 
In other words no matter how one looked at the Sun, the assumption should logically be that the transit of a planet in front of the Sun, should NOT be visible at all.
“While it's easy to learn how to look at the sun as there are several right ways, there are also many wrong ways to view the Sun. The danger is obvious: its disk is so bright that prolonged, direct exposure can cause permanent damage to the retina, leading to loss of vision or blindness. To observe the Sun safely, you need to filter out more than 99% of the Sun’s light before it reaches your eye.”

They Claim These Royal Society "Scientists" Saw the above through the telescope below. 

“James Short’s telescopes had a Gregorian design. This design was due to a Scottish mathematician James Gregory who suggested a design for a reflecting telescope in 1663, but was unable to build it himself or get someone else to build it for him. Hence the honour of building the first reflecting telescope went five years later to Isaac Newton, who presented a working model of his own design to the Royal Society in 1668.

A cross-sectional drawing showing light rays inside a Gregorian telescope. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons and ArtMechanic

The Gregorian design due to James Gregory is based on two mirrors: a primary mirror of parabolic shape and a secondary mirror of ellipsoid shape placed after the focus point of the primary to reflect the light back down the tube. There it passes through a small hole at the centre of the primary mirror and is then examined through an eyepiece.

James Gregory has a connection with the transit of Venus in addition to the fact that James Cook used a telescope of his design. In the same 1663 book Optica Promota that Gregory suggests his new reflecting telescope design he also makes the comment in a Scholium to Proposition 87 that

Hoc Problema pulcherrimum habet usum, sed forsan laboriosum, in observationibus Veneris, vel Mercurii particulam Solis obscurantis : ex talibus enim solis parallexis investigari poterit.
Or in English:

This prettiest of problems has a use, but perhaps a very laborious one, in the observations of Venus or Mercury obscuring a little part of the sun : indeed from such the parallax of the sun will be able to be investigated. (Translated by Ian Bruce)
Thus James Gregory did suggest using transits of Venus for solving the problem of the distance of the Sun long before Edmond Halley did in 1716. Halley receives credit as, unlike Gregory, he provided a practical method for making the measurement and not just a hint that transits could be used for the purpose.”


“The Royal Society was very disappointed in the results of data collected from the transit and Cook's report. The Tahiti observers had trouble with the timing of the stages and their drawings were inconsistent. They later found out that this was also true with the observers at the other locations. Observers from all over noted a haze or "black drop" that seemed to follow Venus making it very difficult to record time entry point on the sun and the exit from the sun.

For what they believed to be a failure in the observation, The Royal Society decided to blame Green who died on the voyage back to England. Cook's rebuke was so sharp that it was taken from[clarification needed] the official proceedings of the Society. Green was not given the opportunity to personally present his own data nor could he defend himself.”  

"Halley's 1716 article called for observers to witness the transit at various places on the globe. The response from the scientific community was astounding. There were at least 120 observers at sixty-two individual posts for the 1761 transit. Observations took place not only in Europe, but also included Calcutta, Tobolsk, Siberia, the Cape of Good Hope, and St. John's in Newfoundland.[18] The 1769 viewing also proved to be a vast international endeavor.[19] Even though the Seven Years' War was going on between Great Britain and France, the British Admiralty granted safe passage for French astronomer, Alexandre Guy Pingré on his way to view the 1761 transit.[20] During Cook's journey to Tahiti, the French government instructed all its men-of-war not to harm the Endeavour, since it was ‘out on enterprises of service to all mankind'.[2] With the Venus Transits, astronomers of the eighteenth century illustrated unity in the scientific community.

The entente, however, passed by noted astronomers and surveyors Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, who were attacked by the French, while voyaging to (unsuccessfully) observe the 1761 Transit in Sumatra.”


"Using the solar parallax values obtained from the 1769 transit, Hornsby wrote in Philosophical Transitions December 1771 that "the mean distance from the Earth to the Sun (is) 93,726,900 English miles." The radar-based value used today for the astronomical unit is 92,955,000 miles (149,597,000 km)."

"This is only a difference of eight-tenths of one percent."

"Considering what these astronomers had to work with, their results were "absolutely remarkable".


The Aristocracy that Funds Everything Else and Has for Centuries Also Controls What They Have You Convinced is "Science"

“The President, Council, and Fellows of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge,[1] commonly known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science and is possibly the oldest such society still in existence.[a] Founded in November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as "The Royal Society".[1] The Society is the UK and Commonwealth's Academy of Sciences and fulfills a number of roles; promoting science and its benefits, recognising excellence in science, supporting outstanding science, providing scientific advice for policy, fostering international and global cooperation, education and public engagement.

The society is governed by its Council, which is chaired by the Society's President, according to a set of statutes and standing orders. The members of Council and the President are elected from and by its Fellows, the basic members of the society, who are themselves elected by existing Fellows. There are currently about 1,450 fellows, allowed to use the postnominal title FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society), with up to 52 new fellows appointed each year. There are also royal fellows, honorary fellows and foreign members, the last of which are allowed to use the postnominal title ForMemRS (Foreign Member of the Royal Society). The current Royal Society President is Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, who took up the post on November 30, 2015.”

YOU ARE A WAGE SLAVE. The royals run the show- just follow the literal paper trail of treaties and laws all the way to the British Empire and The Royal Family. Their names not the names of the bankers are on the paperwork. This is what is hidden and the effort is about making you think you need the castle walls and people in robes to protect you.

You do not. The wars are as fake as "space". Its all a Hollywood theatrical production.

Compare above to below

A really bright light behind a small object means you won’t be able to see the small object as it will be drowned out by the light. The problem is compounded by the intervening atmosphere, dust, vapor and light pollution, which are all factors that make astronomy more difficult.

Photo Fakery? Such relatively small objects cannot look as sharp as we see them here. No matter what filter is used, the visual information would not be there in the first place. I've never seen aircraft pass in front of the Sun. Consider how small and minute those craft would actually be by looking at the illustration below. Some (ALL) of these photos have to be faked. The airplane and helicopter are too sharp, they should be more out of focus, they should be blurry and indistinct blogs if anything. Photography has always involved fakery.

Again a small object lit from behind by a much larger bright visible light source,  like the Sun, means the small object disappears and cannot be seen.



Compare to this video, notice how the bugs are white. The bugs do not appear in silhouette when they move into or in front of the light, they disappear.

I shot this short video at around 9pm in September 2013 at the National football stadium in Ta'Qali, Malta. Thousands of flying insects gathered around the huge floodlights and some of them got roasted (the steam that can be seen around the lights).

Note lack of silhouettes (or shadows) from the bugs that are right in front of the headlights. These bugs do not appear as sharp objects.


See how small of a speck Venus is and how out of focus? Both it and the Both it and the Sun can't be in focus at the same time.


The SUN (The big yellow circle) Compared to other Celestial Bodies, below:

“In astronomy the sizes of objects in the sky are often given in terms of their angular diameter as seen from Earth, rather than their actual sizes. Since these angular diameters are typically small, it is common to present them in arcseconds. An arcsecond is 1/3600th of one degree, and a radian is 180/\pi degrees, so one radian equals 3600*180/\pi arcseconds, which is about 206265 arcseconds.”


Another flaw is Newtonian orbital mechanics. The apple actually proves Newton wrong as the apple will always fall to the Earth and a celestial body like the Moon will not. Newton incorrectly thinks an accelerated velocity can be balanced by a fixed velocity. This is obviously wrong and no mathematical calculus fudging changes that fact. 

If A is a number that will forever increase and B=3, will A always be equal to B?

Venus is Supposed to be 78 Sun Diameters From the Sun



"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, and lex parsimoniae in Latin, which means law of parsimony) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

"Venus, with an orbit inclined by 3.4° relative to the Earth's, usually appears to pass under (or over) the Sun at inferior conjunction.[7]A transit occurs when Venus reaches conjunction with the Sun at or near one of its nodes—the longitude where Venus passes through the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic)—and appears to pass directly across the Sun. Although the inclination between these two orbital planes is only 3.4°, Venus can be as far as 9.6° from the Sun when viewed from the Earth at inferior conjunction.[8] Since the angular diameter of the Sun is about half a degree, Venus may appear to pass above or below the Sun by more than 18 solar diameters during an ordinary conjunction."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus

 A Whole Lotta Visual Propaganda:
Consider how small the Sun looks to us from here on Earth. Consider how small the Planet Venus looks from here and compared to the much larger and much brighter Sun. The Sun is brighter than anything we can even imagine let alone create. The light from the Sun would overpower any planet in front of it. You would be unable to see Venus no matter how powerful the telescope. There are things like light pollution and water vapor and particles of dust in the atmosphere. These factors make seeing Venus against the bright Sun an impossibility. Whatever one is or isn’t seeing, it’s not a physical moving planet as we are told. Sun spots and other phenomena are also reported and photographed in the same manner. I’ve looked at the Sun without a telescope, I do not recommend that anyone try this “at home” as the Sun is extremely bright and will permanently damage your vision. In any case what I can tell you his this, the Sun looks like a big star. A big perfectly round, unblemished cycle of light, with no visible sun spots. There are no plasma arcs not he sides or anything like any of the NASA photos show. It is just a white perfect circle that sort of twinkles like a star- and like a star it flashes “red white and blue”. Also,if you look at the Sun long enough it starts to look reddish. The Sun seems to be some kind of plasma related effect related to the Earth’s magnetic field, but that is the subject of another article.

Venus Throws Shade on Earth

“Amateur astronomer Pete Lawrence of Selsey, UK, photographed the elusive shadow of Venus just two weeks ago. It was a quest that began in the 1960s:

"When I was a young boy," recalls Lawrence, "I read a book written by Sir Patrick Moore in which he mentioned the fact that there were only three bodies in the sky capable of casting a shadow on Earth. The sun and moon are pretty obvious, but it was the third that fascinated me -- Venus."

Forty years passed.

Then, "quite by chance a couple of months ago," he continues, "I found myself in Sir Patrick's home. The conversation turned to things that had never been photographed. He told me that there were few, if any, decent photographs of a shadow caused by the light from Venus. So the challenge was set."

On Nov. 18th, Lawrence took his own young boys, Richard (age 14) and Douglas (12), to a beach near their home. "There was no ambient lighting, no moon, no manmade lights, only Venus and the stars. It was the perfect venue to make my attempt." On that night, and again two nights later, they photographed shadows of their camera's tripod, shadows of patterns cut from cardboard, and shadows of the boy's hands—all by the light of Venus.

The shadows were very delicate, "the slightest movement destroyed their distinct sharpness. It is difficult," he adds, "for a cold human being to stand still long enough for the amount of time needed to catch the faint Venusian shadow."

Difficult, yes, but worth the effort, he says. After all, how many people have seen themselves silhouetted by the light of another planet?

If you'd like to try, this is the week. Your attempt must come before Dec. 3rd. After that, the crescent moon will join Venus” in the evening sky, and any shadows you see then will be moon shadows.”


Fakin' The Space Station

Please notice that the International Space Station is supposed to orbit the Earth once every 92 minutes. Please notice too that according to the official material, below, you can only see the International Space Station twice a night, instead of every 92 minutes during the night as would be expected if this was a real object in a real orbit as they claim. You should be able to see the same white blob of light appear in the sky every 92 minutes, with its position varying as you rotate away from the space station's supposed orbital path.

NASA is a propaganda outfit designed for the television age using Hollywood Special Effects. The medium for the proverbial “Matrix” was and is video documentary and news. Both are propaganda more so than not.

Newton’s concept of orbital mechanics is flawed and wrong. Gravity is an accelerated phenomena and Newton’s imagined inertia is set at a fixed velocity. One cannot permanently balance the other. Energy would have to be continuously and magically added to the object and a medium would be needed to enable any body to achieve anything like the imagined orbit of Newton.
If A increases forever, and B=3, A cannot always equal B.

This is just like a brain teaser.

Can you pick out the many problems and contradictions in the material presented below?


Read the information above and consider this:
If we should expect to see the International Space Station every 92 minutes, why can we only see it twice a night?

Why is the timing is not a consistent 92 minutes between these two daily sitings?

Can we really rely on this information to spot the supposed space station ourselves and if so, are we not just seeing a natural phenomena?

This is obviously a long standing hoax.

Problem with the International Space Stations Orbit Explained:
We should expect to see the bright star like object to reappear in our sky every 92 minutes. We should see a gradual shift as we turn away from the Space Station’s orbital position. 

It should appear to get brighter and dimmer depending on its supposed position relative to the Sun and the Earth’s shadow. We should expect to see a consistent display that shows the somewhat gradual relative motion of the Earth as it turns away from the orbital path of the Space Station.

The Space Station is supposed to maintain the same orbit relative to the Sun as illustrated below.

The Space Station should be lit in a consistent manner as it goes from being more fully lit to being dark. The Earth turning the viewer away from the position of the space station’s supposed orbit is what would cause a gradual alteration in the appearance of the space station. We’d expect to see the more gradual effect of the imagined compounded motions and we do not. The Space Station should be lit in a similar manner to the Moon and its phases. Of course it would be too small to actually be seen even with a telescope.

Any photos of the Space Station taken from Earth are fake as the sky is too bright for such a relative tiny speck. The space station would be too small to be seen by any means.

As you can see the space station would remain consistently lit by the Sun as its relative position with the Sun does not change. It is the supposed turning of the Earth that creates the apparent difference in sitings.

Watch the animations, we should expect to see the space station in the eastern sky at sunset and in the western sky during sunrise. 

ISS Orbiting around the Earth

Look at the animations. Around the time the Sun would set, we’d should expect to seethe Space Station emerge from the south west sky. The station should be seen become illuminated as its supposed journey progressed in the same manner as the Moon appears to go from crescent to “Full Moon” and then back to a crescent only to then disappear as the “New Moon”. The Space Station would appear to do this within a 92 minute window. It would go from invisible to becoming visible as it progressed at some 18,000mph across the sky. 

 In the mainstream model we are supposed to be rotating with the Earth and the orbital path of the Space Station remains relatively still. So as sunset progressed to sunrise, we’d expect to see the relative position of the Space Station change as well. This should all happen during the course of the night. The 92 minute orbit would mean the Space Station’s position would be changing relative to the 24 hour day.

When the timing allows, the space station would be moving from the southwest towards the north east during the sun set (in the west). The space station would become visible as it moved towards the eastern sky, where there is no Sun.

During the sunrise the space station would be moving from the northwest towards the south east. The space station would become less visible as it moved towards the eastern sky, where the Sun is rising.

ISS Orbit Animation is an abstract visualization of the ISS and its to scale orbit around our planet earth. One revolution takes approximatly 92 minutes in reality which leads to roughly 16 revolutions per day. Would you like to know more?

The Space Station would be impossible to see were it real and moving in the heavens as claimed. It would be too small to be seen. Look up at the night sky and consider how small the high flying passenger jets are. Notice how they look at sunset or sunrise, or during the day, when illuminated by the Sun. The water and dust in the atmosphere, the reason why distant mountains appear blue and burry as they recede from the viewer is what would make seeing the Space Station in the sky impossible. The space station itself would be too relatively small and far way to be seen from the surface of the Earth with telescopic or not.

"Aerial perspective or atmospheric perspective refers to the effect the atmosphere has on the appearance of an object as it is viewed from a distance. As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases, and the contrast of any markings or details within the object also decreases. The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards the background color, which is usually blue, but under some conditions may be some other color (for example, at sunrise or sunset distant colors may shift towards red)."



"The major component affecting the appearance of objects during daylight is scattering of light, called skylight, into the line of sight of the viewer. Scattering occurs from molecules of the air and also from larger particles in the atmosphere such as water vapor and smoke (see haze). Scattering adds the sky light as a veiling luminance onto the light from the object, reducing its contrast with the background sky light. Skylight usually contains more short wavelength light than other wavelengths (this is why the sky usually appears blue), which is why distant objects appear bluish (see Rayleigh scattering for detailed explanation). A minor component is scattering of light out of the line of sight of the viewer. Under daylight, this either augments the contrast loss (e.g., for white objects) or opposes it (for dark objects). At night there is effectively no skylight (unless the moon is very bright), so scattering out of the line of sight becomes the major component affecting the appearance of self-luminous objects. Such objects have their contrasts reduced with the dark background, and their colours are shifted towards red."

Please note the Space Station is not supposed to be self luminous.

"The ability of a person with normal visual acuity to see fine details is determined by his or her contrast sensitivity.[1] Contrast sensitivity is the reciprocal of the smallest contrast for which a person can see a sine-wave grating. A person's contrast sensitivity function is contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. Normally, peak contrast sensitivity is at about 4 cycles per degree of visual angle. At higher spatial frequencies, comprising finer and finer lines, contrast sensitivity decreases, until at about 40 cycles per degree even the brightest of bright lines and the darkest of dark lines cannot be seen.

The high spatial frequencies in an image give it its fine details.[2] Reducing the contrast of an image reduces the visibility of these high spatial frequencies because contrast sensitivity for them is already poor. This is how a reduction of contrast can reduce the clarity of an image—by removing its fine details.

It is important to emphasize that reducing the contrast is not the same as blurring an image. Blurring is accomplished by reducing the contrast only of the high spatial frequencies. Aerial perspective reduces the contrast of all spatial frequencies."


Compare ISS to a Passenger Jet


Look up in the sky the next time a high flying passenger jet is present. Imagine that tiny speck is three times its size and 40 times the distance away from you. Do you think you’d see something that small even with a telescope? Even with the best telescopic lens?

Even if we imagine the Earth has no atmosphere, that there is no dust and moisture and gases surrounding us at all times, even without all the various forms of ‘light pollution” dust and the like, we’d still expect the International Space Station to be too small be to seen as anything but at most a blurry speck through a high powered telescope.

This would be if there were no intervening atmosphere, dust, moisture and light pollution, which there is. Any photo of the space station is fake. Any light seen in the sky is more than likely a natural or similar phenomena.



The Sun Appears Smaller Than Your Thumb

Below. Photo Fakery. The Space Station would not appear at all. This is supposed to be from an image that would be that many times relatively smaller than your thumb. This is fake.

it would be impossible to photograph the Space Station due to atmospheric perspective. Keep in mind this is supposed to be an object in motion with a velocity of some 18,000 mph.


BEFORE ISIS : THE SKYLAB HOAX - impossible Feats of Physics -

Jogging in weightlessness? :) Get real! It's fake. We have legs not wheels. Jogging or running or walking are all controlled free falls which is not happening in weightlessness. So there can't be no centrifugal force in SlyLab -- the conspirators made a huge mistake, they didn't know physics.

Calculate distance, knowing actual and perceived size


This is why it is important to not make math the foundation of one's thoughts. Common sense and logic need to be first. Math is a tool.

We've Benn 'HAD'. Depending on the unit of measure chosen, the result will vary considerably. This is the subject of a future article about the limits of mathematics as a tool.


Please note that the mathematical model below is based on the concept of the ratio.

The limits of math as a tool are revealed when we see that the result will always be the same ratio regardless of the unit of measure chosen. 

For example the International Space Station is supposed to be 249 miles away and some 0.0674242 of a mile in size, (or 356 feet in size). We have to convert either miles to feet or feet to miles or both to the metric system using meters or whatever other metric unit we desire as long as we remain consistent.

If we use miles as the unit of measure the result is 0.00027+ miles

If we use feet as the unit of measure the result is 0.00027+ feet

If we use meters as the unit of measure the result is 0.00027+ meters

If we use Kilometers as the unit of measure the result is 0.00027+ Km

The fact that the result is a ratio means that we will have inconsistent results and the perceived size of the object will depend entirely on the unit of measure we chose.

A consistent 0.00027 result, means a different visual size depending on the unit of measure chosen.

SEE THE PROBLEM? 0.00027 miles is a greater distance than 0.00027 feet or inches. 0.00027 Km is a greater distance than 0.00027 meters.

It’s a visual ratio and not some kind of absolute thing. In other words math does not always point to some kind of absolute truth. We can clearly see the limits of math as a tool. This is one reason why modern science is more propaganda and religion than anything else.

H=A/D: Space Station Sizes By The Numbers- See How This is All Wrong? See How Math Fails?

“While the fact that we base planetarium projectors on the Ptolemaic model of the universe that was developed almost 2,000 years ago may seem impressive, a better test of the model is how long the model was accepted by society.”

Even if figure out which is the best unit of measure to use by doing some simple measuring experiments in our own homes, we still can see that our modern Cosmological Model is deeply flawed.

Not only is there no room for planets around the stars (assuming they are suns)

but there is no empirically based math to back up the claims of the distances to the planets- the math is all based on assumption, one assumption built on another, like a house of cards.

The mathematical model is predicated on the concept of relative proportion and not some absolute mathematical unit of measure.

Ptolemy would seem to be right. 




We've Been HAD!

There is simply no visual evidence, no empirical evidence to support the modern nonsensical Cosmological patchwork model. In fact it looks as if Ptolemy was right.

Which Unit of Measure Do We Choose to make the Math Work Out?

The Modern Cosmological Model is deeply flawed.


A Real Space Station Would Not Only Fall Back To The Ground In a Parabolic Arc, But Would Be Too Small To See!

The Space Station would seem to vanish into the proverbial “Vanishing Point”.
The concept of an infinite distance is just an idea. Again we bump into the limits of math as a tool of perception and science.

Compare: ISS is supposed to be 356 feet long and the Passenger Jet is 125 feet or so.


"For The Mechanical Universe the computer pro- grams to generate the animation often use the mathematical functions associated with the physi- cal phenomenon being shown in the scene. Special computer programs are used to simulate the incre- mental motion of waves, atoms and springs. The 'blobby' software originally implemented for showing the polymerase-DNA interaction for the COSMOS series is used to show the attraction of hydrogen molecules. Blinn also developed a meth- od for putting mathematics in motion in the visual context of'algebraic ballets' to help the observer master these concepts.

The Mechanical Universe Project, with its 52 epi- sodes, presented the challenge of completing over five hours of animation based on scientific theory. To label, organize and track the tremendous amount of animation produced for the project over the three years, a language was devised for archiv- ing single frames, whole scenes and software used to generate them. Each component, be it a single frame, the animation chart used to generate the frame, or the completed animation for an entire episode was labeled and stored.

Special purpose animation programs have also been devised to simulate accurately the Voyager encounters with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Nep- tune for the N A S A fly-by animations. In the SPACE program, the relevant astronomy was mo- deled as well as the trajectory of the two Voyager spacecraft. The animation was then designed by working with several variables: the time of obser- vation; the location of the observer; the object looked 'at', or seen through the spacecraft 'cam- era'; or the observer's 'lens' (from wide angle through narrow angle ranges.) An unexpected ben- efit of the implementation of this program has been its use as a 'previewing' tool by the Voyager Mis- sion Planners when considering changes in space- craft trajectories or camera aimings." 


“Bob Holzman established the JPL CG Lab in 1977. Working with Ivan Sutherland, who had moved from University of Utah to Cal Tech, he envisioned a group with technology expertise for the purpose of visualizing data being returned from NASA missions. Sutherland recommended a graduate student at Utah named Jim Blinn, whose name has become synonymous with JPL and with graphics in general. (Sutherland once commented that "There are about a dozen great computer graphics people, and Jim Blinn is six of them.")

Blinn received his bachelor's degree in physics and communications science from the University of Michigan in 1970, before computer science was offered as a college subject. He went on to earn a master's degree in engineering at Michigan and a Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Utah in 1978.

Blinn had worked with various imaging techniques while at Utah, and had the vision to develop them into a viable system for the visualization task that Holzman outlined. Blinn produced a series of "fly-by" simulations, including the Voyager, Pioneer and Galileo spacecraft fly-bys of Jupiter, Saturn and their moons. Next, Blinn developed CG sequences for a Annenberg/CPB series, The Mechanical Universe, which consisted of over 500 scenes for 52 half hour programs describing physics and mathematics concepts for college students. He worked with Carl Sagan on the PBS Cosmos series.

Due to the overwhelming reception of the images produced for The Mechanical Universe, Blinn began production of another series devoted to advanced mathematical concepts. Originally titled Mathematica, the title had to be changed because of a software program called Mathematica for mathematics visualization. The series is now called Project Mathematics!

Blinn wrote a series for IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (for which he received the IEEE Service Award) and is the author of many influential papers, including

Blinn left JPL for Cal Tech, and later Microsoft, where he is involved with the Direct3D project. He received the SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics Achievement Award in 1983, the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and the prestigious MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1991, and the Coons award from ACM-SIGGRAPH in 1999. (A Microsoft press release annonces Blinn's SIGGRAPH award.)

Artist David Em was hired at JPL as an artist-in-residence, and adapted Blinn's visualization software to realize his own artistic ideas. Em admitted, though that the JPL deep space environment influenced the quality and look of his artwork. From the Digital Art Museum entry on David Em:

David Em started as a painter but in 1974 began to experiment with electronic manipulations of TV images. This led to his involvement with the Xerox Research PARC in Palo Alto and to collaboration with computer graphics pioneers Alvy Ray Smith and Dick Shoup, inventor of the frame buffer. In 1976 Em had access to equipment at Triple-I, set up by Gary Demos and John Whitney Sr., but it was the introduction to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the research work of pioneer James Blinn that led to Em's mature computer art style. The works produced at JPL led to the first ever artist's monograph published on digital art ( The Art of David Em , published by Harry N. Abrams)”

"By the end of the 1970s, Apple had a staff of computer designers and a production line. The company introduced the Apple III in May 1980 in an attempt to compete with IBM and Microsoft in the business and corporate computing market.[33] Jobs and several Apple employees, including Jef Raskin, visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox AltoXerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share."


PBS: Pushing Bad Systems on the public, PROPAGANDA OF COSMIC PROPORTIONS

"Cosmos: A Personal Voyage is a thirteen-part television series written by Carl SaganAnn Druyan, and Steven Soter, with Sagan as presenter. It was executive-produced by Adrian Malone, produced by David Kennard, Geoffrey Haines-Stiles, and Gregory Andorfer, and directed by the producers, David Oyster, Richard Wells, Tom Weidlinger, and others. It covers a wide range of scientific subjects, including the origin of life and a perspective of our place in the universe.

The series was first broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service in 1980, and was the most widely watched series in the history of American public television until The Civil War(1990). As of 2009, it was still the most widely watched PBS series in the world.[1] It won two Emmys and a Peabody Award, and has since been broadcast in more than 60 countries and seen by over 500 million people.[2][3] A bookwas also published to accompany the series.

Cosmos: A Personal Voyage has been considered highly significant since its broadcast; David Itzkoff of The New York Times described it as "a watershed moment for science-themed television programming"."



"Copernicus offered seven postulates:[6]

  1. Celestial bodies do not all revolve around a single point
  2. The centre of Earth is the centre of the lunar sphere—the orbit of the moon around Earth
  3. All the spheres rotate around the Sun, which is near the centre of the Universe
  4. The distance between Earth and the Sun is an insignificant fraction of the distance from Earth and Sun to the stars, so parallax is not observed in the stars
  5. The stars are immovable; their apparent daily motion is caused by the daily rotation of Earth
  6. Earth is moved in a sphere around the Sun, causing the apparent annual migration of the Sun; Earth has more than one motion
  7. Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun causes the seeming reverse in direction of the motions of the planets."


Copernican Controversy

"Emulating the rationalistic style of Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani sought to refute Copernicanism by philosophical argument. Copernicanism was absurd, according to Tolosani, because it was scientifically unproven and unfounded. First, Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. (No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.) Second, Tolosani charged that Copernicus' thought process was backwards. He held that Copernicus had come up with his idea and then sought phenomena that would support it, rather than observing phenomena and deducing from them the idea of what caused them. In this, Tolosani was linking Copernicus' mathematical equations with the practices of the Pythagoreans(whom Aristotle had made arguments against, which were later picked up by Thomas Aquinas). It was argued that mathematical numbers were a mere product of the intellect without any physical reality, and as such could not provide physical causes in the investigation of nature."


"Some astronomical hypotheses at the time (such as epicycles and eccentrics) were seen as mere mathematical devices to adjust calculations of where the heavenly bodies would appear, rather than an explanation of the cause of those motions. (As Copernicus still maintained the idea of perfectly spherical orbits, he relied on epicycles.) This "saving the phenomena" was seen as proof that astronomy and mathematics could not be taken as serious means to determine physical causes. Tolosani invoked this view in his final critique of Copernicus, saying that his biggest error was that he had started with "inferior" fields of science to make pronouncements about "superior" fields. Copernicus had used mathematics and astronomy to postulate about physics and cosmology, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of physics and cosmology to determine things about astronomy and mathematics. Thus Copernicus seemed to be undermining the whole system of the philosophy of science at the time. Tolosani held that Copernicus had fallen into philosophical error because he had not been versed in physics and logic; anyone without such knowledge would make a poor astronomer and be unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. Because Copernicanism had not met the criteria for scientific truth set out by Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani held that it could only be viewed as a wild unproven theory."

"Perhaps the most influential opponent of the Copernican theory was Francesco Ingoli, a Catholic priest. Ingoli wrote a January 1616 essay to Galileo presenting more than twenty arguments against the Copernican theory.[105] Though "it is not certain, it is probable that he [Ingoli] was commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy",[106](after the Congregation of the Index's decree against Copernicanism on 5 March 1616, Ingoli was officially appointed its consultant).[106] Galileo himself was of the opinion that the essay played an important role in the rejection of the theory by church authorities, writing in a later letter to Ingoli that he was concerned that people thought the theory was rejected because Ingoli was right.[105] Ingoli presented five physical arguments against the theory, thirteen mathematical arguments (plus a separate discussion of the sizes of stars), and four theological arguments. The physical and mathematical arguments were of uneven quality, but many of them came directly from the writings of Tycho Brahe, and Ingoli repeatedly cited Brahe, the leading astronomer of the era. These included arguments about the effect of a moving earth on the trajectory of projectiles, and about parallax and Brahe's argument that the Copernican theory required that stars be absurdly large.[107] Two of Ingoli's theological issues with the Copernican theory were "common Catholic beliefs not directly traceable to Scripture: the doctrine that hell is located at the center of Earth and is most distant from heaven; and the explicit assertion that Earth is motionless in a hymn sung on Tuesdays as part of the Liturgy of the Hours of the Divine Office prayers regularly recited by priests."[108] Ingoli cited Robert Bellarmine in regards to both of these arguments, and may have been trying to convey to Galileo a sense of Bellarmine's opinion.[109] Ingoli also cited Genesis 1:14 where God places "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night." Ingoli did not think the central location of the sun in the Copernican theory was compatible with it being described as one of the lights placed in the firmament.[108] Like previous commentators Ingoli also pointed to the passages about the Battle of Gibeon. He dismissed arguments that they should be taken metaphorically, saying "Replies which assert that Scripture speaks according to our mode of understanding are not satisfactory: both because in explaining the Sacred Writings the rule is always to preserve the literal sense, when it is possible, as it is in this case; and also because all the [Church] Fathers unanimously take this passage to mean that the sun which was truly moving stopped at Joshua's request. An interpretation which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers is condemned by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in the decree on the edition and use of the Sacred Books. Furthermore, although the Council speaks about matters of faith and morals, nevertheless it cannot be denied that the Holy Fathers would be displeased with an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures which is contrary to their common agreement."[108]However, Ingoli closed the essay by suggesting Galileo respond primarily to the better of his physical and mathematical arguments rather than to his theological arguments, writing "Let it be your choice to respond to this either entirely of in part—clearly at least to the mathematical and physical arguments, and not to all even of these, but to the more weighty ones."[110] When Galileo wrote a letter in reply to Ingoli years later, he in fact only addressed the mathematical and physical arguments.[110]

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."[111] The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis.[112] The corrections were made based largely on work by Ingoli."

The Controversy and Galileo

"On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[i] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[113]

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",[114] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.[115][116]

At the instance of Roger Boscovich, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[117] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index."

There is a huge problem with experiments like the Foucault Pendulum and with the related concept of the Coriolis effect.

This is a subject for an article that is in the works.

To put it succinctly, there is a history of criticism of the Foucault Pendulum experiments and this criticism has to do with how the experiment is not reproducible and what ‘experiments’ that are done are fudged more so than not. 

The second problem is inertia. In the Newtonian mainstream model there is inertia and this inertia is the equivalent to some 1000mph at the equator.

Of course there is no real evidence to support this concept so the nobility ginned up an experiment, or rather made a big deal out of a faulty experiment by way of their university system and publishing houses and associations like the Royal Society.

Inertia gets conveniently forgotten when it comes to both the Foucault Pendulum & Coriolis effect.  

This has to do with race cars making tight turns. Again this will be published with sources in an upcoming article, you can look all this up yourself. But the tighter the turn, the more energy you need to maintain the same velocity. If the energy stays the same, the speed is slower. So the tighter the turn or curve the slower the speed as long as the energy remains constant.

Velocity from Earth’s imagined inertia, is supposed to be constant. This means the Foucault Pendulum has the same inertia as every other object on Earth, in this model. So too for the Coriolis effect and long distant marksmanship. The Newtonian concept precludes such effects. Inertia means there should be no way to tell if the Earth was spinning.

The third problem is with the Foucault Pendulum experiment itself. It should be conducted at the imagined point of Earth’s rotation, IE the North Pole. The premise of this experiment ignores Newtonian inertia and imagines that a suspended weight can swing back and forth while the Earth spins beneath it.

So again even if we ignore inertia, which we cannot do if we buy into Newtonian based physics, then we still have a serious problem. The experiment was conducted originally in Paris. So the whole apparatus, weight and string included would be dragged around with the spinning globe as if it were on a merry go round. The Earth cannot rotate beneath the pendulum. It is an absurd idea.

The point I’m making is that these two experiments are irrelevant to Newtonian based physics and it goes to show how the propaganda is more important than logic or the truth. Check your brain at the door. Nature does not make mistakes and if this theory were based on empirical evidence, (IE nature), we wouldn’t find such glaring errors.

Detecting Planets

"For centuries philosophers and scientists supposed that extrasolar planets existed, but there was no way of detecting them or of knowing their frequency or how similar they might be to the planets of the Solar System. Various detection claims made in the nineteenth century were rejected by astronomers. The first confirmed detection came in 1992, with the discovery of several terrestrial-mass planets orbiting the pulsar PSR B1257+12.[35] The first confirmation of an exoplanet orbiting a main-sequence star was made in 1995, when a giant planet was found in a four-day orbit around the nearby star 51 Pegasi. Some exoplanets have been imaged directly by telescopes, but the vast majority have been detected through indirect methods such as the transit method and the radial-velocity method.

Early speculations[edit]

This space we declare to be infinite... In it are an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own.

Giordano Bruno (1584)[36]

In the sixteenth century the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno, an early supporter of the Copernican theory that Earth and other planets orbit the Sun (heliocentrism), put forward the view that the fixed stars are similar to the Sun and are likewise accompanied by planets.

In the eighteenth century the same possibility was mentioned by Isaac Newton in the "General Scholium" that concludes his Principia. Making a comparison to the Sun's planets, he wrote "And if the fixed stars are the centers of similar systems, they will all be constructed according to a similar design and subject to the dominion of One."[37]

In 1952, more than 40 years before the first hot Jupiter was discovered, Otto Struve wrote that there is no compelling reason why planets could not be much closer to their parent star than is the case in the Solar System, and proposed that Doppler spectroscopy and the transit method could detect super-Jupiters in short orbits.[38]

Discredited claims 

Claims of exoplanet detections have been made since the nineteenth century. Some of the earliest involve the binary star70 Ophiuchi. In 1855 Capt. W. S. Jacob at the East India Company's Madras Observatory reported that orbital anomalies made it "highly probable" that there was a "planetary body" in this system.[39] In the 1890s, Thomas J. J. See of the University of Chicago and the United States Naval Observatory stated that the orbital anomalies proved the existence of a dark body in the 70 Ophiuchi system with a 36-year period around one of the stars.[40] However, Forest Ray Moultonpublished a paper proving that a three-body system with those orbital parameters would be highly unstable.[41] During the 1950s and 1960s, Peter van de Kamp of Swarthmore College made another prominent series of detection claims, this time for planets orbiting Barnard's Star.[42] Astronomers now generally regard all the early reports of detection as erroneous.[43]

In 1991 Andrew Lyne, M. Bailes and S. L. Shemar claimed to have discovered a pulsar planet in orbit around PSR 1829-10, using pulsar timing variations.[44] The claim briefly received intense attention, but Lyne and his team soon retracted it."