OPEN LETTERS SENT TO ADVOCATES FOR

THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE AND

THE EXPANSION TECTONICS
THEORIES,
AND EXPLORING HOW THESE THEORIES CONNECT

David Ross Goben

Photo credit: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope (PIA01322: Chaos at the Heart of Orion)
 Page 2

OPEN LETTERS SENT TO ADVOCATES FOR

THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE AND
THE EXPANSION TECTONICS THEORIES,
AND EXPLORING HOW THESE THEORIES CONNECT

By David Ross Goben.

Copyright © 2011-2021 by David Ross Goben. All rights reserved.

Kissimmee, FL, USA

First Released 10 September 2011. Revision 18.
(Note: All revisions have been to correct spelling, phrasing, grammar, to add clarifying
details, answer reader queries, and also to correct or further clarify these changes)

This document features the core letters and relevant supporting research essays.
 Page 3

Table of Contents
Dedication.....................................................................................................................4
Intuitive Consciousness..............................................................................................5
Notes to the Reader.....................................................................................................6
Abstract.........................................................................................................................9
Abstract Notes......................................................................................................11
Introduction.................................................................................................................19
The Letters..................................................................................................................32
Letter of 13 August 2011 (Correction for 11 August 2011)...................................33
Letter of 12 August 2011.......................................................................................42
Letter of 8 September 2011..................................................................................50
Introduction to Supplementary Background Resources Developed and
Employed as I Constructed This Document.......................................................70
Regarding the Impossibility of Black Holes...........................................................83
Exploring What Happened During the Solar Eclipse of 1919...............................93
Mythematic Sarcasm.............................................................................................99
Einstein, the Stumbling Manufactured Hero.......................................................102
Prelude...........................................................................................................102
Part One: Einstein as a Stumbling Hero............................................................114
Part Two: Concerning Those Who Made Einstein Great.....................................120
Important Reference Resources.............................................................................146
About the Author......................................................................................................148

Free Online PDF Documents Available by David Ross Goben...........................149

Open Letters Sent to Advocates for the Electric Universe and Expansion
Tectonics Theories.........................................................................................149
Enhancing Visual Basic .NET Applications Far Beyond the Scope of Visual Basic
6.0...................................................................................................................150
Doom 3 Walkthrough and Strategy Guide.........................................................151
Getting Fit After 40 - A Practical No-Nonsense Guide........................................... 152
Also Available from the Author..............................................................................153
A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity..........................................153
Recent Important Free PDF Public Posts on my Google Drive..........................154

NOTE: The reason this document embodies so may supplementary documents beyond the core
open letters is to help bring the outside laymen reader “up to speed” on the principle and also the
underlying material being discussed within these letters, so they will have a much more robust
understanding of it, and too, sometimes of the outright falsehoods that mainstream “science” has
admonished them to believe, even though the purveyors of these doctrines themselves quite often
do not even believe it. This additional material is comprised of papers that I wrote to round out my
research into the core material, to more fully explore the foundation of their underlying history.
 Page 4

Dedication.
For Leslie, wherever you are. I miss you…
 Page 5

Intuitive Consciousness.

“A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold

all of my mistakes.”
—Albert Einstein, Princeton University, 1935, when he was asked what he would require for his
study.

“When faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other

respects, select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.”
—Occam’s Razor; a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of
Ockham.

“Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the

living are to the dead.”
—Aristotle, 384–322 B.C.E.

“Our senses enable us to perceive only a minute portion of the

outside world.”
—Nikola Tesla, The Transmission of Electrical Energy Without Wires As a Means for Furthering
Peace, 1905.

“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one

that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”
—George Orwell, from a review in Poetry Quarterly, Winter 1945.

“Intuitive skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely

nothing.”
—Sir Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, 2000.

“Be careful when you look down your nose at someone because
you might be standing on your head.”
—David Ross Goben, Chariton, Iowa, 1970 (age 15).
 Page 6

Notes to the Reader.

Dear Reader, if instinct or experience compels you to dismiss material
shared herein, I beg you to grace me with an enormous favor of
intellectual generosity: Instead of simply discarding this document out of
hand, please take a moment to use this PDF document’s Comment option
so to embed within it notes regarding points you feel grate your senses and
kindly explain to me why you feel so. Cite as much evidence or links as
you feel is requisite to support your opinions. The latest versions of PDF
readers, like Adobe Reader and Microsoft Edge's PDF Reader allows you
to highlight text in PDF documents, add comments, or add comments to
highlighted text. Save that edited version and email it to me at
david.ross.goben@gmail.com. I would very much be interested in those
opinions, and I am especially excited to investigate different and
especially opposing views. If you have trouble downloading a PDF copy, I
would be happy to email it to you or give you a more accessible link. I
will also be just as happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thanks so much to those of you who have already submitted opinions and
arguments, some repeatedly. Your invaluable input has most certainly helped
shape the present form of this document and has resulted in a deliciously
robust expansion of it, making the details for some originally minor points so
arresting and somwtimes so densely detailed they are now as exhaustive as a
Dostoyevsky novel. Information is the sweet nectar upon which I feed. Some
of you arguing, some quite passionately, sometimes about the use of a single
word, were often surprised that I actually do truly relish opposing opinions.
I am not one to rail or ridicule. To me, posturing is a pointless drivel – a
primitive defensive contrivance resorted to by those with no leg to stand on,
so I do not waste my time in indulging it. My views are but liquid, never cut
into stone, because a view can change with just a word that is spoken in
Truth. And Truth is more important than any personal opinion. I will rectify
such errors if you are correct, though I may choose to argue them using the
sources I drew from to make my points, to bolster my stance if they are proof
against your dispute. I ask only that you return such calm congeniality.
Sometimes, to protect our inner sense of understanding, we feel compelled to
instantly cease reading when our personal worldview is challenged. This is
owing to our primitive instinct of intuitive pessimism awakening, which we
use to block out anything that does not conform to our personal belief system
by giving us a sense of discomfort and threat; thus allowing only that which
agrees with our personal senses of Truth to pass through us with impressions
of peace and tranquility. But if we are never willing to listen to each other,
especially to opposing views, then we can never actually learn anything!
 Page 7

To truly understand something, we must look to all sides of it. Thus, when
seeking for the Truth of a thing, we should hunger for ALL of its facets,
no matter if they agree or disagree, inspire us or trouble us. In the end,
come ruin or rapture, all that matters is TRUTH.
Be aware that many sometimes very long and often multileveled
supplementary notes and/or digressions are embedded throughout this
document to both clarify ideas and to act as sidebars to more fully
elucidate a concept, a history, or an opinion. Ideas may seem simple, but
the particulars surrounding them that make them appear simple seldom
are, and to explain a simple position can often illustrate how multifaceted
and truly complex a presumed simple idea can actually be. And as you are
about to discover, I am a glutton for the minutiae of facts; for facts are the
unyielding foundation upon which the legitimacy of any idea stands.
In March of 2012, due to reader insistence and to help clarify some of my
answers to their queries, I finally decided to append a few of the referential
essays I had composed to round out my research into the history that
embodies the underpinning of this document, exploring many of its long
hidden or obfuscated events as I cobbled the core thesis together. One essay
in particular, collating decades of research, explores what possibly could be
driving the corruption that had slowly infested broad fields of the sciences
across the most part of the 20th Century, which has fomented in some cases a
whimsical “enforced-popular” view that can often be less science and more
pseudoscience; exposing an agenda of general consciousness-management
and the review process (anonymous censorship) that too often neuters an
otherwise useful scientific peer-review system, too frequently discouraging or
rejecting discoveries or insights that directly challenge the status quo; giving
flesh to a long-mysterious cabal who may have propped Einstein up as a
beacon for this new and quasi-religious view, though not as their prime
directive, but simply as a mere cog in the wheels of their ultimate motives.
I add these essays to more effectively illuminate often ignored, though
also often exceptionally relevant background details in order to give
substance to responses I gave to a wide range of reader queries and
arguments. Most submissions were gracious, helpful and insightful,
though some few were quite rabidly vicious, saturated with threat and
puissant vitriol, offering little evidence but say-so for their insistence that I
withdraw this document. These essays have expanded this already densely
detailed discourse by another 80 pages. You can, of course, ignore these
essays if you prefer, though ignoring them might also deny you of some
quite remarkable and pertinent historical enlightenment.
 Page 8

Now, prepare yourself for a Gnostic rollercoaster ride through a vast ocean of
information and history, a great deal of which had in the past been
intentionally obscured. Such knowledge had often been masked in order to
obstruct its otherwise easy access by us: The Curious Masses. Those hiding it
would prefer that we not ever see it, that we not even be aware of it unless we
are first indoctrinated to, and suffer complete dependence upon their own
view, which may also require ignoring facts not favorable to that perspective,
prejudicing us against sometimes more enlightened insights, but to instead
perceive such enlightened insights as if they were the ravings of mad men.
This is not because such guarded knowledge is treacherous to our knowing.
They fear that we might grok it; that we might understand that the house of
cards upon which their tenures and funding and reputations stand may in fact
be tattered, outdated and even irrelevant. Think about it. True scientists do not
squabble over points of view, nor are they ever concerned with maintaining,
never breaking, or even creating consensus. They are concerned only with
facts. They approach these facts logically and with clinical reasoning, ever
testing them, not vomiting distain and ridicule upon them without a moment’s
hesitation. A scientist doing such should immediately be marked as suspect.
They impose their beliefs on us by boldly declaring them as though these
beliefs were definitive answers to the mysteries of our Universe, and impress
us by lining up accomplices or even naive lapdogs that boast impressive-
sounding alphabet titles who all solemnly intone accord with sober reverence.
In defense and without hesitation they will even scold us and chide us as if we
were misbehaved children if we but give voice to the slightest of doubt.
In that we should awaken to the truth of the matter: that they are so
damned afraid that we will otherwise become emboldened enough to once
more be the independent and original thinkers that our ancient ancestors
were, who were not the dumber-than-a-rock knuckle-dragging brutes we
have for far too long been told that they were, empowering us to challenge
their methods with intelligent intuition, insight and reason, and extricate
the stranglehold they otherwise grip on the throat of our thinking, thus
setting free the greater edification of our wisdom.
—David Ross Goben
NOTE: For a well-written perspective on how counter-intuitive thinking, censorship,
and academic blacklisting has corrupted many fields of science, see the book
“AGAINST THE TIDE – A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and
Astronomy Get Done” by editors Martín López Corredoira & Carlos Castro
Perelman, available at www.archivefreedom.org. From this site you can access the 13-
chapter free PDF version or order the 14-chapter hard-bound book. If you value
academic freedom and find academic blacklisting, scientific censorship and
repression repulsive, be sure to read this book and pass it on to everyone you know.
 Page 9

Abstract.
Since their initial proposals, gathered evidence has only reinforced the
Electric Universe and the Expansion Tectonics theories. In spite of this, each
time additional evidence for either is reported, or yet another of a fast-
growing body of scientists, especially among those of important and augustly
respected note, dares to declare favor for one or the other, select advocates for
presumed “standard” theories pop up like South African meerkats, as if
alerted to an impending threat, and respond with typically scripted salvos of
protest, too frequently droning the same old and practiced slogan-laced retorts
like Gregorian Chants, or even resort to ad hominem attacks if this tactic fails,
questioning their character but not the actual science, often in an attempt to
deflect the expected reactionary calls for the attackers themselves to in turn
defend their own positions, as if their need to deny the public’s access to, or
worse, their acceptance of opposing ideas was a matter of personal or
professional survival. It might be no wonder. In these last few decades,
tenures, funding and reputations have often been decided upon which ideas,
real or imagined, are accepted by those providing their support and funding.
The Electric Universe (also known as the Plasma-Based Universe) is a
theory proposing, just as in all biological, planetary and extra-planetary
venues, such as being reflected in comet comas, solar activity and in
spectacular galactic displays, that the entire Universe is structurally bound
by electricity through simple and logical demonstrable applications of
electrodynamics and circuit theory, not by a convoluted, confused and
often self-defeating application of gravity. This proposal is accentuated by
the fact that 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe is highly
energetic electrified plasma. The remaining 0.01% is composed of 90%
Hydrogen, 10% Helium, and but trace amounts of all other elements.
Electricity, which, as stated above, is active in and affects at least 99.99%
of all known matter, is a force that is 39 orders of magnitude, or a
thousand billion billion billion billion times more attractive between
physical or particulate bodies than gravity. Unlike electricity, which has
infinite range, gravity instead fails entirely at the square of the distance
between acceleration-balanced bodies, being famously the weakest force
known to science, and often referred to as being infinitely weak. Further,
because of electricity’s tremendous force of attraction, a plasma-based
universe has absolutely no need of the yet unconfirmed mathematical
inventions of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, or any
other of an ever-expanding list of unverified and untested, but frequently
interdependent conjectures that, sadly, must often be simply assumed to be
fact just to prop up the now precariously faltering gravity-based model.
 Page 10

Expansion Tectonics proposes that the Earth and other celestial bodies
expand, such as the Moon and Mars, and demonstrate this by observed,
analyzed, and measured geological evidence. It has absolutely no need to
rotate, collide, or subduct continental plates through unproven and now
admittedly impossible convection as is required by Plate Tectonics theory,
but for which there currently exists little to no empirical evidence to
support such exceedingly complex conjectures, and which many of its
supporters also claim the Earth is, perhaps by a cosmic miracle, the sole
host to such incredibly intricate processes in all the solar system.
In spite of little to no empirical evidence supporting a Gravity-Based
Universe or Plate Tectonics, the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics
are slow to acceptance, even though overwhelming evidence exists for them.
The problem is they threaten the currently comfortably-held memes of
scientists that depend more on conjectural mathematical models, or thought
experiments, which deals entirely in hypothetical universes and imagined
scenarios than it does with the actual Universe and physical events. Worse,
observations made of the Universe and of physical events have a historic
tendency to disprove or cripple mathematical models. After all, mathematical
models are supposed to be designed as a result of, and simulate observation
and measurement of the physical universe, not the other way around.
I will compare the evidence between the Electric Universe and the
Gravity-Based Universe, and between Expansion Tectonics and Plate
Tectonics. I will also explore the long-held Prime Matter (Aether) theory
that can strengthen the liquefacting sand upon which Particle Physics now
finds itself, and which also strongly links the Electric Universe with
Expansion Tectonics and makes these two models all the more plausible.
To help you understand much of the Physics described in this document in
layman’s terms, be sure to visit Bruce Harvey’s website at www.bearsoft.co.uk.
Also, regarding Einstein’s assumptions on light, the speed of light and the
Aether, please also read Bruce’s short but very enlightening two-page
document, Einstein’s Errors, at http://bearsoft.co.uk/new_site/phys/rel-errs.pdf.
For interesting perspective, be sure to additionally read A History of the
Theories of Aether and Electricity (From the Age of Descartes to the
Close of the Nineteenth Century) by E. T. Whittaker, Royal Astronomer
of Ireland, 1910 (http://archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich).
—David Ross Goben
 Page 11

ABSTRACT NOTES.
NOTE: Every particle, subatomic or not, expresses an electromagnetic field, though
Relativists insist that Dark Matter does not, at least according to their most popular
but now-faltering Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory, submitting that its particles be 9
times the mass of Protons. Even though cosmologists are having grave issues with
its reliability, they are forced to accept this purely speculated supposition so that the
gravity model can sustain acceptance. This is because they speculate that Dark
Matter generates and is affected by gravity, just like normal matter, but by some
cosmic miracle is conversely electromagnetically neutral, which is a patently ludicrous
conjecture that would have to defy all the laws of physics and electrodynamics, as
this document will clarify. A lone exception, however, is Prime Matter, the base
component of the Aether, a subject we will repeatedly revisit herein, being a positron,
a positively charged 1-electron-weight mass suspended as a plasmoid standing
wave, as such charges are naturally wont to do, and enveloped within an electron
wave shell, as such charges are naturally wont to do. This forces their fields to fold
inwardly and cause this composite wave to be electromagnetically neutral, making it
the most fundamental, collapsed form of matter in the universe, being together less
the width of two electrons (a positron is not an antimatter electron, because antimatter
does not exist, as I will later clarify, which will also demonstrate how unfeasible this idea is,
especially once you realize what relativists do recognize this composite waveform as being).
SUBNOTE: For a critical analysis and structural details of the electron-positron makeup of the
Aether, refer to physicist Allen Rothwarf’s paper, An Aether Model of the Universe, at
http://epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf , and other documents at that site. Also see Sid Deutsch’s
related paper at https://siddeutschwrites.wordpress.com/a-physicist-embraces-the-aether/ .
NOTE: Hydrogen, the most common element, is electromagnetically bondable. A
Hydrogen Bond, integral to most latticing molecules (liquid crystals), like water surface
cohesion, is an especially powerful dipole-dipole attraction, being the electromagnetic
attractive interaction between polar molecules in which it is bound to a highly
electronegative atom, like Nitrogen, Oxygen or Fluorine. Helium, the second most-
common element, however, is not reactive and does not bond with other elements.
NOTE: Some physicists are now floating the curious idea that gravitation might
be many orders of magnitude weaker than the other fundamental forces in nature
because they think it might be “leaking” into extra dimensions (please refer to
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/aug/24/modified-gravity-fails-at-long-distances# ). But
if that is the case, then why do the other forces not likewise leak? The four forces are
the strong interaction force that holds atomic nuclei together; the electromagnetic
force acting between charged particles, having infinite range and producing
electricity, magnetism and light; the weak force responsible for radioactive decay;
and finally the gravitational force. My opinion on this matter, to include their newly
proposed fifth force, is that all these forces will in the end simply be varied
interpretations of a singular, fundamental force of electromagnetic wave energy.
NOTE: Aether (Prime Matter) was a fundamental component of science until Einstein
presented his clearly plagiarized and mathematically abbreviated ideas that ignored
it. The din of thundering protest from the halls of academia railed squarely against his
bold audacity made it clear that Einstein had stepped over the line (not acknowledging
discovery priority alone was usually enough to cripple one’s career). Fortunately for him,
before 1920, such angry shouts from the environs of academia were seldom heard by
the public, for the public would only hear that which the media in turn shared with
 Page 12

them, thus controlling the public voice of the sciences, and the moguls of the media,
paradoxically, were instead lavishing embarrassingly disproportionate praise on their
new bad boy of science, which, as a result, quickly quieted the din of academic
protest to a suppressed murmur, because philanthropists were afterward focusing
their financial support primarily to those who advocated Einstein; the world’s first
superstar. This forced opposing scientists, in need of funding, to talk out of both sides
of their mouths (governments, the military, and business interests were not yet involved in or
issuing grants for scientific research, and until then scientists were entirely dependant upon
private funding, sponsorships, or “day jobs”, which explains why Albert Einstein had been
working as a Swiss patent clerk after he failed to secure a university post, just as did most
other scientists at that time and previous, who did not have funding beyond their own means).
Though the work which Einstein used to write his 1905 paper depended on the
mechanical effects of Aether, acting as a stationary fixed-bed medium, which enables
the function of electromagnetism and is why energy has sinusoidal waveforms,
Einstein seemed to lack a clear understanding of this importance, though I suspect it
is more probable that he was simply presenting his own version of, or spin on
Hendrik Lorentz’s, and especially Jules Henri Poincaré’s physics (refer to the
paper, Poincaré, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret, by C. Marshal at
http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf), featuring only those parts that he agreed
with, but clearly excising those parts that he did not, yet providing no explanation for
why he zeroed out some critically important terms, such as the Aether, except to
perhaps simplify his mathematics, hence emulating Oliver Heaviside’s popular
abbreviating, but flawed methodology (see page 15 for details), even though Lorentz
and Poincaré had to account for it in order for their equations to reflect reality.
Einstein may have rejected Aether if he had accepted the 1881 and 1887 conclusions
of two prominent anti-Aether scientists, Michelson and Morley, who famously tested
for the Earth moving through it. They concluded that their experiments failed to detect
it, though this was primarily due to the experiments being founded upon a grossly
erroneous assumption: that Aether was gaseous when it must actually be very dense
(considering this narrow view, I suspect that the experiments could have been meant to fail,
which would not be the first time studies had been designed to yield a pre-determined result,
especially when funding is at stake. One only has to consider that scientific studies are
supposed to be designed to evaluate a broad range of test platforms to draw a confident
conclusion). Nikola Tesla, conversely, succeeded in his own experiments because he
better understood the need for Aether, as the Firmament, having a crushing density.
SUBNOTE: Despite this gross design flaw in the Michelson-Morley experiments and of their
declaration of failure, the results were not null but did in fact detect the Aether. However, this
reading was, like so much else that does not conform to a study’s sought-for result, brushed aside.
SUBNOTE: Dayton Miller, working with Morley in 1900 and performing far more rigorous
versions of the earlier Michelson-Morley experiments, later known as Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift
Experiments, confirmed the detection of the Aether. Regarding these experiments, Albert Einstein
said in 1925, “My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result
be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its
current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and
gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.” In
1928, Miller stated: “The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the
possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect.” Relativists refuse to recognize
such facts of history, like so much else that does not conform to their views. See http://ether-
wind.narod.ru/Miller_1925_Nature/Miller_1925_Nature_ocr.PDF and www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm.
(Regarding inertia and gravitation, also refer to An Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia and
Gravitation by Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda at www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_staif98.pdf .)
 Page 13

SUB-SUBNOTE: “Experimentum summus judex” is Latin for “experience the highest judge.”
SUBNOTE: The term Aether was adopted in the 1950s from the elder Ether so to avoid confusion
with chemical ether. Some claim this makes it appear archaic, but this form had in fact already been
in regular use by the likes of Gauss and Maxwell. For me, I prefer Aristotle’s term: Prime Matter,
though most others prefer the more modern term for this most collapsed form of matter: neutrinos.
Relativists will deny the existence of Prime Matter, yet, paradoxically, they will
believe in the spherical reactive waves necessary to explain how a single
electromagnetic event (i.e., a light burst) can express itself in infinite directions
simultaneously, yet not deplete all the energy in the Universe for that one event,
rendering Einstein's concept of Photonic particles laughable, being that they are
clearly the loci of energetic transference, being reactions transferred through a
fixed-bed medium, they failing to explain this transfer medium that must exist so
to transfer its energy in all directions at once, which also defines the speed of
light. It cannot be ordinary, or even Dark Matter because they lack the incredibly
dense and uniform proximity required to effectively billiard-ball these waves of
energy (the elements of this medium must be densely packed enough to instantly affect
and react to each other, which particulate matter or even the imagined density of
presumed Dark Matter cannot do, not to mention being harmonic enough to express the
almost infinite resonances, which would echo through them from any given direction and
at any given time), thus leaving Aether the only viable solution (which is, as we shall
see, only two electron-weights in mass). As we further explore Aether, it will become
clear that for Relativists to admit the Aether exists is to admit their tenants are
built on hills of sand (and this is likely why they must deny it, even as they seek to find a
zero-point energy field that operates exactly like Aether, but one that they hope will not
be based upon electrodynamics, but rather upon their own gravity-based tenants).
NOTE: Electromagnetism is responsible for all interactive phenomena in daily life
but for one small localized exception: gravity. However, it is becoming clear that
what we interpret as a force of gravity will likely end up being just a simple effect
of electromagnetism. For greater elucidation on this increasingly important
matter, see, for example, Physicist Wal Thornhill’s online articles, Electric
Gravity in an Electric Universe (www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs) and
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System (www.holoscience.com/news.php?
article=q1q6sz2s), or the many articles and research papers found on the late
Harold Aspden’s Energy Science Reports website (www.haroldaspden.com).
NOTE: In the 1905 paper on the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein
(or his wife, Mileva) made the assumption, basing it on the now-discarded, but
then revolutionary idea that the speed of light might be constant, that the widely
accepted concept of Aether did not exist, stating: “The introduction of a
“luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special
properties...” This, however, in the real world, is not the case and for several very
important reasons, such as the fact that the speed of light is now known not to
be constant (which, paradoxically, like Aether, had been a common notion before the
advent of Einstein), and, going against his photon particle concept operating in an
absolute vacuum, it is also known that light cannot function in an absolute
vacuum because there would be no medium to act as the required stationary
space to transfer any imagined light reaction. Even with all detected matter
present, or even assuming the presence of Dark Matter, there is still not enough
 Page 14

dense matter present to perform this function, and so again enters Aether
(sometimes referred to as the Firmament). The principle reason why Einstein’s
premise is mistaken, however, is because his special and general theories of
relativity actually requires the Aether to exist so that their equations bear
relevance in a real, non-hypothetical universe (see page 16 for more examples).
SUBNOTE: The Special Theory of Relativity was actually named “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Körper,” meaning “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” As a fascinating trivia note, this
paper in fact describes only one moving body. What may be more fascinating is that it was in fact
coauthored by his first wife, Mileva Einstein-Marity, submitted to Annalen der Physik as “by M.
Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein”, and who, being the first woman theoretical physicist in the world
and who Albert Einstein admitted intellectually exceeded him, actually signed this submission (she,
and her estate have also been the sole recipients of all revenue received for this theory).
Aether, Æther, Ether, Zero-Point-Energy, Neutrinos, or by its ancient names, Prime
Matter and Firmament, previous to science losing sight of it amid Relativity’s use of
paradox as an explanation for otherwise logical, causal events, which results
when the Aether term is ignored, had previously been a critical component
physicists (natural philosophers) used to make sense of the astonishingly
structured dynamics of the universe, making it appear as if it had been
manufactured, this being largely due to the fact that electrodynamics causes
charged particles of matter, which move along magnetic lines like a school of
fish, to behave with an almost intelligent, cooperative cohesiveness. This is why
many scientists will describe plasma displays, like fire or an electric arc, as
behaving like living organisms (but this is an obvious portrayal when you consider
that biological processes work exactly the same way). Plasma, constituting 99.99% of
all detected matter and often referred to as the fourth state of matter, is in fact the
first, fundamental state of matter. As we continue our exploratory quest here, you
may come to the obvious conclusion, as so many others already have, that all
other matter in the universe is derived from this fundamental electrified plasma.
James Clerk Maxwell’s 1873 Theory of Electromagnetism, upon which Hendrik
Lorentz referenced his 1899 theory of relativity (Maxwell's partial differential
equations with the Lorentz force law form the foundation of electrodynamics, optics and
electric circuits), the 1900 theory of relativity of Jules Henri Poincaré (the greatest
mathematician of the time and who first introduced the E=mc2 equation in this same
paper, but which Einstein later assumed credit), and on all of which the 1905 Special
Theory of Relativity is rooted (yet with no credit priorities noted), requires the
existence of the Aether, for without it relativity lacks a foundation. This was
especially understood by Hendrik Lorentz and Jules Henri Poincaré, because
their own previously-written theories of relativity, and to include the General
Relativity theories of Marcel Grossmann (1913) and David Hilbert (1916) was
rooted in the 1892 Lorentz Aether Theory. Interestingly, Special Relativity and
the Lorentz Aether Theory, though philosophically diametric, are quantitatively
identical. This is precisely why Special Relativity was also called, first by Walter
Kaufmann, the Einstein-Lorentz Theory of Relativity, and why I wonder why
Einstein was at first so set against Aether, which Lorentz depended on, even
though Einstein would offer no explanation for what must exist in its place to
function as the energy-transference medium in order to make the function of
electrodynamics possible, and upon which his own theories so heavily depended.
 Page 15

SUBNOTE: Some may find it interesting that the Lorentz Aether Theory, though quantitatively
identical to the Special Theory of Relativity, had used only Newtonian physics to achieve all of its
solutions. In the final analysis, Einstein’s equations are merely a simplification or abbreviation of
the Lorentz methods. However, this simplification was achieved by removing or ignoring critical
terms that not only made the resulting equations easier to work with, but also consequentially made
them express nothing of any substantive meaning because the missing terms were what would have
given them applicable consequence to the real, non-hypothetical universe.
SUBNOTE: Maxwell’s equations require the Aether, for without it electromagnetism is not
possible, he stating that light is a transverse electromagnetic wave moving through a medium,
which is the Aether. Nikola Tesla, of the same mind, wrote, “You’re wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether
does exist!” Most of his revolutionary electric experiments and feats would have failed if it did not.
Einstein’s view may likely be rooted in the experiments of the Anti-Aetherists, Michelson and
Morley, who claimed to have failed to detect Earth moving through it, assuming Aether to be a
gaseous fixed-bed medium. However, they did detect it, shown to be a residual effect that could
only be attributed to the Aether. This despite the fact that they had tested only for it being gaseous
and not in a denser state, but they considered readings that tested for it being gaseous to be weak,
and despite that they were in fact detecting something, they brushed it aside as a negligible effect.
Worse, thanks to a prominent and, for a time, broadly influential scientist, Oliver Heaviside (1850-
1925), Fellow of the Royal Society, electrical engineer, mathematician, and physicist, who had
changed for a time the face of mathematics and science, inspired the mathematical practices of
many for numerous years, who did not like the detailed complexity of solving equations in their
complete forms, decided that by assuming the Aether term to be “non-physical”, or zero, it allowed
for the simplification of the equations and for working with them, making Aether only appear to be
a superfluous bother. But it is not zero, and as such Einstein’s Relativity has clearly rested on a
flawed foundation since then because equations not considering Aether did not balance out or
reflect reality, and ultimately resulted in these discrepancies being explained away by paradox.
Conversely, Testla, a brilliant, obsessively deep thinker, succeeded where Michelson and Morley
failed, realizing that Aether, being interactive, would swirl around the Earth (which would also be
clearly responsible for light bending near such bodies, though they would also have to be massive
enough, like the Sun, in order to exhibit measurable results). He also observed: “When comparing
acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several
thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform [gaseous] but the
material world is an aeroform to the ether!” He further wrote: “I always based as fact the existence
of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success. ” For disclosure, it
must be noted that Tesla had nothing but contempt for Einstein’s abbreviating brand of physics.
Tesla also believed in taking electricity safely out of the Aether, not causing dangerous radiation by
splitting atoms, which was the frightfully hazardous proposition that Einstein advocated.
Einstein thus discounted that which is fundamentally required for the very feasibility of
the theories he assumed credit for because he had applied a simplified Heaviside-
style spin on them. This view, which Einstein’s advocates even now parrot without
question, has blinded them to imagining any possible link between electromagnetism
and gravity, even though Einstein did nothing to explain the rules for how the force of
gravity operated under his own models; never bothering to explain the one critical
element upon which his theories depended so heavily, but simply left gravity to
somehow be its own explanation, treating it as if it were a common notion, which
would normally require no explanation, but in light of the special attributes he assigns
to it in order to suit the new view asserted by his theories, this forces his concept of
gravity to be regarded as a postulate, which must therefore be thoroughly explained
by the rules of the scientific method, but for which he explained nothing except to
assume that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, though even Sir Isaac
Newton famously admitted that he did not understand what constituted gravity.
Newton simply defined principles (laws) under which it appeared to operate.
 Page 16

SUBNOTE: On 5 May 1920, Einstein addressed the University of Leyden (see http://www-
history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) and admitted Aether was essential if his version
of Relativity was to work. Yet, his view of the Aether differs from Lorentz-Poincaré in that he
removed its mechanical effects, though I think this could cause electrodynamic lines of force to
chaotically warp. Also refer to “Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?” Apeiron Vol 8 No.3,
July 2001 by Galina Granek (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF ).
Given that Einstein’s physics requires of gravity an immense preponderance of proof,
so much so that gravity must be treated as a postulate, it should obligate him to
succinctly describe the substantial special assumptions he heaps onto it. Indeed, the
whole purpose of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity was to in fact answer that
fundamental question, though it did not actually do so. Is it, as so many of Relativity’s
most devoted defenders declare, through the yet-undetected and purely hypothetical
massless graviton, a presumed spin-2 boson force carrier, though if you do the math
it would actually end up proving absolutely nothing about Relativity, or is it instead
through the tremendously more powerful forces of electromagnetism, such as
through a proposed process of radially-oriented electrostatic dipoles inside an atom’s
protons, neutrons and electrons, as discussed in the previously listed links for Wal
Thornhill, which, in the end, would actually render Relativity unnecessary?
SUBNOTE: As stated before, the second paragraph of the 1905 Einstein submission notes: “The
introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties...”
I am just as puzzled as Nikola Tesla that Einstein apparently could not grok such a simple process,
but instead chose to turn such logical causal events into a confusion of paradox.
For example, according to Einstein and an exacting interpretation of his view on relative motion
between a stationary observer and a moving object, even though the observer will seem to see that
the moving object’s clock slows, that its ruler contracts, and its mass increases, Einstein’s first
principle, that the laws of physics do not change, would dictate that this is only a relativistic
illusion to the eyes of a stationary observer, meaning that the clock did not actually slow, its ruler
did not actually contract, and its mass did not actually increase, reflecting that seen through the
eyes of the moving object, where these effects would go unnoticed because its local space appears
to it as being relatively stationary. However, Einstein then spends a great deal of time throughout
the remaining course of this 31-page treatise trying to paradoxically prove that they will do exactly
that, that the faster one travels the slower its time will run, relative distance will decrease, and its
mass will increase, but will still go unnoticed by the moving object, which is exactly the effects we
would find in a Newtonian-based Lorentz-Poincaré universe, but without all the clutter of
relativistic paradoxes that invariably crop up due to abbreviated equations.
Consider the simple example of placing two clocks side by side, synchronizing them, and then
carefully moving one, the other, or both in any direction or distance or speed. The simple act of
moving them actually causes synchronization errors. This is not a relativistic act that results from a
stationary observer and a moving clock where the clock only appears to become unsynchronized to
the eyes of the observer. The clocks actually become unsynchronized! These are actual events. The
simple act of moving them through space affects them. Gravitation is not a contributing factor to
this effect because it is effectively infinitely weak and has no measurable or detectable effect on
them. According to Lorentz, Poincaré, et al., this can only be due to it moving through a stationary
force that they referred to as the Aether, which is the required stationary medium that enables the
very function of electrodynamics itself, but which Einstein strangely rejected until after 1916,
apparently simply for reasons of mathematical expediency, being tied to a Newtonian universe that
did not account for the newly-discovered and overpowering effects of its electrical nature, which
was the path science was actually shifting focus to when Einstein burst onto the scene and changed
it, forcing them to shift their focus once again so to secure much-needed funding for their work.
 Page 17

What is really puzzling me is that any college physics student can in fact reason out every
conclusion that Einstein makes in his paper and in his later general theory, but using strictly
Newtonian methods (but to do so would also highlight very interesting glaring points (gaps, really,
because the requisite points are actually missing) that knowledgeable Relativists would not want
you to be aware of. I will leave this to you; to be your own personal path to discovery, though if
you do not apply too much thought to it, you would realize I have already given you the answers).
And this is fully one half of the principles that defines his premise for Special Relativity, ignoring
for a moment the special properties of gravity postulate that he himself chose to ignore. The other
half, of course, is simply, as also stated in the second paragraph of his paper, “ that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body.” Considering that the speed of light is now known to be variable, this in
accordance to the level of electromagnetic interference, either as waves or as mass objects in its
path (contrary to popular presumption, it is actually impossible for light to function in an absolute
vacuum, just as it is actually impossible for an absolute vacuum to even exist, which would, if you
really think about it, also make black holes impossible), ignoring that Prime Matter (Aether) might
in fact determine the path and speed of light by the rate and method by which it is able to convey
the energy of a standing wave source (an electromagnetic event) outwardly in infinite directions
through a acutely efficient and perfectly balanced transference process. Considering that his first
principle actually rests on this second principle being true, which it is not, I think that the whole of
his premise has in fact crumbled.
The idea that gravity is even remotely able to superiorly affect electrical forces in any meaningful
manner whatsoever, when electrical forces are an astounding 39 orders of magnitude, or a thousand
billion billion billion billion times more powerful than gravity, which is known to be at work in at
least 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe, simply leaves me in bewildered amazement that
so many people, and most especially relativist scientists, will blindly accept it, perhaps blinded by
their centuries-old gravity-only memes, preventing them from coming to grips and recognizing the
pervasively electrically active universe that all their instruments report detecting. This is because
gravity’s effect on electromagnetism is absolutely laughable, affecting it no more than a gnat
impacting on Mount Everest. This is like claiming that a drifting dandelion seed actually stirs the
atmospheric forces and creates the wind that carries it adrift. To be fair, I must admit that Einstein
and cosmologists in general at that time believed that electric and magnetic fields could not exist on
their own but required matter as a charge-carrier. However, we have known now for numerous
decades that this is not the case, and that it is in fact the other way around, though Relativists will
deny this because, if this point of incontrovertible fact was generally accepted by the public, it
could very well rip the foundations of Special and General Relativity asunder.
And this is on top of the fact that Newtonian Physics can easily express everything that Relativity
only claims is Einstein’s “new” type of physics. Actually, if you look closely at Einstein’s brand of
Relativity, there is no new type of physics to be found within it, because all the “new stuff” is
comprised entirely of an enormous glut of imagined presumptions that have never been tested or
verified, and of compounding, interdependent complex fantasies that have no foundation in
empirical fact, all forced to be imagined to fill in the gaps between observed physical reality and
the abbreviated mathematical models that Einstein proposed, and all forming the very foundations
of the spin-off fields of Quantum Physics and Particle Physics, which are both acutely dependant
upon the paradoxes introduced by the shortcuts Einstein took in Relativity. In the final analysis,
however, the reason for all this paradoxical complexity and mounting presumptions is based
entirely upon a foundation of belief that electricity does not saturate the whole of the universe,
which it most certainly does, being proven so more and more solidly with each new discovery,
making the idea of a gravity-based universe laughable, were it not for the sobering fact that so
much tenure and funding and reputations are now bound to Einstein’s brand of Relativity being true
that its supporters cannot afford to disavow a belief in a gravity-only universe that is lacking in
significant and much more powerful universal electromagnetic effects.
 Page 18

FINAL NOTE: When discussing pervasive electromagnetic effects observed in galaxies,

the Sun, solar heliopause, planets, comets, asteroids (especially when asteroids start
exhibiting electromagnetic effects and are redesignated as comets), etc., Relativist physicists
invariably resort to the standard fallback position of embarking on explanations involving
magnetic merging and reconnection of magnetic field lines. That would be a really good time to
remind them that there is no such thing as “magnetic merging” or “reconnection” of
magnetic field lines in the real world. Refer to www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/06/16/jupiter-and-
the-sun and http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf .
 Page 19

Introduction.
Imagine living in a Universe bound by
Electricity rather than Gravity, and on an Earth
that had once been much smaller 700 million
years ago, along with a likewise smaller Moon,
and both had managed to grow by scientifically
feasible means beyond asteroid and comet
accretion. Such a vision might strike one as
utter fantasy and seem far beyond reason if we
blindly pay heed to the proclamations solemnly The Crab Nebula pulsates visibly, and
exactly like a simple relaxation oscillator.
chanted by those claiming to be the high priests
of science. I must confess I had once also nodded obedient accord to their
incessant incantations about what we must venerate as Scientific Truth and
what we must disdain and ridicule as Heretical Anathema, I naively
assuming their credentials put them into positions of superior privileged
knowledge that would absolutely safeguard them from the bane of reproof.
But in 1987, as I contemplated this while walking along the Cape Cod
National Seashore, I had an epiphany that is so obvious now: I realized
that their sacrosanct theories were not long ago soundly declared utter
fantasy and far beyond reason. Indeed, the idea of an Electric Universe
and Expansion Tectonics can only appear to be outside the realm of reason
if we consciously ignore the massive catalogs of empirical evidence that
clearly verifies them, and at the same time to not recognize the utter want
of empirical evidence necessary to support two of the currently favored
icons of science; a Gravity-Based Universe and Plate Tectonics.
NOTE: One of the common fallacies that skeptics of
Expansion Tectonics assume is that the theory
supposes that the continental crust itself was likewise
smaller, and that everything grew, from fossils to rocks,
along with the oceanic basins (which have been
geologically proven to be a maximum of only 280 million
years old) as the Earth expanded, but this is simply a
gross, naive misunderstanding of the theory.
Expansion Tectonics posits that the Earth’s continental
crusts were not smaller, but were of their present size,
save for areas of clearly obvious crustal stretching and
water-filled cracking, such as is abundantly evident in
The Great Lakes and Canada (the granite crust is
nominally plastic), because continental “plates” are Stills from a Neal Adam’s video at
www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom
.

physically incapable of drifting or twisting (explained on

page 26). Only the much younger ocean beds and sea beds could possibly
 Page 20

expand, but even then only at mid-oceanic expansion ridges, which were initially
but narrow cracks in the stretching primordial planetary crust. As these torn rills
slowly expanded, molten basalt filled them, quickly hardening beneath the cool
saline water that naturally drained into them from the shallow seas on the higher,
original crust, this water initially covering the entire planet. This crustal cracking
and lower-crust spreading can also clearly be seen on the surface of the Moon,
Mars, Europa, Ganymede, and other bodies that we can examine, every one of
them showing a higher, primordial crust and a newer, expanded lower crust.
Note further, however, that this can only be fully
observed in the southern hemisphere of Mars,
because the original crust of its northern hemisphere,
nearly six miles deep, appears to have been almost
completely excavated away, as many scientists have
remarked and as you can clearly see for yourself in
the elevation map to the right, and not simply due to
otherwise natural tectonic spreading, where on Mars Elevation-colorized Cartesian map of Mars.
the original crust simply remained nominally intact
within the southern hemisphere (Mar’s northern hemisphere reminds me of the broad
Pacific Ocean here on Earth, yet the extreme height variation is simply far too significant to
be the work of normal tectonic spreading alone. Also, as you can later surmise, Venus could
scour Mars' northern hemisphere for eons when it once rested in close proximity over Mars'
northern axis). Much of this scoured material was chaotically scattered across the
Mars' surface as countless, often titanic boulders. If ancient
legends are true, having been recorded in sacred texts on every
inhabited continent, this destruction had been the work of the
planet Venus, when, during an apparent solar upheaval, for a time
it broke free of its orbit and roamed the heavens as a great and
terrible comet (its comet-like characteristics persist even today) with a
waving coronal mane like a dragon, breathing electrical interplanetary thunderbolts,
striking cataclysmic destruction across Mars and Earth, and instilled such intense,
primordial fear that into the 21st Century people still had an instinctive fear of comets.
SUBNOTE: It is evident by satellite inspection that much of Mars’ northern hemisphere had been
stripped away from its surface, even if we accept (and I do) that a mile or two of this much lower six
mile elevation is due to tectonic spreading (tectonic spreading appears to focus, if it can, at areas of long
electrical exposure, such as the Moon’s Earth-side). Even accepting this, it can still explain the presence
of comets and the Asteroid Belt. In counterpoint, ancient Sumerian legends claim the Hammered Out
Bracelet (the Asteroid Belt) formed when a moon from a rogue planet collided with an ancient planet
they called Rahab, whose upper half formed the asteroids and its lower half reformed into Earth. Yet,
considering that the material strewn across Mars does not remotely constitute the many-miles deep mass
lost from its northern hemisphere, it is likely that it contributed a respectable percentage of the asteroids,
comets and meteors, and why scientists have in fact found an inordinate number of Martian meteorites
spread across the Earth (even Phobos, the larger of Mars’ two moons, is believed to have formed from
ejected Martian mass. The other moon, Deimos, long thought a captured asteroid, cannot be explained
by its smooth equatorial-plane orbit, but may be a mountain of upper crust ejected from Mars).
Many studying primeval world-wide legends note the ancients claim
Saturn, or Helios as the Greeks called it, or Latin Sol (see the SUB-
SUBNOTE below), was once not the pin-point of light we see today,
but it was once a huge glowing orb dominating their northern sky (we
will later revisit these ancient legends). They said Venus and Mars
were once large, clearly visible objects in the sky, these ancient legends Symbols of an Alien Sky, Documentary
viewable at www.thunderbolts.info.
holding that Earth, Mars, Venus and Saturn were once in constant close
 Page 21

and aligned proximity (Collinear or LaGrange orbits?) in a primordial “Golden Age”, before catastrophe
drove Mankind to the safety of caves as civilization was eradicated by cosmic thunderbolts. Assuming
ancient Modern Man, who was as intelligent, inquisitive and mentally adept as we are today ( and this
was true even 200,000 years ago), were accurately reporting this (though this would be like trying to
convince people from thousands of years hence that amazing events we witness today would make any
sort of sense to them), they still did not report the presence of ringed discs around Saturn, or even the
presence of Jupiter, until after the breakup, which was said to be concealed beyond Saturn. It is possible
that Saturn had no rings until recently; some astronomers concluding that Saturn’s rings are young, being
only a few thousand years old, as is evidenced by the rate at which they are now fading. To accept this,
one must consider that a part of Mars’ missing mass, which legends say was raked by fierce thunderbolts
hurled from a warring Venus (in its “terrible aspect” as Medusa), might possibly comprise a part of the
mass of Saturn’s young rings before the planets finally settled into their present stable orbits. In the spirit
of such reported ancient cosmic activity, Saturn’s rings could also be a result of Venus’ close encounters
with the gas giant and ripping streams of Saturn’s own atmosphere into orbit. Or, if ancient legends are
really true of Saturn once having been an actual star (a brown dwarf), when the superior electric field of
the Sun shunted Saturn’s (and Jupiter’s) galactic electrical connection after the Saturn/Jupiter binary
system perhaps crossed its heliopause, mass would have ejected equatorially as its fires flashed out.
SUB-SUBNOTE: The Greeks named Saturn Cronos; the original ruler of Heaven. However, their term for
Sun, Helios, did not refer to our present Sun, but instead it specifically referred to their Original Sun; Saturn.

With knowledge comes power. With education, an open mind, and

original thought comes reason and discovery.
The accompanying letters will explore this data and try to clarify the many
arguments that must be made within this document, such as the following:
Did you know that the so-called “soundly proven” Gravity-Based Universe is
no such thing, its alleged “proof” consisting primarily of mathematical
models and an ever-growing list of presumptions, none of which is based on
empirical data, but where you must instead blindly accept some of these often
fantastic ideas as if they were fact, all in order to explain how gravity-based
Universes might possibly work, such as the speculated but yet to be
confirmed suppositions of black holes, black hole ejections, dark matter, dark
energy, gravitons, or the rapid rotation of pulsars? Did you know that
neutron stars, which had been invented to justify pulsars, actually cannot
possibly exist (see my note on page 38)? Did you know that antimatter cannot
be proven, contrary to loud claims made by CERN and sensationalized in
Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons (see my note below)? Nor can the much-
revered Big Bang theory or singularities (covered variously later). Did you
know that the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun can be soundly dismantled
(see page 62)? Throw into that mix of presumptions six types of quarks (sub-
electronic particles mathematically speculated to carry either a 2/3 or 1/3
electron volt as positive or negative), six types of anti-quarks, six types of
leptons (though including the electron), thirteen gauge boson force carriers
(“virtual particles” that particle physics invented to carry the interactions of
nature that exist only as mathematical quantities), and a plethora of other
supposed particles and concepts, such as the Higgs Mechanism, or the
massive Higgs Boson particle that they desperately hope actually exists, for
without it the present constructs of Particle Physics might begin unraveling.
 Page 22

NOTE: July 2012. Some initially published reports claimed that CERN had found the
Higgs Boson. However, this is not what CERN reported. They believe that they have only
come closer to finding it. They reported that when 2 electrons collide with a proton at
hyper speeds, after millionths of a second this “mystery particle” returned back into (what
else?) 2 electrons and a proton (actually, Particle Physics imagines the Higgs Boson to be 9
times the mass of a proton, or 16,560 times the mass of an electron). What this sounds to me to
be is more like a non-standard and hence, highly unstable quasi-neutron. A Neutron has
only 2 electron weights more mass than a proton, because it is a proton that has managed
to capture a neutrally charged mass twice that of an electron (I submit a single Prime
Matter waveform, which is a readily available neutrally-charged 2-electron-weight mass), along
with an additionally required companion proton for structural integrity stability and also to
help it assume its neutral charge state, otherwise the neutron, which is highly unstable
without a companion proton, would quickly shuck off the extra 2-electron-weight waveform
and be restored to a much more stable proton. I feel that this neutral mass will complete a
proton’s attraction field (I also think that, ideally, a proton would actually require a neutrally-
charged mass of but 1 electron weight to manage this, though such a waveform is fortunately not
available, as otherwise matter as we presently know it would never be able to exist), and it in turn,
now acting as if it were an over-sized neutral (Prime Matter) waveform, will try to complete
another proton’s attraction field, though understandably not perfectly, like trying to park a
limousine in a sub-compact car parking space, but nonetheless keeping the normally
unstable neutron relatively stable. Yet, because this nucleus’ attraction field is no longer
more evenly charged, this may also be why some atoms are able to exchange their outer-
most electrons relatively easily, thus rendering them more electrically conductive.
NOTE: Antimatter is not proven. It is a presumption based upon Dmitri Skobeltsyn’s 1929
detection of positrons (positively charged “electrons”), a subsequent discovery of them in
1932 by Carl D. Anderson, and these discoveries being applied to a 1928 speculation on
antimatter by Paul Dirac. Note that a single positron is ejected from the core of a
dismantled proton, though anti-protons have never been detected, and most everyone
agrees they cannot exist. As you will learn while we excavate deeper into Prime Matter,
positrons are not anti-electrons, but they will actually complement electrons, and together
they can more easily define the fundamental state of Matter. The fact that tremendous
energy is released when a positron and electron combine is normal and expected, being
that the energy that held them apart is released. This will be discussed in more detail later.

All the often mind-boggling concepts posited by Relativists to balance

their mathematical models are yet to be verified, being justified only by
creative mathematical gymnastics, which are often, though surely not
intentionally, contaminated by incorrect assumptions, but they cannot yet
be proven through laboratory confirmation as can an Electric Universe
through the application of robust, repeatable Plasma Physics experiments.
Sadly, mathematical models not founded upon observation or empirical data
can be easily contorted to “prove” almost anything, and accidentally
embedded errors can often take decades to realize, making it more
mythematical than being reflective of any reality. Albert Einstein even
cautioned physicists about this. I like quoting Geoff Haselhurst’s
interpretation of Einstein’s effort: “Mathematics does not describe reality,
just its quantities.” To wit, Einstein mused in 1920, “As far as the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality.”
 Page 23

One reason Albert Einstein, who put all his faith in purely mathematical
endeavors, which he called thought experiments, disliked laboratory
experiments because they often disproved his mathematical conjectures, as
his early attempts at experiments proved. Thus, he chose to pursue
exclusive mathematical speculation. Though a supremely arrogant self-
promoter, which may surprise many who have been lulled by his publicly
advertised humility, Einstein nonetheless said he was not averse to being
wrong, and he even argued against ideas some incorrectly extrapolated
from theories he proposed, often through mistakes in interpretation.
The adherents to modern Relativism claim that if you do not fully
understand their exceedingly complex and often contradictory “laws” then
you are simply too stupid to argue against them, but that premise is simply
too stupid in and of itself. When science becomes a realm of pure
mathematics and not of observation, evaluation and verification, then
science ceases to be science, but rather it becomes a make-believe
playground of mythematics where anything might be provable if but given
the optimal obfuscating complexity in the absence of empirical data.
In fact, the actual meticulously documented evidence that has been
amassed by eminent data-gathering agencies, such as NASA, plus by the
concise observations of astronomers, astrophysicists and others, cannot yet
verify their own “established” gravity-based theories, even though the
ambassadors for these theories (and mind you, they are simply theories),
perhaps in a state of self-righteous or closed-minded determination,
maintain that it does, sometimes grating against their very own evidence.
Worse, we are expected to accept their conclusions without protest upon
the premise that argument equals ignorance, even when all data clearly
points to a simpler and more logical Universe bound by Electricity. But
this massive body of rock-solid evidence supporting a plasma-based
universe has been somehow deemed unimportant by relativist science, all
because it does not support theories they piously assume to be fact, and so
you will hear them argue that there may be yet one more calculation that
must be made, or one more particle that must be invented and named to
truss up support for their own arrogant view of the universe.
How embarrassing it must be for these scientists to spend billions of our
tax dollars in efforts to verify their pet theories, when the returned data
regularly flatly denies them, instead favoring ideas that they might
condemn as heretical. News articles normally report that “they are
mystified by the results” and/or “they must go back to the drawing board”,
whereupon they are forced, typically by a need to remain relevant, to
 Page 24

invent a brand new subatomic particle or property or principle, and backed

up by all sorts of complex mythematical formulae in order to “prove”
something that might not actually be provable, though they will accept it
and defend it with unrelenting fervor if it can be used to prop up their own
revered suppositions (for example, just look at the spaghetti mess that
Particle Physics is now finding itself in).
Consider the recent detailed examination of comets and asteroids by these
agencies have resulted in nothing but impasses for their views because this
empirical data did not support expectations. Indeed, this data actually
disproved that comets were the loosely packed dirty snowballs they had
for so long proclaimed them to be. Besides, such a supposition makes little
sense to anyone with just a nodding understanding of astrophysics.
Starting with the many probes sent to Halley’s Comet by the Soviets, ESA
and Japan in 1986, and more remarkably the Deep Impact probe to comet
Temple I in 2005, the gathered evidence mystified them because none of
their theories or predictions was verified by it. However, everything was
not only expected, but was in fact predicted by Wal Thornhill, an
Australian physicist and a protagonist for the Electric Universe
(www.holoscience.com), when observing these events based on a model of
electrodynamics and circuit theory (but not on the notion of electrostatics,
which many detractors of the Electric Universe naively surmise).
NOTE: The Dirty Snowball theory was proposed in 1950 by Astronomer Fred
L. Whipple. At that time, scientists mistakenly believed electric and magnetic
fields could not exist without the presence of sufficient matter as a charge-carrier,
explaining why even now cosmologists will ignore the immense electric currents
required to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields, and so scientists
believed a comet to be too small to store sufficient energy to generate this effect,
not yet understanding how the Sun is able to charge it. Hence, in order to explain
a comet’s massive coma and tail on what they then believed to be an electrically
neutral object, he developed the supposition that perhaps they were made up of
water and gas jets. As this idea slowly jelled to become the consensus “standard
model”, it was realized that icy comets would very rapidly degrade and quickly
run out of “fuel”. Hence, it had to further be assumed that the solar system must
therefore periodically re-supply them, so Dutch Astronomer Jan Oort proposed
that a vast hoard of icy objects (the Oort Cloud) might encase the solar system
that was a thousand times more distant from the Sun than Pluto. This idea
appeared a plausible explanation of these presumed icy comets in light of the
Solar Nebula theory, which assumed the solar system formed from a collapsed
gas cloud, where lighter elements, such as water, stayed on the outside (an idea
still debated in academia because the faltering but still-supported Thermonuclear Model
of the Sun requires lighter elements to be on the inside). In 1992, because all known
new objects orbited the solar system much closer than the Oort Cloud, the Kuiper
Belt was proposed, which assumed a loose disc of left-over planetary material
 Page 25

from the orbit of Neptune out to 30 A.U. (1 Astronomical Unit = 1 Earth distance
from the center of the Sun), from which all short-term comets were assumed to
arrive. The 2004 Stardust mission to Comet Wild 2 spelled the end of the Oort
Cloud, because the comet dust collected and returned to Earth could not possibly
have formed in the presumed Oort zone. For more details, see the video “When
Planets Gave Birth to Comets” at https://youtu.be/Iky2k8MtMno.
SUBNOTE: It was also thought icy comets were necessary to explain the presence of water on
Earth and maybe Jupiter’s moon Europa, but this, if you really think about it, that comets could
somehow miss all the other planetoids and collide exclusively with these two bodies, is ridiculous.
SUBNOTE: Fred L. Whipple (1906-2004), who’s career in astronomy spanned 70 years,
confirmed in 1931 that meteors originated within the solar system, not from interstellar space.

Considering that 99.99% of all detected matter in the Universe is highly

energetic electrified plasma and that electricity is 1039 times more
powerful than gravity, it is hard to understand why establishment science
still claims the effects of the Universe’s pervasive electrical nature is nil
when weighed against the weak, truly pathetic forces of gravity, when the
entire universe is literally crackling with electricity. In comparison, the
entire force of Earth’s gravity can hold a steel ball bearing to the ground,
yet a child’s toy magnet, which was polarized (magnetized) by a weak
electric field, and against all that force of gravity, can easily pick it up.
NOTE: 100% of all detected matter we see in the universe ideally constitutes
only about 1% of all matter that exists, where 99% of this universal bounty, which
must fully and uniformly saturate all of space with an unbelievably crushing
density so that light wave propagation is even possible, is, by the thinking of an
ever-growing number of scientists, Prime Matter, which is a simple wave
structure comprised of a single electron wrapped around a single positron, which
naturally forces their charge fields to fold inwardly, and thus rendering them
electromagnetically neutral (note further, and as will be later explained, this should
not be confused with the supposition of Dark Matter). It makes a lead brick seem like
a wisp of air, but each Prime Matter element is so minute that it can pass through
the vast space within an atom's shell with little to no effect or notice.
NOTE: In their book, The Electric Universe, Wal Thornhill and David Talbott
reported that Hannes Alfvén, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1970 for his
fundamental discoveries in Magnetohydrodynamics (he is the acknowledged founder
of the study), erroneously theorized early in his career that magnetic fields
appeared “frozen-in” to superconducting plasma, isolating such electrical
processes, because it was assumed sufficient matter needed to be present to act
as a charge-carrier so that electric and magnetic fields could exist, although this
has been proven not only to be wrong, but it was in fact the other way around,
which makes electric and magnetic fields essential for understanding the orderly
make-up of the Universe. Even so, this mistaken and long-superseded premise
still underpins cosmology’s modern interpretation of magnetism in space,
somehow giving them permission to ignore the unimaginably immense electric
currents required to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields, regardless that
their assumption has been disproved, in addition to their wrongly assuming that
 Page 26

electrodynamics and fluid dynamics work alike, even though, due to the presence
of its charged particles in powerful electromagnetic fields, cosmic plasma
behaves entirely unlike neutral gases. Alfvén, later realizing his early theory was
monumentally shortsighted because it was discovered that matter was not
required to act as a charge-carrier but that plasma itself acted as that carrier,
used the occasion of receiving the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore
his earlier mistaken work. He said that magnetic fields are only one component of
plasma science. The electric currents that generate magnetic fields must not be
overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents and
circuits will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis.
SUBNOTE: Space has been proven not to be electrically neutral, as is evident by the display of the
Aurora Borealis, resulting from electrical discharges from the Sun, specifically electrically charged
particles that move along magnetic lines. Further, magnetic lines are created only by electric
currents, and electric currents are required to sustain them. Even so, for some reason many
scientists ignore this proven evidence because it simply is not conducive to their own opinions that,
beyond all logical reasoning, assume that gravity is somehow the superior affecting force.
NOTE: Another reason classical cosmology ignores Plasma is that the Big Bang
assumes that there was not enough energy in the Universe to have created and
maintained significant numbers of “loose” ions and electrons through ionization of
atoms, which means that Plasma should not be saturating the universe, even
though it does, being that Plasma constitutes 99.99% of all detected matter. Yet,
mainstream science will brush aside this fact because it does not conform to their
theories. The Big Bang assumes charged particles of electrons and ions formed
first (which strangely sounds like Plasma to me). Next, all these protons and
electrons later combined to form primordial atoms. Later, some of these
primordial atoms ionized (separated and became charged particles) to form the
Plasma we have today. Given that premise, it can easily be argued that a
colossal amount of energy would naturally be ejected when charged ions
(Plasma) and electrons combined into atoms, and their dispersed energy would in
fact be readily available to re-ionize massive quantities of atoms, rendering Big
Bang’s argument totally groundless. Even so, it makes much more sense that
most of these free electrons and ions did not initially form atoms in the first place,
but rather they simply remained in their initial, primordial Plasma state.
Likewise, physical geological evidence does not support Plate Tectonics,
which posits that an original super-continent named Pangaea once existed on
one side of an Earth that was about the same size as now, later breaking up
and twisting in all manner of directions, sliding about on deep viscous mantle
through oceanic crust, often going against the laws of hydrodynamics and
geophysics, and resulting in its present formation. And this is on top of the
fact that the oceanic basalt the upper-elevation granite continental plates are
supposedly twisting around in and plowing through is significantly denser
than the continental crust, making such drifting and twisting impossible, and
also leaving absolutely no sign whatsoever that such dramatic events ever
took place, which would have actually etched permanent fingerprints within
the dense basalt of those lower-elevation basins, which consist entirely of
protruded magma, wholly unlike the granite of the higher, continental plates.
 Page 27

Granted, South America looks like it was once butted up against Africa,
and North America against Eurasia. And that is because they did, and
geological evidence, such as the Mid-Atlantic Expansion Ridge, supports
that, but not in the manner that Plate Tectonics advocates surmise, simply
because there is more than this single ridge but many mid-ocean
expansion ridges across the whole planet, making the world look like the
outer surface of a geode stone that cracks and fills those cracks with
silicates as its insides crystallize and grow. Besides, if continents actually
did drift about on a supposed viscous, liquid mantle, fluid dynamics would
force continents to sink in order to maintain equilibrium with an oceanic
basalt crust that is half as thick as the original granite crust of the planet.
However, this so-called soft, fluid mantle is in fact twice as dense as the
granite of the continental crust, which makes such willy-nilly continental
drifting physically impossible.
Further, this supposed original Pangaea Super-Continent in a world ocean
can actually be demonstrated to be physically unworkable using simple
laws of hydrodynamics. Put simply, if Pangaea did in fact exist, the central
half of Pangaea would have had to have been completely submerged
beneath the world ocean, and there would also have been a large swath of
exposed ocean bottom, about the size of that which had sunk on Pangaea,
but on the exact opposite side of the planet (this explanation will be
elaborated on and more succinctly explained on page 54).
In contrast, actual geological evidence does support an expanding Earth
through meticulous satellite and ground-based measurements of its slowly
expanding diameter that cannot be attributed to the much slower accretion
of asteroids, comets, and space dust, forcing periodic GPS (Global
Positioning Satellite) data updates, where this GPS data clearly shows that
every single continent is moving away from every other continent and that
the surface area of every single ocean is also increasing, and which can be
translated to account for an expanding Moon, Mars, and everything else,
to include galaxies, galactic clusters, and the progenitors of all other
celestial bodies, like quasars (quasi-stellar objects).
NOTE: In August 2011 NASA again declared the Earth is not expanding (see
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254 ), even though their data flatly states
otherwise. This is an annual event. But you must understand their need to stay in
good graces with the relativists and so continue to be heralded as the solid
bastion of science, and as such they are forced to support Plate Tectonics as a
theory that provides a model for a static-sized Earth, even if verified geological
evidence does not support it. But even so, in that very same statement they turn
around and conclude that the Earth is in fact expanding at a rate of 0.1 millimeter
each year. Such expansion is still greater than the average annual accretion of
 Page 28

meteors, asteroids, comets, and space dust. Worse, this 0.1mm value only
results after they first “zero out” the averaged 18 millimeter annual increase that
their satellite measurements report (which is something they often “forget” to report).
When confronted about it, they claim this annual ~18mm value is an error in
“atmospheric correction”. But this is odd, considering that the previous year’s base-
level Earth diameter they use to compute the current year’s diameter strangely reflects
the diameter they had to reject during the previous year, but they must now accept it
to keep the appearance of their current correction narrow. However,
independent measurements of seafloor spreading clearly show as much as a 22
millimeter per year increase in Earth’s diameter. This 18mm to 22mm expansion
rate is right in tune with estimates made by Expansion Tectonics. These readings
are not exclusive. They can only compliment each other. If one measurement
demonstrates an increase – the other measurement has to also reflect it.
SUBNOTE: NASA’s argument for the Earth not expanding fails to explain why GPS satellite data
must still be periodically updated to offset all oceans slowly increasing their surface area. Were
Earth not expanding, as they publicly maintain, none of those updates would be necessary. And if
continental plates drifted, oceans would narrow at some points, but such evidence does not exist.
Further, if continents actually subducted to offset this expansion, there is as of yet no evidence for
that. Likewise, the assertion that the Himalayan Mountains are an example of such subduction is
wholly unscientific speculation and it so far has no supporting geological evidence.

As an interesting mental exercise, consider

taking a spherical map of the Earth and
cutting out all of its seas and oceans, and
then simply fasten the remaining land
masses together. Strangely enough, they fit
and close up almost perfectly… on an Earth
¼ its present size. This is true on all sides
of it. Australia and Antarctica also fit
together and fill up and nearly close the
Pacific, neatly joining Eastern Asia with the
Western Americas. The land masses fill in
and close up, all without subduction or
drift, showing what the earth looked like Age of the Ocean Floor
Download from NOAA’s NGDC at:
about 70 million years ago. Further, if many www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/96mgg04.html

areas of the continental shelves that were

clearly stretched by this global expansion were again recompressed, such
as Canada, the globe would close up perfectly. How does one explain that?
Where were the oceans? They originally covered the primordial granite
crust until they eventually drained into the ever-expanding lower-elevation
basalt-filled cracks that eventually became the present oceans and seas,
leaving the original higher granite crust to become almost entirely dry
land. But how does a planet grow? Do massive asteroid impacts,
generating colossal explosions of energy, somehow initiate planetary mass
 Page 29

expansion? Why are the ocean floors generally from 1 year to 70 million
years old, and the absolute oldest tiny portions of them being from 185 to
280 million years old (notice the dark blue areas in the above maps),
when the currently existing continental crust is over four billion years
old? Why is that? We will also explore these questions in my letters,
presented later.
NOTE: The Earth was initially a shallow ocean planet after it cooled enough to
hold free-standing water on its flat, smooth crust. But when the Earth finally
expanded beyond the stress limits of this original granite crust, the crust cracked
and the shallow seas began to drain off into these new expanding breaks, which
after tens of millions of years of expansion as these rills filled with a thinner crust
of harder-than-granite basalt magma, eventually forming broad ocean beds (the
tremendous force of this draining may also be the cause for catastrophic landslides that
fossilized vast swaths of early sea life within those original shallow seas that at first
covered the granite crust before it drained off). Once significant dry land appeared,
about two-thirds of the Earth’s surface remained submerged. Indeed, until 60
million years ago, some tracts of the presently exposed continental crust
remained submerged under what we now call the shallow primordial inland seas.
Being that the earliest crust of the Earth is now almost all exposed dry land, save
for what we presently refer to as the continental shelves, portions of which had
been exposed during periodic glaciation periods, this would also explain why no
extremely ancient aquatic fossils are ever found in the much younger oceanic
basalt, but only on what is now dry land. This also means that until about 70
million years ago mountains did not exist, which resulted from natural crustal
compression and buckling as the Earth expanded and the crust slowly began to
flatten as the surface curved less. This also means that many mountain ranges
might not have had to evolve over millions of years, as it is generally assumed,
but some may have actually formed in a matter of days, weeks, months, or years
as dramatic, cataclysmic events. Also consider the Appalachian Mountains in the
eastern USA. For years they were thought to be eroded, worn down mountains,
much older than the Rocky Mountains to their west, yet new data shows them to
be in pristine condition, but they are simply buried beneath soil hauled over them
by frequent glaciation, which did not occur as often in the Rocky Mountains.
The distressing news to the ears of the professors of modern science-by-
consensus is that there is now more scientific evidence supporting an
Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and there is likewise an utter
dearth of evidence supporting their own suppositions, rendering their
current consensus theories more and more irrelevant. Indeed, larger and
ever-growing bodies of scientists are now turning to the Electric Universe
and Expansion Tectonics simply because there is actual science to support
them, not just empty presumptions. The current, aging consensus theories
are now looking more and more like the emperor’s “new” clothes.
 Page 30

A true scientist is naturally skeptical, though they hunger to understand

everything. Their goal is not to simply verify theories, but to test and perhaps
disprove them so that better theories can be developed. But modern post-
graduate education is not designed that way, where you must now follow
rules that border on religious doctrine, accept and chant existing theories as
Rote and Truth, and take anything else as heretical and worthy of ridicule.
Interestingly, just 50 to 100 years ago these present “established” theories
were just as heretical. Why was it that back then it was the students who
challenged the established and older and credentialed academics with new
concepts in science? But now it seems to be the older academics who present
the revolutionary ideas, challenging the idealism of the younger generation of
academics who have been somehow trained to be locked into a fixed universe
of rigid rules of collective reason, and especially when many of these elder
academics were once the sources of the rote these young academics chant?
Science used to be all about breaking from older theories and exploring
new concepts. Indeed, one used to make their mark in science by
exploring new avenues that often went against the grain of the sciences
being taught in the halls of academia. This once even gave one notoriety
and consideration, but seldom distain (though maybe some quizzical
looks). Science used to rightly be a culture of doubt and dissent.
But that was before science became a religion.
Now, science will not tolerate doubt or dissent. Modern academia has become
a creed whose adherents believe that they possess Ultimate Truth, and
nothing new can exist that can break these hallowed laws. What kind of real
scientist still holds to an idea even when all evidence will go against it; when
their own evidence of proof may sometimes contradict their own theories?
Cases in point are the Thermonuclear Model of the Sun, the Big Bang, and
Black Holes. We will herein explore the fallacies in these theories as well.
And science is not about proof by consensus. As the late Professor Sam
Warren Carey once told Dr. James Maxlow, both protagonists for
Expansion Tectonics, “if 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy.”
Sadly, many of the academics with whom I discuss such issues, who promote
the ideal of an open, considerative mind, thinking it a most noble and
admirable quality, expect that the open mind should be an asset required of
those who will oppose their opinions, but not something requisite of
themselves, thinking themselves too educated to be mistaken. As the late Sir
Lawrence Gardner once said regarding such rudimentary thinking, “Intuitive
skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely nothing.”
 Page 31

Were you on board a ship over a deep ocean abyss and you were given a
choice to wear a life jacket or to have a massive stone wheel tied to your
ankle before you were to be hurled overboard, but you were first informed
that the life jacket, under certain very rare and complicated theoretical
circumstances, could actually make you sink faster, which of them would
be your choice? This is the common sense decision we are now facing in
the sciences.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 32

The Letters.
The following are letters originally dated 12 August, 2011 through 8 Sept,
2011. The versions of them presented here feature additional asides, notes,
expansions, corrections, and a bounty of supplementary research, to help lay
people reading them get up to speed on this data. These letters explore the
Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, and how I believe that they are in
fact inexorably connected through the principles of Prime Matter.
As stated in a separate reply to Dr. James Maxlow, in an attempt to clarify
grammatical anomalies in my initial quickly posted emails, my mind
sometimes races so fast that my grammar suffers for it when I attempt to pin
it to text, such as when I accidentally run sentences together, and particularly
when I frantically seek to keep pace with my speeding streams of
consciousness and I skip the last half of one sentence and the first half of the
next, or my (stupid) word processor’s auto-correct function misrepresents my
intent. As a result, I typically make a habit of editing a document to absolute
death before I feel that I finally have got it right. But at the same time I keep
adding, altering, or trimming its details, adjusting it to satisfy my incessant
need to give my text a rhythmic cadence, to give it a Gnostic structure, and to
give it, as needed, an abundance of supporting details, so it always grows
much longer and much more detailed when compared to the original draft. I
generally do not try to transmit my writing until I can review it entirely and
not feel the slightest need to clarify anything (as can be attested to by this
document, originally 16 pages in September of 2011, growing constantly
since it was first published), which sometimes takes weeks or even months.
The following is an example of what can transpire in just a matter of a few
months and may give you a hint of the work that I put into even a simple
email. God knows what this will look like in a year or two. More than once I
have written short papers that in time became books of several hundred pages.
To the disappointment of many, I will not allot the many pages need to detail and
actually prove something that I once used to laugh off as loony-tunes – that every
celestial body above a certain size is actually hollow. The wild thing about this
otherwise insane idea is that it can in fact be proven. For those who would like to
explore the physics of how this is possible, you need only access to a child's
gyroscope. All the physics needed can be found there. That, and the Earth and
Moon are already known to be hollow by the fact that they actually ring like bells
during quakes. This has most physicist seriously scratching their heads, because
it cannot be scientifically denied. Sadly, this is how Pluto, the Sun's first
offspring, split into a binary planet when it was ripped apart by close encounters
with the entering binary brown dwarf stars Uranus and Neptune (their fires
flashed out due to the Sun's more powerful heliopause). Had it remained intact,
which had split apart to bear a binary companion and numerous smaller satellite
moons, all within human memory, it would today still be classified as a Planet.
 Page 33

Letter of 13 August 2011 (Correction for 11 August 2011).

The following letter includes annotational elaborations, for lay reader clarification,
on a 13 August 2011 letter, which had the 12 August 2012 letter (see page 42)
appended to it, sent to British geologist James Maxlow (www.jamesmaxlow.com):
This letter regards the possible explanations for the Earth and other
celestial bodies expanding, as explained on web page 2 of your
Expansion Tectonics link found at your detailed and most informative
website, under the heading, “What is causing the Earth to expand?” Even
as a child I was cognizant of the likelihood for the Earth expanding,
primarily due to my total fascination with Earth Science and space
exploration, but I had initially assumed that this was due to meteoric and
asteroid/comet accretion, and compounded by the constant attraction and
accumulation of dust and comet-tail debris that permeates our orbital
space, but all of this still did not compensate for the much greater rate of
planetary expansion that satellite measurements taken by NASA and
physical measurements taken by geologists have reported.
NOTE: Since this letter, Dr. Maxlow sent me a copy of his Extended Expansion
Tectonics paper, which he was at the time preparing to deliver in Sicily.
In hindsight, I recall thinking that gravity had to be weaker in the far distant
past so to support the more gigantic dinosaurs. Even though most dinosaurs
were of a smaller sort, and that even Velociraptor was actually half the size
that Steven Spielberg depicted in his Jurassic Park movies, perhaps mistaking
length for height, though likely for a more dramatic effect, those of giant
Theropoda (Beast Feet) origin, such as the carnivorous Allosaurus,
Giganotosaurus, or Tyrannosaurus, a suborder of bipedal Saurischian
(lizard-hipped) dinosaurs from which birds descended, they still had avian
skeletal structures, albeit greater bone size, but that still did not translate to
less hollow bones and which, having hollow bones, those bones could not
have supported them in our present gravity. For example, if an elephant,
normally having solid, dense bones, instead had non-avian dinosaur bones,
even if those bones were proportionally scaled to match elephantine length
and girth, the elephant would simply collapse as those bones not just simply
broke, but shattered during any attempt to simply move and shift its weight.
I have made a point to introduce the ideas of the late Dr. Samuel Warren
Carey, and the continuation of his work through yourself and Neal Adams
to Wal Thornhill (www.holoscience.com) and David Talbott (www.thunderbolts.info),
protagonists for the Electric Universe theory. Their theory is gaining ever-
increasing strength through massive data gathering by all related fields of
science, though the data is largely ignored by cosmologists because it,
 Page 34

time and again, is not proving what these scientists believe that the data
should be proving, basing their judgments on their own consensus gravity-
based speculations. Self-imposed deception may be their only option,
because they know the dire consequences this data will have on the fate of
their own favorite theories, thus forcing them to deny it out of fear that
their funding, tenures, and maybe their life work will simply evaporate.
For example, classical Cosmology is plagued by anomalous quirks and
contradictions that require a plethora of invented presumptions in order to
sustain its gravity-based model, such as black holes, dark matter, dark
energy, singularities, and many other oddities. On the other hand, the
Electric Universe neatly and clearly explains the natures of galaxies, the
sun and the planets, to include being able to easily explain all the many
anomalies that cannot be explained by a gravity-based model. Indeed, all
research that NASA and the ESA have conducted regarding asteroids,
comets and the Sun have only validated the Electric Universe model.
NOTE: As we shall explore later in a much more detailed collection of notes (see page
83), and as shocking as this may sound to many of Einstein’s greatest advocates in
mainstream relativistic science, Einstein, nor his equations allowed for, nor did they ever
permit the existence of black holes! Indeed, Einstein had argued vehemently against them!
I believe the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics are firmly connected
by Neal Adams’ Prime Matter theory (greater credit should actually go to
the late physicist Allen Rothwarf of the Electrical and Computer
Engineering Department of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, in his
paper, An Aether Model of the Universe, where he detailed a working
physics model of Aether. See http://epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf). To me, this
theory can better explain why and how celestial bodies do in fact grow. Even
if it does not, something is making them grow, even if we cannot explain it.
Other hypotheses are too inadequate, such as asteroid/comet/dust accretion,
because it is not substantial enough to reflect the actual measurements; or
pulsating planets, for there is a marked lack of evidence to reflect contraction;
or an initial super-dense core, because it implies a too large surface gravity up
through the Late Paleozoic, contradicting ancient life form densities, all of
which clearly demanded a much lower gravity. Further, none of these
conjectures are able to address the obvious plasma mass increases in isolated
nebulas that are clearly not accreting mass from other decomposed systems.
The Electric Universe easily explains how stars are powered by the natural
plasmoid at their galactic cores through interconnected, naturally-occurring
Birkeland Currents, being powerful but typically invisible spiraled streams
of electricity, recognized by their signature hum (electric circuits in space
and in the lab will twist around each other in polarized pairs, thanks to its
 Page 35

natural tendency to form double-layers, operating along the lines of a

Galactic Plasma Ejection, which is also a natural expectation of such
plasmoids). The planets are in turn powered by their Sun, and the moons from
their planets. From this I have come to believe that the Electric Universe is
the medium through which the alchemical transmutation of Ponderable
Matter forms through an intermediate stage as electrically-charged plasma
and then as Hydrogen, and all from a primordial Prime Matter source.
NOTE: Prime Matter was first posited by Aristotle as a raw “stuff” that is the matter of
the elements and makes elemental change possible; a possibility that can exist only
as actualized in some determinate matter, and is what persists when one contrariety
is replaced by another and the nature of an element changes. In later times this
mysterious, electromagnetically-neutral matter was called the Aether, and even more
recently as Zero-Point-Energy; the material from which all ponderable Matter
derives. This differs from the cosmological presumption of Dark Matter, which is
presumed to be composed of sundry sub-atomic particles, yet in a different state that
acts like Standard Matter, but somehow does not reflect or impede light. But this is
impossible because its subatomic particles will emit electromagnetic fields that will
reflect or impede light, regardless of their insistence that for this speculation to even be
possible that it, by some magical means, must not. It also seems that their definition
for a primal matter (Particle Physics) is much too complex, being populated by an
excessive, ever-expanding list of assumed elemental particles and antiparticles, all of
which goes against a natural order of existence that consistently dictates that nature
will always derive more complex constructs from less complex components that are
few in diversity, not the other way around. Bricks are not made from brick houses.
SUBNOTE: Growing Relativist physicist consensus is pointing to hypothetical Weakly Interacting
Massive Particles, or WIMPs, which are imagined to have values nine times the mass of a proton,
which is what is needed to support a gravity-based universe, as a possible solution to gravity’s
desperate need for extra matter (which an electric universe has absolutely no need of, nor of an
assumption of dark energy), which must further assume that WIMPs, by some miracle, also do not
interact through the most fundamental force in nature: electromagnetism. And this is beyond their
required presumption of dark energy, and, of late, the new presumption of invisible non-interactive
anti-dark matter and a possible further presumption of invisible non-interactive dim matter.
SUBNOTE: Einstein at first denied the Aether, but later, sometime after 1916, he finally became
convinced Relativity did in fact require the Aether. See Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether? at
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF . Also see my notes on pages 13 and
16 for more details. Note also that Particle Physics was developed to help explain the fundamental state
of matter in terms of General Relativity, even though it is now faltering and is in constant need of new
assumptions because needed facts are sadly lacking, such as a fundamental recognition of the Aether.
Allen Rothwarf and Neal Adams both proposed that there is only one primal element,
which is Prime Matter (see https://youtu.be/f_jRcZx6LCA for Neal’s view). Prime Matter,
like magnets, has a positive and negative charge, but has a naturally inward-facing
electromagnetic field, thus making it outwardly charge neutral; hence invisible and
almost undetectable. As such, unlike the assumption of Dark Matter, it will in fact not
impede or reflect light and it will not distort space, simply because of its inward-facing
electromagnetic field. The totality of space is densely saturated with this stuff, each
particle being billions of times smaller than a Hydrogen atom, whose volume is like
having a baseball stadium-sized space for matter that is the size of a fly. It is the
outwardly bloomed electromagnetic field of atoms that gives it massive apparent
volume, because a Prime Matter particle only has just twice the mass of an Electron.
 Page 36

SUBNOTE: Prime Matter has inward-facing electromagnetic fields because its positive charge, the
positron wave packet, is at its center, as positive charges are wont to do, like a subatomic plasmoid,
and its negative charge is wrapped around it like a shell, as electron waves naturally are wont to do
when attached to a positive charge. As such, it is outwardly charge neutral and so cannot be easily
detected by our current instruments, which so far detect only electromagnetic field resistance.
Because Prime Matter can interact, such as transfer energy and to flow around
ponderable matter that emits electromagnetic fields, it tends to interact, which will
cause eddies and currents. As such, our Universe is likely a small collection of
this stuff caught between two rotating layers of Prime Matter, perhaps like the
atmospheric bands of Jupiter or Saturn, like a bubble trapped between two layers
of water currents traveling at different speeds. In such a circumstance our
Universe will begin to rotate, inducing tremendous torque, which inevitably
causes collisions, friction and energy interactions, any of which can split the
charges of a Prime Matter particle apart into two charged half-particles as an
Electron and a Positron; two half-particles of equal mass but of opposite
charge. They are naturally attracted to each other and tend to reunite, releasing
the incredible energy that had split them apart, becoming once again a Prime
Matter particle. But it is what can happen in the interim that is important to us,
which we now are about to get into. But if you are too anxious to wait to find out,
you can also peek ahead and explore Neal’s very enlightening overview paper:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58869775/Prime-Matter-The-Explanation-for-Atoms-Neal-Adams .

It must be noted that when Prime Matter is separated by a tremendous force,

such as torque, it splits into charged components as an Electron and a
Positron (there is no actual need for Antimatter, which a Positron is
traditionally viewed as. It is simply a positively charged “Electron”), thus
blooming outwardly their electromagnetic fields, giving them detect-ability
and a greater apparent “mass”. The Positron, being attractive, is quickly
coated by multiple layers of Prime Matter, which is thickly abundant and
attracted to the cohesive charge of the free Positron, to the extent of the
Positron’s bonding field, resulting in a coating of 919 particles of Prime
Matter, yielding 1840 electron weight, which is adding the central positron
and the equally-weighted orbital electron. This becomes what we call a
Proton (we will examine Particle Physics’ view on this in a moment), and
would precisely explain why a proton is 99.9456% of the mass of a Hydrogen
atom (the electron is 1/1840th the total weight). The central Positron attracts a
free Electron, an opposite half-particle, but the coating of Prime Matter acts
as a buffer and shields the Electron from reconnecting with the Positron at
their core by implementing the energy that separates the Electron and
Positron, which would normally be released if the Electron and Positron
reconnected. Hence, what we view as Matter is assembled as if out of
nothing; first as Plasma, then as an atom of Hydrogen, to be exact, out of
what appears to our sophisticated electromagnetic measuring equipment as
nothingness. And this is also why Hydrogen is the typical and natural
byproduct of Prime Matter, after Plasma.
 Page 37

NOTE: The 919 Prime Matter particles, plus the free positron and an orbiting
electron, have a combined electron weight of 1840, which is 920 x 2, indicating
that each Prime Matter particle has two half-particles that are each equal to 1
electron weight. This can also explain more logically why the gravitational
acceleration between two free protons is 1836 times greater than between two
free electrons, and why Hydrogen is its natural non-plasma-state product.
SUBNOTE: Although it is clearly more logical to consider this acceleration as electromagnetic
rather than gravitational, it is from this that we acquire what we normally interpret as gravity.
SUBNOTE: Having a universe composed of Prime Matter, itself composed of electrons and
positrons, balancing out one-to-one, then the only energy in the Universe is the Electromagnetic
Energy that separates free electrons and positrons, yielding a perfectly balanced universe.

To beat an exhausted, or “dead” horse, in order to drive this idea home, it

is my view that the nature of an Electric Universe can be the only force
within our Universe that can be behind such matter conversion.
This impression, which Electric Universe advocates seem to have yet to
become aware of, or at least to openly recognize, would work hand-in-
hand with it, and like the Electric Universe theory, denies any need for a
Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, pulsars, or even quarks.
NOTE: Quarks, along with electrons, according to currently accepted theory
from the Standard Model of Particle Physics, are what make up Matter. This
theory proposes a proton is made up of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark.
SUBNOTE: The above generally accepted assumption still does not explain why the gravitational
acceleration between two free protons is 1836 times greater than between two free electrons. It
does, however, make the argument for the Prime Matter theory stronger, which can explain it.
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a theoretical framework, patched together from an
ever-lengthening list of presumptions in order to try to balance Einstein’s physics to actual
reality, to describe all the assumed elementary particles that scientists have imagined to
populate subatomic space. This includes the speculated Higgs boson. A Higgs boson is a
hypothetical gigantic elementary particle 9 times larger than a proton that the Standard
Model desperately hopes to actually exist, because its existence might be able to resolve
critical mathematical inconsistencies presently plaguing Particle Physics, not to mention
that it would finally justify the imagined Higgs field, which was invented to sustain the
otherwise crumbling underpinning of the entire field of Particle Physics, in addition to
being an absolutely crucial requirement in order to prop up the so-called Higgs
mechanism, which was mathematically invented to explain how all these other invented
particles could obtain mass, though all this still lacks empirical evidence of their existence.
SUBNOTE: An outwardly bloomed electromagnetic field would explain this so-called Higgs
mechanism much more simply, because the outward blooming of their electromagnetic fields
would also affect the expression of the fields constituting the separated electron and positron.
According to Particle Physics, sub-electronic quarks come in six “flavors”, named
Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom, and Top, and to also include their anti-
quark counterparts, even though not one from among this ever-expanding list of
proposed sub-atomic elements has yet been demonstrated to exist, because all
of them so far are still purely mathematical speculations that are often used
simply to balance out calculations that are not modeled after empirical data.
 Page 38

However, because Prime Matter has intertwined and inward-facing

electromagnetic fields, the transfer of energy across clumps of interacting Prime
Matter particles may be what scientists are misinterpreting as Quarks, Gluons, etc.
In deference to this, the Standard Model of Particle Physics may very likely be
over-engineering what should be an extremely simple process into something
that is by comparison infinitely more complicated than Matter actually requires,
which would mean that their structuring of Matter plainly needs review and
revision. More details on Prime Matter are forthcoming later in this document.
SUBNOTE: Considering the trouble Particle Physics finds itself in, one has to wonder how they
can justify spending billions of tax dollars building particle accelerators and colliders in attempts to
prove assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny. I am still trying to understand why they assume
that the central positron, which holds a proton together, is somehow an anti-electron. And were that
it was in fact an anti-electron, how can this extrapolate to the feasibility for anti-protons?
NOTE: Pulsars are clearly electrical, working like simple Relaxation Oscillators,
not spinning at physically impossible rates as is assumed by Classical
Cosmology, which is typically 300 revolutions per second; dentist drill speed.
Classical Cosmology responded to this challenge by claiming that these super-
spinning Pulsars therefore clearly have to be super-dense Neutron Stars, being
so dense and with such a powerful gravity that they cannot fly apart.
Neutron Stars were invented by Cosmologists to be a special type of “black
hole” Pulsar that is said to be a highly magnetized collapsed star primarily
composed of very densely packed neutrons. Yet, a foundational principle in
Neuclear Physics called the Island of Stability states that an atomic nucleus
outside the range of 1.5 neutrons to 1 proton in heavy elements, or 1-to-1 in light
elements, will spontaneously decay (a gentler term actually meaning that it will
instantly fly apart, in particular because a neutron will always degrade into a proton
when a neutron is not able to stably interact with a balancing proton) in order to remain
in a stable state of equilibrium. Thus, according to the laws of Nuclear Physics, a
Neutron Star quite clearly cannot possibly exist.
SUBNOTE: Electricity is the only force that is capable of creating and sustaining magnetic fields
in space. There are absolutely no exceptions to this electrodynamics law.
NOTE: The possibility or impossibility of Black Holes, because it is an extremely
touchy subject of profound scientific politics, will be better examined on page 83.
Being that electricity is 1039, or a thousand billion billion billion billion times
more powerful than gravity, it seems clear that it would be the naturally
powerful forces of electricity, not gravity, that binds the universe together.
The mysterious force that is presumed to be gravity, which is still not
understood (Newton never even claimed to understand it), may simply be a
misunderstood effect of electromagnetism, and can explain why the massless
hypothetical graviton, a mathematically-presumed spin 2 boson force carrier,
has never been found. A Universe based on electricity can be used to easily
discount any physical need for dark matter, dark energy, or the Big Bang
theory, where these inventions play like last-ditch cover stories for the failure
of gravitational theory.
 Page 39

NOTE: Dark Matter was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for what
was assumed to be “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters
(something that is not required in an Electric Universe), and is also used to make the
Big Bang possible (even though there is still no conclusive proof, save for speculation
about redshift presuming a Doppler effect, which will soon be argued, that the universe
is expanding at all), and is required to justify the prevailing view that gravity and
inertia are the constructs that hold the Universe together. However, unlike
charge-neutral Prime Matter, if Dark Matter were present, its electromagnetic
fields would have an effect on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which
Prime Matter will not, being charge neutral. The CMBR was discovered in 1964
and is itself touted as evidence proving the Big Bang because of its assumed
smooth distribution of temperature, even though it clearly does no such thing,
being that the universe is literally saturated by uncounted hot and cold spots. The
Big Bang would require the black body temperature (an idealized physical body
that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation) of the CMBR to be 5-7 Kelvin, but
it is in fact 2.725 Kelvin, too low for the Big Bang to even be possible, but which
is almost exactly the 2.8 Kelvin predicted for a Plasma/Electric Universe. Further,
the Big Bang requires an abundance of, and an even density of the light
elements Helium-4, Lithium-7, and Deuterium (Hydrogen-2; Hydrogen with an
added neutron), when if all the required Dark Matter were present, it is not possible
to produce as much Deuterium as is detected. Also, the even density of ordinary
matter based on these light elements is crucial to the Big Bang, but that is a bust
because light element abundances predict contradictory densities.
Further, even with all the Dark Matter required to support the Big Bang, it only
supported a Universe that was a maximum of 8 billion years old, which is odd when
you consider that we have observed stars that are precisely calculated to being 13.8
billion years old. From this, the only two things that this CMBR, light element density,
and temperature evidence can be used to prove is that there is no such thing as Dark
Matter and the Big Bang did not occur. That and the Big Bang had the rate of
universal expansion off by an astounding order of magnitude of 10 108, which is a 1
with 108 zeros behind it, or 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion, which is, by even the most liberal and forgiving of opinions, definitely an error
that cannot be ignored or brushed aside.
Big Bang advocates parried this by imagining a new presumption, this time that there
could also be an undetectable Dark Energy that must comprise 73% of all matter
(where they also figured that dark matter would comprise 23%, “normal” matter only 0.4%,
and the remaining 3.6% being intergalactic “gas”) which could be used to accelerate
Universal expansion, making it older than it appears, extending its age by 5.8 billion
years, making it 13.8 billion years old (I am a little confused. If they will place still-
existing stars at the very beginning of this time period, which marks their beginning of the
Universe, why do they concurrently state that the first stars did not come into existence until
at least 400 million years after the Big Bang? Someone might want to recheck their math).
I just wonder what they will do if it is discovered that the Universe is 70 billion, or
even trillions of years old? Will they then invent Strange Matter to slow it back
down? How long can it go on until the Big Bang collapses under the weight of its
growing list of unproven presumptions? As it is, based on all current evidence,
according to the best estimates made by Physicist Dr. Eric Lerner, the chance
that the Big Bang theory is actually true is only 1 in 100 trillion.
 Page 40

NOTE: Eric J. Lerner (http://bigbangneverhappened.org), President of Lawrenceville

Plasma Physics, Inc., stated “The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the
universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the
distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without
resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the
observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five
times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.”
SUBNOTE: The Big Bang claims the universe is only a maximum of 27.6 billion lightyears across
(13.8 billion lightyear radius for an equal number of years of existence), but it has been shown and
also widely reported to actually be as much as 156 billion lightyears across, and likely larger. That
gives it a radius of 78 billion lightyears or more, and so an age that would be about 64.2 billion
years longer than the Big Bang theory can account for. Theoretical physicists reacted by
subsequently presuming a possibility for faster-than-light inflation in the early universe (and this
after declaring that nothing can travel faster than light). With so many assumptions and no
empirical evidence, it all looks extremely unlikely. Again, being that all data indicates that there is
only a 1 in 100 trillion chance that the Big Bang even happened, black holes, which are supposedly
also justified by the presumption of singularities, though no one can yet explain how densely
packed nothing could possibly explode, they are all looking to be just as unlikely (see page 83).
I said densely packed nothing, because nothing else can pack that tightly. Of all known matter,
comprising 1080 particles, packing them by somehow ignoring their electromagnetic fields, could
not pack as tightly as the Big Bang requires to constitute their singularity because even electrons
cannot compress to a smaller size (if an electron was the size of a fly, its EM field, defining the
minimum distance it can exist from any other object, would be the width of a major league baseball
stadium). Thus, the “singularity point” theorists imagine would have to have a minimum width of
7 trillion meters. but no one can explain how this could explode, or how it could be compressed in
the first place. This is why I joke: “In the beginning there was nothing… which then exploded.”
SUBNOTE: The Big Bang theory was actually falsified by observation on October 3, 2003 when a
quasar was found in front of the opaque gas clouds of active galaxy NGC 7319, its dust totally
obliterating the viewing of anything that could possibly be located beyond and behind it. The
quasar in question has a redshift of z = 2.114. Galaxy NGC 7319, however, only has a redshift of z
= 0.0225. Relativists, interested in keeping their funding, tenures and reputations, understandably
ignore this fact and therefore do not discuss it or publicly recognize it, pretending it does not exist.
So, how old is the Universe, especially if it is even expanding, which is not yet
verified? It is becoming clear that the observed redshift, used by Hubble’s Law to
calculate the speed of galaxies, like a Doppler Effect, has more to do with their
ages, such as the scientifically sound measurement of photon-photon collisions in
denser, younger, more energetic bodies, under a youth-redshift-degeneracy model
(see the paper by Katherine M. Blundell and Steve Rawlings of Oxford University
Astrophysics, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910157v1.pdf), developed to explain how high-
redshift objects, like Quasars (Quasi-stellar objects), can be closer to us than low-
redshift objects, like galaxies, that are clearly shown to be behind or even
connected to Quasars, which the late Halton C. Arp (1927-2013), a modern day
Galileo (see www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm, or www.haltonarp.com), outlined in his Atlas
of Peculiar Galaxies (see http://arpgalaxy.com for details), which ultimately deposes the
presumption of the redshift Doppler premise. Also be sure to review the paper,
“The Redshift Revisited”, by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves at
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227...13A . We will also explore Edwin
Hubble’s very own serious doubts about his redshift-distance theory later on page 52, as
he later wondered in 1947 if the universe was actually expanding at all.
 Page 41

Based in part on the work of John K. Harms, Geoff Haselhurst, Prince

Louis de Broglie, and others (see page 42), I believe Electrons and
Positrons are never particles but always spherical waves of energy (also
see my notes on page 89). Harms proposed that Electrons were waves of
energy because all electrical phenomena are wavelike. But it is only
natural that it’s perfect reflection, a Positron, is likewise a wave of energy,
though it might be better to describe them not as waves but rather more
visually as spheres of energy or even knots of energy, self-bound by
strong intertwined electromagnetic fields, maybe like a torus (donut) or
more naturally as a plasmoid (standing wave). This concept of Prime
Matter would also eliminate and render moot the antimatter conjecture.
A strangely romanticized concept of particle physics, a Positron as
Antimatter was labeled as such three generations ago when scientists
found that when a Positron and an Electron united, they released a lot of
energy and disappeared. This is because when they join, the tremendous
energy that held them apart is released, and when the two half-particles
rejoin as a single Prime Matter wave, their electromagnetic fields again
naturally fold inward and render this composite to be undetectable by
electromagnetism-detection instruments, and this was consequentially
misinterpreted as annihilation, but this is a clearly naive notion.
The idea that a positron and electron uniting will annihilate each other is a
particularly troubling misapprehension simply because all first year
physics students know that matter cannot be annihilated. The whole
concept of antimatter was actually due to a paper by Paul Dirac in 1928
(“The Quantim Theory of the Electron”) where he had simply speculated
about the possibility. His paper did not actually predict the existence of
positrons or opposite-charged particles, but it did allow for the possibility
that electrons could have either positive or negative energy as solutions.
NOTE: It occurred to me that not much has been said regarding the greater
mass of the proton when it breaks up and releases its positron. I assume that
physicists in turn assume that this greater mass is also annihilated, although, as
noted above, the annihilation of matter is in fact impossible. However, the greater
mass of a proton is simply a casing composed entirely of almost a thousand
Prime Matter waves that are now no longer held within the cohesion-field bubble
of the freed positron that had been at their core, and so they were shucked off
and resume their electromagnetic invisibility, which they actually had all along, but
for a time had simply lended their mass to the free positron to form a proton.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 42

Letter of 12 August 2011.

What follows is annotational elaborations for layman clarity on a letter dated 12
August, 2011, sent to David Talbott and Neal Adams (I would also have sent it to
Wal Thornhill but I did not yet have his email address, but I did assume David Talbott
would naturally pass it on to him), and appended to the previous letter to James
Maxlow, regarding this (itself a corrected rendering of the original letter sent 11
August, 2011, which was an unedited version — the curse of the SEND key). The
following version is corrected and more detailed. Though I am a fan of Dr. James
Maxlow’s work, and his work had convinced me of Expansion Tectonics, in the
following letter I appear to favorably highlight Neal Adam’s material, but this is
because of the more graphical 3D animations (totally, like, eye-candy, dude) that he
has produced to more graphically drive the Expansion Tectonics theory:
For some time I have been observing two sides of things that I now clearly
believe is in fact the same side, but simply viewed and interpreted from
different observational perspectives.
For me, the evidence proposed for the Electric Universe theory,
championed by Wal Thornhill (www.holoscience.com) and David Talbott
(www.thunderbolts.info), have me absolutely convinced of it. Interestingly, it
now seems obvious by simple observation that the entire Universe, from
the study of mundane biological processes to the immensity of
intergalactic phenomena are all quite clearly electrical, and especially
because it can be duplicated in the laboratory. This is augmented by the
mounting evidence gathered by NASA, et al., in their probing of the sun,
planets, asteroids, and comets that only confirms it, clearly revealing their
electrical natures. However, mainstream science seems taken aback and
oddly mystified by this otherwise obvious data, but perhaps this is due to
the fact that this information does not prop up their own theories, which
for them, often due to their single-minded zealous belief in their own
concepts, would be puzzling. It would also greatly affect their funding.
John K. Harms’ Electricity and Magnetism, published in the 1999 issue
of the General Science Journal (an updated version was released in mid-
2001, found at www.wbabin.net/physics/harms2.pdf), shows Electrons are likely not
particles, but are waves of energy, which to me would help explain both
how they can change orbits instantly without intermediate transition and
how they can jump quantum frequencies. I believe it would also greatly
enhance their ability to absorb, store, and transfer energy through
harmonics principles in tandem with such quantum frequency changes.
NOTE: It should also be pointed out that Prince Louis de Broglie showed that
every particle has wave aspects, arguing that every particle has a frequency;
something that only waves have (see www.davis-inc.com/physics/).
 Page 43

NOTE: You should also look up Australian physicist Geoff Haselhurst and his
exploration of The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in
Space (www.spaceandmotion.com). I wish I had found him long ago.
I note that in contemplative extrapolations on such ideas, and considering
the electrical nature of the universe, which Albert Einstein, contemptuous
of experiments and putting all his faith in pure thought, totally ignored in
all of his theories, theories that he himself admitted did not reflect reality
at all, and the fact that even electromagnetic forces operate at least
thousands of times faster than the speed of light (if not infinitely faster,
though some have calculated that it must be at least 20 billion times
faster. If it did not, the entire universe would be incoherent; lacking its
observed interconnected order), it may show that he was wrong in his
assumption of E = mc2/t, where t is Time Displacement ( 1  v / c ), and that
2 2

it may be correctly expressed as E = t/mc2, and could explain why, when a

heavy block is dropped onto a solid surface, the block temporarily loses a
small part of its mass. This could prove Einstein did in fact get his math
wrong, because if his theory was true, the block would have temporarily
gained mass.
We could also digress to the production of superconductive exotic matter
by a process of electrical arcing, such as high-spin monatomic gold from
base gold, which was the origin of Alchemy, where 56% of this material
exists in this universe, but 44% exists elsewhere (the Far World or
Hidden World, according to ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians).
When a Prime Matter particle is split by collision with an energetic force,
it divides into a Positron and an Electron, which is separated and hence
blooms their electromagnetic fields outwardly. The Positron is naturally
attractive to other Prime Matter particles, which will coat the Positron with
even spherical layers of Prime Matter up to a boundary of its attraction
field, thus resulting in a collected coating of 919 Prime Matter particles.
This collection becomes what is known as a Proton. A Neutron includes
an additional Prime Matter particle. This also explains why a neutron
needs to bind with another proton to maintain stability, where it needs a
+1 charge to balance, and where the neutron effectively tries to stand in
for the electron that the proton needs to balance itself with, though the
neutron ultimately leaves the proton still wanting for a -1 charge.
 Page 44

When an Electron tries to bind with the Positron, ignoring intervening free
Prime Matter particles, it is stopped by the now-energized Prime Matter the
Positron coated itself with to form a proton. As a result the electron is held at
bay, yet due to its attraction to the Positron, it sheaths itself around the Proton
like an envelope (physics assumes an open envelope because a surface
cannot touch itself without folding, though I have observed that a sphere’s
surface touches itself). And because its electromagnetic field is now
outwardly bloomed, it becomes detectable and its apparent mass also
increases billions of times due to the now outwardly bloomed electromagnetic
fields, becoming a hydrogen atom, but only if the separating charge does not
keep them in a plasma state. This all happens seemingly out of nothing.
Hence, a primal universal singularity is not required, rendering the Big Bang
moot.
NOTE: The properties of Prime Matter will be later elaborated upon. See, for
example, http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39 , or
check out Neal’s recent explanation at https://youtu.be/f_jRcZx6LCA.
I have also been exploring the Expansion Tectonics theory, championed by
the late Professor Emeritus Samuel Warren Carey, a brilliant Australian
geologist, who, among his many accomplishments, was an early protagonist
for the development of Plate Tectonics. Later, he realized how unrealistic this
concept was, though now considered fact by most academics, because
continental plates, of their present curved shape, do not actually fit very well
at all, even though as school children, fueled by our more forgiving
imaginations, we all thought that the seams between Africa and South
America would fit perfectly. But this is not actually true; they fit very poorly
together, but only on an Earth of its present size; but they actually do fit
perfectly on a much smaller Earth. As a consequence, after extensive
evaluation and study, in 1956 he developed Expansion Tectonics (originally
commonly referred to as the Expanding Earth or Growing Earth theory).
Although the idea of an expanding Earth, and hence, an expanding celestial
system, seems at first glance incredulous, I took notice because, being a
student of all aspects of science, I observed early on in life that the land
masses in the Pacific also seemed to fit together if Australia and Antarctica
were joined and were once in Mid-Pacific about 100 million years ago, which
is exactly where they would be on a planet half its present size (mind you, the
granite continental crust, which is billions of years old, was not likewise
smaller, but was of their present size. It is the thin, newer basalt oceanic
crust, only averaging about 70 million years old that is growing, centering at
all present mid-oceanic expansion ridges). Odd, but it was not until this
moment that I realized that as a child that I had assumed that the Earth was
half its size during the time of the dinosaurs.
 Page 45

That, and NASA and geologists have confirmed that the Earth is in fact
expanding through precise satellite and geological measurements of the
Earth, close to the rate predicted by Expansion Tectonics, which results in
required periodic updates to GPS data, yet cannot be attributed solely to
too-insubstantial accretion of asteroids, comets, meteors, and space dust.
The decades-long work conducted by James Maxlow (www.jamesmaxlow.com),
a distinguished British geologist based in Australia, and the eye-popping
and thirty-plus years of work by the American Neal Adams
(www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom); his long career, or “day job” as a visual
artist gives him a profound visual approach to this data. Neal’s work is eye
candy, and is the most convincing work I have seen on the subject.
Thanks to the United States Navy and other agencies conducting global
oceanic core sampling to precisely determine the age of the ocean floors
(see www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/slide_shows/sea_floor/crustageposter.jpg), the
Expansion Tectonics theory is soundly substantiated (Dr. Carey did not
have access to such maps, completed in the 1990s, when he proposed this
theory. If he had, science would never have adopted the Plate Tectonics
theory in the first place in the 1970s).
Interestingly, this geological data was originally gathered in order to help
prove Plate Tectonics, to which end it actually failed because it totally lacks
evidence of continuous plate-edge subduction, evidence of independent plate
drift, and also shows expansion on both sides of the mid-ocean ridges, which
together can disqualify the Plate Tectonics theory. It fails so miserably, in
fact, that those who actively promote Plate Tectonics typically ignore the fact
that the data actually shows that all ocean surfaces are expanding and all
continental plates are “moving” away from each other. This way the data
could be made to appear to support their theory, though in truth it certainly
does not. The only two things all this data does prove is that the majority of
the oceans are on average 70 million years old and the continental land
masses are billions of years old.
NOTE: Very much smaller oceans, little more than seas or massive lakes, have a
scientifically measured age of up to 185 million years. Very small zones, focused
primarily in the sturdy bedrock of the present Mediterranean Sea, where crustal
ripping began, have a measured age of up to 280 million years.
An expanding Earth can also explain why the dinosaurs, which were all
migratory, almost all died out, because the majority of them were no longer
able to migrate to their traditional, hard-wired migratory destinations when
the Earth expanded enough to rip open broad fissures in the crust that were
filled in by deep bodies of water, drained off from inland oceans and
accretion from the mantle (a known supermassive storehouse of saline water).
 Page 46

Mammals, lizards, and the like survived because they

did not migrate. The only dinosaurs that did survive the
extinction event were birds, because they could fly.
Other larger flying dinosaurs, such as Pterodactyls,
some as big as giraffes, were unable to fly by 60-65 (Art by Mark Witton)

million years ago due to the gradually increasing gravity

as the Earth expanded (40kg is the maximum weight of flying creatures in
our present gravity). Even modern engineers who studied them agree that
flight in modern Earth is impossible for Pterodactyls because they required
lighter gravity and denser oxygen.
NOTE: The belief that engineers say bumblebee flight is impossible is urban
legend, started at a dinner meeting in Germany in the 1930s between a biologist
and an engineer. To answer the biologist’s question about bumblebee flight, the
engineer’s quick calculations on the back of a napkin failed to offer an
explanation, but this was entirely due to him having a lack of relevant data.
NOTE: As recent studies pile up, they are all showing that some large-bodied
herbivores, like the Triceratops, were already in decline prior to the famous
meteor impact in the Gulf of Mexico 65 Million Years Ago (MYA) at the end of the
Cretaceous period (146-65 MYA). Yet others, like many thriving two-legged
theropods, survived until around 60 MYA within the Tertiary Period (65-2.6 MYA).
SUBNOTE: It is generally assumed that the only mammals that survived the Cretaceous period
were small shrew-like rodents. It is also generally assumed that all land creatures greater than 6 feet
in length became extinct, but this is entirely untrue. And the “nuclear winter” from an asteroid
impact, if any, would not last as long as initially assumed (the Earth heals itself rather quickly). For
example, most species of quad- and bi-pedal apes were already present by the end of the
Cretaceous.
NOTE: I also wonder, as pointed out earlier, if massively energetic meteor
impacts can also generate the level of force needed to initiate conversion of
Prime Matter, which permeates and moves through everything, much like neutrinos,
to Matter, and maybe the meteor impact of 65 million years ago did instigate the
general extinction of Dinosaurs, but not as we would typically think of it; that it
caused expansion, which in due course impeded land-based migration once the
expansion rills widened, like in the Mediterranean Sea, becoming water barriers.
People can argue until they are blue in the face about where this new mass
is coming from so that celestial bodies are able to somehow expand, but
the simple fact remains, even if the root cause were to be a mystery to the
end of time, that the Earth and other celestial bodies are expanding,
whether or not we will ever understand the real mechanics behind it.
Neal’s visual aides, along with his detailed research, to include his
theories on Prime Matter, were sufficient enough to keep me investigating.
I am now utterly convinced that it is in the nature of an Electric Universe
that engenders the formation of this new matter from Prime Matter.
 Page 47

However, some of the ideas ventured by the Electric Universe and

Expansion Tectonics seem, at least at first, to conflict. Nevertheless, after
careful and detailed study, I am now absolutely convinced that not only do
they not conflict, but that they in fact fully complement each other.
Consider Neal’s videos (www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom). If you view clip
Science 05, he makes a sound argument for expansion on Jupiter’s Moon,
Europa. But if you view clips Science 03 and 04 regarding the Martian
Valles Marineris, you will find a conflict of ideas with the Electric
Universe. EU sees only a scar that is wholly due to naturally-expected
inter-planetary electrical arcing as a result of near proximity, yielding a
huge United States-sized scar on Mars, and mind you, the whole of this
massive scar, and indeed the entirety of the Martian surface, is replete with
countless scars that can only be a product of intense electrical interactivity.
Conversely, Neal demonstrates Expansion Tectonics quite convincingly as
the most significant cause of the crustal spreading aspect of this scar.
However, I am actually convinced that both of these theories, Electric
Universe and Expansion Tectonics, regarding Valles Marineris are right.
I came to this conclusion because Neal Adams does not simply demonstrate
academically and visually that, based on solid evidence that planets do grow,
he also has sought and devoted considerable research into how this is all
possible. I fully concur with his notion that an atom does not contain the
excess of imaginative hypothetically-presumed sub-atomic particles that those
working in Particle Physics presently assume, but that it simply consists of
Electrons and Positrons, as clearly explained by the late physicist Allen
Rothwarf, together appearing as particles when in atomic formations, due to
their bounding potential fields (electromagnetic fields). This may, in the final
analysis, spell an end to Quantum theory; a theory that also separates cause
from effect, which is not observable and is also quite impossible. This leaves
Plasma Physics as the only viable contender that can satisfactorily explain
both general and Planck-scale universal physics, making it look more like the
much sought-after Universal Theory of Everything. Because the attraction
between plasma filaments is linear, its effects are scalable over many orders
of magnitude, so laboratory experiments can easily model what is observed in
galactic space, which gravity models cannot do. The force of gravity, being
39 orders of magnitude weaker than Plasma and also the weakest force in
science, totally fails at the square of the distance between acceleration-
balanced celestial objects, and which, because of this obvious failure of
gravitation, is why Fritz Zwicky had proposed Dark Matter in 1934, all due to
the deeply engrained Newtonian-era gravitational meme that still prevents
cosmologists from seeing the obvious electrical signatures in all this activity.
 Page 48

The Prime Matter theory precludes any need for the antimatter conjecture.
Though CERN says they have created it, they have yet to prove that what
they have is not Positrons that were simply ejected when they broke protons
apart. However, the problem here is that most physicists, who somehow seem
to forget that matter cannot be annihilated, still believe that a Positron is
antimatter, when it is merely the positive-charged half of Prime Matter, where
the other half is an Electron, which can recombine into a Prime Matter
waveform and release the immense energy separating them, though these
physicists somehow interpret this energy release as annihilation because they
can no longer detect their resulting Prime Matter product, but this is due to
Prime Matter having inward-facing electromagnetic fields, thus allowing this
massive abundance of matter to evade electromagnetic instrument detection.
I believe that immense electrical arcing between planets did indeed initiate
the very impressive planetary scar and all its surface channeling, as can be
demonstrated by a stick welder on a grounded metal plate, forming the
innumerable dendritic “tributaries” that in no way conforms to standard
rules of erosion and river formation theory, such as crossing each other
with absolutely no effect, all with telltale scalloped edges and crater
chains, and all of which can be electrically duplicated in the laboratory.
NOTE: One has to wonder about the absolutely alarming nature of the northern
hemisphere of Mars, where almost the entire upper crust of Mars’ northern
hemisphere is missing, and not just due to tectonic spreading, where the
original, primordial crust remained nominally intact in the southern hemisphere.
Detailed examination shows what appears to be colossal electrical excavation of
the crust that extends five, and sometimes six miles deep. This would also easily
explain the absolutely pervasive debris fields that very densely saturate Mars’
entire surface with chunks of rock, some that often weigh in the hundreds of tons.
However, I am convinced that this tremendously intense and powerful arcing
also initiates what appears to be matter “creation” within the core of planets,
let alone perhaps locally at zones of electrical interaction. Further, being that
all planets, stars, and galaxies are connected and powered through Birkeland
Currents, as is all too easily explained by the Electric Universe, this may also
have a natural side effect of gestating matter at the electrical focal points at
their cores from the free and abundant Prime Matter permeating these bodies.
NOTE: More precisely, this so-called matter “creation” process would actually be
a reorganization of existing Prime Matter into ponderable matter, which is a state
of matter where its subatomic particles outwardly bloom their electromagnetic
fields. This is due to the natural formation of protons, as charged ions, by
wrapping freed positrons within protective husks from the surrounding dense
prime matter ocean, with the positrons’ complementing reactive electrons left free
to initially express this wholly balanced construct as highly electrified plasma.
 Page 49

But Alternative speculations abound. For example, one idea proposes that
if electrical arcing can convert platinum metals to superconductive exotic
matter, pushing 44% of its mass into an unseen dimension, could it not
also pull matter back? Another asks if it could it be Prime Matter reacting
to Consciousness, which Quantum Mechanics is so crazy about, positing
that waves of energy, suspended in superposition of potentiality, collapse
into particles when Consciousness “observes” it? Or could it be, as I
believe, Prime Matter converting to Matter, initially as Plasma and then as
Hydrogen?
Is it possible that the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics are
moving hand-in-hand? The universe powers the galaxies, which power the
stars, which power the planets. Can all this energy and mass be accounted
for? Is it possible that matter generation is in fact a result, colliding Prime
Matter with electricity (Electrons) at electrical focal (arcing) points,
which, in an electrical system, focuses at the center of such bodies?

—David Ross Goben

 Page 50

Letter of 8 September 2011.

The following are annotational elaborations for layman clarity of an 8 September
2011 letter to advocates of both the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics:
I have written to all of you, but no one has yet responded (it had only been
three weeks as of this writing, but such responses did come shortly after
this letter, responding to my initial correspondence). This is no big deal; I
know that you are busy, for presently you are preparing to travel and
deliver papers or to attend important national conferences. Besides, I am
not presumptuous enough to consider myself worthy of any great priority.
I am perfectly happy to sit comfortably on the back burner until such a
time that you can consider my discoveries of connectivity between you.
Regardless, I certainly do think that advocates for the Electric Universe
and advocates for Expansion Tectonics should sincerely consider having a
reasonably serious dialog with each other.
Consider that science behind an Electric Universe works. Also consider
that science behind Expansion Tectonics works. And finally consider the
work Neal Adams presented for Prime Matter works (I did find a minor
flaw in his structural layout, but Michael Netzer, with Keith Wilson, did
much to clear it up in the article New Hydrogen Nucleus Structure;
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39).

The entirety of everyone’s physics work and, just as importantly, their

observations seem to verify it. They are also neat, simple, and logical. On
top of that, your work in both fields clearly compliments the other, to me
anyway, and almost every day that I examine them, I happen upon more
correlations between your work, and have yet to encounter disagreements
that are anything more than simple differences of interpretation in
common observations. Indeed, it now screams so loudly that my mind is
truly boggled at the thought of you not talking to each other.
NOTE: Both Neal Adams’ and Allen Rothwarf’s Prime Matter models are simple
and elegant. Instead of depending on an overcrowded superfluity of additional
particles like six types of quarks, six types of leptons, thirteen gauge boson force
carriers, and a plethora of other supposed components, bound states and anti-
particles, it is instead simply composed of Prime Matter, which is in turn made up
of an Electron and Positron as half-particles. Add to that, I further propose that
each of these components are not particles, per se, as Quantum Physics defines
the borrowed term particle, but rather as more logical spherical waves of
charged energy that can therefore very easily exchange and transfer energy. The
interaction-effects of each of these individual components are naturally
electromagnetic energy, which, thanks to its infinite range, does not appear to
restrict these components by distance or by time. When expressed as a cohesive
 Page 51

Prime Matter packet, it is closed and self-contained, binding its electromagnetic

energy inwardly, rendering it invisible to electromagnetic detectors. Separation,
however, naturally forces these fields to bloom outwardly, even as their charge
entanglement seeks to reunite. The effects of this separation and recombination
is simple electromagnetic energy, which also provides the torque and tension as
the causal forces that in turn affect other Prime Matter particles, like a “Butterfly
Effect”. This is because Prime Matter can interact and will naturally transfer
energy waves passing through them. Indeed, exchanges of this energy between
clumps of Prime Matter may be mistaken for quarks, much as when a proton,
made up of a Positron encased in an attracted shell of Prime Matter particles,
ejects the Positron from its center when the Prime Matter shell is shucked off,
joining with a balancing Electron, which is currently mistaken as “annihilation”
when the tremendous energy required to separate them is simply released.
Neal’s Prime Matter model is based on cube-like layers of Prime Matter
surrounding a Positron core and removing corner particles. However, making
calculations using this model seem to leave the result with one additional Prime
Matter particle than its Electron weight should have allowed for, but worse, it also
sets the core Positron off-center, which is not logical. Michael and Keith
implemented a hexagonal model to address this and solved the Electron weight
issue (see above link), but even this model is not natural. However, if you instead
use a simpler spherical model that places the Positron at the exact center, and
then wrap spherical shells of Prime Matter evenly around it, binding them within
what might be looked upon as a charged potential field envelope, or the
absorbed energy that in turn keeps the Electron at a distance, the math for its
Electron weight works perfectly, but a physical model (or a computer model, in my
case) also looks more logical and natural. Additionally, because Prime Matter
particles have inward-facing electromagnetic fields they will not hold each other
off at any significant distances as would outwardly-facing electromagnetic fields,
and in like turn atoms will, but may be able to pack themselves tightly together,
close to the point of touching each other, to include the charged particle they are
attracted to. Additionally, and this is eating at the back of my head, I wonder
about the energy bound to it to keep the Electron at a distance (and everything in
the universe must be balanced), that this varying level of energy, just as there are
varying levels of tension, should also define the extent of the potential field
envelope, thus allowing for varying degrees of Prime Matter layers, therefore
easily allowing for the formation of such composite items as a Tau or a Muon.
This variable frequency likely has to do with the rate of spin of an electron or
positron. The faster it spins, the higher its frequency, charge, and tension.
NOTE: Neal Adams addressed queries to his structural layout in a facinating
video, which you can see at https://youtu.be/f_jRcZx6LCA. However, he performs this
demonstration using steel magnetic Bucky Balls®, each exhibiting both a positive
and negative polarity. Because these magnets have North-South poling, just like
bar magnets, of course they can be laid in even sheets and stacked into blocks.
Yet, even though a Prime Matter waveform contains an intertwined Electron and
Positron, which have negative and positive charges, they instead have inward-
facing electromagnetic fields, not outward-facing as Bucky Balls have, and so
they will not interact in any way as the ball magnets will, because when they are
 Page 52

bound as Prime Matter, they are Charge Neutral, not blooming outwardly their
electromagnetic fields as will Bucky Balls, otherwise they would be detectable.
This is why I maintain that the Prime Matter waveforms are wrapped around a
centrally-positioned Positron in layers of spherical sheaths, which is simply more
natural, and would also be natural for charge neutral waveforms that are naturally
attracted to a positive charge through such things as energy transfer
mechanisms. The spherical shape also allows for direct interaction between
adjacent Prime Matter waveforms, both laterally in their sheath layer and
vertically, allowing for minimal transfer routing of energy from any waveform
packet to another, the fractal path looking a bit like lightening.
NOTE: The polarized energy separating Electron from Positron is naturally
electromagnetic energy, which is an integral part of Prime Matter and its
components. Also, electromagnetic energy, for it to even work, has to be almost
infinitely faster than light (though some will be more modest and declare it to be only
thousands or billions of times faster), and hence it would appear to not be confined
by any element of Time, which might indicate that Time, in the final analysis, is
not a dimension as Einstein proposed, and may be an effect of observing a
series of possibility potentials collapsing into an observed state that we might
view within a singular NOW reality. In the strictest sense, Time is not a
dimension, anyway. Time is a concept.
NOTE: In light of this Prime Matter to Matter conversion, I have reasoned that
Quasars may actually be highly energetic electrical focal points where Prime Matter is
actively converted to Matter on an absolutely colossal scale, gestating stellar and even
galactic mass, which would also generate a high redshift because of energetic but natural
photon-photon collisions. Classical astronomy assumes them to be exceedingly distant
because they interpret this natural redshift in terms of recession, using it to calculate
a rate of recession based on a Doppler Effect using Hubble’s Law, but evidence
shows many of them are actually in front of nearby galaxies, and in rare cases even
adjacently connected to lower-redshift galaxies, and so the redshift likely has to do
with their age, not recession, following a youth-redshift-degeneracy model.
Even Edwin Hubble, who first proposed the redshift/distance correlation in 1929
put forth in Hubble’s law, later reconsidered that the redshift might not have
anything to do with recession. In 1947, he said “It seems likely that redshift may not
be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the
universe may require re-examination” (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the
Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349). Cosmologists have flatly ignored this later statement. He died
in 1953. See also http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090513faster.htm and
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091217light2.htm.
A problem with Hubble’s law (also called Lemaître’s law) is the expression v=H0D,
where v is velocity, H0 is the Hubble Constant, and D is the distance. The
proportionality, or Hubble constant, is anything but constant, being periodically
recalculated when new observations disagree with it. Even so, it is always
expressed with a wobbling variability built in for “accuracy”, so observations can
be adjusted to fit calculations through a “safety window”. Worse, the relationship
between recessional velocity and redshift depends on the cosmological model
adopted. But even worse, the recessional velocity is not established except for
small redshifts. Large redshifts, which are typically observed, do not work.
 Page 53

NOTE: From Wikipedia: In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann

equations from Einstein's field equations, showing that the universe might expand at a
rate calculable by the equations. The parameter used by Friedmann is known today as
the scale factor which can be considered as a scale invariant form of the proportionality
constant of Hubble's law. Georges Lemaître independently found a similar solution in
1927. The Friedmann equations are derived by inserting the metric for a homogeneous
and isotropic universe into Einstein's field equations for a fluid with a given density and
pressure. This idea of an expanding spacetime would eventually lead to the Big Bang and
Steady State theories of cosmology.
According to the Marine Geology & Geophysics Images of Crustal Age
of the Ocean Floor, (www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html) produced
by the National Geographical Data Center in 1977 (an arm of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and managed
by the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
(NESDIS)), and updated in 1988, which is based upon a colossal battery of
core samples taken by the United States Navy, scientific research
expeditions, and others whose purpose was to completely map the age of
the ocean/sea floors (and which also conclusively proved that the ocean
floors are only a maximum of 185 million years old, though you would
quickly notice that the age of the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the initial
site of crustal separation, reaches all the way back to 280 million years),
by itself clearly shows the Earth had doubled in size in the past 100
million years, and by itself can also be used to validate the premise of
Expansion Tectonics, and further, in consequence, to disprove the current
Pangaea Hypothesis that is based on Plate Tectonics.
Unlike Expansion Tectonics, which traces Earth history back 4 billion
years, Plate Tectonics, which can only track Earth history back 750 million
years (the middle of the Neoproterozoic), also critically depends on
current ocean basins existing 565 million years before the time that sound
geological measurements have determined that they actually existed, and
on a planet that it assumes to be relatively consistent in size. Plate
Tectonics, as far as empirical data is concerned, fails right there.
Worse, Plate Tectonics quickly runs into numerous technical problems the
further it wanders away from the central South America/Africa joining
point, and must, as a consequence, implement impossible-to-prove
migrations and twisting of plates that also clearly lack evidentiary
migration-paths cut through the much denser ocean floor crust, which
consequentially makes such drifting impossible, but which, if possible,
would still be present as evidence even after all this time, which would
reflect such geologically impossible migration, rotation, subduction and
reduction, if they had actually occurred.
 Page 54

The above scenarios are absolutely requisite for the Plate Tectonics
premise to be viable. However, such effects can be better, more easily, and
more logically demonstrated by crustal cracking, buckling, and
compression as crust is slowly flattened out on an extremely slowly
growing Earth (averaging only a miniscule 18 to 22 millimeters of
diameter expansion each year) without depending on subduction,
reduction, or plate rotation at all.
Indeed, the only evidence left in the basalt structure of the ocean floors is
for world-wide planetary expansion. Period.
NOTE: As explained by Neal Adams, the Plate Tectonics model of Pangaea is
unworkable because the crust would be on one side of the Earth, two miles
higher than the remaining ocean portion of a non-expanding Earth. Assuming the
crust extends on average one half mile above the water, this would mean that the
Pangaea side outweighs the water side 4 to 1. So, the center of the Earth’s
gravity would have to shift to the Pangaea side by 4 or 5 kilometers, and water,
being opportunistic, will shift with the center of gravity, and as a result the middle
of Pangaea would sink below the water, submerging easily half its land-mass.
But it would also expose to the air equivalent ocean bedrock on the opposite side
of the planet. But this is not what advocates of Plate Tectonics say happened, nor
is such evidenced by geological data, which means that this central sinking of
Pangaea did not happen, but which also means that the Plate Tectonics model of
Pangaea did not occur.
NOTE: As an interesting note, if you look at a crustal map of the Earth, such as
that shown at www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo130/slide_shows/sea_floor/crustageposter.jpg,
you might notice that the Pacific Expansion Ridge moves up through California
and is part of the San Andreas Fault. What this means to an Expanding Earth is
that the western side of the fault will not in time break off and slip beneath the
Pacific Ocean, as so many are too quick to predict and sensationalize, but rather
that California is actually growing and may in time possess more and more over-
priced real estate. However, in considering what is happening to Baja California,
California will grow, but in tens of millions of years it may eventually bisect,
perhaps one day in the far distant future re-flood Death Valley in the process.
Expansion Tectonics, on the other hand, is based on sound geological
science and actual physical evidence, verified by the completion of world-
wide scientific projects to perform complete oceanic magnetic mapping,
plus radiometric and palaeonto-logic age dating of crusts beneath all
Earth’s oceans, like the Bedrock Geological Map of the World, originally
produced by the National Geographical Data Center in 1996, and can be
used to trace Earth history back quite easily to 4 billion years, and can do
so without the need for plate migration or subduction, which, as just
stated, both are geologically impossible if examined through the lens of
existing geological evidence. Granted, very minor subduction can and will
occur, but not on a scale or to the extent that Plate Tectonic advocates
 Page 55

claim that it must. Most of them claim the forming of the Himalayas is by
subduction, but it is actually due to surface compression because of the
curved crust flattening as the planet expands. This is exactly like Northern
Italy, where the Alps form by compression even as the Mediterranean is
clearly being pulled apart, not being collided into by Africa. Geological
evidence shows that Africa is actually pulling away from Europe.
According to advocates for Expansion Tectonics, though it took the past
100 million years for the Earth to double in size, the evidence shows that it
took the previous 600 million years for the Earth to double in size. I note
that a great deal of the expansion has clearly been in the past 10 to 20
million years.
I am sure if they could fine-tune readings enough, it might show that some
significant expansion took place in the past 200,000-40,000 years, easily
within the myth-memory of Mankind, and perhaps also when, according to
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, Venus finally settled into its current orbit (Dr.
Velikovsky claims that this happened within the past 4,000 years),
previously no doubt having frequent electrical encounters with the Earth,
acting and looking like a gigantic comet that would clearly rain horror and
cataclysmic disaster in the racial memory of Mankind. I can only imagine
the Birkeland Currents or Faraday effects witnessed within the
magnetospheres of both atmospheres as seen from the surface of the Earth.
NOTE: The evidence that Velikovsky presented, especially with Wal Thorhill’s
amendments, corrections, and enhancements due to continued research, who
admittedly also strongly disagreed with some of Velikovsky’s assertions, is too
compelling to ignore entirely. Although I am a natural skeptic (believe it or not)
when I approach any new idea, as any scientist should be, the ties that link this
bold idea tightly to ancient oral traditions and myths just leans too far in favor of
something like what Velikovsky described, especially considering that Venus still
has a weak comet tail, to include long filamentary Birkeland Currents (“stringy
things” as NASA scientists first described them in the 1970s) extending out to near to
Earth’s own orbit (see www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100312cometvenus.htm
). Current data from NASA and the ESA are proving that comets are no different
from asteroids, except they have a long elliptical orbits that dip steeply into the
inner-solar field, which consequentially allows for greater electrical charging, and
hence, they develop plasma tails when these negative-charged bodies pass
through the strong positive-charged solar ion fields, so not made up of ice and
water vapor, which is being accumulatively disproved, though NASA scientists
tend to keep their blinkers on and simply choose to instead continually exclaim
mystification, when Plasma Physics, the brainchild of Hannes Alfvén, has long
proven, and this science even predicts those exact effects.
 Page 56

The advocates for Expansion Tectonics maintain that the process of

Earth’s expansion is accelerating, which might seem to be the case, as
evidenced above. But, in light of the Electric Universe theory I would not
be so quick to make that assumption because I think that this appears only
to be true within the framework of significantly enhanced electrical
interaction during those periods of growth, and I might also venture to
guess that significant expansion does not occur except when there is
sufficient electrical interaction, and might indeed be directly relational to
the level of electrical interaction.
Because planetary electrical arcing (granted, most of it being invisible,
being beyond the range of human-visible light, though it would be
evidenced by radiological measurements) seems to me to be the source for
engendering expansion among the planets, as is made evident on Earth,
the Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, etc., perhaps it is simply so because
there has been significantly more electrical interaction on/with the Earth in
the past 100 million years, and especially in the past 20 million years
(simply take note of the amount of ocean-bed expansion that has taken
place by merely observing how a significant portion of the expansion
shown on the maps indicates a sea/ocean bed age of within just the past
10-20 million years), and on up to the conveyable memory of Mankind.
Such intense electrical arcing, which could be responsible for certain
minor or even major extinction events, might also explain the generation
of abiotic oil.
Science has yet to discover authentic forensic evidence for petroleum, or
oil actually being “fossil” fuel, or biotic fuel, that so many profess, their
arguments based upon previously presumed, but unsubstantiated
conjecture that has no actual science behind it, typically referred to as a
scientific guestimation, or a Scientific Wild Ass Guess (SWAG).
NOTE: As a side-note, I often wonder why environmentalists are so dead-set on
preserving this readily available resource, or even demand its total non-use at all
(I would love to see all those same advocates get along in a world without all their smart
gadgets, not to mention general mundane utilitarian objects and even foods that are
based upon or enhanced by polymers derived from petroleum), where most such
hydrocarbon sources do not pose marginal threats against wildlife or
ecosystems, especially in light of current and developing extraction technologies,
when all real-world science indicates that it is likely not the finite supply that
environmentalists shout, but rather it is, contrarily, more abundant than Mankind
can or will ever exploit. This is especially poignant because evidence increasingly
favors the possibility this resource does not take millions of years to develop, but
may take only a few months or years, and may also explain why many bone-dry
 Page 57

wells have been recently found to be again filled, though there is usually no
evidence of seepage-filling by adjacent saturated bedrock layers. Just consider
the once-dry wells along the Pacific Expansion Ridge in Baja Californian Also
note that most of the largest oil fields are clearly located along global expansion
ridges, which are also known fault zones, or near crustal compression zones.
This is especially puzzling when you understand how much Environmentalists
themselves exploit these so-called fossil fuels even as they put such use down.
The only evidence that actually exists is for abiotic oil, and specifically
detected where hydrogen-rich fluids vent, such as at the bottom of the
Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field, some 2,100 feet
below sea level and 20 km west of the Mid-Atlantic Expansion Ridge,
which it is shown to have been produced by the abiotic synthesis of
hydrocarbons in the mantle of the Earth (the second such find in recent
years). There, they found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that
appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth rather than from
biological material settled on the ocean floor. Besides, biological layers
would have to be impossibly thick, on top of which it would have to be
able to readily oxidize, which it will not do at great oceanic depths.
Further, land-based sources would have wasted away or been removed
long before enough pressure-inducing layers of earth could cover them.
The more you think about it, the less biotic oil makes any sense.
It is theorized, based upon laboratory experiments, that abiotic synthesis of
hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks,
water, and moderate amounts of heat. Ultramafic or Ultrabasic Rocks are
igneous and meta-igneous rocks with very low silica content, and are ideal
for sequestering carbon, such as CO2. What is interesting about this is if
you look at a world-wide map of the ocean bottom that details natural
carbon production (typically from radiocarbons, such as Carbon-13,
seeping up from the mantle and decaying into common Carbon (Carbon-
12)), you will find that, though the carbon map is far from complete or so
detailed, it exhibits coincidence to the Bedrock Geological Map of the
World that measures in great detail the ages of the sea floors.
NOTE: You may also want to look at the Mediterranean Expansion Ridge that
cuts east of Saudi Arabia, through the Middle-East oil fields, which is stretching
the land masses, such as Greece, as Africa pulls away from Europe, though it is
presently slightly pivoting the stretching on a solid, binding Saudi Arabia.
But the above digression takes us to the next step of hydrocarbons, which
is carbon heavily saturated by hydrogen. Hydrogen is the typical stable-
matter state of Prime Matter blooming its electromagnetic field outwardly,
“creating” matter from the “aether”, after the energy has seeped off so that
 Page 58

Electrons can interact with protons. This seeping off of energy, is, well,
highly energetic, and could easily be responsible for the molten cores of
planets and moons, such as is the case with our own Moon, which,
contrary to earlier scientific guestimations, is now understood to have, or
once had a molten core, based upon clear evidence found in Moon rocks
brought back to Earth by the Apollo missions that exhibited magnetic
qualities, not as a result of meteoric impacts, which have only short-lived
magnetic effects, but the evidence in the lunar rock showed it must have
remained in a magnetic environment for a long period of time (millions of
years) and the field had to come from a long-lasting magnetic dynamo.
NOTE: It has been believed that Earth emits heat energy because radioactive
elements decay in its depths. However, if you can accept the electrical activity
observed in all the heavenly bodies to be naturally driven by electricity (duh!), the
next step is to accept the required consequence that these celestial bodies
operate on electrical circuits, and thus their cores would be powered by
electricity, not nuclear decay, which was originally a conjecture that made sense
during the height of the Atomic Age. Actually, if you do the math, such nuclear
fires would have cooled long ago, except for an electrical force that can form
radiological elements. See www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01/19/forty-four-trillion-watts/ .
NOTE: Immanuel Velikovsky was very adamant in his best-selling work, “Worlds
in Collision,” that when the Earth passed through the tail of Venus as Venus
crossed our path, it left heavy deposits of hydrocarbons across the Earth in the
form of oil and tar. Scientists are now concluding that there are in fact significant
quantities of hydrocarbons in comet tails. Investigations of the luminescence of
comet halos have been carried out and indicate the presence of frozen
hydrocarbon particles.
NOTE: Velikovsky also predicted that, due to steep wandering through the highly
positive charge of the inner Solar Ion Field; Venus should have a surface
temperature of at least 800ºF. Scientists scoffed, saying that the temperature
would be naturally warmer, but it could not be so hot, and they predicted 100ºF.
Space probes and satellites later sent to that planet have confirmed Velikovsky’s
higher temperature prediction, citing 872ºF. Although environmentalists are quick
to cite the presence of Carbon Dioxide in its atmosphere as the root cause, which
is primarily Carbon Dioxide (96.5%) and Nitrogen (3.5%), along with other trace
elements like Sulfur Dioxide and water vapor, this has no practical or comparable
relationship to Earth’s own atmosphere. This is in large part due to large-scale
volcanic activity on Venus, which is saturating its atmosphere with CO 2.
NOTE: Global Warming advocates claim it is the Carbon Dioxide in the Venus
atmosphere (where Global Warming was first “discovered”) that is responsible for
it’s and Earth’s temperatures. But this is ridiculous because CO 2 is the weakest
and least prevalent of the Greenhouse gasses on Earth (water vapor is the
strongest and most prevalent). CO2 is not substantial enough to significantly affect
global temperatures. Actually, it is global temperatures that affect the amount of
CO2 that is present in the atmosphere, being absorbed or released by the world
 Page 59

oceans in kind, and CO2 levels lag, not precede global temperatures by as much
as 800 years. Further, warmer temperatures yield more water vapor in the
atmosphere, yielding more clouds, which in turn reflects heat back into space,
not trapping it, which in turn yields lower temperatures, and the result is less
water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, that yields fewer
clouds. This implies a natural cycle, not an anthropological cause.
NOTE: Until recently, scientists all thought that a comet was made of light elements,
such as dust and rock particles and mixed with frozen water, methane, and ammonia.
However, based on recent observations, it is clear that they are no different from
asteroids, except that they have steep elliptical orbits, being mostly tightly packed
chunks of rock and simply gain a plasma tail when they pass through the highly
charged ion field closer to the sun at a steep angle. However, some scientists,
insisting on holding to their beloved consensus theories, try to imagine how this
carefully collected data could be misinterpreted or wrong, such as ice being inside
them, even though measurements made indicate that this is not so, and that comets
are dry and void of ice, as dramatically demonstrated in observed disintegrations of
comets Wirtanan and Biela Bambert (1957), West (1976), Schwassman-Wachmann
(2006), Holmes (2007), and Elenin (2011), coinciding with collisions with charged
particles from huge Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun, indicating an electrical
power surge. See https://youtu.be/T6ADWYHJpqg. Even so, a comet’s observed coronal
jets can be easily demonstrated in a laboratory implementing plasma theory, which is
known to be at work in inner solar space.
SUBNOTE: Halley’s comet may be breaking up. In 1910 it had flared dramatically, showing many
large chunks of rock separated from its body. Although it was disappointingly unspectacular in its
passing in 1986, five years later in 1991, out past Uranus, it suddenly erupted with a coma that was
180,000 miles across, becoming wider than the Sun, when charged particles from heightened solar
winds collided with it, maybe weakening it, so it might spectacularly disintigrate during its next
pass by the Sun in 2062.
NOTE: Velikovsky speculated that Venus might have been ejected from Jupiter
and may be responsible for its big red spot; that it had knocked Mars out of an
inner orbit, below Earth, settled into that orbit, and Mars took its current outer
orbit at around 1500 BCE. He felt that this washed with traditions across the
world upon which he based his theory. It is hard to believe, and I have really
struggled with it, yet many of the other assertions made by him, based on his
study of ancient traditions, have become accepted by science. And if something
similar to this did not occur, then what in the heck were all these world cultures
writing about, all at the same time, about major cataclysmic disasters and
celestial doom from both a wandering Venus and a wandering Mars?
SUBNOTE: The late Carl Sagan (1934-1996) argued against the idea of Venus ejecting from
Jupiter, thinking the energy of such an ejection would vaporize it. I agree with him on the first part,
I doubting very much that dense Venus actually erupted out of the mass of the gas giant Jupiter, but
I am not quite so sure about the vaporization part. Also, he thought that the current smooth circular
orbit of Venus would be impossible and that it would probably still have an unstable orbit even
now. However, reliable models clearly indicate that a stable orbit could take only a short time to
attain, as demonstrated by modeling of the ejection of the Earth’s Moon by a collision with Earth
by a Mars-sized body, and which also would not vaporize it, and it took only a year to coalesce and
stabilize its orbit (see https://youtu.be/ibV4MdN5wo0, a segment from The Universe on the History
Channel, entitled, The Moon). Indeed, planetary ejections are now more acceptable than
previously since computers have become much better at physics simulations.
 Page 60

NOTE: (I offer this with great trepidation because it can so easily be misunderstood)
Though I have immense respect for Dr. Velikovsky’s incredible body of work, I,
after extensive consideration and long years of detailed research, have come to
strongly agree with David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and Ev Cochrane that
Velikovsky’s Jupiter-origin of Venus, based upon his interpretations of ancient
traditions, is wrong. Ancient world-wide tradition holds that, among many things,
Saturn was referred to as our Original Sun, Helios, occupying a consistent position
in our northern sky on our polar axis, and orbited the Sun close to where the
Earth is now. Further, if these ancient legends are to be believed, then celestial
mechanics would require the Earth, Mars, and Venus to have originally orbited
Saturn, which is also consistent with world-wide traditions. They also hold that
the planets Venus, Mars, and Earth, in that order, moving outward from Saturn,
were perfectly lined up (collinear orbits) during the much-
revered times known as the Golden Age (Paradise), and
that they were also very close together (as was Jupiter, as
a hidden member of this grouping, initially concealed from our
view by being located beyond Saturn). As incredibly hard as
what this is to initially imagine, it is actually entirely astrophysically possible, and I
have done my fair share of deep soul-searching on the long road to coming to
terms with it (I think Velikovsky finally settled on his Jupiter-origin of Venus model
because he was simply having too much trouble with coming to terms with these ancient
traditions), all ancient legends from all over the world tell this very same story about
the very same period in time through almost embarrassingly rich, extensively
detailed volumes of documents, from the Hindu Mahabharata, the Mayan Popol
Vuh, Touism, the Chinese Bamboo Books, Zoreastianism, Plato, to Norse and
Sumerian Legends (indeed, the ancient Greek term for what we read in English as the
Sun, was the Greek term Helios, which actually and specifically referred to Saturn, not
to our Sun, but linguists, when translating the ancient texts, and not only of the Greek,
simply assumed that this word was somehow a symantic mistake and so they
automatically “corrected” it to read as Sun). Check out the Saturn Theory link at Ev
Cochrane’s website, Maverick Science: www.maverickscience.com. You can also see
a low-resolution video of David Talbott’s Symbols of an Alien Sky, Episode
One, or his Remembering the End of the World at www.thunderbolts.info.
One other question I have long pondered is the notion that a single exploding
star can somehow engender the formation of massive star clusters on its own,
and why everyone seems to remain so mum on this subject. If this were so
under the current popular gravity-based cosmology, are we to imagine that
the resulting stars, to account for the massive star clusters that supposedly
result, are no bigger than golf balls or beach balls (or must we take Expansion
Tectonics to a ridiculous extreme)? How can one star yield so many other
stars of similar or larger volume and mass? Examination of new star clusters
look to be like bright knobs along immense fractal-webbed electrical
filaments, like Christmas lights on a strewn string, looking like lightening
bolts with its bright points at its angular joints, like it is reacting to
intermediate connections along its path to its ultimate grounding point.
 Page 61

And why, after a star has presumably exploded, over time it appears to
exhibit greater volume, and more importantly, greater mass in its plasma
fields, where its combined mass grows exceedingly greater than the
original mass of the star, whose core is observed as not only still existing,
but is often cited as it still being a normally functioning star, or even of in
time becoming a new quasi-stellar object, even though consensus theory
states it “should” simply collapse into a Neutron Star? Consider the
example of Cassiopeia A, which went supernova 300 years ago (see
www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/01/the-biographies-of-cas-a). Will Cassiopeia A also
engender a Quasar in time because it is not becoming a Neutron Star
(Neutron Stars are not possible, anyway, according to Nuclear Physics)?
NOTE: As I pointed out much earlier, might a Quasar be a focal point for intense
electrical interaction, gestating colossal volumes of matter, initially as highly
energetic Plasma, on massive scales, and could, based upon its level of energy,
gestate not only a single star, but also star clusters, or even entire galaxies?
Has it occurred to anyone that we may be witnessing the generation of
matter in these growing bodies of plasma masses and/or Quasars? When a
Prime Matter particle is split so that it separates into an Electron and a
Positron, and its electromagnetic field blooms outwardly, once Prime
Matter particles settle in around the attractive positive charge of the
Positron to form a Proton, it naturally assumes a state of Plasma, before
the energy separating the Electron and Proton can be drawn off and allow
an Electron to wrap a wave envelope around the Proton, forming an initial
Hydrogen atom whose volume is now billions of times larger than its
original volume as a Prime Matter waveform.
Has anyone considered that when these stars explode into hyper-energetic
electromagnetic blooms that massive collisions with Prime Matter will
naturally occur, which would engender new Matter (as Plasma in most
cases)? And because the Electron is now on the outside, in harm’s way, and
because there is enough energy, it can bond with other newly-formed protons
and neutrons to build a wide variety of atomic elements from its
plasma/hydrogen base to sufficiently engender new star clusters and even
galaxies, especially when there is sufficient energy to spawn a new plasmoid
at its center of electromagnetic equilibrium; something that gravity-based
cosmology imagines to be an improvable super-massive black hole. But this
cannot account for an active galactic nucleus, which is impossible according
to the presumed physics behind black holes. However, it is perfectly
accountable and also expected in an Electric Universe, where the centrally-
located plasmoid will occasionally release its stored energy through huge
light-years-long twisting plasma jets along its spin axis.
 Page 62

NOTE: The observed formation of stars have hydrogen, helium, and lithium
forming around the heavier elements that actually form the centers of stars, thus
denying the thermonuclear model of the sun, which requires that these lighter
elements form at its center, and the actual data in fact instead promotes an
Electric Sun as being like a positive anode in an electric field.
The currently accepted thermonuclear model of the Sun is fraught with a long list
of contradictions that cannot possibly exist within a thermonuclear model, such
as solar wind, solar atmosphere, the corona, coronal heating, sunspots, sunspot
migration, sunspot cycles, sunspot penumbra, helio seismology, solar spectrum,
solar density, equatorial plasma torus, differential rotation by latitude or depth,
even surface magnetic fields, magnetic field strength, heavy elements, neutrino
deficiency, neutrino variability, and a laundry list of other paradoxical issues; but
all of which are fully compliant and even expected in an electrical model. Refer
also to Dr Don Scott’s website at http://electric-cosmos.org.
NOTE: Billions of Prime Matter particles could fit into the space resulting from
Prime Matter blooming its electromagnetic field outwardly, much like a
hypothetical electron-neutrino, allowing it to pass through an atom as though it
was itself a single atom passing through our solar system at faster-than-light
speeds. Because the electromagnetic field of a Prime Matter particle is inward-
facing, Prime Matter occupies an almost infinitely smaller space than “normal”
Matter. The outward-bloomed field of Matter, caused by its Electrons being
extended outwardly, away from the Positron and into harm’s way, is what gives
Matter its apparent greater mass, thanks to its now out-folded electromagnetic
field, in consideration to the actual mass of its sub-atomic particles.
NOTE: As previously stated, Prime Matter has inward-facing electromagnetic
fields, which would be natural when the charged waves comprising the particle
are tightly bound, basically orbiting each other at high velocity and likely, just like
electromagnetic waves, traveling several thousands of times, if not infinitely
faster than light. Also, as stated previously, all we have to do is divide Time
Displacement by the Mass to Energy ratio to make this feasible, which can be
proven by the simple experiment of dropping a heavy object onto a solid surface,
which I had also previously outlined. Einstein had instead divided S. Tover
Preston’s 1875 mass to energy ratio (E=mc2) by Time Displacement ( 1  v 2 / c 2 ),
which have results that are not possible, such as an object attaining infinite mass
and infinite volume at the speed of light, which just does not make practical or
common sense, and is impossible in a real world, even if the object traveled
several thousand times the speed of light. When the heavy object collides with a
solid surface, the heavy object actually loses a small part of its mass, and so also
part of its weight, for a short period, after which it returns. So, Einstein, where did
that mass go? And why did it not get heavier, as your theory supposes?
After 10 long years of pondering it, Einstein’s claimed his famous mass to energy
ratio (E=mc2) was a wild guess, which would mean he made it up! Or worse, like so
much else, he plagiarized it, because the equation can actually be attributed to
S. Tolver Preston in 1875, who formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb, and
superconductivity, calculating that one grain could lift a 100,000 ton object up to
a height of 1.9 miles, which yields the equation E = mc 2. It can also be attributed
 Page 63

to Jules Henri Poincaré in 1900, where the formula E = mc 2 was actually

presented, and which Einstein was known to be familiar, and to Olinto De Pretto
in 1904. And even Sir Isaac Newton was keenly aware of the conversion of mass
into energy and energy into mass ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one
another...", 1704). After all, Einstein’s original 31-page 1905 treatise, "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (also referred to as the Special Theory of
Relativity or as the Einstein-Lorentz Theory of Relativity), was published in the
German Annalen der Physik vol XVII 1905 (891-921) without footnotes to give
credit to his sources. It never acquired footnotes until 1922, when it was
republished in the German Das Relativatsprinzip, 4th ed., by Tuebner, and in its
English translation in the book The Principle of Relativity, published in 1923 by
Methuen and Company, Ltd. of London. But even then, he did not give credit for
the equations he used. Further, he had introduced symbols such as , H, and Z
for the coordinates of the moving system k without explicitly defining them, until
they were republished in 1922. But even then, a misrepresentation of one
equation in the 1923 edition was not corrected until a 1999 edition; the sub-
expression (uv sin a/c)2 was accidentally misrepresented as (uv sin a/c2).
Granted, at the time the general assumption by the majority of the scientific
community was that the speed of light was variable, but Einstein posited that the
speed of light was instead constant. However, science now questions the validity
of this simple iconic equation, because it is apparent that the speed of light is in
fact variable, which can be shown by light passing through various densities of
electromagnetism, because an absolute vacuum does not exist.
SUBNOTE: Also see “Physics Without Einstein”, “Physics Unified”, and “Tesla Versus
Einstein” by the late British Theoretical Physicist Harold Aspden at www.haroldaspden.com . From
Testla Versus Einstein, Aspden stated, “Whereas the general public, including almost all of the
scientific community, accept Einstein’s theory without question, essentially because that has
become the popular opinion in the light of E = Mc 2 having significance connected with the atomic
bomb, that formula relating energy E and mass M by the speed of light in vacuum is easily derived
without any use of Einstein’s doctrines.”
NOTE: Albert Einstein was once quoted to say, “The secret to creativity is knowing
how to hide your sources.” Even more, Jewish Historian Christopher Jon Bjerknes,
in his heavily researched tome, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein
(http://www.ivantic.net/Ostale_knjiige/SaintEinstein.pdf ), said in his opening paragraph of
Chapter Nine, The Priority Myth, “It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not
originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority. ” Indeed,
Einstein even believed he had the right to plagiarize ideas if he was able to put a
new spin on them, as he asserted in 1907, such as his plagiarizing the 1900
paper of Jules Henri Poincaré, from which much, to include the E=mc2
expression was taken, and from Hendrik Antoon Lorentz’s 1904 paper that first
made a decisive investigation into the electrodynamics of moving bodies, which
Einstein’s own theory depended very heavily upon, and which Einstein himself
openly admitted his own theory was a generalization of. Indeed, the marked
difference from Lorentz’ work was removing the Aether term and his adding
relativistic equations and the aberration of the Doppler-Fizeau Effect. Yet, he also
rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron. But, when
it was corrected, it became a duplication of the Lorentz equation.
 Page 64

If that was not enough, there is ample evidence Einstein did not write his 1905
paper alone, such as is evident in its original submission to the Annalen der
Physik, which is clearly submitted by “M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein”, and
indeed, the submission was actually signed by her. Also, because his wife,
Mileva Einstein-Marity, is named first in the author list, it is evident, by
convention, that she had been the lead-author of the work, or, according to the
D. Trbuhović-Gjurić 1983 study, and by those of several others, that she may have
even been its sole author. However, my present opinion is to consider as plausible
that she may have simply helped him make his work presentable (though more
details may clearly change my opinion, one way or the other).
I have to consider that for as intelligent as was Einstein, he was nevertheless not
a very good speaker, even though he is among the most quoted men of all time.
By his own admission to Hendrik Lorentz in a letter of 19 January 1920, he was
not gifted at lecturing (quoting from Bjerknes’ above book):
“Nevertheless, unlike you, nature has not bestowed me with the ability to deliver
lectures and dispense original ideas virtually effortlessly as meets your refined and
versatile mind. This awareness of my limitations pervades me all the more keenly
in recent times since I see that my faculties are being quite particularly overrated
after a few consequences of the general theory stood the test.”
SUBNOTE: The above quote from Christopher Jon Bjerknes’ 2800+ page book, The Manufacture
and Sale of Saint Einstein, can also be found in a shorter Bjerknes book, Albert Einstein: The
Incorrigible Plagiarist, which draws some chapters (for example, Chapter 9, The Priority Myth,
becomes Chapter 1) from the aforementioned book and puts them into a more digestible form. You
can find details for the book at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm . This site also
features many interesting extracts, quotes, and reviews.
SUBNOTE: Mileva Einstein-Marity, formerly Mileva Marić, was one of the first women to study
mathematics and physics in Europe. She was Einstein’s fellow student and also a close friend at the
Zurich Polytechnic, where they shared an interest in Lorentz’ work and even corresponded on the
subject, and she later became his first wife. Albert also admitted Mileva was smarter than himself.
Even so, Mileva and her estate has been the sole recipient of 100% of all royalties from this work.

I think that together, through a collaborative effort between the Electric

Universe and Expansion Tectonics, these issues could be addressed.
Maybe you are reticent to deal with each other because there is fear of
ridiculing repercussions in that direction from the “establishment” or from
conflicting views regarding particular points. Well, let me tell you about
the establishment. I have an educational trust that will pay for any and all
university education I could ever wish to have, even if I were to pursue 27
PhD’s. But I had previously earnestly pursued the university system,
attended the lectures, labs, classes, etc., and the only thing it convinced me
of is that their goal is to produce pre-programmed automatons who puppet
and chant sacred belief systems, and do all that they can do to quell
original thought. They tell you to be free, but you can do so only if you do
not dare tread on their own pet theories or you will be crushed (or at least
you will get a failing grade or no letters of recommendation or
 Page 65

introduction). As such, I resolutely abandoned that particular venue and

have spent the past 40 years relentlessly developing my own education
program, trying my best to at least attain some degree of being a
Universal Scholar, learning how to conduct stringent research, to work
“outside the box” and toy with new ideas and perspectives and to test them
for validity.
According to my last IQ test it is 184 on the Terman Index, so I am no
dummy. Or, at least I do not think that I am. However, my brother would
say that if I am a genius, then I am the moronic part of being a genius.
But, gadzooks, most of the currently accepted “theories” do not stand up to
scrutiny and testing, which clearly means that they are in fact not theories, or,
for the fact that they fail testing, can even be referred to as a hypothesis.
Some even lack substance as conjectures. The difference between hypotheses
and theory is experimentation and testing. A hypothesis is an educated guess
that seems to adequately explain what something observed means. However,
without passing a grueling battery of robust experimental tests, a hypothesis
can never become a theory. Now consider, for example, String Theory or
even M Theory. These titles are misnomers, because they have never been
tested or verified. They are, and always will be hypotheses. Now consider
other proclaimed theories, such as Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory.
I research everything that catches my eye. It is my passion. If I find holes
in a theory, I am going to point out where I find them, giving their authors
the opportunity to conduct their own research in order to reconfigure the
hypotheses into more viable theory. For years I was what people called a
scientist’s scientist, because I tended to research everything to death.
But the more I examine many of the accepted so-called theories, from the
presently unworkable mechanics currently pontificated by advocates of
evolution, to what is supposed to be passed off as “history”, to the flaws in
Special and General Relativity and in Quantum Physics, the more I found
them to be in often grave error and in desperate need of new viewpoints in
order just to remain relevant. And do not get me started on the convoluted
field of Medicine, or mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus as I refer to it.
For example, in the so-called scientific consensus (well, at least among
Relativists), they pontificate about Black Hole Theory and Big Bang
Theory. However, they never seem to pin down which Black Hole theory
and which Big Bang theory they are referring to in their pontifications.
Currently, there are four separate Black Hole theories and three separate
Big Bang theories in play in Relativist science.
 Page 66

There are three models of the Big Bang Universe. The first has a Spherical
Geometry, which will expand and then collapse, featuring a greater than
critical average mass density cosmology. The second has a Flat (Euclidian)
Geometry, which expands indefinitely, featuring a critical average mass
density cosmology. The third has a Hyperbolic (saddle-shaped) Geometry,
which also expands indefinitely, featuring a less than critical average mass
density cosmology. All three are gravity-based and are comprised of a single
mass, yet none of them can explain the resisting, push-back force that exists
in the real universe. Worse, when applying General Relativity to these
models, it is impossible to weigh apples at a local grocery store, because
gravity will bring about spacetime curvature, which by GR definition cannot
be measured in the local space, meaning that the apples should not appear in
the local space to be exerting observable force on the local grocery store’s
measuring scale. Why? Because, according to GR, gravity is not a force.
There are two classes of Black Holes. The first is a Non-rotating Static Black
Hole, which late in 1916 David Hilbert erroneously derived from Johannes
Drost’s earlier 1916 paper, “The field of a single centre in Einstein’s theory
of gravitation, and the motion of a particle in that field”, where Hibert
mistook a real-valued parameter to be the radii that he then used to define the
event-horizon of his static model (see page 86 for more details), which
supposedly made a black hole possible, even though this was in fact a gross
mathematical error (later known as the Swartzchild Solution). This type of
Black Hole also does not feature gravitational collapse, and so it is a model
not used by any modern cosmologist, which is ironic, because this mistaken
solution is also the only solution that has so far been calculated. There is
actually another type of “static black hole” that, when you study it, ends up
being empty space with no mass present, so we will ignore it (I just find it
odd that some Relativists will take this model seriously). The other type is a
Rotating Black Hole, which does feature gravitational collapse. There are
three types of these: a Stellar Mass Black Hole, which is presumed to be
comprised of a stellar mass that has collapsed, but a mathematical model for
it does not exist; a Supermassive Black Hole, which is presumed to be
comprised of millions of stellar masses, but a mathematical model for it also
does not exist; and a Miniture Black Hole, which is presumed to be comprised
of a mass smaller than the Sun, but a mathematical model for it also does not
exist. Some will classify this model to be the same as a Stellar Mass Black
Hole.
Each Black Hole model is comprised of a single mass with no other mass
present, meaning that it is not possible for it to exist in a universe that
contains any mass other than itself. No stars, no dust, no planets, etc.
Interestingly, it cannot exist with another Black Hole present. Why? Because
 Page 67

a Black Hole curves spacetime, but it can never achieve flat spacetime, no
matter how far away from it you move along its spacetime curve, even as this
curve gets flatter and flatter, becoming asymptotically flat, which is never
quite flat, even though this curve goes off into infinity, yet by its definition
this curve will never meet flat spacetime, making its spacetime an asymptotic
curve, meaning that it can never encounter any other mass, as otherwise it
will not meet its own definition. Worse, if there were two Black Holes
present, their curvature of spacetime would not even become asymptotically
flat, which would again defeat their own definition, and this is beside the fact
that their definitions also will not allow the presence of any other mass, such
as, as stated above, another black hole.
Worst of all, none of the four Black Hole models are able to function in any
of the three Big Bang Models. However, for some reason this has not stopped
cosmologists from plastering them all over their versions of the universe.
For a very interesting and often humorous explanation of all this, from
which I drew a few of my above examples, see Stephen J. Crother’s “The
Parallax Effect on Short Hair” presentation at the 2014 Electric Universe
Conference (“All About Evidence”) at https://youtu.be/nXF098w48fo.
Currently, too much of science is founded on that which is called theories,
but this is in name only, because they are often shown to not always be
true or even verifiable, which used to be the hammer that removed them
from being called theories. And why is science now defined so pervasively
by hypotheses or sometimes wild conjectures, but not by actual testable
theories? The answer to this seems to be that the new breed of scientist is
reactionary rather than activist. I have also noticed that new views and
ideas no longer seem to be the domain of students, who once challenged
the precepts laid down by their mentors, but rather of late, it is the mentors
themselves who are sparking new views and theories, who were often
once the founders of the very belief systems of the younger generation.
I am finding the original thought processes of science is grinding to a halt. I
feel it is primarily due to the current generation no longer being disciplined to
pursue original thought, and so they join the ranks of the general population,
who seem to stop developing original ideas at about age 24, when they have
developed a sufficient cerebral library of predefined neural networks (which
were initially fashioned by original thought) so that they eventually cease
implementing imagination, but in time resort to using those pre-programmed
neural pathways exclusively, thus just reacting to the world instead of acting
on it. It seems that original thought is, unlike with previous generations, now
a distained human quality. Maybe that is why Dementia and Alzheimer’s
disease is on the rise? A tool unused is a tool that is lost.
 Page 68

It is only made worse by a government school system, namely the useless

money-pit and misnamed U.S. Department of Education and its Orwellian
curricular agenda that achieves nothing for the youth of America but to
curtail their access to real knowledge, that, from the 1950s, seems only to
teach students how to be government-dependant worker-ants, not free
thinkers exercising original thought (as Albert Einstein once said, “Blind
belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”). Although I was a child
of government schools, I was bright enough to recognize the limiting,
substandard, and dumbed-down educational curriculum I was expected to
accept and proclaim as intellectually well-rounded, and thanks to my
being insatiably curious about everything, I endeavored to “home school”
myself on a quite challenging, extremely broad base of subjects, often
ignoring the especially wasteful, mind-numbing coursework given me by
government-restricted teachers, which seems to only teach you how to
pass state exams to raise the school’s funding, not to teach us what is
practical for dealing with the world in an intelligent, reasoned manner.
That being said, thanks to a generous blessing of such teachers as Mrs.
James, Mrs. Primm, Mr. Curtis, Mrs. Yocum, Mrs. Krutsinger, Mr.
Clarke, and others, who, largely quietly rebelled against this inadequate,
dumbed-down curriculum, instead gave us incentives to endeavor to fully
round out our education.
And it is not just myself who thinks so, but virtually every person I have
talked to, and every parent who has had to put their children through a
public school system and wondered what the hell is being taught to their
children. For example, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt is a freelance writer
who served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI), in the U.S. Department of Education
during the first term of President Ronald Reagan, and as a staff employee
of the U.S. State Department (South Africa, Belgium, and South Korea).
When she returned to America after serving her country abroad for 18
years, she put her two children into a public school because she did not
know how horrible it had become and what had been going on in this
country. When she found out, she was absolutely horrified. She wrote a
brilliant book which every parent should read without fail, called “The
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”, Barnes and Noble #1 Bestseller
in its History of Education category, and she has now posted this most
informative book on the internet, freely downloadable so it can be read by
every parent and every concerned citizen at www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.
 Page 69

I have come to the sad conclusion that everything we know may be wrong
regarding some of our most sacred cows in science. For the life of me, I
feel like I just woke up and the year was 1300. It is time for a new
Renaissance, and you and those like you are at the forefront of what can
be that movement.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 70

Introduction to Supplementary Background Resources

Developed and Employed as I Constructed This Document.
I expanded this document in March 2012 to include a selection of essays I
had also written to round out my research into the connection between the
Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics, conducted as I composed it to
more fully explore background data (in a Quest for Truth, digressions are
valuable tools in one’s arsenal, helping us to discover critically relevant
facts that might otherwise go unnoticed and cause a mystery or
misconception to remain so). These are essays explaining the impossibility
of black holes, my sardonic view on mythematics, and other often
historically ignored or hidden events, such as the particulars of the 1919
Solar Eclipse that brought about Einstein’s rapid rise to fame (regardless
of the fact that most people did not understand or care what it was all
about, except that they were incited to be excited), of his embarrassing
faltering as a hero of science in 1921, and the new world order that
slithered behind him by the mysterious people driving its mechanization.
We all hold endearing images of Einstein in our minds, and I believe that
most of them are well deserved. But for all that, and as wonderful and as
abundant as his pleasant, philosophical anecdotes were, which I think
made him one of the most quoted men in history, I also believe you must
truly understand the man whose heart beat behind those pleasing prose.
Even in my early adulthood, with Einstein’s demise still so recent (he died
18 April 1955, four months after my birth) that propaganda was still
reverently intoned about this man who they loftily heralded as the smartest
man in the world, I could not shake the impression of a disjointedness
about him that made him seem not quite so real, like he was a puzzle that
had too many of its pieces missing. The puffery broadcasted about him,
some so dated they are now comical, conveyed to me the sense of a set
dressing for an entertainment, like a 1970s Las Vegas casino façade.
Perhaps it was simply the narrator’s words when I saw all those newsreel
clips, but they seldom set easily with the image of the man I beheld.
NOTE: Make no mistake, Einstein was extremely intelligent; his IQ estimated to be
168 on the Terman Index, where 111 is average. Indeed, he was a mathematical
prodigy and had in fact mastered differential and integral calculus by the time he was
15 years old. It has also been verified that he had never failed mathematics in his life.
Even so, in 1935 Robert Ripley, the creator of Ripley’s Believe It or Not!, wrote a
fabrication, like others he had penned, titled “Greatest Living Mathematician Failed in
Mathematics”, starting a myth Einstein had failed math in his youth. When Einstein
was shown it, he laughed and called it very funny. Even so, he was by no means the
smartest man in the world. Indeed, when Einstein was asked what it felt like to be the
smartest man in the world, he replied, “I don't know. Ask Tesla.”
 Page 71

My other problem with this literal deification of Einstein was that

scientific findings that did not prop up this new relativist perspective were
immediately ridiculed by his often over-zealous advocates. Failing
approved reactions, talking heads would march out as if on cue to proffer
opinions to defend the “established” relativist view, regardless of the fact
that today too many of those once loftily-held beliefs are now tattered, too
frequently challenged by more relevant theories, or simply disproved.
I saw Science slowly being twisted and remolded by a new and oddly
medieval perspective. The marvelous sense in wonder of discovery that
permeated Science for centuries was slowly being crippled, blinded, and
suffocated by a reordered dogmatism too frequently patched together from
made-up terms for quite literally made-up notions, the insane practice of
treating tenuous, even incredulous presumptions as if they were rock-solid
fact, of treating hypotheses or even conjectures as if they were consensus
theories, and of using paradox as an explanation rather than as a
conundrum for observations that did not kowtow to relativist tenets. To me
this was sad, because using such truly anti-intellectual paradigms would
cause the more interesting questions in science to remain unanswered.
Most scientific discoveries during these last few decades, though seeming
great, due to breathless sensational fawning over them by the media, are
but shadows to those of previous centuries. The only new discoveries that
do not conform to the new dogma are those that cannot be denied, though
some are leaked to the public in measured doses, often by scientific rebels
who had been forced to work from within that dogmatic “system”.
One must consider that in the past, academics would explore any plausible
alternative explanation for any scientific determination, seldom flippantly
discarded without due consideration. Only dogmatic ideologues do that.
Most people consider our ancient history is only replete with nothing but
superstitious morons who believed everything was a mystery. The truth is, the
further into the past we dig, the more sophisticated Mankind seems to have
been. Even the Greeks were masters at pulleys and levers that we cannot
today match. Greeks knew how to move gigantic stones that our sophisticated
and most powerful machines cannot. They even used navigational and
celestial computers employing delicate, complex clockwork rivaling modern
technology. Indeed, if you dig deep enough, you will find stories of men, not
gods, building flying machines, using complex powered mechanisms, able to
control immense reserves of energy, and were able to freely transmit such
energy through the air to power remote devices. One can only speculate what
they needed it for, but it was not just so they could say that they could do so.
 Page 72

Considering the tales passed down by most ancient cultures of a time in

our primordial past when highly sophisticated civilizations, said to
command incredible technology, were said to have been destroyed by
interplanetary cataclysm, one is forced to ponder its plausibility. I have
often wondered if the many tales of so-called ancient astronauts were not
in fact actually of fellow earthlings who had lived in long-ancient times
that is widely remembered as the Golden Age, or as Paradise, before the
Great and Terrible Dragon, the planet Venus, rampaging like a massive
comet bearing a great plasma tail, for a time slid from its orbit and rained
inestimable desolation upon the Earth, wiping out all high culture from our
planet and regressing our level of sophistication backward by millennia,
driving survivors to the safety of cave-dwelling for uncounted centuries,
and causing countless generations to fear the mere mention of a comet.
Consider Cro-Magnon Man, long thought to be cave dwellers (but this might
have been a result from safely dwelling there when surface living was too
dangerous, if ancient legends of interplanetary thunderbolts are true), yet
they actually built complex cities and homes, had concrete, asphalt, modern
clothing, and were social, sophisticated, and tactical. Considering that 200
thousand years ago they were equally as intelligent, as inquisitive, as
analytical, and as mentally capable as we are today, we have to wonder if
they truly were so backward or stupid as we naively assume, especially
considering that their brain size was also greater than our own. We must ask
why did the Bronze Age precede the Iron Age, when iron is so much easier to
work with; bronze requiring substantial skill and an advanced knowledge of
alloys, as well as extremely intense temperatures to render it, not to mention
the tin used to produce bronze from copper must first be refined from raw
material, not normally available in most areas by simple placer mining, and
this tech was universally common to all these presumed “primitive” people.
One must consider the legends of upright walking Miocene Apes surviving
into recent history (upright bipedal primates were much more common than
previously thought). Like all apes, they had flat hands with pulled back non-
opposable thumbs, had fur instead of hair, had furry backs, cartilage penis
bones, no furry chest, broad flat noses, nocturnal eyes in deep sockets, flat
sloping forehead, no chin, no neck, they had the typical pinched upper rib
cage of apes due to great upper-body musculature (human rib cages are
rounded), much denser bones and muscles six times stronger than Man’s, a
stocky build, limited tool use, long meridian crest at the crown of the head to
anchor powerful jaw muscles, arms much longer than Man’s, had primitive
social skills, and finally, like all great apes, his throat and windpipe were
arranged so that he could actually breathe and swallow food simultaneously.
 Page 73

The above could easily describe the common gorilla or chimpanzee, but I
was depicting neither. I was actually describing objectively, with all
anthropology-induced filters removed, the controversial Neanderthal,
who is clearly not human and quite obviously not pre-man at all. Critics
are just in their hesitance to subscribe to the officially sanctioned script.
Even as each new piece of DNA evidence emerges, it moves more distant
from Man. Neanderthal has a better chance as Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch,
Skunk Ape, Gigantopithecus, or Alma than it has of being human.
You must consider where the substantial funding for primate discovery goes:
It goes to finding pre-humans. So, if you can strip it of fur, give it a human
musculature, even if it is wholly alien to the tendon signatures etched into its
bones, squint at it and see something human, which may be why most such
creatures are depicted as butt-ugly humans; having almost perfectly Olympian
human bodies, though this would actually be disproportionate to their true
dimensions in relation to where nature would actually place their bones and
muscles, though there is absolutely no denying that their head and face was in
fact that of an ape (this is a slick trick you can easily apply even to
chimpanzee and gorilla skeletons), then this can be your ticket to financial
security, as observed by the late Lloyd Pye (1946-2013) (www.lloydpye.com), a
noted author and meticulous researcher, who was all too familiar with the
treachery that greed, dishonesty, inflated egos, and personal agendas play in
empirical sciences, which too often twists true science into abomination,
basing much of his often non-conformist views not upon simple whimsy or
unverified rumors, but upon the honest conclusions of many noted scientists.
NOTE: Regarding fossils, the first chimpanzee fossil was not found until 2005,
and gorilla fossils almost do not exist. Forest-dwellers rarely produce fossils
because a forest absorbs carrion much too quickly.
As an example of how our thinking is altered by those entrusted to
disseminate knowledge, did you know that when Columbus sailed in 1492, it
was actually common knowledge to everyone in Europe for two millennia,
ever since Pythagoras proved it, that the Earth was a globe? The flat-earth
story we have for so long been taught was in truth simply a made-up literary
device inserted centuries later in an 1828 novel by Washington Irving to
make the journey appear more heroic. What was feared were sailors traveling
far beyond the sight of land and sometimes getting lost and not returning (see
www.cracked.com/article_16101_the-5-most-ridiculous-lies-you-were-taught-in-history-class.html ).

This is why the science-backed Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics

theories are slow to accept. Instead of science investigating such new views
as was always done in centuries past, the protagonists for these theories have
had to struggle through almost unbearable criticism, ridicule, censure, and
 Page 74

exile in the name of discovery. Take Halton C. Arp (1927-2013), an renown

astronomer often called a modern-day Galileo, who you may never have even
heard of, who was denied telescope time in the USA because his in-your-face
discoveries did not kowtow to relativist views. Or Stephen J. Crothers, who
had to defend his views so ardently that they came close to driving him to
madness. So much so that he gave up physics research for a time in order to
regain his mental equilibrium; this all because his research and discoveries
did not bend its knee to established relativist decrees.
If you doubt that such goes on in this so-called “new age of science”, then
you had better look once again with more opened eyes. When I sink my teeth
into a subject, I will not let go of it until I have leeched all the data that I can
extract from it, often having to dig deep within almost forgotten, or censured,
or even covered-up history. Such dogged, unrelenting digging had even
turned a simple 10-page synopsis of discovery into a 712-page exploration of
history in my seminal work, “A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of
Christianity”; the culmination of 30 years of research.
This revolution in the structure of science reminds me so much of the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. After successfully inciting revolution and
“erasing” their opponents, the Bolshevik overlords enacted a law declaring
that anyone even suspected of counter-revolutionary thought (meaning, all
who did not agree with them or they did not like) would be “liquidated”.
NOTE: The paradox was that the leaders of the Bolshevik’s Socialist Revolution were
not socialists, but agenda-driven autocrats lusting for absolute power and control over
others, simply using socialism as a tool to build a national following through empty
promises of “free” goods, services, and prosperity for all. Sadly, all Socialist models
work only as long as there is wealth for them to pilfer and redistribute, ultimately
dragging everyone, rich and poor alike, save for those at the top who are holding
power, into poverty, apathy, and moral corruption. This would make the bourgeoisie
the Bolsheviks overthrew actually a much better choice for leading “the people”. Of
course, the generic bourgeoisie moniker included not only royalty, but also writers,
poets, anyone who was educated, and anyone of thoughtful or bohemian proclivity.
Much of what protagonists for the Electric Universe and Expansion Tectonics
have had to fight is a revised sphere of science that looks to have almost
completely turned away from true science, and now exists almost wholly
within a wispy realm of thought experiments; a world of mathematical make-
believe whose advocates trust that their theories actually do not require
testing, just verification. And, of course, you are aware of the predictable
outcome when you specifically design experiments to offer only a specific
result, or even to deny another? For example, the Michelson and Morley
experiments to disprove the Aether succeeded because the very premise of the
experiments was flawed. Conversely, Nikola Tesla succeeded because he
better understood the nature of Aether, and was therefore able to exploit it.
 Page 75

The brave souls bearing the torch of science have suffered, and some
severely, but they nonetheless persevered so that science will not be
forever trapped within its present viscous quagmires of personal agendas,
politics, and egos.
Those alive to recall the Einstein controversies during the early decades of
the 20th Century may remember him accused of being a radical, of being a
hardcore racist, of being arrogant, of him being accused regularly of
plagiary, of him lying, and even of revisionist “recollection”. But as time
passed, as is the nature of things, most witnesses began to forget those
unflattering episodes as they instead beheld the puzzling paradoxical
image of a small, stooped, shuffling old man with a frazzled white mane.
This national amnesia over Einstein’s failings is much like how America
has also all but forgotten that President Franklin D. Roosevelt almost
managed to destroy the United States of America in an attempt to fulfill
his and President Woodrow Wilson’s dream to fundamentally transform
America into a socialist utopia, a model that is known to be financially
unsustainable, and will always face a fatal end, dragging all down with it.
Fortunately congress, even as they were vilified by the White House as
obstructionist, managed to reel in and curtail his socialist agenda, and stop
him from bypassing them in order to enact his socialist policy nationally.
In 1930, when the American economy was actually in the natural process of
recovery, one year after Herbert Hoover became President (he being
unaware, just like the brightest financial wizards on Wall Street, that
financial bubbles even existed, because such models had yet to be realized),
with unemployment creeping to 8.7%, government began assuming control of
most everything through relief-inspired legislation with the intent of easing
financial burdens on citizens, but to dire cost to business and job-creation.
Consequentially, it instead raised unemployment to 17.4% by late 1931. And,
thanks to unconstitutional executive action taken by FDR after assuming
office in 1933, he ordered greater levels of government intervention, which in
turn forced unemployment to jump to 23.6% later that year, which many even
moderate economists claimed had the fully socialist-inspired consequence of
extending the depression for 7 more years, recovering in 1944 (1.2%) instead
of 1937. By 1937 FDR even managed to transform this national economic
depression into a Great Depression. (see www.christianpost.com/news/time-to-get-real-
about-roosevelt-s-new-deal-36546/, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-
Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409, or www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson154.html).
 Page 76

NOTE: Some claim full recovery did not take place until 1954 when the Dow
Jones industrial average finally exceeded the pre-crash peak of 381.17, but that
was actually due to a minority of companies that kept the overall stock averages
down, and at that time most Americans did not invest in the stock market. Most
stocks, including those that suffered, would have fully recovered by 1932 had it
not been for excessive government intervention. Indeed, stocks began recovering
within a month after the crash, but increasing government interference in business
unraveled all recovery efforts, causing stocks to again tumble.
Although FDR did not take office until 4 March 1933, one must carefully
scrutinize the mechanizations at work that built up to his presidency by his
party that fully facilitated their rise to power and to his election, said to be
all in the name of relief, as exemplified later by his completely bypassing
congress, issuing strings of executive orders after taking office, using the
excuse that congress acted too slowly, such as Executive Order 6102 on 5
April 1933 (see www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html) that ordered all
citizens to surrender their gold coins, bullion and certificates to the federal
government. He also quickly launched the greatest socialist programs ever
enacted in America; collectively called the New Deal. Although this had
an initial positive effect, giving 10 million government jobs to
unemployed workers, who were also encouraged to organize into socialist
labor unions, it put an incalculable strain on businesses and those who
otherwise generated paychecks and jobs for the citizenry, because the
government taxed them, some at rates from 63% and to near 100% after
just $25,000 of income, thus discouraging private entrepreneurship and
made government the only stable employer, sinking the economy into an
extremely deep depression, creating the Great Depression, even as other
countries were concurrently recovering from the initial 1929 crash. Refer
also to “The Success of the Great Depression Tax Revolts” by Mark
Thornton and Chetley Weise (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/thornton1.pdf).
NOTE: The principal people who suffered from the actual 1929 Stock Market
Crash were shareholders on Wall Street, mainly traders seeking to get rich quick
through margin buying, which, since the trading boom of 1928, had formed a
huge bubble, along with the formation of closed-end investment trusts,
augmented by a broker loan interest rate bubble, and the sharp, clearly
excessive rise in stock prices through September 1929 not being addressed.
Most of this was ultimately due to unregulated speculation trading, which
naturally inflated the bubbles, much like the free-for-all petroleum price
speculation of today. Most other citizens did not suffer, unless they worked for
such publicly traded companies, until the government takeovers. As a result of
this increase in government control of business, by the end of 1933 stocks had
tumbled anywhere from 65% to 85%. See “Was there a bubble in the 1929 Stock
Market?” by Peter Rappoport and Eugene N. White at www.nber.org/papers/w3612.
 Page 77

NOTE: The unemployment rate in 1938 was 17.4%, and this was five full years
after FDR had introduced the New Deal, and this after federal spending had
doubled and having started hundreds of new government programs that leached
deep into the pockets of taxpayers, even though the average unemployment rate
from 1934 to 1940 stood at 17.2%. At the beginning of America’s involvement in
World War II in 1941, unemployment finally dropped to 9.9%, yet the living
standards of Americans did not rise from depression levels until after the war.
But in order to understand why and how true science came to be in the
crippled state it now finds itself, to understand how rigid its redefinition
and how unyielding it now is to new concepts, we may have to lay it all at
Einstein’s feet, no matter how much affection we may feel toward this
philosophical old man who everyone treated like their favorite uncle. Or
was that just a manufactured image that had been promoted so ardently by
those who had so very much to gain by making him the king of science?
I do not desire in any way to shred our perception of him out of spite or
personal frustration. I seek only to understand the truth of why, when he
stood at the very cusp of science coming into its own, his rise made it
become a run-amuck. To do that, we have to stop wearing the blinkers that
we often don to filter out those things we may not want to see or hear.
Those who will not have or face Truth will not hear or know Truth.
An example of science run-amuck is the hole in the ozone layer. The Earth is
not perfectly round, nor is it oval, but due to its axial tilt it is shaped vaguely
like a pear. Thus, the south polar atmosphere naturally recesses into a broad,
deep dimple. This helps explain why it is colder there than the North Pole.
Yet, aided by the violent winds along the so-called Roaring 40s, augmenting
the extremely powerful but natural Southern Polar Vortex, it forces a natural
cyclic, down-blowing whirlpool that logically pulls the upper atmosphere, to
include the ozone, straight down to the surface. Hence, the hole in the ozone
layer over the South Polar Region is a purely natural phenomenon.
The popular and impassioned environmentalist ranting over CFCs
(Chlorofluorocarbons) creating this hole in the ozone layer by mundane
devices, such as aerosols from household cans, automotive exhaust, and
Freon refrigerants are based wholly upon junk science. Considering that
CFCs are several times heavier than air, how can spraying them out of a
hand-held can, or leaking out of automotive air conditioners cause these
very heavy gasses to somehow rise ten kilometers to the troposphere and
migrate to the South Pole? They cannot. I have also heard the whimsical
“theory” that it can “possibly” be caught in an unknown and improvable
swirling atmospheric vortex, but this is a clear case of fantasy (a “theory”
without foundation is not a theory, but a simple unfounded speculation).
 Page 78

If there were indeed such a mysterious, untraceable atmospheric vortex

forcing heavy chlorine gasses upward from emission sources, then would
it not be logical that holes in the ozone layer be located relative to their
sources? For, if that was so, then how is it possible for these gasses to
bypass the ozone it would naturally have to collide with in the local upper
atmosphere before migrating to the South Pole? Besides, due to the
manner that air currents work, gasses from the North Hemisphere travel to
the North Pole, not to the South Pole. Where is the huge hole in the north?
Granted, there is a tiny, but natural one, due to polar vortexing. However,
if such reasoning was true and because most pollution is in the Northern
Hemisphere; the hole should be much larger in the north than in the south.
It has been known since the 1970s that a single volcanic eruption can spew
more CFCs into the upper atmosphere than all the CFCs Mankind has ever
produced (has anyone notice the Antarctic volcano, Mount Erebus, that is
the size of Colorado?). Why was it in 1954, when CFCs were little used,
that the hole in the ozone layer was then at its absolute broadest? Yet later,
when Man’s use of CFCs increased, the hole shrank. Environmentalists
might assume from this that CFCs were in fact good for the environment.
So, how is the ozone layer created? A gamma photon-B particle dashes
from the Sun into our atmosphere, collides with an oxygen molecule (O 2),
creating two oxygen atoms (O 1), which both in turn collide and bind with
two other O2 molecules, creating two ozone molecules (O3).
So, suppose that, by some miracle, all the ozone in the upper atmosphere
were to be magically broken back down into O2 molecules and/or O1 atoms.
Poof! What would happen? Well, the photon-B particles would continue to
stream into the atmosphere from the Sun, collide with the O 2 and O1, and
create a fresh, new ozone layer.
And how long would this wholly natural ozone regeneration process take
to complete, to repair a lost ozone layer? It would only take a fraction of
a second. If you want to create more ozone, then turn on a photocopier.
Who can talk about the environment without discussing “global warming”?
The Earth naturally goes through many warming and cooling cycles before
anything resembling an actual “ice age” comes about. Why is the Earth
generally warming up (well, it has actually been steadily cooling since
1998)? It is because there was a documented mini ice age spanning from
around 1300-1350 CE through around 1850-1900. Therefore, the Earth was
pulled out of a mini-ice age around the beginning of the 20 th century. It
appears the Earth would have to warm up, and would naturally continue to
do so for numerous decades, in order for it to pull out of such a cooling
 Page 79

period. This is ignoring completely what sank it into this mini ice age in the
first place, though I guarantee that it was not because of medieval automotive
exhaust fumes, industrial pollution, cows and pigs farting, or people using
cans of “pit stop”. And what about the many times in the past when there
were little or no polar caps? Indeed, most of Earth’s history fully lacked polar
caps. Is Mankind or Nature responsible for those conditions? I vote Nature.
NOTE: Though you constantly hear environmentalists crying about the loss of
sea ice on both poles, they now have more ice than previously recorded periods
(see www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ice.html or
www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.125). Indeed, even the alarmism about
Polar Bear survival in the Artic is unfounded, being that Polar Bear populations,
contrary to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, have actually been exploding,
and are now far higher than in any other period previously recorded (see
http://heartland.org/editorial/2007/09/11/polar-bear-scare-thin-ice?artId=21966 ). Addendum: It was
announced that the end of June 2014 had set a new record high for Antarctic sea
ice growth at 2.07 million square kilometers. The previous record high was set in
2007 at 1.840 million square kilometers (see www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/antarctic-
sea-ice-growing/2014/06/29/id/579853). Ice has been steadily increasing since 1979.

SUBNOTE: I am also a bit confused about people crying that glaciers are melting. Glaciers are a
result of snow and ice buildups during ice ages. That means that when it is not an ice age, they
should naturally be melting because the Earth is once again warm. I do not see people freaking out
in summer because they looked around and noticed the snow from last winter had melted away.
NOTE: Stanford researchers are now coming to the conclusion that American
Indians were so good at deforestation and burning wood that they may actually
be responsible for the above mini ice age in Europe, contrary to the impressions
we might get from recent touchy-feely movies that portray American Indians as
being so at one with Nature (see http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-
010709.html). Prior to the pre-Columbus pandemic that wiped out easily 90% of
the American Indian population, they had previously outnumbered Europe’s
population of 70 million with a population as high as 100 million. My Cherokee
cousins told me that most tribes were nomadic because they would consume
local resources until the area became utter desolation, and so they would then
migrate to greener, more resource-rich pastures (this might also help explain why
the so-called “untamed wilderness” of America was in fact so easy to traverse that
pioneers often remarked that it was like moving through parks and gardens, seldom
needing to move rocks or cut paths). The common warring and enslavement, and
even periodic cannibalism between tribes were once legendary. Even the mighty,
fearsome Vikings, who were the scourge of northern Europe during the Medieval
Warming Period, greatly feared the North American Indian when their populations
were at full strength, seriously kicking Viking butt during every encounter, thus
preventing permanent mainland settlement for over 500 years until the
pandemics that weakened the American Indian’s ability to fend off invaders (see
www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html ).
If you have any opportunity whatsoever, be sure to also read historian James W.
Loewen’s most jaw-dropping book, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your
American History Textbook Got Wrong.”
 Page 80

From these examples you may see the problem I have with public-
schooled history. Frankly, I often come to the cynical conclusion that just
about everything that I have been academically taught about history in
such institutions is simply wrong, but since when has the government been
good at running anything? Just consider the massive monetary sinkholes
called the Department of Energy, the Internal Revenue Service, and the
Department of Education, versus what they actually do. If this or that
reflects poorly on whoever is in authority, then the facts are often tweaked
so that they are rendered more politically correct by not shining such a bad
light on those in the responsible positions.
If I had my way, political correctness would be expunged from our lexicon.
I am very passionate about looking into the meaning behind everything. In
the course of this I have repeatedly heard people warn me that topics can
be robbed of their spiritual or scientific Truth by looking too closely at
them. Stop and really think about that. Lose spiritual or scientific Truth? If
we rob them of anything, then we may be robbing them of a phony mask
of pretended Truth. What is left is more to the bone of what it truly is,
which is sometimes more enlightening than the twisted manufactured
façade that had been draped over it. My feeling is that they either reveal
Truth, or they do not. Truth is not like the proverbial gift horse; its light
will not diminish when you look at it with scrutiny.
Only those things that are fashioned to assume a façade of Truth are exposed
for what they are. In the Gospel of Philip, Jesus said, “When a blind man and
a man who sees are together in darkness, they are no different from one
another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he
who is blind will remain in darkness.” He was also pointed in noting with
immense wit that, “If the blind lead the blind, they will both end up in the
ditch.” I believe the philosophically blind only claim to crave the light, but in
truth they hate the light and love the darkness; for in darkness, the ones with
sight will admit, “I am blind,” but the ones who were blind might say, “I see.”
It is the light of Truth that will in the end expose any deception.
We seek for Truth because we each need something to believe in. We
absolutely, desperately need the world around us to make sense. This is
why children believe in magic and fantastic notions: it is a basic human
instinct to possess a complete worldview. As a child, we are incapable of
knowing little beyond the small, protected world surrounding us, so we
must fill these knowledge gaps in our worldview with explanations that,
based upon our limited, meager experience, seem to make sense to us.
 Page 81

As we grow older and become more experienced with the wonders of the
world around us, we slowly replace those invented explanations with facts,
and often later replace even those filled-in facts with more wholesome
facts. This explains why young people believe that they “know everything”
and that their parents, who might not see eye-to-eye with them on a point,
normally due to wiser knowledge that comes with their years, are seen as
brainless idiots. The children have their answers, but they do not possess
Truth.
But what are answers, and what is Truth? Too often we assume that when
we find answers we also find Truth. Yet, answers are actually things that
can be true or false; things that merely seem to settle the confusion in our
psyches. They make us feel as though we understand this world around us.
Truth is that which simply is; that which never changes. All else is that
which only seems to be: the distortion and twisting and hiding of Truth.
When we bend Truth, even with but the slightest, most insignificant of
dimples, we do not truly remold it, but we simply form a crusted imperfect
shell around it that blinds us to it, that fools our own personal viewing of
its true nature.
We all begin on a path seeking Truth. However, in the course of it we
often form entrenched opinions. When we form such stoic ideals, we have
taken the first step toward constructing a trap for our minds. For, once we
have those opinions, we often lash them to our self-esteem, and so to
damage them is to chink the armor we had built to ward against the world.
Thus, we jealously shield them, staving off all who threaten.
In our desperate effort to protect our opinions, we often have to become
selective in the answers we find; accepting only those answers that lead to
a confirmation of that which we piously assume to be Truth, ignoring all
else by the blinkers we too often unwittingly don; presuming opposing
views to be, by default, baseless and false. This is the trap in seeking only
answers: we end up no longer seeking Truth.
These webs we weave, these masks we wear, these shells we envelop
ourselves in become so thick and suffocating that we do not realize that
we are made numb to the world, twisting ourselves in a blanket of shadow
so muffled and opaque that outer sensation is all but lost. We must
understand that only we can unstring those webs, peel off those masks,
and breach those shells.
 Page 82

To seek Truth, we have to understand that which makes us who we are. We

must discover why we have our opinions. The inscription on the Oracle of
Apollo at Delphi admonishes us “γνῶθι σεαυτόν”; to “Know Thyself.” This is
Gnosis; this is Knowing. Without it, we will be just one more speck in a vast
ocean of specks, stretching out beyond the horizon like a blanket of disease.
Unyielding and unrelenting, we will fight and squabble over our own little
pieces of territory, protecting opinions that are not the end of our road, but
only a small pebble in the roadbed that, as a result, we may no longer tread.
This is where I see the new elitists within the modern Scientific
Establishment. They are too often so afraid of being wrong, their grants
and tenures and self-esteem are strung so tightly to them being right, they
will fight tooth and nail to defend their opinions, no matter how wrong
they may truly be. They do not realize that if they simply accept the truth,
no matter how it falls, they will have actually taken a step toward
achieving the Truth to all the really interesting questions in Science.
Never be afraid of being wrong. It is more so through our errors that we in
time become wise, not through bullying others into accepting our
opinions, no matter how ludicrous, so as to not tarnish our self-esteem.
My father had a solution for most problems that troubled our self-esteem.
His words of wisdom were: “Deal with it!”
“With fame I become more and more stupid, which is, of course, a very
common phenomenon.” – Albert Einstein, 1919.
But, however all this ends, I will forever love Einstein’s anecdotes.

—David Ross Goben

CLOSING NOTE: Referring to the charts on the right,
which you can find on Dr. Ed Berry's blog at
http://climatephysics.com/80, it would seem that over the
past 400,000 years, Ice Ages are the norm. Also, it
would seem that the Medieval Warm Period (950 CE to
1250 CE), which is warmer than today, was itself mild
when compare to previous high-temperature periods.
Also be sure to refer to his Skeptics Handbook at
www.edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF4567/scepticshandbook1-31.pdf . Also
notice that the temperatures 2000 years ago, during
the Roman Climate-Optimum (250 BCE to 400 CE), were
much higher even than the Medieval Warm Period.
Maybe Global Warming advocates could blame
Yeshua ha-Meshiac or the Romans for that?
 Page 83

Regarding the Impossibility of Black Holes.

I saved my discussion regarding the impossibility of black holes, and by
consequence, singularities, in Einstein’s equations to trail my letters
because the subject is often heatedly contentious, some opinions fought
with zealotry so intense they border on being fundamentally religious.
Though the science and math against black holes are flawless, as they
have been since they were first calculated in 1915, many will point to
some of these same solutions and declare that they are proof that black
holes exist, even though they may reject the solution’s actual conclusion,
which may in fact deny that possibility. Indeed, I had originally struck this
section (and another later larger section, filled with almost excessive
religious and political history to fully fill out some details on Einstein and
those who engineered his greatness) from this open letter because of the
political volatility they incite in certain scientific circles that will believe
in black holes no matter how reliable the evidence is to the contrary.
NOTE: My late and dear Aunt Eleanor often argued, “Don’t confuse the issue with facts.”
NOTE: So far, only David Hilbert’s 1916 solution has actually revealed a black
hole. However, having said that, his solution cannot be described by admissible
coordinate transformations, which consequentially rendered his solution invalid.
SUBNOTE: David Hilbert (1862-1943) was a German mathematician who was recognized as one
of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries, being the
greatest mathematician of the time, after Poincaré.

As a flip argument, and as stated earlier, in an Electric Universe black

holes are entirely unnecessary because it will operate just fine without
them. Apparently this universe gets by just fine without them, as well,
because nothing we have observed has been affected by these unproven
things, not to mention that in every instance where they might be
suspected, Plasma Physics had a better, simpler, and more logical answer.
One of the best arguments against black holes that I have found and I think
also the absolutely best resource for obtaining most associated documents
and topics on this subject is embodied within a very short “Thunderblog”
by Stephen J. Crothers on the Thunderbolts website, entitled, “Big Bang
Busted! (The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)” (see
www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/022108_guest_sjcrothers.htm ).

NOTE: It should be noted that Crothers was expelled from his PhD program at
the University of New South Wales for submitting a report that challenged black
holes. He was also insulted and threatened by professors at the university (one
even altered his work and then claimed that he was in error). Over this matter,
Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora claimed that his University and his professors
did no wrong, and told Crothers that his report was insulting to UNSW, its
 Page 84

professors and himself. For a time this betrayal gave Crothers’ great mental
distress, eventually driving him from physics research in order to calm his nerves.
See www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html for details of how this all came about,
and see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/hora.pdf for an interesting email exchange
between Crothers and Professor Hora after the fact. This all demonstrates how
far Black Hole Relativists will go in order to protect their sacred cows.
Consider the fact that the whole argument for black holes supposedly hinges
on Karl Schwarzschild’s work. His 1916 memoir relates how he, in 1915, the
same year that Einstein first introduced his then-flawed adaptation of the
previously published work of Gauss, Riemann, and Mach on General
Relativity (which was an ersatz of the work of Marcel Grossmann and David
Hilbert), provided the first exact solution to Einstein’s field equations for the
limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass. His paper, entitled “On
the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’s Theory” (see
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf ), which outright invalidated the
black hole, is often contrarily cited by pro-black hole physicists as providing
the so-called “Schwarzschild Solution”, which they claim is the “smoking
gun” that realized black holes. It is said to make use of Schwarzschild
coordinates and the Schwarzschild metric that in turn leads to the widely-
publicized Schwarzschild radius. This radius is said to be the extent of the
event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.
However, this radius is an error due to a bad asumption, as we shall see.
NOTE: A first red flag should have already been raised. It is universally accepted
among Relativists that a black hole must rotate, because a non-rotating black hole,
which the sole, though technically invalidated solution so far supports, is in fact
simply a mass point (singularity) in a vacuum that cannot possibly exist outside a
hypothetical universe. Rotating black holes, which feature a collapsing gravitational
field, use a neutron star model, even though Nuclear Physics has proven that neutron
stars cannot exist. This is on top of the fact that no valid solution yet exists that is
able to justify the possibility for rotating black holes, regardless of neutron stars.

Later, Johannes Droste developed his own solution in 1916, which also
denied the possibility for black holes. By the time his paper, “The field of
a single centre in Einstein’s theory of gravitation, and the motion of a
particle in that field” (see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Droste.pdf) was
published in 1917, he had learned of Schwarzschild’s 1915 solution and
promptly added an acknowledgement to it in a footnote of his paper
(“After the communication to the Academy of my calculations, I
discovered that also K. SCHWARZSCHILD has calculated the field…”).
Even Marcel Brillouin’s 1923 solution, “The Singular Points of Einstein’s
Universe” (see www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/brillouin.pdf) demonstrates quite
categorically that black holes are nonsense.
 Page 85

It is unfortunate that the Droste and Brillouin solutions are ignored. But
you might be surprised to learn the Schwarzschild Solution is also ignored.
The much-heralded “Scwarzchild Solution”, as opposed to his actual
solution, was not even written by Scwarzchild, but rather by David
Hilbert. Hilbert’s solution (see Salvatore Antoci’s paper, “David Hilbert
and the Origin of the ‘Schwarzschild Solution’”, which describes
Hilbert’s solution in detail at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/hilbert.pdf), was
not derived from Schwarzschild’s flawless mathematical physics, but was
in fact a flawed adaptation of the Droste solution. Even so, you will
frequently see misquotes like the following, this one taken from
Wikipedia, “The first modern solution of general relativity that would
characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916…”
Granted, and as is argued by many of its supporters, it should not really
matter who actually developed this solution, but the fact that it exists. I say
that if indeed that was just the case, and especially if the solution was
valid, then there really should be very little argument over the matter.
The problem is that Hilbert had made a fatal error in his solution, and this
has only been exacerbated by enthusiastic supporters in the field of
physics who have perpetuated the error more dramatically by not fully
understanding the nature of the problem these solutions were meant to
solve, let alone recognize Hilbert’s error. See the late Leonard S. Abrams’
1989 paper on this subject, “Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error,”
at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf, and to his 1996 paper, “The
Total Space-Time of a Point Charge and its Consequences for Black
Holes,” at www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1996.pdf.
It is a matter of clinical fact that Hilbert derived his solution from Droste.
Nonetheless, it critically differs from Droste in that the range of values
that are allowed for Hilbert’s incorrectly assumed radii variable, R (see
below), which describes how far the event horizon is located from the
center of the gravitating mass. It is even more interesting that Droste
himself had actually anticipated this mistaken mathematical procedure that
would lead to the imploding black hole solution and had made an effort to
point out in a communication to fellow physicist Hendrik Lorentz that
such a procedure is not permissible because it would actually lead to a
non-static solution to a static problem, and as such, it must be omitted.
To reiterate: static solutions do not involve gravitational collapse.
 Page 86

The underpinning of Hilbert’s error was his misunderstanding of a real-

value parameter by which the true radii in the spacetime manifold of the
gravitational field is calculated, and he and others assumed the parameter
was the radii itself. To quote from Stephen Crothers’ excellent paper, “A
Brief History of Black Holes,” from the April 2006 issue of Progress in
Physics, (see www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF):
It is this incorrect range on the incorrectly assumed radius variable by Hilbert that enabled
the black hole to be obtained. The variable on the Hilbert metric, called a radius by the
relativists, is in fact not a radius at all, being instead a real-valued parameter by which the
true radii in the spacetime manifold of the gravitational field are rightly calculated. None of
the relativists have understood this, including Einstein himself. Consequently, the relativists
have never solved the problem of the gravitational field. It is amazing that such a simple
error could produce such a gigantic mistake in its wake, but that is precisely what the black
hole is — a mistake for enormous proportions. Of course, the black hole violates the static
nature of the problem, as pointed out by Droste, but the black hole theoreticians have
ignored this important detail.
NOTE: I suggest you also read pages 171-172 (7.2.1 What is a Black Hole?) in the
fundamental theories of physics textbook, “Is there a Temperature? (Conceptual
Challenges at High Energy, Acceleration and Complexity),” by Tamás Sándor Bíró,
preview available at http://books.google.com.
This textbook, published in 2011 by Springer Science+Business Media, New
York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, and London, and written by Tamás Sándor Bíró of
the Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics at the Wigner Research Centre for
Physics, Hungarian Acadamy of Sciences in Budapest, is interesting in that this
is the first textbook I have ever read that does not hold anything back, and does
not try to whitewash any of the conveyed details. Consider the following excerpt:
Precisely, this critical radius, R = 2GM/c 2, occurs in an ansatz of Schwarzschild solving
Einstein’s equations for general relativity. As a matter of history, Schwarzschild’s solution
was not a black hole, either. He considered a static solution to the Einstein equation, with
vacuum everywhere, except a mass point. He communicated this to Einstein on a military
postcard in 13 January 1916. Einstein was so surprised, that he immediately published this
communication to him. Then on 24 February 1916 Karl Schwarzschild communicated a
solution outside of a homogeneous sphere filled with an incompressible liquid. Actually, he
himself never considered gravitational collapse, he was looking for static solutions.
Johannes Droste was the first who anticipated the imploding black hole solution, by finding
the solution of Schwarzschild independently of him in December 1916 and communicating
this to Hendrik Lorentz. He stated that this would be a “non-static solution to a static
problem,” and as such, it has to be omitted. The Schwarzschild solution, as referred to
under this name since, was actually presented first by David Hilbert, regarding R just as a
real valued parameter in the solution. In 1922, the possibility of gravitational collapse, as
an admissible solution to the Einstein equations had been discussed, but no mathematical
proof of the existence of such a solution arose. Marcel Brillouin has obtained a new exact
solution in 1923 by a valid transformation of coordinates in Schwarzschild’s solution. It still
describes a static vacuum solution with the “boundary condition” of a point particle with
mass M at r=0, not a black hole. The collapsing black hole solution with an event horizon is
derivable from Hilbert’s solution; it just cannot be described by admissible coordinate
transformations.
 Page 87

NOTE: Stephen Crothers has informed me that the controversial R value that
was incorrectly assumed to be the radius of a black hole’s event horizon is
actually the inverse square root of the Gaussian Curvature. Refer also to
www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html .

NOTE: Karl Schwartzschild, a German physicist, died 11 May 1916 while serving
on the Russian Front from a painful skin blistering disease called pemphigus.
Even more disturbing is that most modern “standard” mathematicians have
clearly failed to understand the actual physics of the problem the solutions
were meant to solve, and that is that the so-called “black hole solution” to
Einstein’s field equation were actually for a hypothetical universe that
contained only a single mass point, or singularity, in a vacuum, which was
the black hole itself, being a non-rotating homogeneous sphere filled with an
unidentified incompressible liquid, and which can only exist at the exact
center of this hypothetical space. It was never meant to solve for an
independant black hole in a universe filled with any other matter, such as
plasma, stars, planets, and galaxies, let alone more than one black hole mass,
even though cosmologists now-a-days seem to pepper them all over our
universe, especially anywhere where their gravitational physics fails to solve
observed phenomenon, to include at the center of each Galaxy as presumed
Super Massive Black Holes, to some who even speculate that one might be a
binary companion to our own Sun (and I will rub in once again that Plasma
Physics would solve those issues quite easily and without black holes).
NOTE: A recent idea put forward is that there is a black hole cluster in the
center of our galaxy. See Physics World, Vol 26 No. 7, July 2013, Page 7,
“Galaxy’s Black Hole Hub”, which begins, “Astrophysicists in the US think that an
immense cloud of gas currently swooping around the centre of our galaxy could reveal a
multitude of small black holes nestled there.” This editorial note cited no author.
From this, we see that there are grave problems with the evangelized model.
First, there exists no solution for a hypothetical universe that contains more
than one black hole. The reason for this is that the physics for two or more
such masses in a single universe, or even within a universe that contains
more than just the black hole itself, is so far impossible because such a
solution does not yet exist, even though physicists and cosmologists seem to
go around assuming that such a theory does exist, which is plainly understood
from how they carry on and on about them and sprinkle them like fairy dust
everywhere, as though peppering a steak.
Second, one must consider the nature of a black hole, and that is if they
indeed had infinite densities, light could never escape from the surface of the
black hole because infinite density will also have infinite gravity. However, I
have heard physicists proclaim that light can emit from this gravitational
object, but it will always be pulled back to the gravitating body. But this is in
 Page 88

fact describing a Newtonian Michell-Laplace black body, which is in fact not

a black hole at all (see below). Twisting this further, some physicists claim
that the escape velocity from a black hole is the speed of light in a vacuum.
This is regardless of the fact that anything within its event horizon can only
pass inward towards the black hole, but a layman might surmise from this
that the physicists are in fact saying that light therefore can escape from a
black hole because they have declared an escape velocity. But at the same
time other physicists allege that light cannot escape (even from its surface, let
alone travel outward within its event horizon), that would mean that that there
is in fact no escape velocity from the black hole. The above illustrates the
confusion of facts that are argued within the presumed unified community
that ferociously believes in them.
Third, no solution yet exist that can define a black hole as other than a
single non-rotating mass point that exists in anything other than an entirely
hypothetical, thus non-actualized universe, that contains no other matter.
Fourth, the glaring error in the black hole solution is that it solves a static
problem with a non-static solution, which therefore yields an invalid
solution, regardless of anything else.
Much is written on this, to include Einstein’s own rejection of black holes.
For example, in 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of
Mathematics named “On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry
Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses” (see www.jstor.org/pss/1968902).
Einstein endeavored to prove in his paper that celestial objects so dense
that their gravity prevents light from escaping were impossible.
Unfortunately, non-consensus material like this is usually suppressed or
ignored by a community of physicists and astronomers who have bought
into Hilbert’s flawed black hole premise so completely that they will not
even heed the words of their own revered icons.
Many theoretical physicists have alleged that Newton’s theory of
gravitation either predicts or indicates black holes, stemming from a
suggestion made in 1784 by John Michell that if a body is sufficiently
massive, “all light emitted from such a body would be made to return to it
by its own power of gravity”. However, this so-named Michell-Laplace
dark body is not a black hole at all. The term derives from a description of
what an observer, who is located at an infinite distance from the
gravitating source, would see. It is basically described like this: if you are
observing the gravitating source from an infinite distance away, then if an
object emits from that gravitating source and subsequently returns to that
source because its gravity has pulled it back, or emits from that source and
 Page 89

then, at a certain distance, will become static in motion and no longer

move, in either case it will never be seen by the observer because the
object will never reach or pass the observer (see the previous link to A
Brief History of Black Holes for fuller details on this).
I find it sad that black holes, which have been sensationalized and reported
widely upon, featuring prominently in popular culture through countless
well-liked cinematic features and television programs, is entirely due to a
mistaken interpretation of mathematical data that too few scientists, it
seems, especially among black hole supporters, have taken the time to test
and confirm or deny.
Strange, but is it not the task of a true scientist to test reported findings?
NOTE: (I apologize for this note’s length. It began as a single paragraph, twice the
size of this one, but you know how much I love details…) In considering the above
and thinking about objects moving from a central point, I was reminded that in
July 1971, when I was 16, I once thought about the fact that a light source can be
observed from infinite locations surrounding it. Just imagine a microscopic but
visible light source suspended in the center of a glass sphere, and you were to
attempt to mark every point on that sphere at which that instantaneous light burst
would be capable of being observed to pass through the sphere from its center.
So, if each presumed beam of light blasting outward from it, each being the
expression of a single photon particle, will each pass through one of those infinite
points around the light source, I wondered if there were in fact enough energy to
fill the rest of the universe because it would seem to me that the entire universal
supply of energy will clearly be exhausted to simply report that single point of
light into all the infinitely possible directions using photons. Was this a paradox?
From this, I reasoned that it was not infinite photons, but a single event. This also
meant that it could not be a particle, but it had to be a spherical wave, but it could
only be so and propagate its frequency in all directions only if there were a stationary
transference medium to express it. So at 16 I had discovered the fundamentals of
spherical quantum waves. Too bad somebody had already realized it long before me.
So, at that age I was already concluding all electrons, protons and neutrons are
waves, never particles, because the above would only be possible if 'photons'
were simply the interactions of a standing wave with the Aether. As such, infinite
observers could witness effects or ripples from a single standing light wave event
from any respective observation point, and the universe would remain intact.
Years later I wondered if I should pursue Quantum Physics. They babble
incoherently like that.
Quantum Physicists say a wave will collapse to a particle when monitored, but the
above analogy makes it evident that this is not the case, or practical; for it continues to
be simultaneously a wave at unmonitored locations. In other words, if a wave is
observed as a particle at one observation point, how can it still act as a wave in any
locations not so monitored, or be detected as a particle at all other monitored
locations? It cannot. This even goes beyond the idea of quantum superposition, which
 Page 90

is rendered invalid by the spherical wave model, anyway. It must be one or the other,
and so it can only therefore be a wave, never a particle, contrary to the paradox
quantum physicists claim observing. The sad thing about a paradox in quantum
physics is that most quantum physicists will simply throw up their hands and say, “It
is just one of those weird, mysterious things that happens down there below the Planck scale.”
SUBNOTE: They call this a wave collapse. Whenever they measure the position of a particle, they
say the range of locations narrows so they never see the wave. Have they thought enough on this
to see what is actually going on? It is still a wave with a frequency signature, but the fact they use
an electromagnetic detector that in turn generates an electromagnetic field, tells you how such
“observation” can alter the experiment, even regarding the famous double-slit experiment. Is it
really a particle, or electromagnetic harmonic interference?
SUBNOTE: Quantum Physics has an axiom, “If someone says that they understand quantum
physics; they do not understand quantum physics.” That is one of the stupidest things I ever heard.
If you fill a field with pixie dust and paradoxes, of course no one can understand it, but that is
because there is no clear definition of what is going on. It seems that scaleable plasma physics can
blow away most of that pixie dust, and it should be accepted that paradoxes are simply conundrums
that are yet to be resolved, and Occam’s razor should be able to help narrow down most of those.
SUBNOTE: The Planck scale is an energy scale of about 1.22 × 1019 GeV, below which effects of
gravity become undetectable in that the description of sub-atomic particle interactions breaks down
due to the non-renormalizability of gravity. Face it: if gravity exists, it does not just stop working.
Electromagnetic forces do not stop working. Perhaps its side effects are not strong enough to be
detected, or its electromagnetic forces are blooming inward, hence becoming undetectable.
I think the real question here is how a single charged photon can distribute this
mysterious wave principle that Quantum Physics claims that it does. I think the
questions that must be asked are these: What is the actual physics of a
quantum wave? How exactly is this wave transferred? …And why do most
people imagine them and illustrate them as being 2-dimensional?
Quantum Physics describes a wave to be like circular ripples dispersing from a
point in a pond in all directions. Even though they never bother to explain it,
exactly what is performing the function of the “water”, which acts as the needed
stationary transference medium so that this wave effect can be detected or even
actualized? In other words, what is the medium that is transferring the frequency
energy from that central causal event to all points outward in 3 dimensions? Is it
really matter as we define it? And if so, can it actually account for the function of
light? It cannot be an absolute vacuum, because standing wave energy cannot
be propagated in an absolute vacuum. Even light cannot function in an absolute
vacuum, even though Einstein, et al., carry on about the speed of light in a
vacuum. But I think that it is a safe assumption that there is no such thing as an
absolute vacuum. Besides, the paradox here is that if light were able to enter into
an absolute vacuum, then that vacuum would clearly not be absolute.
It seems to me that a surrounding crushingly dense ocean of Prime Matter transfers
this energy, and being incredibly small and so incredibly dense as to define it as the
Firmament the Hebrew and Christian Bibles carry on about, can transfer it incredibly
fast, operating many times faster than the speed of light, which would not be a limit if
light were a result of it transferring energy between adjacent Prime Matter nodes, perfectly
expressing the spherical wave frequency effect observed, and is a piece to the puzzle
that can demonstrate that Prime Matter does in fact exist, and is also an important
component of a simpler and more logical model for Particle Physics.
 Page 91

SUBNOTE: It is possible for billions of Prime Matter waves to exist within a space that would
define an outwardly bloomed electromagnetic field generated by an atom of Hydrogen. That is how
small a Prime Matter standing wave is, having only twice the “weight” and “mass” of an electron.
Prime Matter theory makes few assumptions, compared to chains of interdependent
unproven hypothetical presumptions used to support Particle Physics' Standard
Model, and so has more likelihood with respect to Occam’s Razor of being correct.
SUBNOTE: To kick-start your inner scientist, I suggest you read the work of George P. Shpenkov,
retired professor of physics, whose current interest include an analysis of basic concepts of physics
and their reconsideration to conformity with dialectical logic and philosophy. The main
achievements of this analysis are a series of discoveries related to primordial problems of physics
such as the nature of mass and charge of elementary particles, the shell-nodal structure of atoms,
microwave background radiation of atoms, dynamic model of elementary particles, and etc. You
can find his work at http://shpenkov.janmax.com.
And if you REALLY want to awaken your inner genius, read the brilliant work of Geoff Haselhurst
with the help of Karen Howie. All I can say is – WOW! Any kind of introduction from me would
not do their work justice, so I will let the work speak for itself. Also be prepared to enjoy many
quotes, poetry, and art. If anything is going to be able to help answer my questions on the true
nature of quantum waves, it is likely in their exploration of the spherical standing wave structure of
matter (WSM) in space. See www.spaceandmotion.com.
FINAL NOTE: It occurred to me on June 19, 2013 that due to the presence of Prime
Matter, which, according to Nikola Tesla, has to be, at minimum, several thousands
of times denser than air (and which, as indicated in the SUBNOTE below, is perfectly
reasonable), would also make even the infinitely remote possibility of a black hole
existing in turn ironically impossible. Consider this: if a black
hole actually did come into being, then Prime Matter would
immediately fill it up to the point of absolute saturation, instantly
rendering it utterly inert insofar as functioning as a black hole is
concerned. Of course, as a consequence, this would also spell
doom for the idea of “wormholes” in so-called “spacetime” as
well, if the imaginary concept of “spacetime” were even
possible, which, if you really think about it, is only able to work Rubber sheet analogy for “curved
space-time” at www.starosta.com
if it were actually just a 2-dimensional rubber-sheet-like space
that is somehow able to interact with 3-dimensional objects.
FINAL SUBNOTE: Logically, Prime Matter, billions of which can easily fit within the space
occupied by a single hydrogen atom, hence forcing it to have a naturally tremendous density, would
plainly have to be at least billions of times denser than air simply in order to transfer a photon’s
standing wave energy in infinite directions; otherwise the function of light itself would not be
possible. Indeed, the rate at which energy is able to be passed through the transferring medium,
which must exist if the expression of light is to exist, the frequency of the source photon burst, and
the density of crossing electromagnetic energy on its way to any given destination endpoint will
establish the ultimate speed of any given light wave to any of its infinite destination points in space.
Also, if the energy-transference medium was not so densely packed, light propagation would not be
possible because a light event on its own is not capable of expressing itself in infinite directions
without needing to expend all the energy in the Universe just to express that event. This is
enhanced by the fact that electromagnetic forces, to function as we observe them functioning, must
be able to operate thousands (some calculate tens of billions) of times faster than the speed of light,
which is not a limit if the rate at which Prime Matter transfers photonic energy simply establishes
that speed. Even gravity itself would provide no coherent function, and the universe itself would
exhibit none of its observed coherent nature if its binding force did not operate many times faster
than the speed of light (even the very atoms in our bodies vibrate at a frequency that is just short of
the speed of light. One tiny little nudge and we would become multi-dimensional beings).
 Page 92

However, Relativists in general deny the existence of Prime Matter, even though prior to Einstein,
it was a simple fact of science. Paradoxically, Einstein himself came to accept Prime Matter
(Aether) shortly after he published his theory on General Relativity, even though his devoted
followers have somehow managed to blind themselves to this fact. Interestingly, his followers
reject it simply because Einstein himself had rejected it when he published his work, but this was
merely because Einstein was at the time totally clueless of its importance to those whose works he
or his wife were plagiarizing. Even so, Einstein and his followers give absolutely no explanation
for the medium that is fundamentally required to make the function of light possible, which cannot
be anything except Prime Matter. But this is something that they are not able to admit; for them to
admit Prime Matter exists as Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincaré defined it would be to also admit that
an Electric Universe is its logical consequence, which was the direction that science was heading
toward when Relativity came along, but this would also be to admit that their Relativistic tenants
have no foundation in fact.
In Einstein’s addressed to the University of Leyden on 5 May 1920 (see http://www-history.mcs.st-
and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html), Einstein wrote: “According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be
thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ” It is interesting
that Relativist physicists and mathematicians will expound the glory of Albert Einstein, but at the
same time they will categorically ignore those things he said that blow holes in their own pet
theories, such as his firm belief in the Aether and his firm disbelief in singularities. Perhaps this is
why their pursuit of a Unified Field Theory has consistently failed, because Einstein himself
believed that such a theory was absolutely dependant upon an understanding of the Aether.
The late physicist, Dr. Allen Rothwarf, of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in his article, “An Aether Model of the Universe”,
published in the September issue of Physics Essays (vol. 11, number 3, pp. 444-466) (see
http://epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf ), wrote in the first paragraph of his introduction: “We
live in a universe of interacting fluids. While oceans in which gases are dissolved, and an oxygen-
nitrogen atmosphere with water vapor and other trace gases are readily accepted, the third fluid,
the aether, which penetrates everything is ridiculed as a relic of a bygone era in science. Yet, while
rejecting an aether, the science establishment has no problems swallowing waves in vacuum,
mysterious probability waves, ad hoc cosmological constants, vacuum fluctuations that can
generate anything, and time and space expanding and shrinking. To the true believer, the fact that
“they work” is the only justification for the major theories in physics; Maxwell’s equations, the
Schrodinger equation, and Relativity, and is used as evidence that we know everything, that
“Science is Dead”, and humanity’s brightest should move on to more challenging tasks. Some of
us, however, are heretics. We would actually like to “understand” the physics, rather than just use
it as a magic wand to create technology. In this pursuit of “understanding”, which is also ridiculed
by the establishment as asking meaningless questions, we have found that the aether is not only a
useful concept, but that it is a real substance with an origin that coincides with the birth of our
universe and whose properties determine the speed of light, the other physical constants, and the
missing insight lacking in present theories.”
Sometimes I wonder how all these brilliant Relativist thinkers can be so close to their
work that they cannot see the forest for all the stupid trees blocking their view.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 93

Exploring What Happened During the Solar Eclipse of 1919.

Has anyone ever wondered how a poorly-equipped and in fact muddled
expedition to observe the 29 May 1919 Solar Eclipse had managed to
somehow catapult Einstein with his obscure theories onto the world stage,
making him an overnight superstar? Until then, Einstein was largely
unknown and was regularly chastised by peers for several mistakes and for
blatant plagiarism. What was it that made these things change?
NOTE: Many scientists will still defend the Royal Geographic Society’s 1919
and 1922 solar eclipse expeditions, stating that because they were professional
scientific expeditions, they could not possibly be so ill-equipped or have its
results so skewed. I appreciate their desire to give their profession a face of
integrity, but the sad truth is that politics infests almost everything, and
bureaucrats behind desks, pushing pencils, are always making mindless
decisions regarding mindful things, and anyone who has ever had to fight the
bureaucratic red tape within the scientific establishment well knows that this field
is widely corrupted by political alliances, personal agendas, and overblown egos.
Arthur Eddington, made famous for his popular expositions explaining,
interpreting, and evangelizing Einstein’s 1915 theory of General Relativity
(which was in a corrected form by 1916), led the 1919 expedition with the
expressed goal of proving Einstein’s theory correct (a red flag should
have gone up right there). He had a vested interest in declaring it verified,
not only because his public reputation was dependant upon the premise
that Einstein’s theory was correct, but also because to make Einstein the
king of science would in turn solidify his own reputation as “the man who
discovered Einstein”, and would greatly enrich him through access to
grants (many scientists until then had been guilty of such breaches of
scientific ethics, and, sadly, such “fine” traditions continue to this day).
NOTE: Eddington was the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental
Philosophy (after George Darwin died), the Director of the Cambridge Observatory
(after Robert Ball died), and was named a Fellow of the Royal Society and winning
their Royal Medal. He was mathematically adept, having a clear understanding of
the special and general theories of relativity, and had developed the first true
understanding of stellar processes.
Their goal was to observe 43 stars and see if they (hopefully, all) would be
deflected by 1.751 arc seconds. A reading close to this (Eddington
reported 1.70 arc seconds) would be proof that Einstein’s revolutionary
overthrow of Newtonian ideas was correct, even though, ironically,
Newton had predicted this effect, and from this, Johann Soldner in 1801
had estimated a 0.85 arc second deflection from Newton, though Soldner
predicted light grazing the Sun would actually be double that value.
 Page 94

NOTE: Some texts state that Eddington reported 1.73 arc seconds, not 1.70, but
the 1.73 reading was the observation for deflection of quasar radio signals.
NOTE: An arc second is a unit of angular measure equal to 1/60 th of an arc
minute, or 1/3600th of a degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, or 1,296,000
arc seconds. Arc seconds are denoted by double-ticks (”), as in 0.85”.
Eddington’s 1919 Principe, Africa expedition was hampered by many
factors. First, the hot overcast island sky. Second, they had unreliable
telescopes, the likes of which you can now pick up at a discount store for
under $100. Third, they used a 10-second cap camera; a camera that must
be exposed for a minimum of 10 seconds to register an image. This
hindrance alone introduced a catastrophic flaw, which was that this
extended exposure time forced a minimum 1/25th-degree (or 144 arc
seconds, or 2.4 arc minutes) error, accounting for the rotation of the Earth,
throwing a wrecking ball into their desire for 1/100th arc second accuracy.
Fourth, the focus for the telescopes was computed and set days in
advance of the eclipse, and their equipment was operating outside optimal
temperature ranges, which did introduce unacceptable focusing issues.
Fifth, the photographs were all of poor quality and no reliable
measurements could be made from them, causing any derived results to be
inconclusive.
Yet Eddington still claimed a reading of 1.70 arc seconds, with a claimed
accuracy of measurement to be precise down to 1/100 th arc second, which
is 200 times more precise than their camera was capable of delivering,
and this if the camera had operated under the most perfect of conditions.
One hindrance, expanding on the Second factor above, and one that few
people seem to discuss, was the expedition telescopes used. They were 4-inch
telescopes. Their “size” is determined from the size of the main lens, or
aperture. Its resolution accuracy is determined by Dawe’s Limit (for W. R.
Dawes, though it is also credited to Lord Rayleigh). For inches, its accuracy
in arc seconds is computed by R = 4.56/D, where D is the diameter of the
aperture in inches, and R is the resolving power of the instrument in arc
seconds. Hence 4.56/4 = 1.14; meaning that a 4-inch telescope could not
resolve for anything smaller than 1.14 arc seconds (so the Eddington claim of
1/100th arc second accuracy is blown completely away right there).
Some will argue that equipment had to have become progressively better
during the subsequent solar eclipse observations made in 1922 in Australia,
1929 in Sumatra, 1936 in Russia and Japan, 1947 in Brazil, and 1952 in
Sudan. All these expedition results were reported to be in agreement with the
1919 readings (though not with all predictions made by General Relativity).
 Page 95

But I truly wonder exactly how they might think so?

The kind of accuracy that would be required to confirm General Relativity
would be difficult to achieve even now using the most modern telescopes,
where we would still have great difficulty seeing detail finer than 1.0 arc
second, though 2 to 3 –or worse– are typical, due to natural dissolution of
accuracy because of atmospheric turbulence. Remember, 1 arc second is
1/3600th of a degree, or 1/1296000th of a circle.
Hence, a Sixth factor is atmospheric turbulence as an accuracy concern,
especially in the afternoon as they endured 97°F during the eclipse on
Principe island off the African Gold Coast. Atmospheric turbulence causes
images of stars to look fuzzy, to jump, or to quiver. This would naturally
be expected when heat waves began rising rapidly from the vegetation as
the air quickly cooled in the shade of the eclipse. Thus, the resolving
power of the telescope can always be expected to double or triple to
account for this, which would be expanded to 2.24 to 3.42 arc seconds
minimal resolution, and this is not considering the 144 arc second error in
the cameras due to the Earth's rotation. But all this clearly means that
Eddington could not possibly prove or disprove Einstein’s theory.
Of the 43 stars observed, ¾ of them were summarily rejected because their
measurements were either inconclusive or they did not conform to the
desired result. Those rejected had measurements, but they appeared to
deflect light in several, but not in the desired direction. If any of these 30-
plus rejected stars had actually been accepted, Einstein’s general theory of
relativity would have simply been declared unverified. This tells me that if
by happy accident the turbulence-jiggled results favored the desired result,
it was considered good data; otherwise it was considered bad data and
therefore rejected. In all, to include the expedition to South America, they
had to reject 85% of their data in order to get Eddington’s desired result.
One thing that troubles me is there was no report of refraction variability
of stars further from the Sun’s edge, which, according to General
Relativity, should have resulted in much lower refraction readings. But so
enters the errors I pointed out. They just could not discern valid values.
Another effect predicted by General Relativity is a thing that should have
been reported, but was embarrassingly lacking (so much so that Relativists
are completely mum on the subject and will not discuss it), which was
Einstein Rings, where light bending around the sun due to gravitational
effects should cause light from stars behind the Sun to create warped halo-
like effects around the edge of the Sun as it bent around it. Dr. Edward
 Page 96

Dowdye, a laser optics engineer and former NASA physicist, an electrical

engineer with degrees in both mathematics and physics, has extensively
researched this and has presented compelling empirical evidence that the
direct relationship between light and gravitation in space does not exist.
See www.extinctionshift.com, or the video at https://youtu.be/CnvOybT2WwU.
NOTE: Under ideal conditions, the expeditions would have been able to confirm
only part of Einstein’s theory; to see if the light of stars deflected by 1.751 arc
seconds; twice Newton’s estimate. Oddly, the doubling of Newton’s estimate was
not even original to Einstein, but to Johann Georg von Soldner’s 1801
calculations that strictly used Newtonian Mechanics, not requiring any new
physics principles. Although there was bending indicated, it is still not clear if it
was due to solar/Earth atmosphere, solar gravity, solar electromagnetism, lens
effects due to Solar Plasma Wave Propagation, air turbulence, or if it actually
differed from Newton’s or Soldner’s predictions. In 1978 people tried to analyze
the 1919 plates using computers, which was a total waste of time because the
inaccuracies already exist in the plates, and computers are not going to change
or enhance resolution from that, regardless of what you might see or imagine
from watching any of the popular CSI television programs.
SUBNOTE: Soldner’s 1801 derivation of Newton is 2(v/c)2, yet he doubled it to equal 4(v/c)2 for
light grazing the sun, which is the expression Einstein took credit for, computing deflection strictly
by light aberration, not by relativistic light bending. By the way, if you look at Einstein’s own
sketch from his 1913 letter to American E. G. Hale, asking whether the test could be done without
an eclipse, and illustrating how gravity bends light, he notes the deflection he was seeking as 0,84”,
almost mirroring Soldner’s 0.85” derivation of Newton (see www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae24.htm).
Fortunately for Einstein, the war prevented Hale from answering “No” until the war was over,
allowing Einstein to complete his general theory of relativity, which, mirroring Soldner, doubled
the result derived from his special theory of relativity that had, when fully realized, used straight
Newtonian Physics, with no “new” physics required. Soldner predicted 1.70”, Einstein 1.751”, but
Eddington reported 1.70”, which by weird coincidence exactly matched Soldner’s prediction.
To this day, many will shout triumphantly to the world how Einstein had “corrected” Soldner’s
“error” by doubling the Soldner Newtonian calculation, thus making physics “right” with the
universe. However, no one has yet put forward a reasonable explanation for why Einstein should
have to in fact double it in terms of General Relativity, or explain why it fails to also bend light that
is further from the edge of the sun as General Relativity predicts and expects, or why the expected
halos called Einstein Rings, due to gravity effects predicted by General Relativity, are mysteriously
lacking. Soldner had his reason to double the value due to light grazing the sun, where lens effects
through its atmospheric plasma sheath would be greater. But in the end, when all is said and done,
it all comes down to Einstein’s mathematics actually duplicating Soldner’s mathematics.
NOTE: Why has no one yet tried to duplicate these experiments using the large,
modern, higher-precision equipment, such as the Hubble telescope since 1952?
And why do they keep harping endlessly on the 1919 data (the other expedition to
South America went little better)? Why is the other data through 1952 ignored? Or
is it that they already knew that they will not get results that would verify General
Relativity? One has to imagine an astronomer had to have been curious enough to have
done it, just to settle the controversy. But why were they not published?
 Page 97

It is bad enough they make such a hullabaloo about how General Relativity
predicted the perihelion precession of Mercury, as if this effect was previously
unknown. However, it was observed long before Einstein was even born. Further,
the very same equation Einstein presented to in fact perform this great
“prediction” in his 1915 paper was first published by Paul Gerber in 1898, having
nothing to do with General Relativity. Worse, due to dated correspondences
between Einstein and Erwin Freundlich, it is clear Einstein knew Gerber’s work.
The 1922 Australian expedition, conducted to verify the 1919 data, in fact
had similar results because they were using the same type of equipment.
Yet, the Royal Geographic Society claimed they confirmed the 1919
readings, even though it was just as inconclusive because the imprecision
that was inherent in their equipment was still 200 times less accurate than
required. Even so, the same high precision of accuracy was reported.
NOTE: Just as funding today favors Global Warming, where even mundane
research can expect to rake in huge grants if its research can be related to
Global Warming, even if it was to study the sex lives of gnats, just by adding “due
to the effects of Global Warming” to its title, grant money in Einstein’s day were
given to research that confirmed this rising star’s theories. Think about that.
And it is upon this data that cannot be verifiably measured from even the
accepted photographic plates (you can find samples online) that Einstein
was elevated and likened to a demigod, and everyone got caught up in this
wave of excitement, though too few understood what it was all about.
When I read about this when I was 18 years old, I wondered why natural
lensing through the upper atmosphere of the Sun and its plasma envelope
was not also considered a factor, let alone the natural light aberration that
Newton described in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
I still agree with the principle, but I now further augment it with
the consideration that light consists of electrically charged
photons (which I define as Wave Events, but use the term
Photon as a simple moniker to describe points of Aether
interaction with standing waves, rather than as Einstein's Particles), and
the Sun is a fantastically charged electromagnetic dynamo, and as such
the Sun will deflect charged photons. Actually, every 7th, 8th, or 9th grade
school student should be familiar with this concept, considering that most
science classes have a Radiometer, which is a glass bulb, looking
somewhat like a clear light bulb with 4 diamond-shaped black/white
paddles balanced in a rarified gas, used to measure the radiant flux of
electromagnetic radiation. Put it into sunlight or lamplight and the paddles
will rotate; the black sides of the paddles will absorb the light photons, and
the white sides will deflect them.
 Page 98

NOTE: Because electricity is 1039 times more powerful than gravity, why do
physicists carry on about gravity bending electromagnetic forces through General
Relativity when it should clearly be the other way around, especially since gravity
seems to be more and more likely simply an effect of electromagnetism?
NOTE: If you want to test your knowledge on the theory of relativity, take the pop
quiz at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/TestPage.htm. There is instant feedback on the
multiple choice questions, and no one keeps score but you, so you can click
around until you get it right, and learn something at the same time, so have fun.
NOTE: I also have to specifically thank Christopher Bjerknes, Stephen Crothers,
Richard Moody, Jr., the late Paul Marmet, and many un-credited encyclopedic
sources for their hard work in previously researching much of this material. I run
it off from memory as a stream of consciousness as I tap away at my keyboard,
but these people inspired my words. I glued their blood and sweat together, and
injected my own humble insights as needed, usually identified simply as personal
observations. Do yourself the biggest favor in the world and search the web for
these fellows. Your understanding of science and your view of the world will be
changed.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 99

Mythematic Sarcasm.
This is the way that mythematics works: First, you have a view of the
universe that you think is how the universe should operate. You begin
with some basic laws that are currently popular, such as Newton’s Laws of
Gravity. You sprinkle in some popular ideas that you are impressed with,
such as some equations that Einstein developed about bending space with
gravity. You then go about filling in the blanks between these accepted
ideas and your target concept by tinkering with mathematical calculations,
adding whatever is needed until the mathematics seems to fit.
NOTE: It bugs me to no end how it is possible to bend space using the absolute
weakest force known to science, and why should space even bend, or that it is
possible to bend in the first place? It seems to me that this would only be
possible if space were not 3-dimensional, but rather a 2-dimensional plane that
held 3-dimensional objects on its surface. But this configuration is not at all
possible. Has anyone ever explored how a 3-dimensional space would react?
Basically, this is like starting with the number 1, but you want to derive
the number 22. Sure, you can simply add 21, but that is too obvious. So
you might apply some slick math tricks like the ones that most young
people learn in school during free periods to amuse each other, such as
starting with someone’s birthday and then, when you flip the calculator
upside down, you read “hELLO.” (inverted .07734). So you might throw
in some equations derived from Euclidian Geometry, Trigonometry, and
maybe a dash of Calculus, and you have an impressive equation that
shows how you can start with the number 1 and end up at 22. But suppose
later a new fact emerges that poses problems to your equation? You might
enhance it by adding a new constant, like the invented but now invalidated
Cosmological Constant, to fudge the data quotients to once more offer the
desired result.
The above amusement over-simplistically illustrates how mathematics can
be applied to do something that it was never meant to do. Sure, you can
apply mathematics to plot points, do transformations, predict trajectories,
calculate patterns, distortion, lensing, simulate the complex flight
operations of a stealth aircraft, or (try to) predict the weather, but it was
never meant to do things like show how Black Hole Ejections can work,
because black holes cannot be proven to exist in the first place. But even
the fudged physics that is used to presume that they might exist still
cannot support a galactic plasma ejection. But why bother, when such
ejections are purely natural events under an electrodynamics model?
 Page 100

Indeed, I once had a conversation with a person regarding these gigantic

plasma ejections (and I do mean gigantic, sometimes being many times
longer than the galaxy is wide, extending into the trillions of miles). They
said that they were ejections from a super-massive black hole, regardless
of their overly obvious electrical signatures, and because that is what they
are, that is proof that black holes exist.
I had to do an obviously comical triple-take. Forget the fact that such
events are expected in terms of Plasma Physics, I had to stop and imagine
why, when a “normal” black hole is presumed to not let any light escape
its event horizon whatsoever, how a super-massive black hole, which is
presumed to be far larger and far more powerful that a “normal” black
hole (but just as improvable), but can somehow in turn eject electrified
plasma jets, when its presumed physics lets even less matter escape than
an imagined normal black hole? The argument for them falls flat on its
face right there. But that is only one example of many in a world of
science run amuck that uses proofs for their theories that often also
disproves them, or disproves other aspects of those or of supporting
theories.
I am not saying by all this that mythematics is wholly pervasive in physics,
but it is an important enough matter that I have no choice but to say that
sometimes the most brilliant and respected figures in physics do not have
their figures checked quite as thoroughly as might a general physicist.
When one, out of respect, assumes that someone’s work is correct, one
tends to accept the math as written, and sometimes even when they do find
what might appear to be a error, it tends to be overlooked because they
usually assume this incongruence is due to a personal misunderstanding.
After all, the English translation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity
had an error in its math from 1923 until it was finally corrected in 1999.
NOTE: When taking a long and difficult examination, when you recheck the
answers you have submitted, are you not least likely to check those answers that
you have a high degree of confidence in them already being correct? And when
your examination paper is graded and returned to you, where do you usually find
answers marked as incorrect? Among the answers you assumed to be correct.
Someone is least likely to believe a new physicist reporting an error
regarding a revered physicist’s work, when truly one should put more than
the usual trust in the fresh eyes of someone new, regardless of their
inexperience, especially if they are not aware of respected reputations. Just
look at how ardently some of Einstein’s errors were defended by some of
esteemed brilliance until one of them actually took the time to track the
error down by checking the math.
 Page 101

I simply exercise caution when a particular theory will have a great impact
on someone who has funding, tenure, or a reputation to protect if such a
theory were to become de facto. On the surface, this might not seem to be
an issue of any relevance, because from the outside the sciences seems so
professional, until you take a much deeper look at the heated and
contentious politics that actually goes on throughout professional sciences.
For example, if funding hinges on a particular result, I am very cautious of
the results reported back.
When evidence contradicts theories, there is likely something wrong with
the theories, not something wrong with the empirical evidence.
Always remember that mathematical models are supposed to be designed
around the results of observation, not upon thought experiments, which
models an idea, and then tries to prove them correct through observation.

—David Ross Goben

 Page 102

Einstein, the Stumbling Manufactured Hero.

PRELUDE.
Some of the material shared within this paper is replete with an abundance of
political and religious history that is not of common fare, save for those who
burrow deep within academia's dustbins, unlike the more scientific nature of
other treatise shared herein. In fact, this 2-part essay can detract from the
others, and if the decision were mine, I might consider excising it. However,
it remains intact in order to answer a broad range of queries submitted to me
regarding the mysterious cabal who had engineered Einstein’s greatness.
In any case, the truth is that you cannot actually separate politics from
science anymore, or visa versa; they are now stitched too tightly together,
and often to the point of them being wholly mutually inclusive. This is just
as religion and politics were for almost all of recorded history. You cannot
fully understand one without understanding the other’s relationship to it.
Be aware that a lot of hidden or obfuscated religious history will therefore
be shared in broad daylight. Although this material has been researched to
death, and at sometimes mining helmets were indeed required, it has been
backed up by an excess of detailed research and expert religious opinion.
Warning: Some of this material may literally alarm those of Bible Literalist bent, and I
do apologize in advance for any discomfort this causes. But, I am not going to pretend
that these events did not occur so one can go on with their lives wrapped up in a safe
and isolated cocoon. Truth is Truth. I will accept it even if it challenges everything I
currently believe in. I am not one to invent some whimsical and fluffy version of a
spiritual paradigm so I will only believe in a God as I think He must be, contrary to a
deeper Truth. This self-dilution is a source of great religious contention, where certain
groups believe only they are right, while all else are damned. It is my personal opinion
that if we will judge others so resolutely, then we are likely the ones who are damned.

The reason that I must do this is because simple things are never truly
simple. There are many complex factors that must work together to make
something appear to be simple. Science, politics, religion and history must
be the lenses through which we must consider them. For example, a
scientific discovery may require an examination of history to explain the
discovery’s evolution, and who picked up each little clue before someone
had the epiphany, the intuitive perception that revealed its meaning in the
light of reason from the blackness of confusion. Political and religious
considerations may also be required to understand their considerative
processes, which can more clearly explain why they might have had ease
or difficulty in making the discovery, or how they made the discovery, or
what motivation or even tribulation drove them to make the discovery..
 Page 103

Even the most complex conundrums can be coherently sorted out. It just
requires sufficient considerative faculties and reason – and lots of it!
Please note that for my whole life, racial and ethnic discrimination has
been in every respect utterly repulsive to me, severely upsetting me, as
most people who know me can attest. This is an important point to keep in
mind when I begin to drive a thundering wedge between Judaism and
Messianic Zionism, and describe them as harshly opposed philosophies.
NOTE: Messianic Zionism should not be confused with Jews for Jesus, Messianic
Jews, or with general Judaism. Messianic Zionists, also called Segregationist Zionists,
Bolshevik Zionists, Racist Zionists, Khazarian Jews, and Khazarian Mafia, work hard to achieve
a goal that will see them and their wrathful Messiah ruling the world with an iron fist,
subjugating all non-Zionists as a menial working class, but in time exterminating them.

My Jewish ancestors were of an ancient sect of Christine Jews called Nazarite

(pronounced “Nazareth” (Keepers)), from Hebrew nazara ha-brit; “Keepers of
the Covenant”, and guided by the Hebrew Bible Book of Numbers Chapter 6
(see the 3rd note below if such Christian antiquity confuses you). I make this
point to present my Jewish Semite roots, and my Jewishness is important to keep
in mind as some material could easily be misinterpreted, especially if taken out of
context, as appearing anti-Jewish, but it most certainly is not. Note also that I
had been “officially” baptized as a Byzantine Rite Melkite Christian.
Allow me to acutely clarify this in the next pages as a preface to the real
subjects of this paper, which starts on page 114. The reason I do this is that it
is vitally important that you understand that my pro-Jewish, yet ardently anti-
Messianic Zionist theme my paper carries concerning purposefully concealed
history regarding Albert Einstein is not driven by antisemitism, as such has
been too often assumed regarding most everyone else who has previously
tried to present this research, and to also point out that most antisemitism is
fully and intentionally directed at the wrong Jewish people (!). It will also
demonstrate the depth of research I conduct. It will in the end also provide a
common thread from which you can understand how all these things came to
be. Forgive my lumberingly thick, but abbreviated brevity. This history
deserves many more chapters than we can afford here. Indeed, this prelude
began as a single sentence, but due to reader queries and my love of details…
NOTE: Nazarite is also called Nazarean, and variations on it, but not of the perhaps more
pretentious trappings assumed by modernly-invented and “Edgar Cayce-style” New Age
Essenes (even though my own ancestors were technically not Essene, save maybe some cousins,
there was a branch of the Nazarite Order who were Essene, though it should be noted that the
Nazarite’s original roots were indeed Essene, before other groups joined them, awaiting the
arrival of a very rare 480-year epochal event that was called both the Shekinah (“the Dwelling”;
“Presence of God”) and Qodesh ha-Ruwakh (“Holy Spirit”) (details on page 105)). Were it that
the modern claimants understood the harsh lifestyle gladly borne by those Essenes, they
might not be so presumptuous in the presentation of their modern manufactured image.
 Page 104

NOTE: Christian means King-ian, or King-Follower; short for Follower of the Anointed
Davidic King. The Melkites, made up of Greek, Roman, Syriac and Jewish members,
were first to be called Christian, which Melkite means in Greek, as the Antioch Bishopric
founded and led by the Apostle Peter, but now called the Eastern Rite Catholic Patriarchate
of Antioch. Melkite, derived from Syrian Malkāyā, means “royal”, referring to the King,
Greek Khristos (Χριστος); “anointed”); the title adopted by this sect long before the
Council of Chalcedon schism (the Byzantine and Roman Catholic split) in 451 CE. They also
have a patriarchate in Alexandria, Egypt, being familiar to its Coptic Christian population.
NOTE: How can Christianity exist, even under other names, like Nazarite, long before
Jesus (Yeshua)? Messiah-ship (Annointed Davidic Kingship) did not begin with Jesus, nor
with his Messiah father, Yusef, nor with his Messiah grandfather, Yacobe-Heli, etc.
SUBNOTE: Yacobe-Heli founded our currernt calendar, starting on the year 1, to which later his son,
Yusef, and Jesus’ later-Disciple Thaddeus applied a zero-generation offset so to cut Herod the Great
from their millennial timetable, once it was clear the Davidic line would regain regal power in Israel in 6
CE. Note, though, that this calendar begins on Jesus' brother James' birth, not Jesus' birth 7 years earlier,
because the Hebrew Branch, in power until 6 CE, did not recognize Jesus as legitimate, recognizing
instead James, until the Hellenists were given power by Quirinius when he became Syria's governor and
ordered a Census in Israel and Judea in 6 CE. But Jesus was unique because he was born in a Shekinah
year (see page 105 for details on this important event), and his birth was first to rejoin the bloodlines of
the Royal House of Israel (the line of Priests by Benjamin) and the Royal House of Judah (the Egyptian
line of Kings by Joseph), making him Israel’s long-awaited Priest-King. Note also Jesus was reborn in
his Qumran community upon his 6 CE bar mitzvah at 12 years old, becoming a doctrinal newborn infant.
Like his ancestors, he was a Master Craftsman (Greek ho tekton), in the Master of
Metal tradition of an ancestor, Tubal-Cain, not just a simple Carpenter (which would be
recorded in the Gospels as Greek ksulourgos, rather than ho tekton as it is in Matthew 13:55
and Mark 6:3). It was not ordinary metalcraft, but a more august tradition of fashioning
the superconductive Bread and Water of Life from base gold (which might explain
why this then nigh-useless, soft platinum metal was considered so precious); this tradition
being as old as memory, using an electric arcing process employed by Egyptian
Levites in its Sinai Province (see page 131) to render gold to talcum-like powder, as the
golden calf in Exodus 32:20, explaining how it could be suspended in water and
consumed by Moses’ people. This subject is worthy of many books. Consider those
written by the late Sir Laurence Gardner, or the research of David Hudson.
Christ-following existed long before David, to the first Priest-King, Michael-Zadok,
Hebrew Melek-Tsedeq (“King of Righteousness”), later called Melchizedek (the Egyptian
Tel-el-Amarna tablets, found in 1887, shows he was the historical Egyptian Governor (Local
King) of Canaan). But, we must also understand historic revision by Bible scribes (or
most public histories up through the present), directed by agendas or administrations,
such as how they had “borrowed” personal histories from at least two Pharaohs to
accentuate King David's importance; the principle being Thutmosis III, founder of the
Mystery Schools of Thoth and of the Royal School of the Master Craftsmen at Karnak.
Indeed, if you look to actual recorded history, Thutmosis III is shown to have
performed a great many of the deeds that the Bible attributes to the righteous King
David. Rest assured, however, that this was used to underscore his greatness, for
there was a historical David who did defeat Goliath and became King. Finally, did you
know the title Pharaoh Thutmosis also translates directly to King David the Righteous?
SUBNOTE: The title David is from Hebrew DVD, which is in turn derived directly from the Egyptian
stem TWT, meaning Thoth (pronounced Thoot), the son of the Egyptian’s Father in Heaven; Amen-Ra,
or simply Amen. Indeed, Amen is still invoked in most Judeo-Christian prayers. It was once believed that
naming one’s god in prayer granted one power over the god. This secrecy of God's Name may be why we
use the word God; from German “Gad”, pronounced like Yiddish “Got”, both meaning “Invoked One.”
 Page 105

Those on the Exodus did not know the name of the God imposed on them by Moses (exiled
Pharoah Ahkenaten, explained soon). So, instead of leading prayers by invoking the deity’s name
(Aten, yet Hebrew scribes changed it to Yahuah in Babylon), which was assumed to give them
power over them, they instead followed prayers with the god they had revered for centuries, Amen.
Some recent Christian traditions have speculated that the odd word Amen might mean “Verily”.
This harkens to the Babylonian captivity, after Harkos invaders, Syro-Chaldean rulers
of Assyria, conquered Egypt and its provinces, transporting most of its royalty and
scholars to Babylon, though the later-written Bible called those from the Canaan
province Israelites. Bear in mind Jacob and Egypt's royals were related. Jacob’s
father, Isaac, was clearly sired by Pharoah Thutmosis, and both Abraham's and
Pharaoh's half-sister, Sarai (“Princess”), along with Jacob’s mother, Rebekah (sister to
Leban, royal father of Jacob’s wife, Rachel), were princesses. Pharaoh, Abraham and
Sarah were royal by their father Terah and their mothers. This is a vast history
requiring many chapters, but we must cover it sparingly. Note also that the most
glorious temple in the world was built for Thutmosis III’s grandson, Amenhotep III (
from whom Solomon also borrowed personal history) in Luxor, Egypt, located near both
Karnak and Thebes. Within it you can see the basis, to include the Holy of Holies, for
the two later Israel Temples that were built on Mount Ophel in the heart of the City of
David, the original Mount Zion (a cresent hill 600 feet south of the new Mount Zion, now
erroneously called Temple Mount). Since antiquity, the Luxor Temple area is still one of
the most continuously visited sites in Egypt. See www.discoveringegypt.com/luxor1.htm.
NOTE: Jerusalem; Yeru-shalayim; “city/foundation of peace”, refers to the peaks of
Mount Ophel and Mount Moriah, reflecting the Peace Gate formed by the
spiritual line connecting the two obelisks in upper and lower Egypt, dedicated to
the peace brought by Egypt’s Mother Goddess; Hathor. This is also reflected in
the two columns stationed prominently at the Temple entrance, named Jachin
and Boaz, facing the rising sun and the all-important Morning Star (see below).
Samson, Samuel, and other long-haired judges were Nazarite. They communed
in southern Sinai “medicine huts” near Mount Horeb (now called Serâbît); near
the Nile shores as Therapeutae (the Great White Brotherhood); in isolation in the
Dead Sea caves at Qumrân; in the temple caves of Babylonia; and other deep and
dark, mostly underground places, inspired by the Greek Underworld, in turn
inspired by deep underground caves and tunnels believed built by Nephilim to
escape the Great Flood, where ascetics attained altered states of consciousness.
They gathered at Qumrân for the Shekinah, or Presence of God; also called
Qodesh ha-Ruwakh, or Holy Spirit, the feminine side of God who granted
Kingship (Q’ayin-ship), expected in 7 BCE (Jesus' birth year, born in Spring,
but celebrated instead on what coincides to 11 September, within Judaism's most
Holy month, when royal births were traditionally celebrated). The return of the
Holy Spirit, the Mother in Heaven, was signaled by a perfect conjunction of
Venus (the 5-pointed star) and Mercury, together called the Star in the East, a 6-
pointed star joining Heaven and Earth, the symbol of Davidic Kings (),
consummating the heavenly female (; Venus/Aphrodite; ) with the male (;
Mercury/Hermes; ), at sunrise on the Winter Solstice (then 25 December),
occurred once every 480 years; 12 generations of 40 years; an Epoch. This
tradition was later to be hijacked and totally corrupted by Luciferian adherents.
 Page 106

Each generation of 40 years had 5 cycles of 8 yearly alignments of Venus on

the Winter Solstice, where the start of each 8-year cycle normally aligned
lunar, sidereal, and solar calendars within minutes. Every 40 years, at the end
of each 5th cycle, they aligned to within a fraction of a second of each other.
NOTE: Hebrew Qodesh ha-Ruwakh (Holy Spirit) is a specifically feminine title for a
specifically feminine member of the heavenly family. A masculine form (if possible)
would have been used if Holy Spirit were meant to be a male, or, as much later
Christian tradition had transfigured this important part of the heavenly family, thanks
to a long tradition of woman-hating, to another “version” of the Father in Heaven,
which makes the Trinity that most Christians seem to care so much about make
absolutely no sense intellectually (it was originally a Quartet, comprised of a Father
(God), Mother (Goddess), Son (King), and Daughter (Queen), as detailed on page 113).
SUBNOTE: Some familiar in Hebrew have alerted me that there is no Hebrew masculine form of
Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost). My above inference was actually to make an exacting Gnostic point.
NOTE: The above method of calendar alignment with Venus, the Morning/Evening
Star, Hebrew Haylel, sequenced Morning, Morning, Evening, Morning, Evening,
Evening, Morning, Evening, was so precise that it was not surpassed in accuracy
until the introduction of atomic clocks in 1957. Sorry, Mayans and Aztecs.
SUBNOTE: Hebrew Haylel, or Lucifer, also means Morning Star, Light-Bearer, and Shining One.
All these titles refer to the planet Venus and to an anti-God fallen angel. Though largely referenced
within the Hebrew Commentary on the Bible, Haylel is mentioned in but one verse within the
Hebrew Bible itself: Isaiah 14:12. It has traditionally been translated to “How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the nations!” Interestingly, it can also be translated to “How you cut down from the sky, O Morning
Star; child of dawn! How you hew the ground, howling, making the tribes hide! ” Note that Bible
scholars did not translate yalal (“to make a howl”), though I did, because they may not have
thought it relevant. Note also that this and related verses refer to Venus' ancient terrible aspect,
when, acting like a giant comet covered in worms (plasma jets), it once tried to rule the heavens,
raining terror and death upon the tribes (usually translated to “the nations”, though it specifically
refers to tribes of people), desolating the land (often wrongly assumed to refer to the earth as a
planet, not as the local area), as has been remembered by all world cultures. This is ingrained so
deeply within human consciousness that into the 21st Century people were still fearful of comets.
NOTE: Qumrân’s occupants fanatically lived in accordance to Exodus imagery and
so lived in sturdy tents, using the fortress’s mud-brick buildings only for religious
services, kitchen, scribing halls, and other functions. Moses and Joshua were their
most revered heroes. Isaiah, whose name is identical in meaning to Joshua (Jesus),
“Yahuah is Salvation” and “Yahuah Rescues”, was also their most revered Prophet.
This is evidenced by the ample copies of his book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Nazarite, many of them dedicated scribes, were of two political

branches when they assumed occupation of Qumrân in 140 BCE until 68
CE. The Eastern Branch consisted of the ultra-conservative Hebrews,
such as the High Essenes and the Pharisees, who used only Hebrew
during religious services and would in time write the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Western Branch consisted of the more liberal Greek-influenced
Hellenists (still very conservative when compared to today’s standards),
such as Monastic Essenes, Egyptian Therapeutae, Samaritan Magi, and
 Page 107

Sadducees, who used Koine (common Greek) in their religious services; a

language understood and spoken all across the known world, and would
write the Greek versions of the New Covenant (Christian New Testament).
NOTE: The Gnostic Mandaeans of northern Iraq had been a part of, and were
direct descendants of the Hebrew Branch at Qumrân; the branch who had
actually authored the Dead Sea Scrolls, and who had migrated east to Persia
before Jerusalem fell, and having also lost control of Qumrân to the Hellenists.
They still today hold John the Baptist as their first and most revered leader. They
hold Jesus as a subsequent leader who betrayed special secrets of the ‘Craft’
that had previously been the exclusive purview of the Levite Priests.
NOTE: Some argue that the original Four Gospels were derived from Aramaic texts,
called the Sinaitic Palimpsest, which were discovered by Mrs. Agnes Lewis in the
Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (not Mount Horeb; Moses’ mountain), in 1892.
Unfortunately, it has been proven that its Monks falsified these, deliberately, before
they were sold to Mrs. Lewis and those with her. They accomplished this with a small
hole in the lambskin under the date of the manuscript, which made the appearance of
an age 900 years older. The texts were actually finished in 1599 CE.
The scholars that had studied the texts first estimated a date of 697 CE.
However, they not being entirely sure of this date, they conducted a second
inspection, and as a result assigned to it a date of 778 CE. However, it was first
thought that this hole was natural. It seems to have not dawned on anyone that,
logically, no responsible scribe would have dated a manuscript near a hole in
such a way as to leave the reader in doubt as to the exact date. That is not only
illogical, but also quite ignorant, and would not therefore have been done.
This Gospel falsification was discovered by George M. Lamsa and reported in his
book, “New Testament Origins”, and he proved the 1599 date while also
examining several other Four Gospel Aramaic “originals” that all employed the
exact same device of a hole in the date.
John, the firebrand Baptismal Priest, first cousin to Jesus by their mothers,
was a Hebrew (as were their mothers) and one of the most charismatic
leaders of the Nazarite, called the Teacher of Righteousness. Ioseph Ha
Rama Theo (Greek for Joseph, His Divine/Royal Highness, later
anglicized to Aramathea) was another Hebrew. His “common” title was
Ya’akov (“James”, from Jacob; “Pillar” and “Heel”). Born in 1 CE, he
was the junior brother of Jesus, and he was considered by the Hebrews to
be their legitimate King (Ya-akov was the royal title Hebrews gave to
their king, though commonly called Stephen; “the Crowned”). He was
also a secret disciple of Jesus. Due to his Hebrew ranking, he was
officially posted as an Elder in the Sanhedrin (being an Elder did not
denote agedness, as too many Christians across the centuries assume).
Another Hebrew and a former follower of the Baptist was Thomas
(“Twin”), a title for Prince Philip Herod I; father of Salomé (a follower of
Jesus) and former husband of his half-sister, Herodias. Like Jacob’s twin
 Page 108

brother, Esau, Thomas was robbed of his royal inheritance by his half-
brother Herod Antipas (a later follower of Jesus), named after their father,
Herod [Antipas] the Great, when Herod had divorced Thomas’ mother.
NOTE: Esau is said to have inherited Edom, though, historically, this occurred
centuries later, honoring him. He was said to be the father-in-law to a Pharaoh
and his line became Kings of Assyria and Lords of the Babylonian Sea Lands.
NOTE: The Qumrân Hebrew branch viewed Jesus illegitimate because he had been
conceived before the first of two official wedding ceremonies. Their term for an
illegitimate child was Lamb of God. The Hellenists, however, fully accepted Jesus as
legitimate because the betrothal ceremony was still legal and binding, treated as a 3-
month trial marriage (to verify co-habitability), where sex was discouraged but not
prohibited, plus the first wedding could still be annulled if the bride remained barren
after 3 to 4 years (as was almost the case for John the Baptist’s parents, Elizabeth and
Zechariah, being “Forward in the period”, though translated to “stricken in years”,
assuming agedness. Elizabeth was likely only about 20 years old at John's birth). Jesus’
mother, Yeudi (the feminine form of her husband's “familiar” title, Yeusas (for his title
Yusef)), but she publicly used her official title Miriam (Mary; “Beloved”), taken by all in
the Qunrân Order of Women; origin of the present Eastern and Western Catholic Order
of Nuns. The term Nun, originally Egyptian, referred to the critically important and
highly intelligent, well-schooled and royally pure women who were raised to be brides
to royal priests and kings, as was Jesus’ mother and his wife, Miriam Migdal-Eder
(“beloved Tower of the Flock”, a title for a senior royal princess; the Daughter of Zion, later
anglicize to Mary Magdalene, see page 111). Nun is also the Hebrew value for 50; the
official rank for a Royal Crowned Prince, for whom they were raised to be wedded.
However, as a consequence of this premature conception, instead of being
termed a married woman (Latin Coniugem), as she normally would be titled upon
the second marriage before one usually became pregnant, though they still had
the required second wedding, but merged with the first, she continued being titled
a young woman by the first marriage rules as that had been her title at the time of
marriage, until the birth of her child. A young woman, typical of marriageable age,
was called Latin Virgo, as opposed to a physical virgin; Virgo Intacta.
SUBNOTE: In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua, successor to Moses, is described as being the son of Nun
(actually Hebrew “Nuwn”, pronounced “noon”). Generally, it is assumed that there was some Habiru
Bedouin Joe named Nun who had sired Joshua. However, recent historical evidence reveals that Moses,
who was modeled after exiled Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), was the father of Joshua, who was
modeled after Tutankhamun (Amenhotep V; “King Tut”), the actual son of Akhenaten.
So, where does that leave Nun? Technically, it leaves “him” right in the middle of everything.
Nun is recorded in a single repeating phrase, listed 29 times, between Exodus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I Kings, and Nehemiah: “Joshua, the son of Nun”. For example,
Nun is first mentioned in Exodus 33:11:
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again
into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Nun is also Hebrew for “fish” and “posterity” (two very important Christian and Royal symbols).
Joshua is also generally assumed to be Moses’ servant. However, the word used here for servant,
sharath, is more accurately Minister. Also, ben, translated to son, refers to a member of an order,
class, or clan. Moreover, the Hebrew Nah-ar, translated to “young man”, means “retainer”. More,
God is also considered to be in the Tabernacle and speaking to Moses face to face, and just like a
man, and more, like a friend. To keep Joshua present while in private council with God would
mean “This is for your ears, too,” as would be expected of one to assume the position of successor.
 Page 109

SUB-SUBNOTE: In the Book of Jasher (Hebrew Yashar, (”Upright”) – see www.sacred-

texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/index.htm), predating Exodus, Jethro, the Egyptian Governor (Local King) of
Sinai, not God, spoke to Moses in the tabernacle. Note that Jethro was Moses’ father-in-law by his
daughter Zipporah (Miriam died during the first Sinai sojourn. There are, however, reasonable arguments
that Miriam/Nefertiti may have bitterly returned to Egypt by Ramses II after Tutankhamun died; likely
entombed as obscurely as her stepson). This actually makes more sense, because the title “God” is not
ever mentioned even once in the Hebrew Bible, except in mistranslations (which just about covers most
translations). The Jasher title used here instead is a common Biblical title for Yahuah: El Shaddai
(“Lord of the Mountain”), which was Jethro’s title, as High Priest of the Hathor Temple atop Mount
Horeb, where the Shem-an-na (Manna), important to Judaism and the Egyptian Messeh Pharaohs,
was rendered from base gold into the Bread and Water of Life; the Food of the Gods (see page 131).
This additional data can be especially important when we understand biblical symbols, where a
young man also denotes a student, such as one apprenticing to be a master. The indication that the
title Nun means posterity is also significant, as it implies continuance, but not just for a family line,
but also of something of far greater importance to royals, namely peerage. Further, think also of its
additional definition as fish in the paragraph below, describing the Egyptian God Nun.
Nun is also an Egyptian God, a personification of the swampy water chaos (meaning of the
Egyptian word) from which the World had been borne. This Egyptian God is a male transposition
of the Great Mother Tiamat (meaning “She who bore them all”) from Mesopotamia, who was the
great watery deep from which all creation sprang (and is so eloquently alluded to in the opening
verses of Genesis). From her came all Wisdom. Another name for her is Sophia, another is
Shekinah, and others are Holy Spirit and the Universal Mother. In Egyptian lore, the girlfriend of
Nun was Naunet, who was the Goddess of the Ocean’s Abyss, the female aspect of Nun.
I have for years thought this extremely curious. The Holy Spirit, rightfully acknowledged as the
Mother Aspect (Side) of God, was always represented by the reigning David/Jacob King and
Mary/Rachel Queen (as in “filled with the Holy Spirit”), as Jesus had been, and as had his father
been when he was the David King. This makes me think back to Moses, that perhaps he was, as
Messeh Pharaoh (Anointed King), also the embodiment of Nun. This would also apply equally to
his Queen, Miriam (Nefertiti); for all Queens were the representatives of Sophia Wisdom; the
Wisdom of the Great Mother. Could it, therefore, be a genetic legacy shared between them, and
why they shared a common Q’ayin title (King = Queen), and why they were considered to be a
single being? I cannot help but think of Greek mythology and the love story between Hermes
(Mercury) and Aphrodite (Venus), and of the child of their union – Hermaphroditus. Again,
Luciferians adopted this philosophical analogy to depict their androgynous dark lord Lucifer as a
male and female being called Baphomet, having the body and genitals of a man, the breasts of a
woman, and mixed it with a goat to yield the satyr Pan; the transgender transpecies being
worshipped by King Nimrod, who gave the king the plans to build a stargate to open a portal into
heaven, though often called simply a Tower (if they were actually building a tower, then why did
they build it in a low valley?). As with all good things, they mirror it by inverting and corrupting it.
I cannot help but wonder, because all regal blood was once commonly understood to descend from
Tiamat, the Great Mother; the Holy Spirit. They all held her Mitochondrial DNA in their blood
(unlike the rest of Mankind) that was believed to have come into the human genome via the first
helpmeet of Q’ayin (Cain; see page 112), Luluwa, who the Mesopotamian/Babylonian texts
claimed was a goddess (fallen angel). Thus, in stating that Joshua was the son of Nun, is it in fact a
pointed indicator that he held regal blood that is said to come directly from Tiamat? Therefore, he
had the highly-prized regal blood shared by Moses, Miriam, and to include his own fully regal
mother (but junior in peerage to Miriam), Kiya, plus others of the immediate Royal Egyptian Line?
Either way, Joshua was the son of Nun, who was Moses as an embodiment of the Holy Spirit, and
Kiya, as an embodiment of the Holy Spirit. Considering also the Bible stories were fashioned with
much doctoring and symbolism, to “smooth things over”, the allusion to Nun may have been a
willed inference for readers with studious eyes to be associated with the then commonly understood
regal descent from Tiamat. After all, it was not simply the Gospels that employed special hidden
meanings behind their common words. The Hebrew Bible is thickly awash with such devices.
 Page 110

For those of you with really sharp eyes, Nun is not only the name of a Hebrew letter with a numeric
value of 50, but Nun is also the dynastic hierarchical ranking of a Crowned Prince, ranked
immediately below, and being the immediate next in royal peerage to the rank of King; Samekh
(60). Additionally, to say one was a son or child of something is to denote membership, whether to
a family, an order, or that one is associated with a specific class, such as being of the class of Nun.
Lastly, Hebrew “Ben Nuwn” will transliterate to “Son of Nun”, “Class of 50”, and “Crowned
Prince”. This exact same ranking system goes back thousands of years to ancient Mesopotamia, to
the time of the great Gods Enki (Egyptian Amen) and Enlil (Egyptian Aten; later known as
Yahuah), and was still in use during the Gospel period.
Finally, due to rules of succession in place in those ancient times, Joshua could not have succeeded
Moses unless he was Moses’ first-born senior-regal son. Their tradition allows no other conclusion.

In 6 CE the Hellenists later split into pro-revolution War Hellenists and

into the Peace Hellenists who desired peaceful coexistence with Rome.
War Hellenist were led by Simon the Zealot (“Patriot”), also called Eleazar
(“Lazarus”); the title their community, known as the Ani (“the Poor”) called
deposed/retired high priests, and included his sons, James and John of
Zebedee, Jesus’ father, Joseph, and the Head Scribe, their Judge (titled Satan
because it was his responsibility to test/challenge (tempt in old English)
acolytes in their knowledge of the Law), being Judas, another Patriot (Rome
also called Zealots Sicarii, for their Sica daggers, Lestes, for Outlaws, and
Kananites (“fanatics”), though later quite often mistaken for Canaanites),
and he was the closest confidant of Jesus.
The Peace Hellenists, first led by the brother of Apostles Nathanael and
Matthew, Eleazar Annas, included Samaritan Magi (“Wise Men”), Egyptian
Therapeutae, Sadducees, and the Buddhistic puritans; the Monastic Essenes.
The Monastic Essenes departed from the Peace Hellenists late in 6 CE,
Qumrân becoming too nationalistic for them as the fanatical Zealot uprising
against Rome began in earnest at that time, and followed their leader Simeon
to the Jerusalem Peace Gate, the Nazarite’s original meeting place (they later
retreated to the secluded environs of Mount Carmel). Simeon was a former
Abiathar Priest (bar-abba; “minister to the Father (High Priest)”), given a
title of Gabriel. Luke 2:25-35 reported that Simeon was blind, but that was
due to him separating from the Nazarite, and so was titled “blind” because
now he could not read from their sacred books. He had been the Abiathar
Priest who had advised Jesus’ father not to annul his betrothal when his wife
became pregnant after the betrothal but before the first of two wedding
ceremonies (his father was 36 and his mother was 16, typical ages for royal
weddings), because a child born in a Shekinah year was profoundly
important beyond imagination, regardless of any timing embarrassment. And
besides, he would have absolutely no other possible chance to take advantage
of such an opportunity to have another child born within that critical year.
 Page 111

Among the Peace Hellenists were Jesus (Ye[ho]shua; Latinized “Joshua”, or

Greek Iesous; named for Joshua in the hope that he was his second coming
(meaning “reincarnation”; but then called “resurrection”)), the Disciple
Nathanael Annas (AKA Jonathan), the Baptismal (Fisher) Priests Andrew
and Simon Peter, Matthew Annas (a livitical bishop, Hebrew mebaqqer,
charged with collecting tithes, which were then called taxes), and others, to
include John Mark (AKA Bartholomew; “furrow”). John Mark was a name
bestowed upon a certain woman of extremely high ecclesiastic standing. All
Qumrân women initiated in higher teachings were always granted men’s titles
because many men residing there believed that only men were worthy of
hearing the secret teachings of the Order. This name was given to the Mary
(“Beloved”), as the Queen (Q’ayin) to the Davidic Dynasty, The Royal
House of Judah, who it’s King (called the David; “Beloved”), had to be
wedded to by law. Though 27 years old, not the typical 16, she was easily the
highest ranking eligible princess of the Hasmonean Dynasty, the Royal House
of Israel, daughter to Eucharia, a Hasmonean Princess, and Syrus, the Jairus
Priest, and duly titled Migdal-Eder in accordance to Micah 4:8, meaning “the
Tower of the Flock”, which eventually anglicized into Magdalene.
NOTE: Micah 4:8: “And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto
thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.”
NOTE: The tradition of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute came from a Homily on Luke
given 14 September 591 by Pope Gregory the Great, saying Mary Magdalene, the
companion (meaning wife) of Jesus, was not only Mary of Bethany, which is more
obvious than most realize, but also, and against any evidence, the adulterous woman
brought before Jesus, as was described in John 7:53-8:11 (note that Gregory’s intent
may not be to demean Mary, but to simply make her more accessible to women of less noble
virtue). The Church disseminated this myth with stout conviction until 1969, when they
finally recanted by withdrawing the teaching of this slanderous distortion. Sadly, too
many people still teach and believe this fabrication. Also in 1969, the Church raised
her to the office of Patron Saint of Winegrowers, which also strongly and symbolically,
though cloakedly associated her with her Royal Blood (Sangrael).
Like the Royal Crowned Prince, as a Royal Princess she had the legal obligation to
be a protectoress; a matriarchal guardian; a protector of her people. The Greek
word for protectoress is prostatis, which was anglicized by a Church that hated
women to Prostitute. Yet, when Paul speaks of Phebe (Greek Phoibe; “goddess;
shining one”) in Romans 16:1-2, Phebe is said to be a succourer, even though this
title is actually translated from this very same exact Greek word – prostatis.
SUBNOTE: John 7:53-8:11 never existed in original copies of the Gospel of John but was inserted
in a later Latin edition by St. Jerome during the 4 th Century. Also, if the scribes (lawyers; keepers
of the law) and Pharisees presenting the adulterous woman to Jesus, saying, “Master, this woman
was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be
stoned”, one familiar with what Moses has to say on this in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy
22:22-24, would know that the adulterer must be judged right along with the adulteress. The fact
that the adulterer was not presented casts doubt on its full authenticity. To be fair, however, I feel
that this short story may likely have been a long-standing verbal tradition that was a telling of an
actual event, or lifted from a banned or destroyed Gospel, so to preserve this story of forgiveness.
 Page 112

Although the Gospel of Philip was found among the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels in
1945, most Christians are familiar with the following passages: “There were three who
always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and his sister, and Magdalene, the one who
was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary. ”
The Greek word in the text for companion is koinonos (κοινονος), meaning partner,
companion, or comrade, but when speaking of such between a man and a woman, it
specifically referred to a spouse.
NOTE: Simon Peter’s name given him by Jesus, Peter, translates to Stone, but
never to Rock. Consider John 1:42, “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus
beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of John: you shall be called Cephas, which is
by interpretation, a stone.” (Note that I used “John”, a more accurate translation of
Greek “Ioannes” than “Jona”.) What is the difference between Rock and Stone?
Greek Petros or Hebrew Cephas, both masculine, translates to masculine Stone,
though it is too often mistranslated to feminine Rock. But Rock, feminine Hebrew
Tzur, specifically refers to The Rock of the Covenant, and was a title exclusive
to those of the Royal Line, whose matrilineal line grants Kingship. Indeed, an
accurate translation of Matthew 16:18 is, “And I but to you say, that you, you are a
stone; rather upon this, the Rock, shall be established my circle, and the gates of Hades
will not overcome it.” Greek adou, usually translated to Hades, typically refers to
the afterlife, understood by all in Gospel times in its Greek sense. Hell, an
Anglo-Saxon word, might be used if understood in its actual meaning, which
simply refers to a “grave pit”, implying that one has passed into the afterlife.
NOTE: The King and Queen, both titled Q’ayin (Sumerian KA.IN), were believed
to be two halves of a single spirit; two halves of a single Being, reflecting the
Father and Mother in Heaven being two halves of a single being.
NOTE: Q’ayin is the Hebrew name for Cain (Kain/Kin/King) of Genesis. Q’ayin
was not a simple tiller of the Earth, as it is often misunderstood, but rather that he
had acquired dominion over the Earth, after Adam (“Earthling”; Sumerian Atâbba)
had lost kingship (a symbol of immortality) after his fall from Grace. Note also that
only Adam fell from Grace; Eve (Kâva; “Mother of the Living”) was not subject to
the rules that were placed on Adam, and she was in fact his equal, and did not
come from his rib.
SUBNOTE: Ancient Semitic scholars had misconstrued the Babylonian word “ti-it”, pronounced
“tit”, as Babylonian “tit” (“rib”). In Hebrew, this word is Tsela, which means both “rib” and “side”,
but used in the sense of “the other side of”. The word “ti-it” actually means “that which is life.”
This word refers specifically to a female ovum.
The mark that God put on Cain’s head was Kingship. The Mark of Q’ayin
(Sumerian GRA.AL; “Grail”), which is the oldest recorded Grant of Arms in
sovereign history, is an upright centered red cross within a golden circle. A circle
was a symbol of Kingship, called the Ring of Power, eventually becoming an
ornamental crown, and the cross represented its matrilineal line of descent.
NOTE: Regarding the tale of Q’ayin killing Able, his half-brother, the word
yaqam, meaning to be “elevated or exalted over”, was translated to “slew”. The
fact that the blood of Able (Havel; “Breath”) was swallowed by the earth did not
mean that Able actually bled, but that he was of significantly lesser genetic status
than the elder Cain, who was sired by a god.
 Page 113

What?! The Jewish commentary is adamant that his father was the Serpent in the
Garden Temptation. Q’ayin's father, by the Babylonian texts Genesis was based on,
was the Lord (remembering that Babylonians worshiped the Serpent, not God). In Genesis
4:1, the term Lord (EL; BAAL), was changed to Yahveh (the term Yahuah, YHVH, did not
exist until 500 years before Jesus/Yeshua was born), where even the present Hebrew text
itself actually translates to, “Adama, learning Chavvah [Kâva] his wife became pregnant
and bore Q’ayin, declared, ‘You got a man together with Yahuah!’” Note that Chavvah
(Sumerian KA.VA, meaning Mother of the Living) is translated to English as Eve.
SUBNOTE: The root of Yahuah, YHVH, translatable to “I Am that I Am” (literally meaning “My name
is irrelevant”), originally represented the four members of the Aramaic (Turko-Syrian) Heavenly Family;
the Father (El), the Mother (Asherah), the Son (He), and the Daughter (Anath). The original Hebrew
representation of this name appears to have involved only the Father and Mother, as Yah (YH), as was
typical in most religions, where even in Hebrew, the Mother Goddess, Shekinah; the Holy Spirit,
represented the nurturing aspects of the Heavenly Family, but later assumed the guise of Mother Nature
and roaming the Earth when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, because her abode, the Inner
Sanctum; the Divine Marital Chamber; the Holy of Holies, representing her womb, housing the
Foundation Stone of the World, was destroyed, thus leaving the Father to rule in Heaven alone.
SUBNOTE: The Dome of the Rock on the misnamed Temple Mount is built atop a pentagram-
shaped temple to Ashtoreth; the Mother Goddess, also called Shekinah, Hathor, Easter, Asherah,
Isis, and Venus. See The Temple Mount of Jerusalem website at www.templemount.org/index.html.
I hope I can now share my research without charges of antisemitism, for I
absolutely do not intend it (especially because I am so proud of my Jewish
and Christian ancestral heritage (I am also half Cherokee), and have also
devoted a large portion of my life to explore it in order to better
understand it and to be closer to it), yet those of Khazarian Zionist bent
might still accuse me of such, even if it is perhaps as a misdirecting parry,
or at least to accuse me of being a presumed tainted, Christine Jew.
However, I must point out the philosophy of the Nazarite may have
inspired Messianic Zionism, who I attack in turn, because the Nazarite
were the original Mashiachs, or Of the Dragon (King), from Egyptian
Messeh Pharaohs, meaning Dragon Kings, denoting those anointed with
the Royal Dragon Fat; the oil of sanctified crocodiles.
NOTE: Many Conspiracy Theorists assume some kind of Lizard Hominoids from a far-off
star system. However, all the ancient talk of men as dragons specifically refers to Royal
Scythian blood, where such dragons further symbolized, and drew their power from the
Great and Terrible Dragon, which all ancient texts from all over the world, and recording it at
the same time, claim was the planet Venus, when it seems to have wandered the skies as a
titanic comet, a harbinger of unimaginable Earthly death and destruction, its coronal tail
flowing like long hair and fire, spawning legends of the war goddess Medusa, a snake-
headed hag who was the Terrible Aspect of Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty and love.
Even the legendary Scot King Arthur was named Arthur Pendragon, or Arthur the Great
Dragon, because all of the Brit-Land (Land of the Covenant, called such since Joseph of
Arimathea erected the first above-ground Christian Church (“Circle”) in Glastonbury with Jesus
Justus II) calling all kings Dragons, and their head king Pendragon. The title Dragon was
ascribed to kings of pure royal blood that came down from the Royal Davidic Dynasty,
which came out of Egypt, which came out of Mesopotamia, which came out of Scythia.
SUBNOTE: Venus still has a very faint coronal tail (NASA scientists in the 1970s referred to it as
“stringy things”), the remnants of a comet tail, extending outward 45 million miles to Earth’s orbit.
 Page 114

PART ONE: Einstein As a Stumbling Hero.

Thanks to Messianic Zionists, a secretive group of Khazarian infiltrators
pretending at Judaism so to hide their Luciferian credo (see page 120),
they had a secret interest in promoting Einstein as a man of irreproachable
stature, not simply as a Son of Jacob, which they actually were not, but as
a beacon to attract like-minded believers so to retake the ancient homeland
that God commanded the sons of Israel under Joshua to eradicate them
from. To do so they hailed this fellow Khazarian as the world’s greatest
mind using the vast media empire they by then stiffly controlled, of one
surpassing the genius of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, of one too
supercilious to emulate, but one only to be worshiped from afar.
Even if all their obviously contrived bombast was true, which today reads
as utterly laughable and ridiculous, in counterpoint Einstein until then was
widely disdained within scientific circles for his questionable mathematics
and philosophy, of being an extremist socialist promoting a One World
Government, ruled exclusively by fellow Zionists, believing they would
subjugate all Non-Zionists as a menial working class, though their
imagined spiteful dark Messiah would eventually eradicate them, and he
was also known widely for his plagiarizing other’s work, but assuming all
credit by default by not just failing to note priority, but also because he felt
adding a new spin negated any need for it, admitting such in a 1907 paper.
NOTE: In Einstein’s submission to Annalen der Physik 1907 vol XXIII (371-384)
(see http://einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/home), “Inertia of Energy Required by the
Relativity Principle”, on page 373 he made the following observation regarding his
plagiarism, which he likely was compelled to issue as a result of the din of
protests from his peers: “It seems to me, as lies the nature of the matter, that the
following is partly clarified by other authors. Considering the fact, however, that here
the relevant questions are treated from a new point of view, I believe it is for me to
decline a very cumbersome pedantic survey of the literature, particularly since it is
hoped that this gap by other authors, or of – will be filled, as, thankfully, in my first work
on the principle of relativity that Mr. Planck and Mr. Kaufmann have already done.” In
other words, he considered it too much of a bother to credit those whose work he
had based his own material on, because what he considered more important was
relating his own spin on the matter, even though, if such credit was not noted,
this would outwardly make it appear as though it was in fact his own original
work. He was attempting through a “spun” explanation to quiet critics by thanking
Planck and Kaufmann for doing what he consistently failed to do in his papers,
which was to provide priority credit for the sources he used. And, in case you
missed it, instead of adding ingratiating footnotes in any papers he submitted,
which he referred to collectively as “gaps”, he piously presumed that others, or
the original authors, would later submit them, if they felt so inclined (it would truly
be an idiotic state of affairs if one would expect others, or even the author they
plagiarized, to run about writing additional papers to provide credit for their own work).
 Page 115

It must also be noted that physicists Max Planck, father of Quantum theory and who
also considerably contributed to extending the special theory of relativity, and Walter
Kaufmann, who was the first to discuss Einstein’s theory, for which he coined the
popular alternative moniker Einstein-Lorentz Theory, because he had categorically
demonstrated that this theory was observationally equivalent to Hendrik A. Lorentz's
theory, had both been very kind to Einstein in their criticism of his 1905 paper. But
this likely was entirely due to their present fortunes now being too tightly stitched to
Einstein’s credibility; the desperately-needed and generous funding they were now
being awarded resulting from their fawning favorably at the edges of Einstein’s
limelight. Basically, these two great physicists wrote papers that provided the missing
footnotes to Einstein’s 1905 paper, highlighting the fact that his original submission
contained no references whatsoever (which would normally have been justly rejected out
of hand by a technical publisher). It is a mystery to some why Einstein’s paper had been
accepted because it lacked footnotes (just like his 7 previously published submissions).
Yet, considering that the editors of Annalen der Physik had accepted previous
submissions from him since 1901 that lacked such priority footnotes, it seems likely
that they had a congenial rapport with him, or they simply liked him, and by 1905 they
would simply accept his offerings, though prior to the too-corruptible anonymous
peer-review paradigm, publications had little reason not to accept most submissions.
SUBNOTE: The peer-review system is a brilliant idea, but it fatally incorporates anonymous
reviews, where it was naively assumed reviewers could simply be more honest. However,
anonymity is capitalized on by too many in order to silence competitors or to kill competing ideas.

Shameless sensationalism in the major American newspapers, and

subsequently echoed by smaller media vendors, even claimed that just a
dozen people in all the world were capable of understanding Einstein’s
1915 General Theory of Relativity (“Geometric Theory of Gravitation”),
though this was clearly not a fact. One of average intelligence should
easily be able to grasp its fundamental principles without having to delve
into its mathematical models at all (see www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-
general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html for its explanation in layman’s terms).

Yet, because Einstein was constantly featured in the news, the public
eventually bought into this over-the-top yellow journalism spewed by the
media and, assuming him therefore important, demanded more “Einstein”.
The media was only too eager to comply. They tried to scoop each other
with more sensationalized stories, soon building him up into a towering
god-like being the likes of which no one had ever before beheld, as though
Sir Isaac Newton himself was once again walking among them.
Superstar status was born.
These Messianic Zionists (I once called them Terrorists in Coattails,
though they were politically savvy chameleons of extraordinary skill,
talent, and intelligence, often playing all sides of the political spectrum,
being in most respects politically similar to the more modern Fabian
Socialists), who were stoking Einstein’s popularity in the press, also made
 Page 116

it impossible for anyone to criticize Einstein’s theories on merits of pure

science or even in matters of academic ethics. Those who did so, most
quite legitimately, often had their words deflected by being loudly
denounced as antisemitic, though one must realize that even if they were
indeed antisemitic, their purely academic critiques should still be regarded
as legitimate. Being antisemitic might label you ethno-phobic, but it most
certainly should not nullify one’s opinions in other venues of intellectual
reason. This was in large part a ridiculous charge, but it was also an
effective loophole that was eagerly employed with great panache.
Indeed, this may be likened to now-a-days calling into question the
overblown “Global Warming” alarmism, especially now that the Sun is being
recognized as having superior control over the weather, but anyone who had
argued against this imploding cause were loudly ridiculed and often declared
to be in the same category as “Holocaust-Deniers” (“obliviant chants and
volume over reason” seems a most effective strategy when directed against
those who would try to discuss issues through reason, intelligence, and facts).
Einstein toured the United States of America in 1921 to raise money for
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to personally press Khazarian
Zionism on Jews. He was treated like royalty by academics and academic
institutions, which flattered and clamored to invest all manner of academic
honors upon him, and the uninformed public was thus awed by his
presence. However, one must also be mindful that an issue of concern in
the halls of academia at this time was that of academic bureaucracies and
professorships being disproportionately over-stocked with such fervent
Zionists, which accounted for much of the clamoring for this Jewish hero.
NOTE: Einstein often traveled abroad when criticism at home became too
intense. He had already by this time earned an international reputation for hiding
and even fleeing from his critics.
NOTE: Though little-known now, Einstein had tried to all but force American
Jews to pack up and immigrate to Palestine, but they instead had a deep love
and fierce loyalty for America, and would not listen to his archaic Zionist bigotry.
Many people are aware that over 150,000 people greeted Einstein as his ship
arrived in New York Harbor in 1921 to great pomp and fanfare. Still others
know that he was given the freedom of New York City; opened wide to his
inspection (though under protest). What you might not know is that a full
one-third of the US Jewish population resided in New York City at that time,
and the city administration and newspapers were packed with those of Zionist
bent. Indeed, the one dissenting voice for opening the city, Alderman Bruce
M. Falconer, ended up being humiliated, threatened, and ridiculed by the
Zionist-driven press, being charged with antisemitism, and even having his
 Page 117

name and home address published on the front page, along with describing an
assault against him and of threats to destroy him. Though they did report his
denials of any prejudice, the negative damage against him was already done,
which made him only appear to look like a burglar caught red-handed in the
act of a crime, but still denying wrong-doing. His innocence was ignored.
Yet few recall that by the time Einstein arrived in Boston, he was not so
privileged with an opened city, and he was generally given the cold
shoulder by all but those within Harvard University. Boston’s Jewish
population was ample, and was congenial and cohabited well with the
Irish and Italian immigrant populations, but like their fellow Irish and
Italian immigrants, who all suffered one form or another of prejudicial
discrimination, they were all fierce American patriots and would have
nothing to do with this little man who proffered Khazarian Zionist
doctrine to them. The other ethnicities lent their moral support to their
Jewish brethren, and like the Jews, refused to open their doors to Einstein.
Still fewer recall that as he departed America, unheeded, only a half dozen
people were present to see him off. His once-glorious light dimmed, much of
this owning to his now-hampered-down supreme arrogance and also to his
aggressive self-promotion (something that people now-a-days know too little
about). If he was scientifically challenged, his advocates accused them of
antisemitism. Indeed, he would preamble many of his tours by stating that
any arguments against his theories were prompted by antisemitism. For
example, on his arrival in the United States, the New York Times reported,
“Professor Einstein was reluctant to talk about relativity, but when he did
speak he said most of the opposition to his theories was the result of strong
antisemitic feeling.”
This is odd, considering that a great many of the physicists and
mathematicians opposing his theories were Jewish. This still quelled most
challenges from academia. By habit, Einstein had often used alarmist
tactics, such as charges of racism, to alienate anyone who dared disagree
with him. Even so, there were still those brazen enough to accuse him of
hiding behind such reckless defamation so to avoid legitimate criticism.
Many scandals arose, most due to his sheer incompetence and hedonist
proclivities, as academics grew more frustrated with him. Other scandals
were fanned by the overt racism that he and his associates exhibited.
He was also unwilling to submit to debate, using the excuse that he was
only raising money for the Hebrew University. Such was the case with
Professor Arvid Reuterdahl of St. Thomas College, St. Paul, Minnesota,
who openly dubbed Einstein the P. T. Barnum of the scientific world.
 Page 118

The above might be tempered by the fact that Einstein claimed that he was
a very poor lecturer, and so was not as adept at it as was his friend,
Hendrik Lorentz. But even so, he was still widely renowned for his hiding
from any and all critics, and felt himself incapable of engaging in a
competent debate, perhaps his arrogance preventing him from facing
anyone attacking his work. Years later he said that he was not averse to
being wrong, but we may need to take that with a grain of salt, considering
how easy such words are when one is speaking to a receptive audience.
But the fact remains that he was not willing to discuss his ideas, even with
his closest and most trusted friends, for fear of argument. He only
generalized and spoke about them, but never in detail on them.
NOTE: Though Einstein plagiarized his work, Hendrik Lorenz befriended
Einstein, because Einstein’s fame in turn gave Lorenz notoriety that he would not
otherwise have, and so this made being Einstein’s friend personally profitable.
One of the things that Einstein had the most trouble with was his
simplistic habit of trying to narrowly define people into categories,
regardless of their beliefs or diverse backgrounds. He tried to intimidate
all Jews into following his Zionist course, degrading those who chose to
assimilate with their present nationality as if they were traitors to Judaism.
This is odd, considering that even Einstein believed and expressed in
private that he saw Judaism as a ridiculous religion. But Khazarian Zionist
goals seldom had much really to do with the religion put up in front of it.
As such, Einstein generally had a very difficult stay in the United States.
Once back in Europe, he did himself no kind service by publicly ridiculing
the American public and scholars in a widely published interview. Indeed,
the Washington Post reported that Einstein had said that the only real
scholar he found in the United States was a Jew out of Chicago.
This was like a major slap in the face of Americans, and especially for the
press, who had made such an ostentatious hullabaloo over his visit, such as
the innumerable Hearst newspapers, the most powerful news organization
in the country, who was thus shamed before its entire reading public.
One of its writers, Arthur Brisbane, though not Jewish, was so pro-Jewish
that he would not be embarrassed if he were mistaken for such, was
dumbstruck by Einstein’s remarks and had great difficulty coming to
terms with them. As the Dearborn Independent reported on 30 July 1921,
“Mr. Arthur Brisbane, pen-sentinel of the tribe, who held Mr. Einstein up
as an example too lofty for Americans to emulate, yet to be worshipfully
gazed upon as a distant and unattainable star, was plainly up against it.”
 Page 119

That is, until an epiphany struck Brisbane that could effectively resolve
this terrible conundrum. He imagined for a moment the possibility that
Einstein had not actually seen America, but had instead seen only his
fellow Jews, and that could be tooled to explain everything. Therefore, he
wrote in an article: “First, he is amused by the wild enthusiasm of the
entire American nation in greeting him. What Prof. Einstein saw, without
knowing it, was the extremely enthusiastic welcome of his co-religionists.
Our citizens of Jewish blood delight at another demonstration, in
Einstein’s person, of the ability of their race. It was Jewish enthusiasm
that the professor witnessed, and there is no greater enthusiasm than that.
It is a good explanation of the whole Einstein criticism.”
The major Zionist-run papers picked this up and ran with that angle, and
everyone else jumped on board as well: Jews simply over-reacting to a
great fellow Jew, and making an embarrassing spectacle. The Jews had
their excitement while everyone else (non-Jews) could still be upset over
him and his anti-Gentile blather. And their readership believed it. They all
saved face, and Einstein’s shattered countenance slowly began its repair.
By the time Einstein immigrated to the United States from Switzerland on
26 May 1933 to escape persecution by Nazis in Germany, after first
refusing to immigrate to Palestine (which I find very odd, considering his
own severe admonishments against all other Jews who also refused to do
so), more than enough time had passed since his troubled visit to America
in 1921 so that his tarnished image could be fully and ably repaired by a
repetitious Zionist-run media. Few still remembered why the American
public had even turned on him in 1921. But then again, Americans have
always been a very forgiving and accepting lot, especially when it comes
to those persecuted by tyrants.
Yet, one must also consider Einstein was critical to the development of the
Atomic Bomb, and so the US Government, desperate for his mathematical
prowess and the fact that science was suddenly becoming a new and very
important military investment (previously, scientists typically had to
support themselves financially through “day jobs”, if they were not lucky
enough to win a research grant available from philanthropic sources or
secure a university post, which is why Einstein had to take work as a
Swiss patent clerk), clearly downplayed, redacted, or covered up his
plurality of faults, where accusations ranged from the scientifically
unethical to wild and frequent sex orgies with underaged maidens, and
instead played him up as being paramount to American interests in order
to win the public over to accepting him as one of their own.
 Page 120

PART TWO: Concerning Those Who Made Einstein Great.

Khazarian Zionists declared Palestine as their legitimate home. Well. it was
their home, before God told Joshua to destroy them, being then known as
Amalekites. Most survivors fled across the Mediterranean, but others fled east
to found the Luciferian Silk Road nation of Khazar, near Scythia; their root
nation. God deemed them abomination, but they hid under an adopted Jewish
veneer to both escape persecution by later Muslim and Christian traders, and
in time used it ultimately to secretly retake the Dead Sea area. But, we must
consider not just their view on this matter (a hard sell once eyes are opened
to their ulterior motives), but also of true Judaism and of the peacefully
cohabiting Jewish and non-Jewish natives absorbed by this turnover (80% of
all these natives already had Hebrew blood), as opposed to the Egyptian
terrorist infiltrators who had absolutely no Palestinian blood. We must
wonder who actually brokered the deal to secure this land over its residents.
We must consider the Zionist agenda in negotiating it “in the name of the
Jews”. We must also wonder why the Romans, likely confused by this
Amalekite ruse, forbid Jews from rebuilding settlements they plowed under,
why they chose to fight the Zealots so ferociously, why Jews were barred
from their capital, and why a dispersion of all Zealots centered in the northern
Kingdom of Israel? What or who incited frustrated Hellenist Galilean Jews to
found its many Zealot factions and fight bloody guerrilla war against Rome?
NOTE: I do not direct my ire against true Jews, nor with the eastern European refugees
who often had no choice but to flee to the modern state of Israel in order to escape ethnic
persecution due to antisemitic policies secretly financed and engineered by the Khazarian
Mafia, but rather I direct this ire at the Khazarians who engineered the original land-deal
and also the persecution that those refugees fled (this will be explained soon).

Islamic Extremists now do what Jewish Zealots (“Patriots”) did to Roman

occupiers for over 100 years, as if to keep the region in turmoil so to divert
attention from the real Khazarian plan. With the 6 CE rise of War Hellenists,
these Zealots, to which even the Davidic King Jesus’ father was a member, in
6 CE History saw their Messiah leader killed in battle (Joseph’s elder
brother, the Crowned Prince?). There had been bloody revolts that also saw
the likes of Simon the Patriot and Judas the Sicarii strike at the Romans
without warning. This may even be why Jesus and Judas were “hung on a
tree,” slang in those days for one being crucified. These are things we must
consider as we examine this complex, dense, slippery material.
NOTE: There is a good possibility that Jesus’ father, titled the Joseph, may actually be
the second of two sons of Jacob-Heli. This Joseph title comes from the Genesis story
of Jacob and Joseph. Messianic Royals sought two sons before they could consider
a normal sexual relationship with their royal brides. If a boy was born, they waited 6
years before attempting another child. If a girl was born, they waited only 3 years.
Before the second son, they were confined to strict celibacy during the intervening
periods so to build spiritual energy. The first son was titled the Joseph (proper names
 Page 121

were not used until the 11th century CE; until then you were known by your title), with the
King being called the Jacob (the Pillar; the Rock of the Covenant) or the David. A second
son would assume a title of the Benjamin. Joseph and Benjamin were so important
because they were the two sons of the Rachel (title for the Queen, meaning Eve; “Mother
of the Living” (the meaning as Ewe, for a female sheep, is a later redefinition)), because
Rachel and Jacob were both born with full royal blood, Jacob willingly toiled 14 years
as a minister to his royal uncle Laban, brother to his mother Rebekah, to win Rachel.
Joseph and Benjamin were unlike their elder 10 brothers, who were mothered by
maidservants and Rachel’s elder half-sister, Leah, who was of lesser royal stock.
When the Joseph became 36, he was then of marriageable age (typical marriage age
among non-royals was 12 or 13). The royal bride was typically 16. By then both had
gone through extensive educational programs. At 36, “Joseph” became the Crowned
Prince, and “Benjamin” became “Joseph”. Because there is no record of Joseph
having a brother, it is most likely he died, because had he not had a brother, that
would be of curious note. Had Jacob-Heli instead died in the 6 CE revolt, it would also
be of significant note and would have also been an important part of Jesus’ coming-
of-age story, also in 6 CE, when, at 12 years old, he was reborn into the Community
at Qumrân, regarded as a doctrinal “infant”. But his becoming the Joseph at such a
time would permanently stamp him with that title, even though he would later become
the David/Jacob. This is the story told in Chapter 2 of Luke at the time of the Census
in 6 CE, when Jesus’ birth was reenacted during his royal bar mitzvah. This also
explains why, when he was 12 years within the community in 18 CE, completing his
doctrinal training as a Full Initiate at age 24, when he was expected to join his father
and his War Hellenists at Wadi Kidron, chose instead to remain at the Temple in
Qumrân with the Peace Hellenists (the Party of the Dove, whose slogan was “Peace be
with you”), under the tutelage of a former high priest named Eleazar Annas, elder
brother to Jonathan Annas (the Disciple Nathanael), Theophilus, and Matthew Annas
(the Disciple Levi); all sons of the Levite Priest, Ananus. This caused his father great
embarrassment. This also meant that Jesus was not then physically 12 years old.
SUBNOTE: There was a required 3-year period of royal celibacy if a girl was born. This became a
belief that girls are half the value of boys. But because girls were compatible to the natural energy
of the mother, the number of years required to restore spiritual energy was simply cut in half.
NOTE: In late November, 32 CE, three Zealot members of the War Hellenists, Simon
Zealot, Thaddeus, and Judas Iscariot, sabotaged an aqueduct that Pontius Pilate, the
Roman Procurator (Prefect), had improved in order to supply his personal residential baths
in the coastal Roman city of Caesarea with sufficient water. It piped this unsalted liquid
from Mount Carmel, home to the Monastic Essenes, 10 kilometers away. Pilate also had
financed this private project illegally using Temple funds, intensifying his transgression.
Unfortunately, in the panic and fracas with the soldiers protecting the aqueduct, Thaddeus
had killed a guard. Simon Zealot, at this time High Priest to the Community, was as a
result deposed of his community station, being lowered in rank to the title Eleazar
(“Lazarus”). Thaddeus, the Abiathar Priest to Simon (Minister to the Father; Bar-Abba), was
also deposed. More, because this act was so shameful, Simon was excommunicated. The
Disciple Nathanael, leader of the Peace Hellenists, was duly installed as High Priest.
Though Thaddeus had committed the crime, he was acting under Simon's orders. Judas,
losing his title as Community Judge and not seeing any prospects for his future, decided
to gamble all and to sell out his two brothers-in-arms. His hope was to bribe the Procurator
with money Nathanael Annas had given him for this purpose from Temple Funds. Bribing
Roman officials in these parts was common. Sure, he would have to admit in the Roman
hearing of selling his fellow conspirators out, but he was young enough to find a life
outside of Judea, easily taking hidden refuge within the truly immense Diaspora.
 Page 122

SUBNOTE:, Until the Middle Ages, excommunication involved entombment for 4 days. On the
evening of the 4th day they were released, to be shunned and treated as dead and unclean (this
tradition of no longer recognizing them as living or visible later spawned tales of the living dead
rising from their graves after sundown). Prior to the 4th day, one could be released (raised) from
excommunication by one with the authority of a priest, as Jesus often did, as was his birthright by
his mother, as Simon’s Bar-Abba (“Son/Minister of the Father”; “Son of God” (the high priest
was likewise revered as the earthly representative of the Father/God)). This is why the raising of
Lazarus on the unheard-of 4th day, and without incurring God's wrath, was seen as such a miracle.
SUBNOTE: If these Christian terms confuse you in this Jewish context, then you understand little
of the Jewish Nazarite origin of Christianity. For example, the Qumrân mystics had a daily ritual
supper that included a Eucharist performed with bread and wine; the Bread and Water of Life,
where Bread represented the flesh, and Wine the blood (echoing back to an ancient Amalekite
practice of consuming human sacrifices. As always, God turned this evil to good ends by giving
them more potent means through the manna replete within the Dead Sea, being far more potent
than the Ambrosia/Adrenochrome drawn from blood). They even had baptisms to ritually cleanse
the inequity from the soul. This is why the Disciples (Government of 12) of Jesus included fishers;
a term for baptismal priests, who used boats to draw up adherents, called the fishes, to their decks
in a symbolic pageant near the Dead Sea shores, where the presiding priest, draped in brilliant
white linen scrubbed in frankincense, walked out to the boat on a jetty, called “walking on water.”
Unfortunately for Judas, Herod Antipas, a long-time associate of Thaddeus, the
Abiathar Priest (Bar-Abba) to Simon Zealot (Thaddeus’ Bar-Abba title eventually
anglicized to Barabbas), had instead generously purchased Thaddeus’ release
from Pilate, thus losing Judas his chance for liberty. Confusing things further,
when arrests were made, Simon the Cyrene confessed to the Romans to being
“Simon the Zealot”. This was not a lie, because Simon the Cyrene was in fact also a
Patriot. Further, the name Simon means “That Obeys” and Cyrene was a Greek
title for one who confused men. Being that those of Qumrân incessantly played
on words; the Cyrene could actually have been any of Simon’s fellow Patriots.
SUBNOTE: This word play is found in countless New Covenant examples, some having already
been touched on. Consider the Roman soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb on the Friday of Jesus’
crucifixion, called the first day of entombment by reckoning of that time, and ordered “to wait until
the end of a week” before being relieved. The Greek term for “a week”; “seven days”, was Sabaton,
which was also their word for Saturday. The Roman Commander of the Guard thus dutifully
relieved his men of their post at the tomb midnight Saturday, and they returned to garrison. This is
how Jesus’ crypt, Cave 8 at Qumrân, was opened at midnight of Saturday night by Solar calendar
observers, whose Sabbaths ended at midnight, such as the Samaritan Magi of Simon Zealot.
Roman edict demanded three Zealot hangings recorded, and so Nathanael, the new
High Priest, beyond his control, was forced to surrender someone of his Community
to fulfill Rome’s three-outlaw demand. Negotiation being untenable, he gave them the
maverick Jesus, who, although with his own Peace Hellenist party, had demonstrated
open association with the company of the fiery Zealots, who were now drawing
tremendous hardship upon their suspect Community from the Roman administration.
Zealot revolts grew, each year fiercer and bloodier. To quote Wikipedia,
“They seized towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under
the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50
strongholds in Judea and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem. ”
This began when the War Hellenists were founded in 6 CE, and by 135 CE,
Rome had finally had enough. “Hadrian’s army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of
 Page 123

Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy
Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was
killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead. ” In
the end, “The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into
slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt.
Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were
forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn
their losses in the revolt.”
NOTE: Israel once extended from Sidon in Lebanon to the north, Kadesh in Sinai
to the south, less the Philistine area near Gaza, and east through Mount Gilead
in Jordan, and to its south past Mount Nebe, wrapping the Dead Sea.
The general interpretation of what the so-called Jewish Dispersion
actually meant struck me. If you look at religious history, you are given
the incorrect impression that no Jew remained in all of Israel and Judea.
Well, technically they did not, because Hadrian had renamed their country
Syria Palestina. But if you look to un-retouched history, the majority of
Jews already living there continued to live there. The only Jews actually
deported, sold into slavery, etc. were the usual political and military
prisoners, such as the Zealots. This is unlike what we typically assume.
And besides, virtually the entire Jewish population in the world at that
time already lived by choice outside of their religious homeland.
Many years of study and contemplation have gone into this, and, to be
thorough, to include exploring many often zany conspiracy theories, all in
an attempt to ascertain for certain the identity of the mysterious bogymen
that could possibly control all this, the extent of which is absolutely
staggering, precluding most groups who have been submitted as
candidates, truly encompassing the breadth of a shadow government. They
leave ethereal, hard-to-trace hand prints that are clearly evident, but not
forensic enough to reveal a clear identity of who is actually hidden behind
the green curtain. Often, simply for desperate want of a name to point to,
they were tagged Illuminati (so-named for a Bavarian Enlightenment-era
secret society established 1 May 1776, composed of an initial cadre of 5
socialist free-thinkers, modeling themselves after the Freemasons).
I have finally concluded that the Khazarian Messianic Zionists are the
most logical candidate; the most capable of being at the bottom of all this
secretive goings-on. I am not talking about your run-of-the-mill Yusef who
calls himself Zionist because he cottons to the idea and sends a check
every time a donation request comes in the mail, or a person like me, who
thought giving this meager portion of former Israel back to the Jews was a
laudable endeavor, inspired by imaginings of “Bible Times”. Memories of
 Page 124

the Crusades feed into this, and where Muslims, who actually kept the
light of education burning during the Dark Ages, were somehow still seen
as less worthy, especially by the then-occupying high-minded British, who
were still filled with a self-lauding sense of Darwinian superiority.
I am talking about the hardcore cadre; their driving force, not of their
followers or their many, often-unwitting advocates. I am talking about
those who live and breathe this dream; possessed of it so completely that
nothing else can possibly matter as much to them.
NOTE: Some assume that it is only the Rothschild Family of Zionists who
comprises the “Illuminati”. A German-Jewish dynasty, the Rothschild's, originally
called Bayer, established immeasurably powerful European banking and finance
houses starting in the late 18th century.
The notion of Jews as a distinctive race, not an ethnicity or creed, comes
from Theodor (Benjamin Ze’ev) Herzel (1860-1904), the visionary of
Zionism, developed as he watched rampant antisemitic sentiments infect
Europe. He thought Jews could achieve acceptance if they ceased being a
national anomaly, and their plight could transform into a force for good by
establishing a Jewish state through the approval of world powers.
Herzel may not have invented Zionism, for Messianic Zionism was a long-
simmering dream deep within the hearts and minds of many powerful,
high-placed Khazarian Jews for three millennia, who believed they
deserved better than they got, wondering how long they must suffer before
their Messiah comes to give them retribution, but Herzel was its lightening
rod, bringing their goals into sharp and crystal-clear focus. This following
was so powerful and so coalescent because they were already connected at
some level or another, and were simply waiting for the right catalyst.
Being men of great power, moguls of industry, masters of bureaucracy,
and experts at molding public opinion, their organizational skills fomented
adjustable time-tables and cunning strategies that could rival the Mentats,
Spacing Guild, and Bene Gesserate of Frank Herbert’s novel, Dune.
In the news we see endless Israeli land disputes. We see new settlements
constantly being built in “occupied” territories as Egyptian infiltrators
demand they withdraw (who are not Palestinian, but only claim to be so –
the actual Palestinians peacefully cohabiting with the Jews), of those
occupiers refusing even their military’s demands to leave, and causing us to
sigh because we are not certain who or what to believe. We think – why don’t
those idiots just move out and stop making trouble, and other times we
wonder why don’t those crybabies stop wining about Israeli people occupying
land the Egyptian rebels lost after deliberately trying to destroy Israel?
 Page 125

The occupied territories were lands gained by Israel after the 6-day war in
1967, when Arabic nations joined together and in one coordinated strike
tried to wipe the State of Israel off the map in an attempt to recover
Islamic territory that had been taken from them through shrewd politics
back in 1948. However, the Israelis quickly countered by swiftly wiping
out the air and land capacities of these attacking states, totally decimating
their capacity for war. Israel’s victory was so complete that many hailed it
as a divine intervention for the land that the personal God of Abraham had
decreed in those ancient times would be inherited by his descendants.
NOTE: The above statement might seem odd, considering Arabic people claim to be
children of Abraham by his son Ishmael. But are they? Ishmael was Abraham’s first-
born son by his wife’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, gifted to Abraham by
Egypt's Pharaoh (a maid-servant was often a lower peerage sister or relative, but in this
case most likely a member of the Egyptian Queen's mixed Royal and Harkos-sullied family).
And being that Ishmael was so large and red-haired, with a very hairy body and was
so unlike his blond and blue-eyed royal father (all pure royals had blond, blue-eyed
Scythian roots, like Macedonian royals such as Cleopatra), the likelihood of Ishmael being
sired by Abraham is clearly unlikely, being more apt sired by a fallen angel or demon.
Even so, when Sarah (Sarai), later gave birth to Isaac, after Pharaoh had taken her to
wife, Abraham gave Isaac hereditary seniority because Isaac’s blood was more
royally senior in peerage than Ishmael’s. This might seem odd to some that Isaac got
seniority over his elder brother, but you must understand royal blood and peerage in
its strictest sense (Ishmael not being fathered by Abraham would also better explain why
Sarah rejected Hagar after Ishmael was born, because she could clearly see he was not of
Abraham's seed). Though we do not have space to cover it here, suffice it to say that
this royal genetic consideration was more important than anything else, and not just
to the minds of royals, but the fact that their famously great mental capacity was
much to be craved by their people for organizing the betterment of their society,
though I do find it sad that God's Children favored leadership from Q'ayin's Line.
Abraham was a Prince of E.RI.DU (“place of going afar”; Iridu; likely source of the
Egyptian word, Habiru/Abiru, their name for Semitic raiders and wanderers, which
became Hebrew), a suburb city of greater UR, at about 1900 BCE. When political
fortunes changed, Abraham moved (rather, fled) northwest to the territory ruled by
his father, Terah. Later, with his wife/half-sister Sarai (“Princess”), he led military
raids all the way into Egypt, where they met their mutual and senior half-brother,
Pharaoh Thutmosis; all three sired by Terah. Through my study, I think this
meeting was not by chance, which would not have happened if they had not been
royal or related, for the very purpose of acquiring a son by their half-brother, and
Pharaoh would not have taken Sarai to wife if she had not been of pure royal
blood. Abraham was looking to gain the Egyptian Kingdom, which had territory all
the way from Syria to Libya, being a sister to the Mesopotamian Empires.
SUBNOTE: UR is where the Hebrew Bible claim Abraham hailed from, which is technically
correct if, as is typical, one considers suburbs as a part of the greater city. But he did not even exist
in their ancestor traditions until their exile in Babylon (they were not even called Israelites). Within
its libraries they patched their version of his history together, where it served to assure their people,
called Israelites two generations later, that despite the invasion of their home, God's dealings with
their ancestors would provide a historical foundation upon which their hope for the future rested.
 Page 126

But if we dig behind the headlines, because most media outlets are reticent
to dig that deep, feigning readers non-interest, but more likely they do not
want to disclose the truth found within such rabbit holes. We will find
Khazarians behind all these disputes, pushing the natives, to include its
Jews not supporting their cause, from it under the pretext of providing
demographic security, and to acquire as much territory as possible in order
to further secure their borders, though not relinquishing even one square
inch of it. As the Jewish Virtual Library stated in their examination of
Radical Messianic Zionism, “A religious claim provided strong justification for
those who wished to hold on to the occupied territories: If the State of Israel was viewed
as the unfolding of a Messianic scenario, then the miraculous victory of the Six-Day War
was an essential stage in that process. The territories belong to the Jewish people (i.e.,
the State of Israel) by Divine decree and they may not be handed over to foreign hands.”
Messianic Zionists, also known as Khazarian Mafia, Khazarian Jews,
Bolshevik Zionists, Racist Zionists, and Segregationist Zionists (and a
growing number of researchers are noting parallels with modern Fabian
Socialists, whose modus operandi appears identical), who are socialist
radicals, as say Israeli scholars, but having a strangely sophisticated
presence, perhaps due to their patient, centuries-long implementation of
their territorial strategy. But at their core I see an amoral cabal, uninhibited
by ethical limitations, unlike the more peaceable, homogeneous non-
Zionist Jews. Indeed, most Jews may have a desire to visit, but not
immigrate to Israel. But this is not new; this attitude having been
pervasive in Jewish thought for as long as Jews have been on the planet.
Conversely, Messianic Zionists demand unreservedly strict racial purity,
which is strange for an ethnicity that is a union of races, and having the
ultimate goal of dominating the non-Zionist World, subjugating it in its
entirety under a Zionist One World Government, paving the way for their
awaited Messiah, who they believe will destroy all their enemies – those
being every Gentile and every non-Zionist Jew. But this tells me that if I
am not a Zionist, I will simply be destroyed, saying nothing of the fact that
I will gladly throw my lot in with Gentiles. Even more, I do not see a
dividing line that separates Jew from Gentile. We are truly one people.
NOTE: The only ethnically pure Israelite's were the Royal House of Israel and the
Royal House of Judah, formerly Royal House of Egypt; the Messeh Pharaohs, of the
18th Amenhotep Dynasty, ending in Akhenaton and his son Tutankhamen, before
Egyptian bloodlines sullied. Their purpose for purity was to keep their Scythian
bloodlines strong, which was the seat of all royalty from ancient times, and believed
to be the blood of the gods who lived on Earth. Also, their ancient code of ethics did
not have them rule men or control lands, but to render princely service to their
people. Their job was to serve and defend their people, not to be served by them.
 Page 127

Let us be clear. The Zionists, Jewish in name but not in the deity they
served, by political cunning, literally stole Palestine in 1948 through
bribes and subterfuge. If you study how this handover was arranged, seen
with unfiltered eyes, which can be quite difficult for those fearful to have
but an appearance of looking antisemitic (though truly Anti-Khazarian),
can see that land was taken from the long-resident Jews and non-Jews
under false pretense, using feeble excuses like a “needed ethnocentric
homeland”, which is lame because most Jews never truly wanted such a
place (fact is, virtually all Jews had always lived outside Judea, even in its
glory days, to include Jesus’ time, settling on every coastline from the
Mediterranean through the Black Sea). To my eyes, the Messianic
Zionists played the rest of the world for fools. But do not dispair, for God
has always used acts of evil by retooling them to good ends, such as using
the ancient Amalekite plan to retake this land and use it instead to retake it
for the Jews who did want it, which the Khazarians only pretended at this.
The Messianic Zionists claim that the supreme rule over the whole world by
their Messiah from his seat in Jerusalem is inevitable, ordained by their
interpretation of the Prophets (the very same prophets the Children of Israel
tended to ignore or kill) telling of future events. But, if you really study the
Bible, you will understand that prophecy had little to do with future events,
but had everything to do with being cognizant to the spirit of God so they
could address current issues of concern, attaining this state through agencies
of fasting, ascetic meditation, ritual drugs, or whatever tooted their flute
(many Khazarian Kabalists actually use masturbation to achieve an altered
state of consciousness. Talk about letting one’s imagination run hog-wild…).
If you conduct a study of any ancient culture, each has had their visions of
retribution against their enemies, along with wispy dreams of their “side”
inevitably becoming the ultimate God-favored victor. Such visions are
especially common with those who have been overwhelmed or down-trodden.
I see such passionate “prophecies” of future revenge as not just adolescent,
but patently infantile. Such bruised-self-esteem-soothing “foretelling” was
invented (or rather, envisioned) while the subjugated Egyptian royals and
upper classes in Canaan (though Bible scribes reconfigured them to
Israelites) were in Babylonian captivity in the 6 th century BCE. They were
not yet, or even before this time been known as Israelites, and had never
actually been known as such until not long before they migrated from
Babylon into Phoenicia, this belief being instilled into their younger
generation, while letting the older generation, who knew differently, die
out. But by then the new generation were flush with fresh-won freedom, a
newly minted and now documented history and a new and clearly defined
 Page 128

purpose, yet they had still been barred from returning to their Egyptian
province to assume any sort of automatic autocratic rule or business
leadership, but they would now have to compete for it (history is much
more interesting than most general, outward books might tell it).
For example, the sophisticated, cosmopolitan inhabitants of Phoenicia (a
former Egyptian province taken over by the Harkos when they conquered
Egypt, and called “Canaan” by the Egyptians due to so many followers of
Cain being there) had no prior knowledge of them. The scholarly Hebrews
(Egyptian Habiru/Abiru) who inscribed their new Torah and Peshitta,
basing them on histories, both Mesopotamian and Egyptian, found in the
Babylonian libraries, had attributed authorship to the lofty now-Hebrew
heroes of these texts (which never became the Hebrew Bible until the 10th
Century CE, and through the Common Era this established canon of
books were under periodic revision), rewording their carefully thought-out
histories, recorded in their cryptic and now-mixed Egyptian/Syro-Chaldaic
language called Hebrew, and indicated a “return” rather than what it was,
which was an absorption back into their former Egyptian province in
Canaan, as new immigrating members, not as old or automatic leaders.
NOTE: Many refer to the exile in Babylon as the Jewish Captivity, rather than as the
Babylonian Captivity, but the term Jew was a later general, post captivity title given
the inhabitants of Judea, consisting of the Tribe of Judah and the Priestly Tribe of
Benjamin (the Levite title was not from the Tribe of Levi, but from their Egyptian Levite
training under Aaron), as opposed to the 10 tribes in the north in Israel. Those in
Judea were called Jews no matter if they were of the tribes or the absolutely immense
population of foreign traders who had permanently settled this highly important
intersection of international trade routes between Africa, Europe, and the Orient.

For an important example of books later added to the Hebrew canon,

consider the Book of Daniel. This book was not actually written until as
late as the 2nd Century BCE, not the 6th Century BCE as it was claimed to
have been written. Further, it was therefore clearly not dictated by
Egyptian Prince Daniel, but more precisely by Qumrân scribes, and it had
been attributed to him so that the book could be incorporated into the
Tanakh; the canonical collection of Jewish texts. It had been specifically
written, as had the also-recent Revelation of Enoch, to highlight a
Pythagorean form of divination the Qumrân mystics developed to suit a
revised timetable that employed 490-year World Weeks (70 years times
7), in order to supersede the Mesopotamian/Egyptian 480-year Epochs of
12 Generations of 40 years. Even further, this all means that the events
this book supposedly “predicted” had actually already been a part of
history before it had even been inscribed. This is not to say Prince Daniel
did not exist, but that his history had embellishments added to it.
 Page 129

NOTE: The Egyptians had recently regained freedom from their Syro-Chaldean
overlords in 605 BCE (called Harkos; Semitic Invaders), who a few decades before
had conquered Egypt. Thanks to their new freedom, the exiles in Babylon (“Gate
of the Lord”) were subsequently free to leave, though most actually did not
immigrate, preferring their comfortable lives in Babylon. Even so, those now
controlling the Egyptian province did not want to take the chance of relinquishing
control to exiles who had lost them their freedom in the first place, and they did
not want those exiles claiming a legal senior royal blood right and assume the
freed land the present rulers had fought and bled so hard to free from Egypt.
Indeed, when exiles tried assuming control of the Jerusalem Temple built atop
Mount Ophel (the original Mount Zion), why did their Judge (all judges (sheiks;
religious officials) had a title of Satan, an untranslated Hebrew word, though it simply
means adversary, or to challenge, because he tested adherents, but not acquiring “evil”
trappings until 4th Century CE Christian traditions) have to challenge the resident
High Priest (traditionally being a titular Father/God) over whose Priests should
preside in this newly built Temple? Contrary to what one might simply assume,
considering that the returning Israelites were filled with such a powerful and self-
assuming vision of service to Yahuah Elohim (“Yahuah of the Shining Ones”; the
Shining (“Glorious”) Ones referring to the angels), they actually lost the argument,
and the polytheist residents, who held to a natural Father-Mother balance of
spirituality, prevailed in administering this newly built Temple (see Zechariah 3:1-
2), thus preserving the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, as the Mother in Heaven.
SUBNOTE: The title Satan was an honorable title, given to the Head Scribe, who was also their
Judge/Sheik. It was applied to a lesser extent to scribes, because it was their responsibility to keep
the law. Later this term became one of derision, apparently when law did not favor one’s desires.
NOTE: Attributing ancient authorship to text that this or that group wanted to
incorporate in the Hebrew canon was needed because the holy books were
officially defined in the 2nd Century BCE to be sacred writings authored by long
established heroes, scribes, and other “biblical” personalities. A way around this
restriction was to simply argue that the author of a particular scroll was one of
those aforementioned heroes. For example, the Temple Scroll, written and
conceived by the Qumrân scribes in 21 BCE, attributed its authorship to Moses,
claiming it to be an original dialog given directly to Moses from the Ruler of the
Mountain, El Shaddai, being delivered long ago on Mount Horeb in the Sinai.
Actually, the Temple Scroll was written for the express purpose of presenting to
the Sanhedrin the mystic’s ideas regarding the construction and administration of
the new Temple, about to be rebuilt by Herod the Great (these rules favoring
themselves, of course), including rules of worship, priestly preparedness, and even
goading Herod the Great (who was popular until late in his life when his memory and
sanity faded – common to many Herods who married within the family) by including
rules of conduct for the king. When the Sanhedrin and Herod rejected it, the
mystics stormed out of the Temple grounds and occupied the abandoned
building complex of the Hasmonean Fortress Sekhakha, named for Wadi
Sekhakha (a wadi is a mostly dry, seasonal rain wash), which flowed into Wadi
Qumrân and then into the Dead Sea. They renamed it Qumrân, and decided
their prophecies favored those of a new Heaven (Temple) and a new Earth (Land;
Jerusalem), and for them, there would also be a New Covenant with Yahuah.
 Page 130

The Qumrân layout was based on a model of Jerusalem. As such, they had
locations coinciding with locations in and around Jerusalem. The way they
differentiated them was to apply a plural tense to their names (not much different
from placing an “s” at the end of a word as we do in English ). For example, when
Luke reported that Paul walked from Jerusalem to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30 and
12:25), it is written in Greek with first the plural tense, and then with the singular
tense; hence, it actually reads that Paul had walked from Jerusalems to
Jerusalem, and thus meant that Paul had walked from Qumrân to Jerusalem.
Another example is the apparent mistakes of reported distances in the New
Covenant. The Gospel of John is replete with distances reported in stadia (a
stadion is 607 feet, and 5 stadia is about 1 kilometer), which often did not seem to
have anything in common with actual distances or routes between actual
reported locations. However, if you look at the singular and plural tenses of their
Greek text concerning these places, you will see that they actually referred to
locations relative to the Qumran area, where the reported distances will match
exactly. Indeed, all of the supposed geographic mistakes that have been pointed
out in the Gospels can be fully explained and perfectly resolved by such simple
tense transpositions.
Did you know that Jesus was turned over to the Romans for trial as a
political terrorist partly because he refused to share the Zealot dream of
ruling the world, with him as King (Messiah), but he instead preferred an
amicable peace with the Gentiles? The Sanhedrin was perfectly within its
rights to put a man to death, and they could lawfully meet at night, but
they understood the severe backlash from their people for killing the man
a great many of them fervently believed to be their rightful Davidic King.
Have you ever wondered how antisemitism exists after two millennia? It can
only do so if its flame is constantly fanned. All fingers point to Messianic
Zionists, but Christians are blamed, who usually worked peacefully with the
Jews, even while Khazarian-driven history accused them of “Christ-killing”.
Through the centuries Zionists have tried everything to segregate and alienate
Jews from Gentiles and force them to Palestine. Actually, a large population
of Jews had remained in Israel, renamed Syria Palestina, even after the
“dispersion”. Truth is, almost every existing Jew at the time of the dispersion
already was living their lives quite comfortably outside of Israel, most not
liking its hot, rough climate, especially during the then-current height of the
Roman Climate-Optimum (250 BCE to 400 CE), where world temperatures
were very much higher than today and even of the Medieval Warm Period.
And do not trouble yourself over “lost” tribes. As already discussed,
almost every Jew in the world already lived outside Judea by choice long
before the “dispersion”, and the dispersion itself did not have droves of
people forced to march out of the country; most were forced to simply
march to outside the walls of Jerusalem; the heart of most of Zealot
 Page 131

troublemaking. Selected leveled settlements were not permitted to be

rebuilt due to them being sites of uprisings, yet most others were not,
which is how the small community of Nazareth, situated between Mount
Carmel and the Sea of Galilee, came to be, being established around 60
CE, before the time of the dispersion.
Although there is strong evidence for Semitic people in Mexico, they were
most likely sea-faring Phoenician explorers who did not fear to cast out
beyond the sight of land and search the unknown, such as along the coasts
of northern Europe and West Africa. Even Black Africans had frequently
traveled to Mexico, as is evident by the Toltecs, and were even found by
Christopher Columbus to be living among the Caribbean people.
The dispersion numbers are simply assumed, but unsubstantiated. Consider
the sojourn in the wilds of the Sinai Peninsula. Moses (Mosis; Egyptian for
Righteous (Justus); The Rightful Heir); Pharaoh Akhenaten, only led about
1000 people, which is all that can be sustained as a group within the harsh
desert, not the claimed millions, in south Sinai beneath Mount Horeb
(“Desert”), upon which stood a temple complex dedicated to Egypt’s beloved
Mother Goddess, Hathor, commanded by the Egyptian Governor of Sinai, the
“Lord of the Mountain” (Hebrew “El Shaddai”), Jethro (Moses’ father-in-
law by his second wife, Zipporah), whose Master Craftsmen (Levites) used
arks generating electrical fire to create manna, used to fashion conical bread
cakes (shem-an-na; “Heavenly/High-ward firestone/metal” or “the shining
metal that raises up”; but shortened to manna; “What is it?” The Egyptian
word mfktz, for that same substance, also means the exact same thing).
NOTE: The use of the term millions is a gross exaggeration, regardless. The
Hebrew word, Reb-aw-bah, meaning multitude, myriad, and also ten thousand, was
a common term that simply meant “a lot”. The millions described by many were due
to a Christian tradition from the pulpit, not from history or from the Bible. Even the
numbers reported in the Bible, if taken literally to mean tens of thousands, is grossly
unrealistic, though the term use favors its common usage to describe a multitude.
It was talcum-like superconductive white powder gold, believed to be vital to
the spiritual immortality of the 18th Amenhotep Dynasty, known as the
Messeh Pharaohs, and said to make pyramid construction possible. The
Master Craftsmen who attended these arks were called Levites (which spawns
the word Levitation, which is a property of superconductive platinum metals),
who wore uniforms with white leather aprons and long tassels, called
Archons (from whence we get the term Architect. For example, they also
designed and built the Luxor Temple) that grounded them to the earth to avoid
electrocution. The term Levite does not denote one of Jacob’s sons, as is too
often wrongly assumed, but from the Egyptian city of Mal-lawi; “City of the
Levites”, near Amarna. This also reveals the lost secrets of the Freemasons.
 Page 132

NOTE: The Papyrus of Ani is commonly called the Egyptian Book of the
Dead. However, this last word is mistranslated, and like Hebrew Da’ath (Death),
it means Wisdom/Knowledge. In it, Spell 125 lists the original 10 Commandments
(see http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html).
Consider the Bolsheviks. Unlike with the Nazi party, where Zionists had to
internally operate as Crypto-Jews (Jews who pretended another faith), such as
Joseph Goebbels, in the Soviet ranks they could more easily institute policy,
where members could be openly Zionist, though most people, of course, saw
them as simply Jewish. The Bolshevik Revolution was incited to free “the
workers” from the oppressive Czar and his pogroms against Jews and the
exploitation of the peasants. But if you look at the actual facts of history, it
tells an entirely different story. For example, prior to Czar Alexander II,
peasants were tied to their lands. This meant that whoever owned the land
also owned the people on it and were free to abuse or use them however they
wished. Czar Alexander II pushed hard to free them. The land owners agreed
to freedom, but not to allowing them land. Alexander II would have no
arguments. He signed the 1861 Emancipation Manifesto, which preceded
even Abraham Lincoln’s own Emancipation Proclamation. To quote
Wikipedia’s entry on the Emancipation Reform of 1861, “The 1861
Emancipation Manifesto proclaimed the emancipation of the serfs on private
estates and of the domestic (household) serfs. By this edict more than twenty-
three million people received their liberty. Serfs were granted the full rights
of free citizens, gaining the rights to marry without having to gain consent, to
own property and to own a business. The Manifesto prescribed that peasants
would be able to buy the land from the landlords. Household serfs were the
worst affected as they gained only their freedom and no land.”
Also, the Czars did not oppress the Jews, but instead worked hard to
grant them absolute freedom, the likes of which none had in other nations,
save America, encouraging them to mix freely in Russia. However, the
Zionists goal was to separate Jews from the general population in their
never-ending quest to relocate them to Palestine. So, manufactured reports
of pogrom after pogrom began. As implied, most Pograms never existed
except in media propaganda, being “leaked” to the West by the Zionists,
many of them strongly suspected of actually being German-source
dispatches to damage the Czar as a part of their propaganda effort on the
Eastern Front to vilify their enemy, the Czar, capitalizing on the rumblings
of communist revolution building within Russia. Of course, many of the
pogroms that did occur were committed by the semi-military Ukrainian
Cossacks (it did not help that they had been allied to the Czars), the anti-
communist White Guard, and a percentage of Bolsheviks, but clearly none
by decree from the Czar.
 Page 133

NOTE: For a typical report of Pogroms in Poland from the New York Times, 1
June 1919, see http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0DE6DF1F39E13ABC4953DFB0668382609EDE .
Substandard weapons were manufactured by Zionists, brokered by other
Zionists at outrageous fees, supplied in an agonizing trickle to the Russian
troops, and always in too few numbers. Zionists also obstructed food
supplies, forcing massive, widespread starvation. All of this was of course
conveniently blamed on the Czar.
When the people finally got the revolution they were told they justly
needed, and won it, they realized that the bounty and plenty they were
promised never came. In the early stages, things were relatively ordinary
because the new Bolshevik leadership was not organized enough to solve
typical problems facing government, to include water and food shortages.
But in short order their new overlords became ruthless and treacherous,
not leading, but ruling by absolute threat of terror, administering “the
people’s” justice to violators. George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984
(http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/index.html) are explorations of political
subterfuge based upon that government, which actually made Soviet
citizens worse off than they had been before the October Revolution.
When the Czar’s family was captured, everyone, including the outer rings
of the Reds, assumed and fully expected them to be sent into exile. But
after about 8 months in isolated captivity, totally cut off from outside
contact, Bolsheviks murdered them all. This was a bad move, because this
could have too easily made them martyrs. Indeed, even today one can hear
such rumblings. I can only wonder if they killed them so that the truth
would not be let out before the Bolsheviks could adjust it in the press.
According to Christopher Jon Bjerknes, a Jewish historian of note and a
meticulous researcher, Messianic Zionist fingerprints were all over it.
Truly wolves in sheep’s clothing, Messianic Zionists hide in plain sight
behind a veil of a Jewish identity. If you simply look at history, you can
see their handiwork, but because they disguise themselves as the ordinary
or even the suffering Jew (who is actually non-Zionist), people seldom
actually do see them for who they really are, simply because of the
confusion behind which they veil themselves, because most people do not
distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews (and these
converse distinctions are purposefully blurred). Sadly, it is the masses of
non-Zionist Jews who have always suffered wrath for the Khazarian
Zionist’s deeds.
 Page 134

During Einstein’s time, and after, these Zionists held controlling influence in
everything from major media outlets, banking houses, industry, university
administrations, professorships, and all the way down to even prostitution
rings and racketeering. They effectively used cries of discrimination and
antisemitism in order to protect themselves and control those in powerful
positions and/or silence criticism. They have resorted to threats, assassination,
blackmail, and other dark endeavors without the slightest jot of conscience or
moral concerns, going entirely against the severe moral code of ethics of the
typical Jew. Because of this moral code, their corruption was less detected,
and any that was revealed only sullied the image of Jews, not Zionists.
This may seem absolutely illogical until you grasp the Zionist’s goals, but
they even supported both the National Socialist Party in Germany and the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia with their far left progressive ideas on
how to sow putrefaction within their targeted governments. They try to
segregate the Jews and drive them against their will to Palestine, pushing
anti-Jewish policies that would force Jews to flee to Palestine, and to
“show” how miserable the host Gentile governments were. They were
practiced at then acting the part of the outraged victim at the result of their
own handiwork, blaming the Gentile governments for those atrocities.
NOTE: This may sound strange to many, but Nazis and Bolsheviks were liberal
socialists, not the ultra-right-wingers they are too often portrayed as in the media.
The Messianic Zionist’s strategy is ingenious. All you need do is look for
their signs. They seek to wear their enemies down over a long, extended
period, mirroring, in this respect, the goals of the Fabian Society
(established 1884), to utterly devastate economies and incite a total
breakdown of morality in order to gut their enemies from within. They
have even been known to instigate large-scale antisemitic uprisings, for
which innocent non-Zionist Jews then suffer in their stead as scapegoat, all
this calculated as a part of their plans toward achieving their long-term
goal of world domination (there is method to this presumed madness if
you stop and simply realize how absolutely overpowering and
empowering the image of horrifically-oppressed people and their children
are to the eyes of a compassionate public).
NOTE: The Fabian Society began with 5 students who wanted to discuss
socialist policies. That same year they grew quickly and even included George
Bernard Shaw in their ranks. By 1886 their numbers were at 67 members, and
were discussing many important topics, such as how to nationalize accumulated
wealth. By 1900 they had helped form the British Labor Party, and its constitution
borrowed heavily from the Fabian founding documents. At this time the Fabians
were concerned with advocating the ideal of a scientifically planned society and
supported eugenics by way of sterilization. They gained H. G. Wells in 1904, who
 Page 135

tried to broaden its operations to effect social change. They slid in power in the
1920s, but afterward quickly turned around and have grown rapidly ever since,
numbering about 6,300 in 2009, and this is not counting their affiliated groups,
such as the Young Fabians.
Of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who these Messianic Zionists are
known to have fully financed and to have been deeply involved in their
founding and perpetuation, there are historians who have concluded that
these two dictators were purposeful products of Zionist mechanization.
They were too perfectly made-to-order, suiting an agenda to break down
freedom, democracy, and dumb-down education, and sow in their place
chaos and anarchy. And their absolute best defense was to then deny
everything and afterward act the part of the wretched victim, even though
it was the poor non-Zionist Jews who would actually do all the suffering.
Their reasoning being that persecution saves the victim from ever having
to justify their actions; persecution begets martyrdom. They have become
absolute masters at playing the victim card.
This type of financial, political, and educational manipulation by these
Khazarian Messianic Zionists is very hard for the casual observer to
initially follow, which is the real “beauty” of their overall strategy. If you
but remove the blinders that the media and the other stooges of their
manipulation had trained us to don like obedient dogs, and really take an
objective look at all of this material, it all makes a very scary sort of sense.
Being half Jewish, looking at this makes clear to me that much of this
antisemitic sentiment has been by design, though blamed on other
agencies, particularly Christians, Muslims, and Gentile governments.
Outwardly, to even address these issues might appear antisemitic, and this
stops most conscientious non-Jewish people from pursuing such a train of
thought right there, and for a Jew to do that was often treated like an act of
high treason, which gives pause to most Jewish historians (save, for
example, Bjerknes). You have to understand that the goal of these Racist
Zionists is to cast grave doubt on the targeted government, but to be sure
to redirect any resulting antisemitic retribution only onto their non-Zionist
Jewish punching bags, working to keep them separate and segregated,
persecuting them in order to force them to Palestine. However, this
strategy has so far utterly failed here in America, because, save for minor
incidents, they are not victimized here, having no right to cry racism, but
are a part of both its protected citizenry and its zealously patriotic base.
 Page 136

Zionists, or their stooges, many of them calling themselves Democrat or

Republican, but in name only, tactically criticize others for unjustifiable
spending practices, but then spend many, many times that formerly
criticized amount in their own turn, yet justify it as a worthy cause for the
good of “the people”. They will spend massive amounts of money to
“help” agencies that have no chance of remaining solvent. They will throw
money at programs that can never be solved by money. They will throw
unending torrents of money at expanding and ever more copious social
and entitlement programs, which is in itself a self-perpetuating cycle of
ever-greater spending as the less scrupulous among us move in to take
advantage of these “free-money” programs. They will throw around
frivolous huge grants like confetti to the wind. They borrow money they
cannot pay back. They print money without backing, claiming it will help
the economy, when it actually decimates it by making it weaker and less
stable. They can always expect outrage to be screamed if any of these
programs are to be necessarily trimmed back.
One of their most successful strategies is to enact programs with
negotiated annual budget increases. When negotiations dictate a lesser
increase than its advocates desire, which simply reduces the amount of the
annual increase but not of the agreed base amount, this is trumpeted as an
unacceptable “cutback” (which technically is not a cutback), and the
expected outrage is shouted.
Government schooling is the root cause of America’s failing, fashioned to
deliberately dumb down its pupils, making them more obedient to
government control. Be wary of programs ending with “Education” in its title.
NOTE: Also be sure to see the brilliant Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s web site,
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, at www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.
Such domesticated people are being trained to expect a free ride from the
government, which of course makes them more dependant upon it. Even in
our society, less than half of the people in this country actually pay taxes.
Somehow, some “liberal progressives” make 6-figure salaries but are still
able to claim food stamps, welfare benefits, other “entitlements,” and still
dodge paying taxes at all, even as they cry fowl over honest taxpayers who
want to keep more of their own hard-earned money. If you want to hear some
real outrage, tell them that they will have to work for their entitlements.
Their goal is not to help anyone but themselves. Their goal is to spiral the
economy into oblivion. Their goal is to rid the tax-paying population,
which is now a minority, of their wealth.
 Page 137

When their targeted society is crumbling, they sweep into the disorder like
heroic saviors (but I say, like jackals), promising the people everything from
freedom, food, justice, jobs, hope, change, dignity, to redistributing the
wealth of the presumed “evil rich” by making them pay what is assumed to be
their “fair share” (even though they unfairly pay too much already, the top
1% wage earners paying 40% of all taxes – but, hey, they can afford it,
right? But this is not an excuse to overtax anyone, especially in a capitalist
society).
They will enact expansive and expensive social welfare programs in the
name of “the people”, but the truth is they do not care about them at all.
The poor and downtrodden are simply easily malleable instruments that
can be turned to serve their ends. Whatever complaint a large group
lodges, even if it is petty, they will try to morph into the means to its
satisfaction. They could easily act the part of staunch conservative or the
most radical liberal, or both, which is why they are so hard to pin down.
And thus they would popularly assume total, authoritarian control of a
nation without waging war.
Do you think I am being paranoid? Do you think what I am discussing is
ridiculous? Are you so smug to think that this cannot happen even in
America? If you recognize any of these signs so far, then you decide.
I spent too many years with blinkers on, refusing to see the things that
slithered along the edges of my perception that never quite stood out in front
of me. Being one infatuated by details, I should have known much better.
Have you ever noticed over the last few decades how morality has slowly
waned, tiny bit by tiny bit, until it almost does not exist anymore? Do you
really believe this is a natural evolution? If that were so, then how is it that
these high standards of morality remained intact for the past 7 millennia
by conscientious people who have always prospered, but suddenly, in a
blink of an eye of historical record, it suddenly all fell apart? Why is it that
every single culture, from the Greeks, the Romans, the Mesopotamians,
the Egyptians, etc., once they let their moral standards slide until they
were totally corrupt, driving its successful upstanding citizens away to
newer and freer pastures, did they suddenly crumble and fall?
Have you noticed how those pushing for the relaxing of moral codes, though
they usually refer to it as individual freedom (but not in “the land of the free,
and the home of the brave” sort of freedom), seem to ask for but a modicum,
only the tiniest, most modest allowance of those freedoms, expecting the
majority moral citizens to compassionately acquiesce to allow such miniscule
changes, but such tiny tidbits can quickly add up to one day be realized as the
 Page 138

whole of the laws. Have you ever noticed those who always demand
compromise and consensus from their opponents, themselves seldom
concede, seldom forfeit, or seldom compromise? But when they do consent to
compromise, it is in name only, because the conditions of compromise are
almost always time-limited, which essentially makes such only a setback, and
hence, not a real compromise at all. Actually, the only time I have seen them
forced into a real compromise is when their opponents show some backbone
and were not afraid to push back by simply standing up for what is right.
NOTE: By this point some readers have contacted me to accuse me of being some
ultra-right-wing Republican. Actually, I had been a life-long Democrat. I am just
pragmatic, in the traditions of John F. Kennedy (D) and Ronald R. Reagan (R). I now
register as Independent.

I find it amazing how Zionists and even Fabians exploit “manufactured

outrage.” The people are told by someone that they need this or that
entitlement. Then this someone demands it from the government. If the
government denies the demand, manufactured outrage rears its ugly head
and people are told how they are being denied this promised thing. I see
this happening so many times that it is almost becoming boring.
Their goal is to impoverish people, to force them, for the sake of family, to
assistance programs. This is often helped by assistance programs that pay
better than honest labor, which will move people to such a dole system in
epidemic proportions. Just look to the Australian Dole system to see what
I mean. Once people become used to living on the “Dole”, it is hard to
break away from it, becoming a perpetuating, generational tradition.
Making people dependant on the government buys votes for those who
promote that assistance, for doler’s fear of otherwise losing it.
Have you taken a good look at frivolous but noble-looking activities, such as
the environmentalist movements? Granted, saving the planet is a very noble
endeavor that everyone should participate in, but to what extent? When does
it go overboard and transform into a cause of self-perpetuation so to remain
relevant; to becoming its own purpose; of the cause becoming the purpose
that exists for its own sake, not for the purpose for which it was founded?
Look at the fiasco over global warming, and how loudly they shouted
about saving the world from it. My personal favorite among their ranting
was the “logic” they spewed to explain years of progressively cooler
winters (when people started praying for global warming), that global
warming can “in fact” also cause global cooling, which is why they
renamed their Cause Célèbre, their Famous Cause, to Climate Change.
But their logic is a load of horse pucks, because climate always changes.
In fact, the Earth has been steadily cooling since 1998. By the way, 1998
 Page 139

was not even close to being the hottest year on record (it was 1934,
resting between two rather cool years), regardless of their mindless chants
and screaming in reaction to reason. This assumption was a result of the
famous United Nations Hockey-stick Chart, later fully discredited, having
been invented by adjusting temperature readings, and by totally removing
the Medieval Warm Period that lasted from 950 CE to about 1250 CE (the
following Mini-Ice Age began about a hundred years later in 1300 CE to
1350 CE, lasting for about 500 years until 1850 CE to 1900 CE).
The Medieval Warming Period was the warmest period in recent historical
record. The warm air and resulting higher concentration of carbon dioxide
in the air (which follows temperature change, not leading it), engendered
not the doom or horrific economic gloom (cue images of desolate crop
fields washed over by sand, dead emaciated livestock, and crying children
with gas-bloated bellies (I am not insensitive, just realistic)) predicted for
any current period of global warming, but in the most economically
prosperous period in history. Vineyards extended as far north as England,
which is why many of their streets still bear their grape-related names.
I recall in the early 1970s most of these very same environmentalists were
wailing and gnashing their teeth over Global Cooling and intoning grim
warning of an impending Ice Age. They also said that we were going to
have to fully abort petroleum consumption in order to curtail it. For
example, see Peter Gwynne’s alarmist article, The Cooling World, in the
28 April 1975 issue of NewsWeek: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf.
This all comes down to the push for a so-called Carbon Tax that many in
such organizations like the United Nations are attempting to force onto the
people of the world. This is one of the most foolhardy things I have ever
heard coming from the mouths of supposedly intelligent beings. All plant-
life on the planet, which accounts for virtually all life on Earth, consumes
CO2 as food. The more there is of it, the greater goes plant propagation. If
these environmentalists are so concerned about the world food supply
dwindling, why not promote greater concentrations of CO2 in the air to
convert ordinary crops into absolutely enormous bumper crops? The more
carbon that exists in the air, the more profusely plants will grow. And the
more abundant plant life grows, the more oxygen is consequently
generated that permeates the atmosphere. Do these boneheads not do their
homework before they spew their idiotic blather? It is not some gomer
burning trash in their back yard that is going to push CO2 concentrations
up, but the world oceans, which stores all carbon dioxide on the planet,
leaving only trace amounts of it in the air.
 Page 140

NOTE: In case you forgot, plants consume CO2 and profusely prosper from it, not
wither and die. Also, were you aware that termites produce ten times the CO2 than
humans currently produce? Maybe the United Nations should carbon tax them?
Besides if their demand that so-called “Greenhouse Gasses” be reduced,
maybe they can institute a Water Vapor Tax to accompany the Carbon
Tax, because water vapor is the most abundant of greenhouse gases, most
affecting planetary temperatures. Carbon dioxide is so insignificant that it
is only capable of affecting temperature by a tiny fraction of one percent.
Are you seeing where I am going with this, and the fingerprints of the
same overlords always hovering behind these things? Such shadows.
Similar things can be said of Labor Unions, who now exist almost entirely
for their own sake, and have grown so big that they are now starting to
bankrupt the economic prosperity of many former giant industries, which
critics have said was their purpose all along; to destroy economic stability
in order to sell people on the idea of their own socialist goals.
They started as worthy causes; to fight for worker’s rights when they had
no rights. Who is not inspired by Norma Rae, a southern textile worker
laboring under intolerable conditions, who Sally Fields portrayed so
wonderfully in the 1979 movie, who first fought against, and then along
with the union organizer, Norman Warshowsky. In fact, I not only come
from the same very tiny home town as John L. Lewis (1880-1969, the
gruff sagebrush-browed bulldog union leader behind the joining of the
AFL (American Federation of Labor) and the CIO (Congress of Industrial
Organizations) and making it a most powerful force which established the
United Steel Workers of America and helped organize millions of other
industrial workers in the 1930s), Lucas, Iowa, and his birth home was
even incorporated as the kitchen and back room of my house. In truth, he
was a total jerk, and totally intolerable to be around, but maybe he had to
be that way to leverage power to his cause.
The harshest thing I can say about the unions is their pension plan, which
looks for the entire world like a plan specifically targeted to bankrupting
everyone else but them. In a country where “pyramid schemes” are
supposed to be illegal, how is it that the union pension plan is nothing
but a giant pyramid scheme? Its design is obvious. It starts out that people
who retire collect a pension that those still working pay into. Fine. But the
longer people live, the more they will collect, which means the more
working people will have to pay in, which can push back their own
retirement age. This is further crippled by the unions spending that trust
fund on other causes and projects, such as political candidates, organizing
 Page 141

other unions, and making themselves look good by donating to charities.

This results in the company itself, in concessions to keep their labor force
working, in subsidizing the worker’s payments to help offset the
geometrically-expanding pool of collecting pensioners. To offset those
ever-increasing costs, industries must bump the cost of their goods and
services not only to pay just that offset, to move industries to regions or
countries with cheaper labor, but to also pay the ever higher wages
demanded so that the union can remain relevant by having a purpose for
which to represent its members. Probably the “gold ring” unions are the
state and federal unions, which the tax-payers, even those who do not
believe in unions, must pay into through taxation. That is simply theft.
My whole point is, why should we, or even the companies have to pay at
all into these union pension plans? There is absolutely no reason for it.
Apart from justifying their own existence, all these unions are now doing
is bankrupting more and more people, until there are no more people to
bankrupt as the economy collapses. When the economy collapses, as we
have seen in the case of Greece, where an entitlement-based government
finally ran out of money, the people were incited to take to the streets and
demand that they continue to get their free handouts when there was
nothing left to hand out. They are now under the impression that the
government owes them a living. The idea of working for their welfare
checks is unconscionable. Even Australia, which has long suffered from a
Living on the Dole epidemic simply because people wanted to treat the
needy with a dignified income, has started a program called Working for
the Dole, where people, to qualify for their welfare checks, have to
perform honest and honorable labor. Only people who believe in honest
work think that this is a joyous and thankful idea. Others shout outrage.
However, if the protesters can be caught at the right moment, they can
bring the government down, as was rampant back in the 1930s (even
France was changing governments every month or every couple of weeks),
then the government will suffer total collapse, and a “workers”
government will stand in its place, calling itself socialist, but, like all
others like them, they actually become autocratic, where the leadership
lives high on the hog while everyone else lives in squalor.
Sadly, freedom does not go out with a bang, but to the sound of applause.
However, the Zionist’s ultimate goal is not to be the people’s salvation,
but rather to make those citizens absolutely dependent upon their
government for their every need, such as work, money, food, and
medicine, all the while social and moral boundaries are shredded in the
 Page 142

name of individual freedom, yet at the same time turning brother against
brother, and even turning children against their parents, empowering and
brainwashing them, taking advantage of their adolescent senses of justice
and vengeance to be spies feared by all. This government will squeeze
citizens tightly, spy on them intently, issue mountains of rules of conduct,
and impart stiff fines for the most trivial infraction, in time totally
impoverishing and demoralizing everyone, making them too pathetic and
too lethargic to resist. Yet they will always provide them with targeted
enemies to hate and shake fists at, to vent their anger and frustration, to
blame for their ever more austere conditions. In the end citizens will
become spies just to get a piece of bread. This centralized, ultimately
powerful government would rule, dominate, and oppress these people,
confiscating all their wealth, and all this will be justified as being for their
greater common good and all done entirely “in the name of the people.”
Conspiracy theorists have assumed there is an elite order, often called the
Illuminati, who secretly control the world. Not knowing who they are,
most accuse the Freemasons, the Bohemian Grove, or Opus Dei (Latin,
“Work of God”). I now wonder in the strongest sense if this “Illuminati”
could in fact be the Khazarian Messianic Zionists, with associations by the
likes of Fabian Socialists and the above organizations. It may therefore be
ironic that you in turn might now consider me to be a conspiracy theorist.
However, all the evidence is there for anyone who will truly open their
eyes and see its clues, and to simply consider them through reason.
It plainly seems to make sense that it would be someone like them,
implementing the fewest number of assumptions (to apply Occam’s Razor
to this speculation). The hidden seat of control is said to be led by people
in very great and very powerful positions. As we have already explored,
and I only touched on material that that has stacks of books and reams of
evidence that the Zionists were indeed great barons of industry, magnates
of finance, and moguls of the press, their fingers caressing every major
seat of power, its following fanatical in their dedication and steadfast to
their mission. I cannot even imagine anyone else but them. It staggers me.
However, it has been my observation that the larger and more powerful
the central government is; the harder and more devastating will be its fall
when it finally runs out of wealthy people to filch and they have finally
printed so much un-backed money that it is completely worthless. Just
look to Greece for an example of excessive socialist entitlement programs
gone unchecked and out of control. Also refer to http://mises.org/books/TRTS and
review an 18-panel illustrated version of Friedrich A. Hyak’s “The Road
to Serfdom,” first published in 1944 by LOOK Magazine.
 Page 143

It has been pointed out, such as by columnist Ned Resnikoff at Media

Matters in an article in 2010, that the charges against the likes of the
Fabian Society are unjust. This is primarily referring to opinionist Glenn
Beck (www.theblaze.com), when he was formerly at Fox News Channel
(www.foxnews.com), regarding one of his favorite bogymen, progressive
billionaire George Soros (see http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010070056), who
attended the London School of Economics where the Fabian Society is
seated, housing the famous Fabian Window (see, for example,
http://awakeandarise.org/article/FabianWindow.htm ).

Ned also points out a list of conservatives who had attended the London
School of Economics, such as William Gale, Council of Economic
Advisors for the Bush Administration, and Richard Perle, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for the Reagan Administration; Chairman of Defense
Department Advisory Committee for the Bush Administration; fellow,
American Enterprise Institute, and many other individuals. Ted also states
that “Incidentally, Fox’s own Stuart Varney – last seen echoing Beck’s
economic doomsaying – is also a graduate of the London School of
Economics.”
He then closes by pointing out that Friedrich Hayek, who wrote the book,
“The Road to Serfdom,” taught at the same London School of Economics.
With fellow lecturer, political philosopher Karl Popper, they founded the
libertarian think tank, The Mont Pelerin Society. Ted points this out so to
mention that Popper was one of George Soros’ instructors, who was
quoted as once writing that Popper's words “struck me with the force of
revelation.”
All this is well and good, but the point is that The Fabian Society and the
London School of Economics are in no wise synonymous, nor is
membership in the society any sort of requirement for attendance at this
very august and prestigious school. This is like the Wine Taster’s Society,
the Science Club, the Dead Poet’s Society, or any other sociable
association that can be found at any number of middle- or higher-
education institutions. Just because it is at a certain school does not mean
that everyone who attends that school is an active member, or that
everyone attending wants to be a member or that everyone attending
believes one iota in the local club’s philosophy.
 Page 144

What is important to me is what Ted’s article fails to discuss. For

example, I would be very much interested in exactly how Popper’s words
struck Soros, and what revelation it awoke within him. Ted also failed to
mention that all of the conservatives he listed did not join the Fabian
Society. Ted also did not mention that Soros is a member of the Fabian
Society (see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101105111110AA8ChIf).
However, the article was an opinion piece, so its author is free to be
selective in the facts they choose in order to support their opinion, and are
not required to counterpoint with disagreeing opinions or even provide
complete details of facts that would make the data regarding these facts
complete (as I try to do).
But this I do find surprising, considering that such progressives want to
enact Equal Time rules through the Federal Communication Commission
on conservative talk radio programs so that opposing liberal/progressive
versions of the discussed issues can be voiced in a balanced environment.
NOTE: I find it interesting that these same progressives do not try to also push
this same Equal Time agenda onto liberal talk radio programs so to allow
conservatives fair play that they might also be given the opportunity to render
balancing counterpoint to liberal/progressive opinion.
I was really surprised that Ted failed to mention that as young men Hayek
and Popper were both socialists (as it seems most men are in their youth,
developing out of adolescent tribalism). Hayek was a Fabian, and Popper
a communist. But this omission, which is easy to find on the web, may be
because both young men came to become absolutely repulsed by the
corruption and instability inherent in socialism; Hayek by his economic
education at the University of Vienna under the great von Mises, and
Popper by his personal struggles while living in a commune (refer to
“Popper’s Views on Natural and Social Science” by Colin Simkin, and
“The Myth of Liberal Individualism” by Colin Bird. You can find both
books online at Google Books, http://books.google.com).
NOTE: One powerful Fabian technique is to pervert the truth by the act of
omission; leaving out the parts of the truth that do not suit their purposes. As
children we called these “white lies”. But white-lies are still lies, because they are
a shadow of the “truth”, sort-of, but without all the troublesome details, such as
the details that will get one into trouble. Seemingly innocent, they are nothing
short of being grossly deceptive.
This is the same problem that I have with the whole political correctness
gambit. To me, political correctness is simply a way to hide a lie behind
obfuscated words. Truly, it is just one more way to white-wash lies and to make a
lie sound like the truth. For example, Instead of being blind, we are now
 Page 145

visually-challenged, instead of having medical clinics, we now have wellness

centers, instead of being short, we are now vertically-impaired, and instead of
having uncontrollable diarrhea, we now have anal leakage. People who
promote this twaddle must be brain-challenged. It makes me so sick, I feel like I
might have a technicolor yawn. Being a device to hide untruth, the greatest
service we could ever do for ourselves is to simply strike political correctness
from our language.
Besides, I have always wondered why it should ever be considered too impolitic or even
too disrespectful to simply be honest with someone.

—David Ross Goben

CLOSING NOTES: I drew a great deal of this latter paper’s material from
Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in his heavily researched tome, The Manufacture and
Sale of Saint Einstein (see http://www.ivantic.net/Ostale_knjiige/SaintEinstein.pdf ). This
book is extremely long and minutely detailed, and can be a very difficult read,
with many of its included documents in their original German. Himself Jewish,
Bjerknes was so repulsed by the racism exhibited by Einstein and the Messianic
Zionists that he himself almost sounds racist in his condemnation during the first
two chapters, that it also becomes uncomfortable to read, perhaps injecting a
little too much of his own abhorrence of their opinions into the text, before finally
“calming down” by Chapter Three. However, I have checked both his sources
and other sources to verify these details, and I have come to see exactly how
dark that history he covers actually was, and how these events were able to
come about. All you need is to then read John Toland’s excellent 2-volume Adolf
Hitler, and you would more clearly understand early 20th Century Europe, its
thinking, and its politics.
You can also find other exemplary pieces of his heavily researched work at
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm.

Other sources have also been referenced, but Bjerknes provided ample
coverage that was simply rehashed by those other sources, and so I will here
credit only him. I also thought it very important, considering the subject, to
depend upon Jewish sources for this material. Of course, all of this material can
actually be gathered from a surprising number of Jewish sources.
Biblical historical data and the bloodline notes were drawn from my own heavily
researched book, A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity (cheap
pricing at www.authorhouse.com or www.authorhouse.co.uk). I might add that the Royal
House of Israel, from the Hasmonean Dynasty, appears to be a re-infusion of
Sythian Royal Blood from the royal houses from Mesopotamia. This is the line of
Benjamin, who perpetuated the Priestly Line. that produced the Royal
Hasmonean Princess Mary Magdalene, or Miriam Migdal-eder, meaning Beloved
Tower of the Flock, referring to the Beloved Daughter of Zion (see Micah 4:8). His
elder brother, Joseph, perpetuated Israel's Kingly Line, culminating in Yeshua;
Jesus.
History is not what those clenching power want you to ever understand it to be.
 Page 146

Important Reference Resources.

All the information contained herein, and much more in addition to it can
be easily found on the internet through simple web searches. Perform
searches on the following keywords, and variations thereof, to find
information for yourself:
1919 Eclipse Hilton Ratcliffe
Allen Rothwarf Johann Georg von Soldner
Annalen Der Physik Jules Henri Poincaré
Barbara Thiering Karl Schwartzschild
Big Bang Busted Katherine Blundell
Bruce Harvey Laurence Gardner
Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt Lloyd Pye
Christopher Bjerknes Mel Acherson
David Hudson Messianic Zionists
David Talbott Olinto De Pretto
Donald E. Scott Plasma Physics
Edwin Hubble Prime Matter
Einstein Plagiarism Problems in Physics
Electric Universe Richard Moody Jr
Emanuel Velikovsky S. Tolver Preston
Eric J Lerner Saturn Myth
Expansion Tectonics Sid Deutsch
Geoff Haselhurst Steven J Crothers
Geological Map of the World Steve Rawlings
George P Shpenkov Tamás Sándor Bíró
Halton Arp Wal Thornhill
Harold Aspden Youth-Redshift-Degeneracy
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
The above is of course an extremely abridged starting list. Go bug tussle
crazy expanding it, searching on anything within this document.
I remind you to be very careful about some of the information gathered;
because it can often be overly biased, promoting too zealously either for or
against a particular point of view (intuitive skepticism, a primordial
defensive instinct, can work both ways, and even by us as we review it).
 Page 147

Be cautious of text written in a too derisive or ridiculing bent, especially if it

is actually attacking the person and not the science, or if the foundation of
their own position is not detailed, but only submitted as if a “common
notion”. For example, Global Warming advocates will attack a skeptic
because they might not be a scientist or climatologist, even though Al Gore is
neither. Authors that do nothing but mock, ridicule, and belittle an opposing
opinion usually have not really taken a fair look at this opposing view, and by
such a display, they likely have absolutely no intention of doing so, when
their time could have been better spent simply explaining their own position.
Indeed, if you read someone who is attacking another, and the attack is
only of the other’s character and not of the science, it is clearly a work to
be suspicious of. For example, suppose someone is proposing a theory that
promotes the Electric Universe instead of the Relativist darling, the Big
Bang and General Relativity, which keeps a lot of money and tenure
flowing into the hands of Relativist astronomers and cosmologists,
Quantum Physicists, and Particle Physics, or even someone demonstrating
quite categorically that the Sun actually controls weather here on Earth
(actually, the data supporting this is absolutely staggering, just check out
https://youtu.be/VIAp_6FAXCY for one example of many), if they are not attacked
on the science, but on their character, or are simpley shouted down, and
especially if no actual facts, save for faked facts, such as the famously
falsified “hockey stick” chart in the United Nations Climate report, then
do not waste your time with them. True scientists do not rant and rave.
They do, however, love sharing actual data.
Oddly, some people fear pondering an opposing viewpoint because they
are actually afraid that their current opinion might change. And what,
exactly, is there to fear from that? This simply demonstrates how
entrenched in an opinion that some people get. They become so locked in
their opinion, so deathly afraid of being wrong that they abandon all
reason and live in fear of actually finding out the Truth of the matter, even
if, in the end, it does nothing but bolster their own view.
Ironically, it has been my observation that those who incessantly vomit
puissant ridicule the loudest sometimes become the most ardent advocates
of their hated target once they finally come around to grok it.
—David Ross Goben

PARTING NOTE: Have you ever noticed that after 1950, when corporations and
governments began robustly funding research, not only did results begin to more
often favor their funding, but giants in science also disappeared?
 Page 148

About the Author.

David Ross Goben is a US Military Veteran, an
independent researcher who is obsessive about
details, a professional software engineer, and
author, living his life in glorious anonymity. As
a software engineer, he has been expected to
think entirely out of the box and use intuitive
perception to develop solutions to problems that
were often assumed impossible. He says that he has been designing
software solutions since dinosaurs walked the Earth, being a systems
designer, language designer, and a compulsive developer. He has written
professional code in FORTRAN, C, C++, VB, Forth, COBOL, Pascal,
various assembler languages, and others he wants to forget, and some he
has successfully forgotten.
Of Jewish descent, he has extensively explored Biblical history, ancient
cultural thinking, and ancient slang for over three decades, which had
resulted in his seminal work: A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of
Christianity. He has written numerous books, manuals, and magazine
articles, many not credited, or authored under pen names.
His interests include the bio-mechanical origins of life, analyzing patterns
that are indicative of intelligent construction, Climate Change Myths, The
Electric Universe, Expansion Tectonics, Electron-Positron Lattice
Technology, Quartz Technology, the real truth of history, exploring the
ancient practice of Dream Walking, exploring the glaring flaws in current
Darwinian theory, Mendelian Inheritance, Cosmology, Quantum Physics,
Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Nuclear Physics. His goal is to become
as close as he can be to a Universal Scholar.
David Ross Goben
Kissimmee, FL, USA
david.ross.goben@gmail.com
 Page 149

Free Online PDF Documents Available by David Ross Goben

Four ready-to-read PDF documents are available for both online viewing
and free downloading from his public Google Drive. They are:
Open Letters Sent to Advocates for the Electric
Universe and Expansion Tectonics Theories, and
Exploring How These Theories Connect (153 pages).
Since their initial proposals, gathered evidence has only
strengthened the Electric Universe and the Expansion
Tectonics theories. In spite of this, each time additional
evidence for either of them surfaces, or another of a fast-
growing body of scientists, especially those of important
and augustly respected note, dares to declare favor for
one or the other, select advocates for presumed
‘standard’ theories pop up, like South African meerkats
alerted to an impending threat, and respond with typically
scripted salvos of protest, too frequently droning the same
old and practiced slogan-laced retorts like Gregorian
Chants, as if their need to deny the public’s access to, or
worse, their acceptance of such ideas was a matter of
personal or professional survival. And it may be no
wonder. In these last few decades, tenures, funding, and
reputations have often been decided wholly upon which
ideas, real or imagined, are accepted by the general
public. We will compare the evidence between the Electric
Universe and the Gravity-Based Universe, and between
Expansion Tectonics and Plate Tectonics. We will also
explore the long-held Prime Matter (Aether) theory that can strengthen the liquefacting sand upon
which Particle Physics now finds itself, and which also strongly links the Electric Universe with
Expansion Tectonics and makes these two models all the more plausible. So, prepare yourself for a
Gnostic rollercoaster ride through an extremely thick ocean of information and history, a great deal of
which had in the past often been intentionally obscured.

View and download this PDF document for free at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TWV3pNtp3-5l4tSodlysv5L6V80M9_44

Also available for free on Scribd.com, SlideShare.com, and through web searches.
 Page 150

Enhancing Visual Basic .NET Applications Far

Beyond the Scope of Visual Basic 6.0 (655 pages).
Transitioning from Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 (VB6) to
Microsoft Visual Basic .NET (VB.NET), at first glance,
may look to be an intimidating endeavor. After all, you
have likely heard or read through copious magazines
and blogs that there are huge differences between
these two developmental platforms. Though some of
those differences are real, most others are simply
imagined, engendered by nothing more than
unapprised conjecture. Of the real platform deviations,
most are simply due to them having to be expressed
differently; plainly because VB.NET strictly follows a
stringent pattern of uniform language syntax, which is
something VB6 was not always good at. Hence, a
programming language feature may have to be
implemented under VB.NET using a radically different
access conduit than the way it may have been realized
under VB6. Other disparities, some seen as much more
profound, actually end up being VB6 features that VB.NET does in fact support, but, again, due to tight
.NET platform architectural specifications, VB.NET cannot support them in a like manner, but may by
necessity have to utilize non-VB6-style invocation rules. Nevertheless, by employing some simple
user-defined helper functions, such as will be demonstrated throughout this document, you can easily
emulate “lost” VB6 commands, or, in most cases, make their functionality more accessible through
simpler syntax. Regardless, you will find that, overall, VB.NET supports all these many differences,
both major and minor, in but different forms, and in all it also implements much more robust
techniques to apply their functionality. Many of the “major” differences bemoaned by many VB6
purists no longer exist; having existed only in Beta releases of VB.NET, but being addressed by the
time of the initial product launch, or, in more complex cases, in later releases. The biggest problem
here is that most new VB.NET developers still approach problems the same way as they may have
faced them under VB6, or had been trained by VB6-savy developers. This book helps you to not only
break yourself free of that mold, but to really make your VB.NET application shine by example after
example of how to make what was thought to be difficult to be in fact very easy, and it also provides
you with a toolkit you can build yourself, and customized to your needs so that you can really make
your applications stand out from the rest of the pack.

View and download this PDF document for free at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iti2vRdoeywVeLb9INE-TTh6qVWyLdlg

Also available for free on Scribd.com, SlideShare.com, and through web searches.
 Page 151

Doom 3 Walkthrough and Strategy Guide (554 pages).

This is an enhanced novelized exploration into the dark
horrors of the 2004 Doom 3 adventure, perhaps one of
the scariest and most densely detailed first-person-shooter
escapades ever conceived, for both the original offering
from Id Software and their later Doom 3 BFG Edition.
This walkthrough takes you through the Doom 3
adventure at the Veteran Difficultly level, describing in
intimate detail this quest and the strategies required to
both beat this game easily and to explore areas and find
treasures that you may have never before thought existed.
Some of the most arduous battles that gamers often wail
and gnash their teeth about can sometimes be won by
using some of the simplest solutions imaginable, all
without cheat codes, but with quick thinking and actual
military techniques. For example, many players dread
facing off with the six maggots (tall man-like demons with
razor-sharp talons, two heads, and panther-like ferocity) at the
end of the Alpha Labs – Sector 1 level because they
always seem to come to great harm unless, through
sometimes pure luck or random fortune, they can hole up
in the left far corner of that locked room and hold the
massing maggot hoard at bay long enough to take them
all down in a blazing torrent of voluble gunfire, but did you know that it is actually stupidly easy to
defeat them pain-free, and on top of that you can do it in perfect safety and at your leisure? Full
descriptions of items, adversaries, strengths, weaknesses, locations, secrets and caches not
mentioned in any other guide, a dense listing of useful console command codes, and custom
modifications are covered, such as how to play at your monitor’s maximum resolution, add and/or
alter custom keyboard commands and toggles, and how to easily play Doom 3 BFG Edition on
otherwise uncooperative Windows 8.1 systems (not an issue under Windows 10), offering two fast
and very easy solutions that have worked on every system they have ever been tried.

View and download this PDF document for free at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FmksQM2JNmiijpeGw3E6y-gNOJJO8-3o

Also available for free through web searches, and on Scribd.com and SlideShare.com:
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/263771244/Doom-3-Walkthrough-and-Strategy-Guide
SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/DavidRossGoben/doom-3-walkthrough-and-strategy-guide
 Page 152

Getting Fit After 40 - A Practical No-Nonsense Guide. “A

Fitness Guidebook for Adults Over 40, Yet Useful for Adults of
Any Age, to Quickly Getting Fit, Lean, and Losing ‘Impossible-
To-Lose’ Fat.” (168 pages). This book explores exercise and
diet facts and fictions, and also the types of exercises and
foods needed to EASILY defeat the “midriff bulge” most
people get as they grow older and more sedentary. After
age 24, they might notice fat slowly accumulating around
their belly, hips, thighs and butt. This is largely due to
steadily diminishing Testosterone levels. Apart from making
a man a man, both men AND women employ it to maintain
muscle and break down body fat to release its lipids into the
bloodstream, which the body’s cells then absorb for energy.
As Testosterone slowly dwindles, our ability to build and
repair muscle and to burn fat likewise dwindles. By age 40,
when our HGH, Human Growth Hormone (our “Fountain of
Youth” hormone), begins a slow decline as well, this can
make hiding that hard-to-lose fat in time utterly impossible.

This book explains how we can EASILY restore diminishing Testosterone, HGH and many other
hormones to peak levels and quickly lose excess body fat naturally, and end up looking, feeling, and
PHYSICALLY BEING much younger, using just short exercises and a healthy diet, extending our
lives and getting the lean body we had, or should have had in our 20s! This is based on actual
scientific research and PROVEN results, not celebrity opinions, rumors, or “fad” diets!

Instead of needing to spend endless hours at the gym, you can devote but 1/2-hour each day, 4 or 5
days a week during a 12-week period following an inexpensive third-party exercise and diet program
($39.95 to $97), with no equipment except for a pair of dumbbells, in the privacy of your own home!

You will lose actual fat, not muscle-weight, as you normally lose during reduced-calorie or low-fat
diets. Reduced-calorie and low-fat “fad” diets actually force your body to stop burning fat and will in
fact add more body fat, so your body is instead forced to burn off muscle for fuel! This document will
also explain exactly why this happens and how to correct it.

You will lose all this fat-weight without “miracle” supplements, “wonder” gizmos, expensive pills or
therapies, without going on a low-fat diet, without drinking tiny shakes, and without having to eat what
looks like meals for hamsters. You will do it through simple and short anaerobic resistance exercises
and a more sober and educated understanding of your daily diet and how it and exercise actually acts
upon your physiology. You will learn how to properly fuel your body and your metabolism, which will
give you the day-and-night-running fast metabolism you may have previously just envied in others,
allowing you once more to enjoy steaks, pizzas, hamburgers, and even cheesecake, as most of us
could do guilt-free in our 20s. You will in fact burn it off before it can get to your waist. And, by
naturally elevating our Insulin and carbohydrate sensitivities, the sugars and other carbs we consume
will once again properly fuel and maintain muscle, as they should, instead of being directed to our fat
cells!

This book is free to everyone, and you are free to post it online and you can distribute free copies or
links to it as you choose. It is stored as a PDF file to minimize its size, so adding it as an email
attachment will not take much time to upload or download. You can also used a PDF version.

You can also download a PDF version, and you are free to link or distribute that, from:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HxhSddeBTOnmll68lO-nlksOxD3o-vdC
 Page 153

Also Available From the Author

A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of

Christianity (712 pages). In this book, you are going
to explore the bare-boned facts behind a broad range
of Biblical mysteries, digging deep beneath the thick
layers of misunderstood traditions, semantic
misconceptions, invented religious and political
dogma, and breath-taking, world-changing events in
history that had been willfully suppressed or
misrepresented. Like any really good who-done-it,
you will read tales of sinister deception, glorious
victory, hateful murder, intimate love, rampaging
armies, wholesale genocide, spiritual salvation, and,
as you would anticipate in such mysteries, the heroes
and villains are not always who they seem to be.
Listed below is a short list of the hundreds of things
you will herein unearth:
 The Hebrew Bible was written to build self-esteem, not to record concise history.
 King David was based upon Pharaoh Thutmosis III.
 King Solomon was based upon Pharaoh Amenhotep III.
 Moses was based upon Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV).
 Joshua (Ye-ho-shua) was based upon Pharaoh Tutankhamun (Amenhotep V).
 Joshua was the son of Moses, not of Nun, and lived only until he was 19, not 110.
 Jesus was named for Joshua, because it was believed he was his Second Coming.
 Jesus was a dynastic king; a direct descendant of the Scythian Anointed Kings.
 Jesus married Mary Magdalene, a Royal Princess, and their offspring live today.
 The Apostle John Mark was actually Mary Magdalene; the Beloved Disciple.
 Simon Zealot was of the Magi, and was one of the most brilliant men of all time.
 Lazarus raised Jesus from the grave after his crucifixion.
 Judas Iscariot was hung on a tree (ancient slang for a crucifix), not from a rope.
 Mary Magdalene was the first Pope of the Church Jesus personally established.
 Christianity and Judaism are polytheists, worshipping to this day multiple Gods.
 The Holy Spirit is the Jewish Shekinah (Presence of God); the Mother Goddess.
 The Father in Heaven (Hebrew Adon) and Yahveh are two competing deities, from ancient
Mesopotamia, and are separate to this day in the Hebrew Bible.
 Women are not half the value, but are in fact twice the value of a man.
 The Jerusalem Church was actually located in Qumrân, by the Dead Sea.
 Original Christian doctrine comes from Chapter 6 of Numbers, from the Hebrew Bible; rules
governing the Qumrân Nazarite (pronounced “Nazareth”) Order.
 The Apostolic Church has tried for centuries to exterminate Jesus’ Family Line.
 True royal blood has different genetic markers than the common population.
 The Eucharist is an ancient ceremony, using bread mixed with white powder gold.
 The reason we think non-precious metals like gold and silver valuable is spiritual.
 The Antichrist was born 8 years after Jesus, yet his sway is more powerful today.

This 712-pafe book is available from your favorite book seller, or directly from Authorhouse or
Authorhouse UK Ltd., for either $17.50USD or for £13.90UK:
www.authorhouse.com/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=33204 (ph: 1-888-519-5121)
www.authorhouse.co.uk/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=33204 (ph: 0800-1974150)
630-page free PDF download (complete, but compressed) is available at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1flgr95WRtF6KW6qJGf_XXyvbYSHPcUvy
 Page 154

Recent Important Free PDF Public Posts on my Google Drive:

Exploring the Mark of Cain Connection to the Mark of the Beast:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Dj_dKazINlMUMzaExfdzFmeDg

What Separates Man from Angels and Demons:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QS_kBTOgdl8FdfIcrpmIVt3ScYlGq_VP

Gobalist Symbolism:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Dj_dKazINlY2ZYb3NVdnlLNDQ

Exploring Ancient Christian Mystery Traditions:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iIUMrhhRLpdOorgbsV343DGCsUp6a70P