Jump to content

JWST: Big Bang is wrong?


Joshpantera
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Yes, i was aware of all these problems with the theory back in the early 1960's before the Big Bang theory (BB)  was firmly established and generally accepted as the standard model. The competing theory at that time was Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. I first favored that theory over the Big Bang before I learned more about that particular Steady State theory. When I did I saw others problems with it IMO. The alternative they discussed in this video is called Plasma Cosmology. It was being promoted in Sweden in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It is not a simpler theory and there is really little evidence to support it so few astronomers, excepting in Sweden, were proponents of the model. This theory was promoted in 1991 by the American author and physicist Erik Lerner who wrote the popular book "The Big Bang Never Happened." I bought and read this book back then, and in it I saw a great many good criticisms of Big Bang Cosmology, many of which I had already known 30 years before, but no other book that I knew of summed up the problems so well IMO.

 

When the Hubble Space Telescope went up I believed and predicted that astronomers and theorists at that time, 1990, I believed that within 5 years afterwards they would figure out that their BB theory was wrong, but only a few of them ever did. One of those that did figure it out was the British astronomer Michael J. Disney. In the link and video below he is conservative concerning his criticisms of mainstream cosmology and the BB model. , but in his writings he "blasted" the BB model as simply BS in the years following 2002.

 

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/HONR219Q/anticosmology7.pdf

 

I have been a cosmology theorist myself since the 1960's when I conceived my own model and theory, before the BB model was accepted as the standard model.  I wrote down the first complete version of my theory in 1983. I later wrote a more detailed version which I copyrighted in 1997. I drafted my first online version of it in book form in 2008, and the present online version of it was written in 2014. My theory is called the Pan Theory, link below. The reason why I've come to this site (Ex-Christian) was because somebody here at that time was discussing my theory and I found this discussion here via a search engine, and have been here ever since 2013, because of the members here :)

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

The problem with cosmology and the James Webb is explained by the video, James Webb observations totally contradict the Big Bang model. This will not be acceptable to mainstream astronomy and cosmology so that many new hypothesis more consistent with the Big Bang will be proposed. There will be no easy fix, not even the exactly correct theory. To accept what this video is saying would mean that the work of most astronomers for their entire careers have been based upon wrong theory, and observations were often misinterpreted, coming to the wrong conclusions. I think it will take them 3-4 more years to come to the proper conclusions like in this video, but before then they will come to a great many more wrong conclusions IMO. 

 

My own model is a Steady State theory that is far simpler than any other model IMO. There is no dark matter, no dark energy, Inflation, etc. It explains away all of these problems very simply with peer-reviewed published papers that are also online, with its own unique mathematics.  I also wrote papers titled a "Theory of Everything," as well as a "Grand Unified Theory." I wrote a paper in June of 2022 telling what the James Webb was going to see before it was operational, making the same predictions in the Paper that we are now observing, and which are discussed in this video.

 

It's not just that the Big Bang model is entirely wrong, most of modern physics (twentieth century physics) is also wrong IMHO. A prime example is Quantum Theory, and another wrong theory is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. There will be many more theory replacements in the coming few decades IMHO.

 

The consolation prize is that we have many great theories in other branches of science, such as the Theory of Continental Drift and the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin), both of which are supported by a mountain of evidence and can only be improved by further detail IMHO.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The source of the JWST video is Future Unity.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2jAc3ifBNVT03iLjXSRPwQ/videos

 

There are so many terrifying new discoveries being attributed to the JWST by Future Unity that surely the global mainstream media must be supressing the news!

 

🙄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betelgeuse exploded last month?

 

 

Wow!  How did I miss that?  😲

 

How did Wikipedia miss that?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

 

How did Physics Forums miss that ?  https://www.physicsforums.com/search/6748242/?q=betelgeuse&o=relevance

 

How did the Super Nova Early Warning System miss that?  https://snews.bnl.gov/

 

?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am extremely disappointed that any members of this forum fell for this obvious piece of clickbait from an obviously bogus source.

 

Shame on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I am extremely disappointed that any members of this forum fell for this obvious piece of clickbait from an obviously bogus source.

 

Shame on you!

 

Obviously this video is not the mainstream point of view. It is the point of view of Plasma Cosmologists and some non-mainstream theorists such as myself. Obviously the opinion had nothing to do with the publisher. They publish possible sensationalism which brings in viewers. But I didn't hear anything in the video that I did not  agree with or believe was true concerning what the James Webb is observing and its interpretation. As I said above, it will likely take them 3-4 years to figure out that most of the BB criticisms, as  observed by the James Webb and explained by the video above, will be shown to be correct IMO. My own prediction paper explained almost all the same BB contradictions they are observing and will observe, but still it was not as good at explaining these problems as was this video IMO.

 

Did you view my video on Mike Disney above? He explained many of the same BB problems and his view that the BB model is wrong as also explained by this video. Months before these JWST observations, even years before, I explained here exactly how  the BB model would be shown to be wrong and by what observations, and eventually proven to be entirely wrong IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Obviously this video is not the mainstream point of view. It is the point of view of Plasma Cosmologists and some non-mainstream theorists such as myself. Obviously the opinion had nothing to do with the publisher. They publisher realized possible sensationalism which brings in viewers. But I didn't hear anything in the video that I did not believe was true concerning what the James Webb is observing. As I said above, it will likely take them 3-4 years to figure out that most of the BB criticisms, as  observed by the James Webb and explained by the video above, will be shown to be correct IMO. My own prediction paper explained almost all the BB contradictions they will observe, but still it was not as good at explaining these problems as was this video IMO.

 

Did you view my video of Mike Disney above? He explained the great many BB problems and his view that the BB model is wrong as also explained by this video. Months before these JWST observations, even years before, I explained here exactly how  the BB model would be shown to be wrong and by what observations, and eventually proven to be entirely wrong IMO.

 

 

Pantheory,

 

Any source that claims that a star like Betelgeuse has gone supernova when it clearly hasn't isn't worth my time.

 

Nor will I spend any time or effort filtering out the falsehoods from the genuine items of news.

 

As far as I'm concerned the only reliable source for bona fide information about the JWST data is from peer-reviewed papers submitted through the proper channels.

 

FYI, a Muslim apologist called  Eemaan used to post You Tube videos in this forum that claimed that science proved that Allah was the creator.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/search/?q=eemaan&quick=1

 

You Tube can be used by anyone to claim anything and it lacks the necessary scientific rigor to be a reliable source.

 

That is why I am disappointed that people who should know better gave credence to something before properly checking where it came from.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Half a second of googling and this:

 

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang | Space

 

People take quotes like this: "Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong." and then run off saying see BB is wrong, or evolution fake, or ancient aliens or whatever particular sauce is hottest at the time.

 

From the linked article:

"The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking."

 

In other words, as new data comes to light theories are updated to reflect that. It would take substantially more contradictory data and years of research to overturn any established theory.

 

Now, I'm not saying that BB will never be overturned, who knows what we will uncover in the years to come, but I agree with Walter that some gonk on YT isn't going to cut it.

 

(Also I have a strong disinclination to take seriously any youtube video that states something along the lines of "X proves or disproves Z" or the "TRUTH (TM) about xyz" )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2022 at 3:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Half a second of googling and this:

 

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang | Space

 

People take quotes like this: "Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong." and then run off saying see BB is wrong, or evolution fake, or ancient aliens or whatever particular sauce is hottest at the time.

 

From the linked article:

"The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking."

 

In other words, as new data comes to light theories are updated to reflect that. It would take substantially more contradictory data and years of research to overturn any established theory.

 

Now, I'm not saying that BB will never be overturned, who knows what we will uncover in the years to come, but I agree with Walter that some gonk on YT isn't going to cut it.

 

(Also I have a strong disinclination to take seriously any youtube video that states something along the lines of "X proves or disproves Z" or the "TRUTH (TM) about xyz" )

 

 

As I said above as well as before the James Webb went up: it will take the mainstream 3-4 years to figure it out and realize nearly everything in the posted video discussed in the OP link is valid. Why will it take them so long to figure it out? Because what the JWST is observing is totally contrary to BB predictions and if they simply except that fact they would have nowhere to go via theory. So they must struggle to explain what is being observed without admitting that it is totally contrary to BB cosmology and that most every interpretation and supposed discoveries they have made in their lifetimes have been wrong interpretations of observations IMHO.

 

Here is a paper saying many of the same things said in the OP video, but maybe harder to understand for the novice. It was published before the JWST went up, so many theorists like myself knew exactly what the James Webb would observe before it went up, then published their paper predictions explaining the contrary observations as I did.

 

https://www.lppfusion.com/storage/Will_LCDM_survive_JWST.pdf

 

LogicalFallacy, In your link above they are discussing a prior written acknowledgement that what the JWST was observing seemed totally contrary to mainstream theory. This discussion had nothing to do with explaining the details of the contrary observations as did the video in the OP. This video went into great detail concerning explanations of James Webb observations, alternative interpretations that I believe cannot and will not be correctly explainable by mainstream astronomy, even though they will continue to try for years, mostly getting it continuously wrong IMO, until eventually the standard BB model will certainly fall IMHO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2022 at 3:31 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Betelgeuse exploded last month?

 

 

Wow!  How did I miss that?  😲

 

How did Wikipedia miss that?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

 

How did Physics Forums miss that ?  https://www.physicsforums.com/search/6748242/?q=betelgeuse&o=relevance

 

How did the Super Nova Early Warning System miss that?  https://snews.bnl.gov/

?

 

I think this was the Betelgeuse explosions those stories were talking about, explosions that occurred based upon HSTS observations in 2019 and 2020, and reported in greater detail and context in August of 2022.

 

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2022/news-2022-037

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 9/13/2022 at 6:31 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Betelgeuse exploded last month?

 

 

Wow!  How did I miss that?  😲

 

How did Wikipedia miss that?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

 

How did Physics Forums miss that ?  https://www.physicsforums.com/search/6748242/?q=betelgeuse&o=relevance

 

How did the Super Nova Early Warning System miss that?  https://snews.bnl.gov/

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think this was the Betelgeuse explosions those stories were talking about, explosions that occurred based upon HSTS observations in 2019 and 2020, and reported in greater detail and context in August of 2022.

 

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2022/news-2022-037

 

That's interesting but has nothing to do with new observations contradicting BBT, again. More tweaking, manipulating, stretching here or there, is required, again, to try and apologize away the fact that observation keeps contradicting theory. The whole thing is very convoluted and the fact that a christian priest first set the theory forward has always been suspect to me. For decades now. What most people don't realize is that the whole thing is an attempt at "creation ex nihilo." But that's never worked out. The singularity was falsified and all of that. Penrose and others keep looking to cyclic models to make sense of it. The bottom line is that the BBT is merely the most current useful fiction in a long line of useful fictions that have been set forward. And it will certainly fade out, we seem to be getting closer and closer to the end of its usefulness. 

 

14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

From the linked article:

"The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking."

 

No doubt, more "tweaking." The problem is that the tweaking will eventually run out of rope. Wrong is wrong, and if the theory wasn't ever right from the outset (if the catholic priest wasn't right in the first place) then it should die of its own accord. 

 

14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

In other words, as new data comes to light theories are updated to reflect that. It would take substantially more contradictory data and years of research to overturn any established theory.

 

Now, I'm not saying that BB will never be overturned, who knows what we will uncover in the years to come, but I agree with Walter that some gonk on YT isn't going to cut it.

 

The question is how long will they kick the can down the road before running out of road? Same general question with religion and christianity. The rope has been running out, but as to when it completely dies off, who knows. I'm glad to have to caught onto to the bullshit. Especially where christians have influenced modern science in ways that most people don't see a lot of the time. There's some bullshit involved in the way in which science broke away from the church. Which hasn't been fully rectified yet. 

 

All of this is why debate against christianity has to lean lightly on cosmology, and lightly on particle physics. There's so many other ways to illustrate what's wrong with christianity without appealing to sure to change theories that have no firm basis in reality anyways. It just sets people up for future failure, basically. Unless it's navigated very carefully with attention to the speculative nature of it all. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
11 hours ago, pantheory said:

As I said above as well as before the James Webb went up: it will take the mainstream 3-4 years to figure it out and realize nearly everything in the posted video discussed in the OP link is valid. Why will it take them so long to figure it out? Because what the JWST is observing is totally contrary to BB predictions and if they simply excepted that fact they would have nowhere to go via theory. So they must struggle to explain what is being observed without admitting that it is contrary to BB cosmology and that most every interpretation and supposed discoveries they have made in their lifetimes have been wrong interpretations of observations IMHO.

 

Where have we seen and heard that before???

 

How many apologists struggle to explain what is being observed versus their pet creation myth in Genesis? Seriously, there is a parallel going on here. A catholic priest, invested in the belief that Genesis must be correct somehow, devises this contradictive paradox. And then people get fooled into buying it just because of pre-mature interpretations of red shift and CBR. But even then, it never quite works out. Following a catholic priest down a false rabbit hole probably wasn't a smart decision to begin with. 

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

Here is a paper saying many of the same things said in the OP video, but maybe harder to understand for the novice. It was published before the JWST went up, so many theorists like myself knew exactly what the James Webb would observe before it went up, then published their paper predictions explaining the contrary observations as I did.

 

https://www.lppfusion.com/storage/Will_LCDM_survive_JWST.pdf

 

LogicalFallacy, In your link above they are discussing a prior written acknowledgement that what the JWST was observing seemed totally contrary to mainstream theory. This discussion had nothing to do with explaining the details of the contrary observations as did the video in the OP. This video went into great detail concerning explanations of James Webb observations, alternative interpretations that I believe cannot and will not be correctly explainable by mainstream astronomy, even though they will continue to try for years, mostly getting it continuously wrong IMO, until eventually the standard BB model will certainly fall IMHO.

 

I've been seeing a lot of this lately. I look forward further discovery. But there's another glaring issue to be addressed. What we perceive "out there," as in the entire objective universe, could be nothing more than something that we as a species project outward from ourselves, with no real basis in whatever objective reality actually exists "out there." That's the biggest elephant in the room right now. And there's a few elephants, not just one. There are several issues on the table that stand to change the face of cosmology and particle physics in fundamental ways. All the more reason to keep close to the agnostic aspect of agnostic-atheism. It's the firmer ground. Our lack of knowing is the truest truth we have to hold on to.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think this was the Betelgeuse explosions those stories were talking about, explosions that occurred based upon HSTS observations in 2019 and 2020, and reported in greater detail and context in August of 2022.

 

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2022/news-2022-037

 

The video about Betelgeuse mentions the same data, Pantheory.  But that in no way excuses the clickbait title of that video, which I paste below.

 

Betelgeuse Is FINALLY Exploding in August 2022!

 

Finally means a supernova explosion, which occurs at the end of a red supergiant's life.  Finally does not mean a further outburst or dimming event.

 

This is why I don't trust Future Unity site.  They peddle sensationalism and not scientific rigor.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another piece of shit from Future Unity.

 

James Webb Telescope's Terrifying Discovery of City Lights!

1,812,548 views Aug 23, 2022 Scientists at NASA had no idea what they were signing up for when they launched their state-of- the-art James Webb Telescope on 25th December 2021 from the Guiana Space Centre. Astronomers were expecting to find clues for life in the atmosphere of distant planets and galaxies. But little did they know that the first images to arrive from the JWST will revolutionize the way we perceive outer space. The mysterious light detected by the incredibly powerful telescope in one of the images might just be the evidence we needed to confirm that another planet out there could have signs of life. NASA has just released the first pictures captured by JWST and the American President Joe Biden has accurately called this mission "a new window into the history of our universe". NASA Administrator Bill Nelson had promised that soon enough humanity will get an utterly unique view of the cosmos, unlike any that we've seen before Disclaimer Fair Use: 1. The videos have no negative impact on the original works. 2. The videos we make are used for educational purposes. 3. The videos are transformative in nature. 4. We use only the audio component and tiny pieces of video footage, only if it's necessary.
 
DISCLAIMER: Our channel is purely made for entertainment purposes, based on facts, rumors, and fiction.
 
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing.
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JWST science data is not made for the purpose of pure entertainment.

 

The JWST science data is not based on rumours.

 

The JWST science data is not fiction.

 

Furthermore, it is impossible for the JWST to see city lights on distant exoplanets.  https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/09/01/nasas-webb-takes-its-first-ever-direct-image-of-distant-world/   The exoplanet in question (HIP 65426b) is a gas giant almost the same diameter as Jupiter.  https://www.universetoday.com/22710/jupiter-compared-to-earth/  HIP 65426b appears as a fuzzy blob of pixels in the JWST images.  An Earth-sized planet would barely register on the JWST instruments, being ten to eleven times smaller.  And the lights of cities on such planets would be totally undetectable.

 

 

 

Once again I am extremely disappointed in certain members who should check their source material before posting it or defending it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The JWST science data is not made for the purpose of pure entertainment.

 

The JWST science data is not based on rumours.

 

The JWST science data is not fiction.

 

Furthermore, it is impossible for the JWST to see city lights on distant exoplanets.  https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/09/01/nasas-webb-takes-its-first-ever-direct-image-of-distant-world/   The exoplanet in question (HIP 65426b) is a gas giant almost the same diameter as Jupiter.  https://www.universetoday.com/22710/jupiter-compared-to-earth/  HIP 65426b appears as a fuzzy blob of pixels in the JWST images.  An Earth-sized planet would barely register on the JWST instruments, being ten to eleven times smaller.  And the lights of cities on such planets would be totally undetectable.

 

 

 

Once again I am extremely disappointed in certain members who should check their source material before posting it or defending it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Well, I'm very happy for the OP posting of the video because I believe everything discussed in it, and every interpretation by it, is very likely correct. The  production of the video and its appearance is extremely well done and accurate IMO, I believe the executive producer and writer (or at least the technical advisor) of the video script probably was Eric Lerner, who  wrote the book the Big Bang Never Happened back in 1991. He has been very active in cosmology at least since the early 1980's, according to my readings. His primary field of study and work since about 2000 has been nuclear fusion. Like the OP, I think the video title probably should have had a question mark behind it instead of an exclamation mark so as not to offend astronomers viewing it.

 

https://www.plasma-universe.com/eric-lerner/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pantheory said:

 

Well, I'm very happy for the OP posting of the video because I believe everything discussed in it, and every interpretation by it, is very likely correct. The  production of the video and its appearance is extremely well done and accurate IMO, I believe the executive producer and writer (or at ;east technical advisor) of the video script probably was Eric Lerner, who  wrote the book the Big Bang Never Happened back in 1991. He has been very active in cosmology at least since the early 1980's, according to my readings. His primary field of study and work since about 2000 has been  nuclear fusion. Like the OP, I think the video probably should have had a question mark behind it instead of an exclamation mark so as not to offend astronomers viewing it.

 

https://www.plasma-universe.com/eric-lerner/

 

I'm not an astronomer and I was offended by it, Pantheory.

 

I've just shown in the CITY LIGHTS ON DISTANT EXOPLANETS video that Future Unity is an untrustworthy site peddling clickbait, entertainment, rumour and fiction.

 

If you want to give credence to such crap then that's up to you.

 

But my opinion about Ex-C members who do this remains unchanged.

 

 

However, I do have a question for you.

 

Do you want to see the demise of the Big Bang theory so much that you are prepared to promote and defend clickbait?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 8:46 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm not an astronomer and I was offended by it, Pantheory.

 

I've just shown in the CITY LIGHTS ON DISTANT EXOPLANETS video that Future Unity is an untrustworthy site peddling clickbait, entertainment, rumour and fiction.

 

If you want to give credence to such crap then that's up to you.

 

But my opinion about Ex-C members who do this remains unchanged.

 

 

However, I do have a question for you.

 

Do you want to see the demise of the Big Bang theory so much that you are prepared to promote and defend clickbait?

 

 

 

I don't know the meaning of Click bait, Let me look it up.  OK, I get it.

 

No, Since I know it will take years for the BB theory to be overthrown, I would want everything concerning its downfall to be above board. Unless my model is chosen as the alternative to the BB because of its mathematics and my promotion of it around the world, I probably will also be critical of the mainstream's chosen alternative to the BB. But if it's a steady state model of some kind, at least it won't be entirely wrong like the BB model is IMO. I don't think they will choose Eric Lerner's Plasma Cosmology model either because there is little evidence to support it according to my readings and understanding of it,

 

As I said above, I am equally as interested in the overthrow of Quantum theory, and the standard model of particle physics. Both of these models (theories) are almost as ridiculous as the BB model is IMHO. Their advantage is that at least a little of these theories is correct IMO so that at least small parts of them do not have to be discarded like the entire BB ΛCDM theory.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding of the OP video, there are no incorrect facts within this video IMO. . It would have been better and more acceptable iMO if the video would have said: "based upon the observations of the JWST so far, it appears that the Big Bang theory could likely be wrong,"  instead of saying "the James Webb proves the Big Bang Theory is wrong!" The entire video is based upon alternative interpretations of James Webb's observations, not new "facts" that could be wrong. The mainstream, on the other hand, must take a very very very long time trying to explain these same observations, which they will never be able to do correctly if the Big Bang model is wrong. Obviously mainstream astronomers and theorists will interpret these observations differently. But in many years time I believe they will eventually understand the validity of this video and its related interpretations, because it will be very difficult for the mainstream to come up with any consensus agreement concerning what these observations are really showing if they will not be able to understand them in the near future, which is my opinion.

 

And the only one attesting to the validity, quality, and integrity of this report and video here so far is me  :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.