Thursday, March 24, 2011


There is some dispute, but the results could be disastrous. 10 feet
that's TEN FEET
of rain, and both central valleys of California flooded, landslides 
and rockslides likely.


Sunday, March 20, 2011

Third Secret of Fatima - hints it contains a message about disaster

1. In Sister Lucia’s fourth memoir, written in December, 1941, as was
corroborated by the Vatican booklet on the Third Secret published on
June 26, she added the words: "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will
always be preserved, etc." to the text of the first two parts of the Secret of
Fatima. These additional words immediately follow the statement: "In the
end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate
Russia to me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be
granted to the world."

This words led almost every reputable Fatima scholar to conclude that the
reference to "the dogma of the Faith in Portugal" was the first sentence of
the Third Secret, which contains further words of Our Lady.

2. It is known that, in 1952, Father Schweigl was sent by Pope Pius XII to
interview Sister Lucia about the Secret. After the interview, Father Schweigl
told Frere Michel, in a letter to him, that the Secret has two parts. One
concerns the Pope and the other is the continuation of those words "In
Fatima the dogma of the faith will always be preserved".

According to the September l983 issue of Queen Magazine, published by the
Mantfort Fathers-Bayshore in New York, German magazine Stimme des
Glaubens has published Pope John Paul II’s conversation with a small group
of German Catholics, on the occasion of his visit to Fulda, in November of
1980, related to the content of third part of Fatima prophecy. Relevant parts
of the conversation were as follows:

Question: "Holy Father, what has become of the 3rd Secret of Fatima?
According to Our Lady's instructions, wasn't it supposed to be revealed in
1960? And what will happen in the Church?"

Response of the Holly Father: "Because of the seriousness of its contents,
in order not to encourage the world wide power of Communism to carry out
certain coups, my Predecessors in the Chair of Peter have diplomatically
preferred to withhold its publication

On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this much.
If there is a message in which it is said that the oceans will flood entire sections
of the earth, that, from one moment to the other, millions of people will perish,
there is no longer any point in really wanting to publish this secret message.
Many want to know merely out of curiosity, or because of their taste for
sensationalism, but they forget that to know implies for them a responsibility.
It is dangerous to want to satisfy one's curiosity only, if one is convinced that
we can do nothing against a catastrophe that has been predicted."

At this point, the Holy Father took hold of his Rosary and said: "Here is the
remedy against the evil! Pray, pray and ask for nothing else. Put everything in
the hands of the Mother of God! We must be prepared to undergo great trials
in the not-to-distant future, trials that will require us to be ready to give up
even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your
prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer
possible to avert it, because it is only in this way that the Church can be
effectively renewed. How many times, indeed, has the renewal of the Church
been effected in blood? This time, again, it will not be otherwise."

The following is from an interpretation from a not very Christian sounding
perspective, but contains a few insights, especially about the mirror

an effort at interpretation relied so much on stellar symbolism and
so forth that I don't think it is that helpful. However, this part of it
struck me

" 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front
of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy

"Interpretation: Like passing a mirror, we soon saw the entire Universe
backwards from what we had seen before. Left was right. Up was down...."

and goes on to discuss polar physical flip (not just magnetic) and/or severe
crustal displacement, which would result in seeing the southern stars
where once we saw the northern ones, and the means of telling time at
night and direction and location by the stars so disrupted as to be almost

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Well, folks, maybe there is a planet X after all.

Planet X aka Nibiru is mostly the product of the wild imagination
of Zechariah Sitchin. this site shows what is seriously
wrong with him.

And the idea that Planet X must be out there, perturbing the Oort
Cloud is not a necessary, because there are other explanations.

But.....according to the article accessable by clicking on the 
title of this post, when Clyde Tombaugh went looking for an 
extra planet, it was perturbations of the orbits of Neptune 
and Uranus that had his attention.

And Pluto's mass was not enough to explain these perturbations,
so he kept looking, but found nothing, because he was looking 
in the northern section.

But if something is hiding out in the southern section, visible 
only to a few observatories way south, incl. the new one at 
Antarctica (odd place to put a telescope), then that would fit.

This thing is probably NOT some humongous thing like the
size of Saturn, and doesn't need to get real near to Earth 
during an oblique swing by through the solar system, to 
be upsetting. 

In addition to the disruptions by affecting the sun, which would
then disrupt everything else, All these stressors could cause
a crustal displacement and axis tilt of the Earth. Volcanic winter
and various catastrophes. California coast is toast, ditto the 
East coast and Gulf coast, permanently. Appalachian foothill
towns and California eastern side towns become fishing 
villages, and maybe some smart people will adopt the live
on a flotilla of small boats 24/7 style of some people in Hong
Kong or wherever that is. Wisconsin gone, and the 
Mississippi River becomes 50 miles wide. That's just us, I 
have no idea what will happen to other countries, but any
elevation to 100 feet will probably end up permanently
under water, and if not permanently at least subject to serious
tsunami action (think 1,000 foot wave at least in some 

There is some oblique reasons to believe that the Third
Secret of Fatima has some relevance to all this.

But what is far more likely, is that this thing stays out there 
and what the real problem is, is the asteroids it can kick in
this direction. Apparently the elites and Continuity of 
Government crowd in the USA, and equivalents in Russia 
and elsewhere, have been acting for a long time like they
expect something is coming. The window seems to be
AD 2012-2014.

Right now, and for some time before, preparedness and
survivalist suppliers of survival food complain of FEMA
buying up such huge supplies, that they can't get the 
stuff they need to sell to their customers. Hmmmm. some
of that behavior could just be an effort to replace what 
was given away already because of Katrina, and maybe
some foreign aid. 

Monday, March 14, 2011

We just might be at the center of the universe after all

arXiv:physics/0102098 28 Feb 2001
Flaws In The Big Bang Point To GENESIS, A
New Millennium Model Of The Cosmos: Part 7 —
Discovery Of A Nearby Universal Center Is The
Smoking Gun Signature Of GENESIS That
Overturns Big Bang’s Cosmological Principle
Robert V. Gentry
The Orion Foundation
P. O. Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912
28 February 2001
Discovery of flaws in the expansion hypothesis reported in Parts
2 and 5 has led to the additional discovery of astronomical proof of
a nearby universal Center. In particular, Part 5’s disproof of spacetime
expansion invalidates explaining the Hubble redshift relation in
terms of expansion redshifts, thereby exposing the Cosmological Principle
as a fallacious concept. Without this Principle it is now evident
that the spherical symmetry dictated by the Hubble relation must now
be seen as proof of the existence of a nearby universal Center. This
conclusion is overwhelmingly supported by the Galaxy also being at
the center of the Gamma Ray Burster distribution, as well as by the
unequivocal implications of certain cosmic inhomogeneities which have
thus far received little attention, specifically meaning definite peaks in
certain quasar redshift distributions. Confirmation of the New Redshift
Interpretation’s postulate of a nearby universal Center validates
its explanation of the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K CBR, thus
explaining why the NRI has been adopted as the astrophysical framework
This paper details the discovery of the fallacious nature of the Cosmological
Principle and why proof of a nearby universal Center is a another smoking
gun signature of GENESIS. Part 2 of this series discussed why cosmologists
found it necessary to propose this Principle as an adjunct for big-bang cosmology.
Actually this ‘Principle’ has never been a true experimentally-based
principle at all. Instead it has simply been the speculative idea that the universe
is everywhere the same. The validity of this speculation has always
hinged on two underlying assumptions, the first being that the universe is
relativistically governed by the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime
paradigm. Part 5 showed this expansion hypothesis is fatally flawed, which
disproves one of this Principle’s two underlying assumptions.
The second underlying assumption is disproven by our discovery of several
lines of astronomical proof of a nearby universal Center, proof that
astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists have long been aware of, but
somehow failed to recognize its true significance. Disproof of both assumptions
means the speculation about the universe being everywhere the same
has always been just a fictional concept needed to support the big bang.
Thus our discovery of the fallacious nature of the Cosmological Principle
combines our discovery of flaws in the expansion hypothesis with our discovery
of astronomical proof of a nearby universal Center.
One of the most important parts of that astronomical proof is none
other than Hubble’s 1929 discovery of a redshift-distance relation for certain
galaxies he had observed [1]. A Doppler interpretation of the redshifts
implied a linear velocity-distance relation would hold universally if galaxies
with greater redshifts were observed to follow the same relation. Subsequent
observations confirmed the original result, proving that the universe must
be spherically symmetric about the Galaxy. Ockham’s razor — the litmus
test for all new observations in all fields of scientific endeavor — virtually
demanded that this simplest interpretation of universal, ordered recession
from a nearby Center quickly receive the closest attention.
Instead of an open-minded approach to this possibility, Hubble’s 1937
book reveals a strong bias against it [2], “Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... . The hypothesis cannot
be disproved, but it is unwelcome, ... But the unwelcome supposition of
a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” (pp. 50-51) Later he
added, “Such a favored position ... is intolerable; moreover, it represents
a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.”
Hubble’s decision to promote ‘theory’ while denying the straightforward
interpretation of the observational data is foreign to modern experimental
physics. The ‘theory’ is of course the Cosmological Principle, which Hubble
admitted was only, “... a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals
strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable
consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from
our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may
be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the
assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe,
no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike.” (p.54)
Hubble not only ignored Ockham’s razor in interpreting his data, he
made every effort to make a contrived explanation appear as reasonable
as possible. Rarely if ever has a fundamental premise of a new scientific
theory been promoted and accepted with nothing more substantial than the
strong bias of its leading proponents. Ignoring the obvious, astronomers and
cosmologists united in a consensus in interpreting the Friedmann-Lemaitre
spacetime solutions of the field equations as a viable explanation of the Hubble
redshift relation. This nicely avoided the ‘horror’ of a universal center
[2, p.59]. That consensus had been developing since 1931, when Eddington
was alerted to Lemaitre’s 1927 expanding spacetime solution to the field
equations [3,4]. Between 1931 and Hubble’s 1937 book, it was additionally
found that, in 1922 and 1924, Friedmann had previously discovered [5,6]
Lemaitre’s solutions.
Despite its wide acceptance certain notable cosmologists have occasionally
expressed doubts about this Principle over the past few decades. In
1978 Weinberg described it as the [7], “ great uncertainty that hangs
like a dark cloud over the standard model.” A decade later Hawking made
an equally frank admission, saying [8], “... it might seem that if we observe
all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center
of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe
might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.
This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no
scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on
grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the
same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe
Peebles has added to this, saying [9], “Might we be at the center of an inhomogeneous
but spherically symmetric universe?”, only to conclude shortly
thereafter that, “... the best argument against a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous
universe is that the Milky Way does not appear to be a special
galaxy, nor does it seem to be in a special place.”
That eminent cosmologists could openly describe the Cosmological Principle
as being under “a dark cloud’, or that it should be accepted “only on
grounds of modesty,” or that the “Milky Way does not appear to be a special
galaxy, nor does it seem to be in a special place,” without awakening serious
inquiry of this topic in astronomical and astrophysical journals, shows how
deeply this hypothesis is entrenched in modern cosmology.
More proof of this comes from: (i) Fishman and Meegan’s 1995 review
of Gamma-Ray Bursters (GRBs), wherein they noted [10], “The isotropy
and inhomogeneity of the [gamma-ray] bursts show only that we are at the
center of the apparent burst distribution,” and (ii) Woolsey’s 1995 review,
wherein he noted [11], “The observational data show conclusively that the
Earth is situated at or very near the center of the gamma-ray burst universe.”
These evaluations occurred before GRBs were discovered to be at
cosmological distances. Now that this has been confirmed [12], it is obvious
that GRBs unambiguously prove a nearby universal Center does exist.
Yet the astronomical literature has remained deafeningly silent about this
One occasion where a universal Center was mentioned as a possible interpretation
of astronomical data occurred over two decades ago. Varshni
reported — on the basis of quasar redshift data then available — that the
quasar redshift distribution exhibited certain peaks and suggested there were
only two interpretations of the data [13]. Either there was some intrinsic
phenomena responsible for these peaks, which was the option he favored, or
that quasar redshifts are of cosmological origin, in which case they must be
clustered into different spherical shells. He argued it was unreasonable to
consider the latter option because such an interpretation would prove the
cosmos had a universal Center near the Earth.
Most interesting in this respect is Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar’s recent
book [14], particularly the section in Chapter 23 titled, “Peculiarities in the
redshift distribution.” There we find the following statements:
“Among all of the observational discoveries of the past 30 years, it has
been those which involve the measured redshifts which cause the most problems.
They are so difficult to understand and so unexpected, that discussion
of them has been almost completely left out of other books on cosmology.”
“We have described some of the data in Chapter 11 and have tried to
take these into account in our theoretical discussion. But there are some
phenomena that we have not so far described since we also have not been
able to understand or explain them. Nevertheless we have concluded that they
cannot be ignored since we believe that the data are good and will ultimately
affect our view of the universe.”
They next discuss the results of Tifft [15], who has made repeated claims
of observing differential redshifts in certain nearby galaxy groups, and of confirmatory
observations by Guthrie and Napier [16], among others, in finding
evidence of quantized redshifts in normal galaxies within the local supercluster
with a periodicity cΔz = 37.6 kms−1. Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar
acknowledge these results are so puzzling that they have been completely
ignored by the astronomical and cosmological community [14], adding that
in more than 20 years no one has been invited to talk about these data at
any of the many cosmological conferences devoted to big bang cosmology.
Also discussed are peculiarities in quasar redshifts that appeared as early
as 1968, when the redshift distribution of a certain class of quasars was
found to be quantized [17] with Δz = 0.061. In 1990 more than 700 quasars
were known, and in this larger set the peaks again appeared, especially at
z = 0.061 [18]. Also cited are other statistical studies of certain quasar
populations, showing the strong periodicity is real, the exact value being
Δz = 0.0565. It is further noted that the significance of this value is increased
when the redshifts are transformed to the galactocentric frame [19] and
that a redshift histogram of 7300 quasars shows obvious redshift peaks at
z 0.3, 1.4 and 1.9 − 2.0 [14,20].
Just as impressive are the more recent confirmatory results of Burbidge
and Napier [21], who report redshift periodicity for: (i) quasars close to
companion galaxies, (ii) binary or multiple quasars, (iii) X-ray sources close
to bright active galaxies which, on investigation turn out to be quasars, and
(iv) the 3C and 3CR quasars, which effectively comprise a complete sample.
Especially impressive is their confirmation that the redshift distributions of
the samples which exhibit peaks with a periodic separation of ∼ 0.089 in
log(1 + z), are now found to include higher redshift peaks, z = 2.63, 3.45
and 4.47, as predicted by the formula, but not previously seen [21].
Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar interpret these peaks in terms of an intrinsic
redshift effect, which they are presently unable to identify [14], while
admitting that they have uncovered some “... phenomena whose origins we
do not understand either within the framework of the big-bang cosmology
or within the framework of the QSSC. But there is no excuse for ignoring
observations which do not apparently fit into a picture which is largely based
on some well accepted results, but also a number of preconceived ideas.”
It is to their very great credit that these researchers have so openly
faced this controversial topic and forthrightly admitted their own and others’
inability to fit these observations within either the big bang or their own
Quasi-Steady-State Cosmology. As they say, there is no excuse for ignoring
observations just because they do not fit the prevailing cosmological dogma.
Since observations are a primary criteria for formulating a realistic model
of the cosmos, how interesting it is that: (i) The quantized redshifts reported
by Tifft [15] and confirmed by Guthrie and Napier [16], (ii) the inhomoge-
neous quasar redshift distributions reported by Varshni [13], and (iii) the
quantized and inhomogeneously distributed quasar redshifts reported by Hewitt
and Burbidge [20], discussed by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar [14], and
very recently confirmed by Burbidge and Napier [21], can all be understood
within the framework of the universe demanded by the Hubble redshift relation
and the inhomogeneously distributed GRBs — a universe that possesses
a nearby universal Center. So we see that what was previously an astronomical
mystery in the big-bang scenario, a topic which was too sacrosanct
to be discussed openly in the literature, now finds a natural explanation in
the GENESIS astrophysical framework of the cosmos.
Summary —
Early on, Hubble recognized the Ockham’s razor interpretation of his
redshift relation was the existence of a nearby universal center. But in his
1937 book he reveals a strong bias against the Galaxy occupying a unique
position in the universe. He admitted this hypothesis could not be disproved,
but argued it was an unwelcome supposition, a horror, that must
be avoided at all costs, because it represents a discrepancy with the theory,
which postulates homogeneity. Hubble admitted it was a sheer assumption.
Nevertheless, he demanded that there must be no favored location in the
universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike in order to
maintain belief in F-L expansion and the Cosmological Principle.
Hubble’s decision to promote ‘theory’ while denying the straightforward
interpretation of the observational data not only ignored Ockham’s razor
in interpreting his data, he made a determined effort to make a contrived
explanation appear as reasonable as possible. Rarely if ever has a fundamental
premise of a new scientific hypothesis been promoted and accepted
with nothing more substantial than the strong bias of its leading proponents.
And rarely if ever has the bandwagon effect been so successful preventing
the implications of overwhelming astronomical evidence from being correctly
understood for so long. Ignoring the obvious, eminent astronomers and cosmologists
have long united in a consensus in interpreting the Friedmann-
Lemaitre spacetime solutions of the field equations as a viable explanation
of the Hubble redshift relation. This has happened in spite of the fact
that leading cosmologists have themselves referred to the uncertainties and
lack of proof of the Cosmological Principle. The failure of comologists and
astronomers to recognize the overwhelming evidence of a nearby universal
Center may yet become known as the second greatest faux pas in the history
of science.
The discovery of astronomical proof of the existence of a nearby universal
Center, as reported herein, plus the disproof of the Friedmann-Lemaitre
expansion hypothesis, as shown in Part 5 of this series, effectively disprove
the Cosmological Principle. Accordingly, the correct description, or model of
the cosmos must include as one of its foundational postulates the existence of
a nearby universal Center. Such a model must be capable of accounting for
the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K CBR. The 1997 discovery of the
New Redshift Interpretation (NRI) accomplished this. So the NRI becomes
GENESIS’ astrophysical framework [22]. Additional supporting evidence
for this framework is given in Parts 8 and 9.
[1] E. P. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.. 15, 168 (1929).
[2] E. P. Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, (The Clarendon
Press, 1937). pp. 50-51, 54 and 58.
[3] Georges Lemaitre, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A 47, 49 (1927).
[4] Georges Lemaitre, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.. 91, 483 (1931).
[5] A. Friedmann, Z. Physik 10, 377 (1922).
[6] A. Friedmann, Z. Physik 21, 326 (1924).
[7] Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, (Bantam Books, New York,
1977) p. 111.
[8] S. W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, New York,
1988). p. 42.
[9] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 1993). p. 665.
[10] G. J. Fishmann and C. A. Meegan, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 33,
415 (1995).
[11] S. E. Woosley, Gamma-Ray Bursts - What Are They?, in Seventeenth
Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology (New
York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1995), p. 446.
[12] P. Meszaros, Science 291, 79 (2001).
[13] Y. P. Varshni, Astrophys... & Space Science 43, 3 (1976); —, 51, 121
[14] Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and J. V. Narlikar, A Different Approach
to Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2000). pp. 325-333.
[15] W. Tifft, Astrophys.. & Space Science 244, 29 (1996).
[16] B. N. Guthrie and W. M. Napier, Astron. & Ap. 310, 353 (1996).
[17] G, Burbidge, Ap. J. 154, L41 (1968).
[18] G. Burbidge and A. Hewitt, Ap. J. 359, L33 (1990).
[19] D. Duari, P. Das Gupta and J. V. Narlikar, Ap. J. 384, 35 (1992).
[20] A. Hewitt and G. Burbidge, Ap. J. S. 87, 451 (1993).
[21] G. Burbidge and W. M. Napier, arXiv:astro-ph/0008026.
[22] Many thanks to Dave Gentry for useful discussions.