evolution

climate change experimental evidence please.

Marcus GaillardLeave a comment

I demand that those claiming human-induced ‘climate change’ produce real evidence based upon true science ie empirical testing by experiment of a viable hypothesis and manipulation of an identified real independent variable as a cause for the claimed observed phenomena (‘climate change’). Consequently, this evidence must NOT be based solely upon data analysis / statistical analysis / mathematical analysis, computer modelling, presumption, presupposition, opinion, correlational or observational study.

This evidence must unequivocally demonstrate via empirical testing for cause of claimed identified effect / phenomena (‘climate change’) the following: 1. that human activity alone is a direct cause of any claimed extraordinary, significant, and permanent alteration in Earth weather (‘climate change’). 2. the time scale that was sampled in the experiment (clearly identifying the effects of human activity on Earth weather over the entirety of that period). 3. what is the determined definitive normal range variation of Earth weather and for what time scale. 4. the degree (as a percentage) for which human activity has been identified independently from all other causes as contributing as a direct cause for any extraordinary variance from this normal range of world wide weather (‘climate change’). 5. how human activity alone was controlled for and manipulated in the experiment so as to identify it as an independent variable (cause), and thus distinct from all other potential causes for the claimed phenomena (‘climate change’). 6. what OTHER potential causes (for ‘climate change’) were factored and considered, measured and tested for, or may be considered as potential causes for any extraordinary variation in Earth weather (‘climate change’) over the same stated time scale. 7. the degree to which the weather of Earth may have shifted beyond the claimed normal range regardless of the presence of humans on Earth and how this was determined (a null hypothesis).

Scientist proves gravity exists!

Marcus Gaillard1 Comment

Sticking to the ground is not proof of ‘gravity’. Gravity remains an unknown thing entirely. Scientific claims of any proof or proof of “gravity waves” (see ‘LIGO’) is false and misleading.

“Black holes”, “dark matter”, and “dark energy” and other planetary, galactic, and cosmological phenomena which is attributed to “gravity” is false and misleading.

“Black holes”, “dark matter”, and “dark energy” really are only a theoretical construction – mathematically determined not empirical verified.

The idea that the earth’s mass causes the ‘gravity’ we believe we experience, and is the reason we stick to the ground is still an unproven theory – again mathematically constructed but never empirically proven.

We really do not know what or how this phenomena works – or even if it can be called a “force”. Yes, seriously.

When I (and others) proclaim “Gravity does not exist” – we are not being funny and we are not stupid or ignorant – on the contrary we are being objective critics of the false claims of science which have pervaded the public sphere.

It is obviously very important to begin a process of revealing the unfounded claims to the wider public and population.

Anyone who states otherwise or wishes to make claims that any of this is untrue, or that I (or other critics) are ignorant of the “science” or otherwise “unqualified” or “need to learn physics and/or math” etc. are being disingenuous, and you need to be wary.

Anyone with a critical enquiring, thinking mind who examines the claims of science in this field (and many others) will come to this well-founded conclusion. You do not need to “fear the math”, or be “blinded by the science”. They have baffled the public for too long and enough is enough.

Think. Investigate. Look beyond what you have assumed.

Discussions on the Flat Earth

Marcus GaillardLeave a comment

Thoughts on the true nature of this realm and the path of truth.

Why do I believe in flat earth?

Marcus Gaillard1 Comment
cropped-img_81686

[a response to a query on Facebook I wrote in 2018]

A fair question. I am time limited here now but I’ll explain briefly.

Firstly there are pitfalls when asked this question (especially by one who appears a little hostile to the idea).   ok…

1. We need examine the nature of knowledge and what constitutes it.
2. I may just as equally ask YOU the same question why you believe in a globe earth. 4 Your question comes from an orthodox standpoint which holds assumptions.
3. Your stance assumes you hold truth and I must “prove” what I have come to believe.
4. You believe you do not have beliefs.
5 This fact establishes an unfair playing field.
6. I started as a sceptic to flat earth (as do most serious converts).
7. I tried to debunk it.
8. You assume that ‘math’ and ‘physics’ can prove reality.
9. you covet certain truths as axiomatic.
10. You hold an orthodox science bias which you cannot extract from in order that new information which conflicts with your paradigm is not considered and tends to be mocked and ridiculed
11. this is a psychological fact known as cognitive dissonance.
12. Actual science is proving that NO curvature OR motion of the earth in space is evident.
13. by actual science – I refer to science based truthfully on an unbiased or skewed application of the scientific method – empirical repeatable observation and measurement.
14. Funded academic science has become untrustworthy due to inherent corruption from funding sources, group think (peer review and career sustaining – nobody will go against orthodox paradigms), science has become path dependant upon previous theory.
15. ‘flat Earth’ has become a timely test of the true ability of human consciousness to break out of moulds which have restricted thinking and stagnated human advancement due to exploitative human systems (eg finance and social control).
16. Science is NOT the incorruptible and pure path to Truth that its proponents pretend – human judgement and fallibility does indeed factor significantly.
17. I come from a varied educated (some science) background. I am and always have been an “open-source thinker” (this helps adopting new concepts rather than clinging to old ones).
18. IF we continue to demand “proof” that fits our biases we begin a path of self-deception and this has factored into human scientific thinking
19. I spent 12 months researching the SERIOUS data coming to light
20. I cannot here sum that for your perusal.
21. I have done some of my OWN experiments and observations based on current math and understanding and found it does NOT hold truth empirically – eg NO curve is observable across a large body of water near where I live – almost 50 km and a city skyline can be measurably observed to NOT fall below the predicted earth curve (math based). We can see too far across the Earth – now high-powered optics available to a wide range of people who are discovering this fact – again empirical observation conflicts with academic orthodox assumptions we are taught and told (beliefs).
Many other anomalies are coming to light and you need to investigate seriously and with an open mind free of the above biases. Hope this gives insight.
Peace.

message to a friend

Image Marcus GaillardLeave a comment

dontforgettomissme

seek my friend. (you are on the right path).

you are awakening. there are stages and phases and the process has not end in this life. the multitude will not all reach the lower levels. be a beacon as you are, guide as in turn you are guided.

image: ‘don’t forget to miss me’ 
2013.

But nobody reads it.

Marcus GaillardLeave a comment

Yes, I guess this level of literal interpretation is a personal decision. Here we get into problems. People interpret things to suit what they want or what a religion has decided to emphasise. We need be cautious. Likeness and image? Metaphorical. We are aspects of god. God does not look like Geraldo. Or “Jesus”. The image we have through the Christian tradition of the white-skinned bearded Jesus is likely untrue. Jesus said his WAY was the way. Not he as a man. The Catholic tradition of trinkets and icons is not what Jesus would have desired – but the Church did and does. See where the path gets distorted? Those who have seen his message and had an epiphany – seen the “Light”, not Jesus himself – is the point. Jesus as the exact image of an invisible god? See above. Study of Jesus and his word is not necessary and indeed leads people along an incorrect path of self-righteousness and delusion. This is why religion has not been successful as a route to the spiritual and the divine and the saviour of mankind over millennia. Jesus would be appalled at the modern state of the world – and religion must hold some accountability. His message was simple and requires no icons or study. It is written in our very hearts. But nobody reads it.