NASA's Universe Electrick

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

NASA's Universe Electrick

Unread post by dblitz »

I have a huge question, and it will take a while to explain why, but I'll ask it up front, to get your minds going right away, and see if you can spot the twists before they come.

'If NASA's space exploration craft are impossible, and the observations faked, why would those observations return data that refutes the very basis of the theories NASA seeks to confirm and the scientific principles by which NASA claims those craft function?

This question stems from my long study of the alternative explanation for the fundamentals of astronomy and cosmology called the Electric Universe theory. It's main proponents are the Thunderbolts project and I came to understand it mainly through the writings of Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill and comparative mythologist David Talbot. It is touted as a paradigm shift in understanding space, the natural world, the history of the solar system and the origin of ancient myth.

To make what I am saying about the electric theory easier to understand I will describe it alongside what is termed the 'standard model' and explain the different ways each theory accounts for observations of space.

The standard model uses only the laws of gravity plus 'matter' to account for the formation, morphology, and all motion of stars, planets, galaxies, star clusters, galaxy clusters, comets, asteroids etc. By the foundational assumptions of the standard model (that everything observed in space formed at the big bang and is directed entirely by gravitational law,) it is also necessary also to postulate the existence of unlikely, impossible or undetectable phenomena such as black holes, pulsars, dark matter etc. In terms of cosmology and development of the Universe, it is a limited, exploding, thermonuclear and clumping/collapsing model.

In the Electric Universe paradigm gravity is a minor force in space where the dominant force is electricity. It does not require unlikely, impossible or undetectable phenomena because it can account for the entirety of what is known from observations of space by appeal to both the gravitational and electrical forces. The electric model does not include a creation concept like the big bang, but does seem to demand the continuous creation of new matter in the form of quasars spawned from active galaxies. In terms of cosmology and development of the Universe, it is an unbounded, growing, electrified and fractal/cellular model.

NASA is a strict preacher of the standard model and thus it forms the undeniable dogma of every consensus source for space related information, and electric theory is dismissed and ridiculed by those sources as a pseudo science, even though it explains what is observed by NASA's space-borne instruments a million times better than any standard model astrophysical theory.

Now I am going to show you some images that NASA claims are real, and that were captured by interplanetary space-borne probes that reveal planetary, solar system, stellar, galactic and intergalactic phenomena that contradict and refute the standard model that NASA champions, but confirm, and are in fact predicted by, the electric model. I will do this over several posts to deal with each phenomena separately and to shorten the posts.

To finish I will pose questions, and some speculation on possible explanations.

This post will focus on planetary geological features.

Please read source articles for more detail.

Craters

NASA says craters are formed by impact, electric theory says craters are formed by planetary scale electric arc machining.

Image
photo from space probe Mariner 10

Source article: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... raters.htm

But craters are virtually always carved out at a direct right-angle to the surface. What are the odds that every meteoric impact on a planet or moons surface would be at a right angle? Wouldn't a significant number be expected to be at various other angles? Impact craters created in labs do not show the peaks and raised edges that the moon's and planet's craters do, but craters created by electric discharge machining closely match those found in space.

Image
miniature craters made in a lab by EDM

Source article: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... rs-lab.htm

Rilles

Rilles are channels cut into the surface of planetary bodies. Sometimes NASA explains them as collapsed lava tubes, but they are empty of any debris that should remain from the collapsed roof. Sometimes they are explained as fractures, and this is how they explain those found on Jupiter's moon Europa. But Europa's rilles reveal a cycloidal pattern, evidence of a feature carved by both rotational and linear movement – more evidence of electrical machining.

Image

Source article: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... paloop.htm

What we are talking about is mega lightning, large enough to carve out features like Valles Marineris on Mars, a gash that runs as long as North America is wide.

Image
Valles Marineris

This image shows various features on planetary bodies alongside a photo of a terrestrial lightning scar:
Image

Questions:

If NASA cannot send probes to other planets then where do these pictures come from?

Are they faked by NASA using electrical discharge machining to create models to photograph? Its possible, but, I think, unlikely.

Are they taken from Earth by some technology we are not aware of, that operates without the need for space travel? Sounds crazy, I know.

Is rocketry possible in space, because space is, in fact, something other than a vacuum and NASA has simply lied about it the whole time? could be.

Or, If it is not possible to send probes by known means (rocketry in a vacuum,) are they sending them by a means unknown to us, that operates on electrical principles rather than the rocketry they claim?

This would mean they are fully aware of electricity's role in space, and have been using propulsion based on those principles for decades, while inventing and promoting various 'rocketry' frauds to throw us all off the trail, meanwhile using their total dominance as the arbiters of space science to enforce the dogma of the standard model on every one else.

For a tonne of evidence showing the role of electricity in space, check out http://www.thunderbolts.info/ In particular, the picture of the day archives.

I will return to answer questions, fend off abuse, discuss possibilities and post more evidence.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: NASA's Universe Electrick

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

'If NASA's space exploration craft are impossible, and the observations faked, why would those observations return data that refutes the very basis of the theories NASA seeks to confirm and the scientific principles by which NASA claims those craft function?[']
That's a pretty easy question to answer without inventing Judy Wood-style theories. Because they cannot collect real data, so whatever they create will inevitably be proven faulty as real investigation and science slowly advances and catches up to their imaginative fibs.

In fact, I imagine if you actually took the time to find the original sources of your evidence, you'll find they are NASA or ESA or similar bullshit factories.

In that case your questions below could be answered the following ways:
If NASA cannot send probes to other planets then where do these pictures come from?
If you assume they are photos, the premise of the question is false. If you know they are merely digital illustrations, then the answer is very simple: digital artists!
Are they faked by NASA using electrical discharge machining to create models to photograph?
Why fake using one model? Photoshop and other digital manipulation programs offer an infinite variety of ways to invent imagery whole cloth, let alone combine and collage images. Once again, you assume the graphics are real.
Are they taken from Earth by some technology we are not aware of, that operates without the need for space travel?
See above.

Is rocketry possible in space, because space is, in fact, something other than a vacuum and NASA has simply lied about it the whole time?
Possible, but not likely or else there would be diminished call for fake imagery.

Or, If it is not possible to send probes by known means (rocketry in a vacuum,) are they sending them by a means unknown to us, that operates on electrical principles rather than the rocketry they claim?
You sound like a NASA apologist at this point. At best. At worst, like Judy Wood. It's worrying. Very worrying.
I, Gestalta
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: NASA's Universe Electrick

Unread post by I, Gestalta »

Is it reasonable to infer that the videography of 9/11 was fabricated for the sole purpose of concealing the DEW technology which was used to eviscerate the buildings?

Were the 9/11 victims' photos digitally created to cover up the REAL 3,000 deaths?

Is the entirety of the controlled-opposition network merely a means toward the end of doling out information to the public at a more palatable pace, rather than bluntly and traumatically?

:huh:
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: NASA's Universe Electrick

Unread post by dblitz »

I, Gestalta,

please post all future words concerning DEW, 9/11, vicsims, etc. in the appropriate thread, if it exists, or start a new thread.

Thankyou.

--- --- ---

Hoi.Polloi,

rather than respond to your reply I choose to rework my origional post and pose a different set of questions. I will post this soon, along with part two of my series of posts, this time concentrating on comets.

Thanks for the feedback.

--- --- ---

Science proceeds not from the unknown to the known, but from the known to the unknown
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: NASA's Universe Electrick

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

dblitz wrote:I, Gestalta,

please post all future words concerning DEW, 9/11, vicsims, etc. in the appropriate thread, if it exists, or start a new thread.

Thankyou.
dblitz, I don´t think I, Gestalta is changing subjects to 9/11. As I understand it, he is giving examples of what would happen if your reasoning regarding NASA accomplishing extraordinary feats with secret supertechnology while hiding it with piss-poor media fakery were applied to other scenarios.
Post Reply